"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." John 7:24

How the Facade of an "Unconscious Mind" and the Deception of "Mental Disorders" Has Covered Up the Truth About Sin This 381-page book is free-to-read here on our website, or available for purchase in paperback or Kindle from the Amazon Store. Click the image for more details.

Contents: Introduction Chapter #1 - The Foundation of Psychology & Psychiatry Chapter #2 - The Illusion of Mental Illness Chapter #3 - The DSM: Mankind's Attempt to Justify Sin Chapter #4 - Going Crazy For Drugs Chapter #5 - How Doctors Become Snake-Oil Salesmen Chapter #6 - Psychology in the Courtroom Chapter #7 - Psychiatry: The Destroyer of Armies Chapter #8 - How Psychologists Manipulate You Every Day Chapter #9 - The Deception of "Christian" Psychology Chapter #10 - Life Coaching, Psychology's Mirror Image Chapter #11 - My Thoughts and Experiences

 


OCD. ADHD. PTSD. Most of us have heard or read these acronyms on many occasions, and very few people question what they mean, let alone do they question if these things actually exist. Today, they are casually considered to be a part of everyday, normal society. They are known as "mental disorders" or "mental illnesses," which come from the field of psychology/psychiatry, but in this book, I will demonstrate that the practice of psychology is a fraud, and that the world has been hoodwinked into believing that "mental illnesses" exist, when they do not.

hoodwink (v): to cover; to hide; to deceive by external appearances of disguise
(See 'hood-wink', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 5, 2018, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Psychology has been given an outward appearance in the media to be a real science, but in reality, it is one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen, despite the fact that most people are unaware of it. They are led to believe that if you have personal problems, a psychologist can help, but the truth is that psychology causes far more problems than it solves, and that is due to the fact that psychology is attempting to achieve the impossible by finding physical solutions to spiritual problems.

To understand some of the basic deceptions, we will begin by looking at the definitions of some commonly used terms. These are very important to understand before we go any further, and so I ask readers to bear with me as we gain understanding about the things we say, and why we say them:

psychology (n): the science of the mind or of mental states and processes
(See 'psychology', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Starting with the base word 'psychology', one of the primary deceptions is that people believe the "mind" is the brain, and that psychology studies the brain. That is incorrect. The study of the brain is called "neurology," which is a legitimate scientific field, but psychology has nothing to do with the science or study of the brain.

science (n): systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation
(See 'science', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The word 'science' generally means "knowledge," but more specifically it is physical knowledge gained by observation and experimentation. As we will find out later in the book, there is no observation and no experimentation to prove any of the claims of psychology.

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
-1 Timothy 6:20

So for example, the word 'neurology' has two components, the first is 'neuro' which is where we get the word "nervous" as in the nervous system, which includes the brain, and the second is 'ology', which means "the study of." Therefore, neurology is "the study of the nerves," which is proven to be a science because neurologists can back up their field of study with observation and experimentation to demonstrate the physical properties of the brain.

Now let's look at psychology, which has the suffix 'ology', meaning that it is the study of something, but what is 'psych'? The prefix 'psych' represents the word 'psyche' (sahy-kee), which is the soul or spirit of a man.

psyche (n): the human soul, spirit, or mind
(See 'psyche', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Thus, psychology is the study of the psyche, which is a Greek word for the soul/mind/spirit, which is not physical or material. For example, the thoughts you may be thinking while reading this book are not tangible, which means you cannot see, taste, touch, smell, or hear them. So how can people call psychology a "science" when science has to do with observation and experimentation of the material world? To call psychology a "science" is an oxymoron, meaning that the terms contradict one another. Some readers may believe that psychologists have physical evidence for their findings, but as we will find out later in this book, there is no physical, tangible evidence for any type of "mental disorder."

A person can have brain damage, a physical condition, which can affect their clear communication, reasoning, and understanding, but there is no such thing as a "mental illness." Autism is a good example, often being caused by encephalitis (i.e. swelling of the brain), which is most often caused by vaccinations, but autistic people do not have "mental illnesses" of any kind; they simply have some challenges with communication and perception due to brain damage which can be quantified through physical observation.
(Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Not only is it a contradiction to call psychology a "science," but furthermore, this "study of the spirit" was invented and developed by men who did not believe in the soul of a man. Atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, humanists—the general principles these people philosophically believe do not account for a soul because they do not believe the soul exists, and therefore, for them to try and find answers to something which they do not believe exists is itself extraordinary insanity.

mind (n): the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.
(See 'mind', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

When psychologists refer to "mental" disorders, they are talking about the mind, which is not the same as the brain, although many people today tend to use the word 'mind' in that way. When someone feels a certain way, or reasons out a situation, their nervous system physically reacts to those things, which is what neurologists study, but psychology is trying to study feeling and reasoning itself, to determine problems in the "psyche" (i.e. the spirit), and there is no scientific evidence for their claims.

One of the world's most renowned psychologists, Ronald (R.D.) Laing, was invited to speak at the First Conference on the Evolution of Psychotherapy in 1985, which celebrated the 100-year anniversary of the invention of psychotherapy, and he said:
"I cannot think of one thing that psychology has offered the human race in the area of interpersonal relationships that is of any benefit in its entire hundred years since Freud."
-Ronald D. Laing, speech given in the First Conference on the Evolution of Psychotherapy, 1985, quoted by Dave Hunt, "Myth of Christian Psychology," Berean Call, retrieved Apr 2, 2019, [https://youtu.be/1EZZzorX2Sc?t=20m50s]

We are going to see a lot more evidence of psychology's deception in later chapters, but this very simple deception (i.e. psychology can help people) has not only made charlatans (i.e. quacks) into "respectable" members of society with their prestigious doctorates, the deception has also made psychologists an enormous amount of money. Psychology is one of the most lucrative professions in the world, allowing men and women to make large sums of money in a short time with very little work involved, and though some may think this to be an excessively bold statement to make, as we will see later, there are some psychologists/psychiatrists out there who agree with me.

Even more deceptive is the new-age "Christian" psychology movement that has arisen over the past few decades, in which so-called "ministers" are taking the facade of psychology and attempting to merge it into Christ's church. This has created a poisonous perversion against the doctrines of Christ because the true hidden purpose behind psychology is to give mankind an excuse to justify his sin through the disguise of "mental illnesses," which we will cover in much more detail in chapter two.

illness (n): unhealthy condition; poor health; indisposition; sickness
(See 'illness', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

We have been trained to think that when someone has a "mental illness," they have a "sickness" or "unhealthy condition," which is not their fault because it is assumed that the "mental disorder" just something they were born with, and there is nothing they can do about it. They are then treated with the same sympathy that we typically treat someone with the flu. We end up feeling sympathy for those who come down with the flu because they did not choose to get the flu, and therefore, because it was not technically their fault (to a certain degree), we tend to sympathize with them, and care for them with special privileges; likewise, many people want us to believe their "mental illnesses" are not their fault, and that they should be given special privileges for their alleged "disabilities."

As we will see later in this book, these so-called "mental illnesses" cover a wide variety of sins (e.g. covetousness, fornication, theft, gluttony, etc), giving people an excuse that is taken so seriously by our society, it sometimes saves criminals from prosecution in a court of law. In the context of church buildings, many believe in the falsehood that "Christian" psychology is different from normal psychology, but psychologists from the Christian Association for Psychological Studies disagree:
"We are often asked if we are 'Christian psychologists' and find it difficult to answer since we don't know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology. It is difficult to imply that we function in a manner that is fundamentally distinct from our non-Christian colleagues. Is there a distinct Christian dentistry, or surgery, or history or grammar? Certainly in some aspects we will be different than some of our non-Christian colleagues, but as yet, there is not an acceptable theory, mode of research or treatment methodology that is distinctly Christian. The Bible and Psychology are separate, distinct fields and whatever overlap exists is not sufficient to justify forced integration [combination]. It merely reduces the significance and influence of one or both fields. A person who is both Christian and psychologist functions as a whole person but that is no imperative [essential reason] for formal integration any more than in the fields of dentistry, surgery, law or auto mechanics. Our imperative [urgent goal] is to be the best psychologists we possibly can be, not to formally integrate our two fields."
-Phil Sutherland & Paul Poelstra, quoted by John D. Carter & S. Bruce Narramore, The Integration of Psychology and Theology: An Introduction, Zondervan, 2018, p. 14-15, ISBN: 9780310080909

In short, two of the leading psychologists from the Christian Association for Psychological Studies are trying to explain to churchgoers that there is no such thing as "Christian" psychology, and although they still are under the general deception of psychology, they are making a very similar point that I am making. For example, would you make a distinction between an auto-mechanic and a "Christian" auto-mechanic, or to put it another way, is the process of repairing a car different from a "Christian" process of repairing a car?

Is there a difference between scuba diving and "Christian" scuba diving? Do the fundamentals of scuba change when a "Christian" philosophy is added to them? Is there a philosophical distinction between a turkey sandwich and a "Christian" turkey sandwich? Shall we improve upon flushing a toilet by giving it a hardy "Christian" flush?

Perhaps you immediately laughed at some of these examples, but that is because automatically, with very little basic reasoning, you know these questions are nonsensical. Why would we not laugh at the phrase "Christian psychology" in the same manner? Certainly, the term 'Christian' can be used as an adjective, like when we talk about "Christian doctrine" or "Christian virtues," but when did the term "Christian" because a universal adjective to be applied to all things?


There is no difference between "Christian" psychology and "secular" psychology. They are one and the same. Psychology has nothing to do with the doctrines of Christ, and it will ultimately lead people to the wide gates of hell. (We will see a lot more evidence of that in later chapters.)
(Read "Hell Is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14

As we learn more later in this book, psychology is not just fraudulent, but it is also dangerous, and even if it had some relevance to mankind (which it does not), it still would have nothing to do with the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. If mankind is looking for answers to spiritual problems, there is only one place to go, and that is to the Word of the Lord God, who created mankind and understands everything about us.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished [sincerely supplied in the spirit] unto all good works.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17

When mankind comes along in his feigned wisdom and tells us there is a better way, we need to be very cautious that we are not led astray by traditions of men:

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [lies] , after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

The answer to mankind's spiritual problems is the Lord Jesus Christ; there is no other who can help us, however, most churchgoers, pastors, and elders have turned to psychology for their help. Worse still, they claim that their psychology is grounded in Jesus Christ, which is an even greater offense. The "Christian" psychology movement is now very highly esteemed and loved in most so-called "Christian" institutions, but God judges the hearts of men, and though psychology might seem right on the outside, the end of that road is death.

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

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

However, before we get to the philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) of pastors and churchgoers, we need to go back to the beginning and discover the origin of psychology.



 

There are many people who seem to be afraid of the word "philosophy," and ignore any discussion about it, because often, philosophy is associated with ancient Greeks who spouted a bunch of boring nonsense for the most part. In short, the word 'philosophy' can be simply understood as "a way of thinking," and everyone has a way of thinking, which affects what kind of job they have, what food they eat, what they read, what they listen to, what kind of toothpaste they buy, or even if they brush their teeth for that matter. Everyone has philosophies, and everyone is affected by those philosophies whether they think about it or not, and as we learned at the end of the introduction to this book, the Bible commands us to hold a philosophy of Christ, and beware any other such worldly philosophies developed by men.

Due to his famous (or infamous) status, most readers are probably already aware that the psychology movement started with Sigmund Freud (Sigismund Schlomo Freud), the Austrian neurologist who is the father of psychology and psychodynamics. Psychodynamics is the theory of the "unconscious mind" as opposed to the conscious mind, even though the "unconscious mind" does not exist, and I will cover more on that later in this chapter, but first I want to demonstrate Freud's general philosophy. Freud hated the Christian God of the Bible, most particularly on the point of salvation, and he stated his disdain for it in a letter he wrote to his colleague Wilhelm Fliess in September of 1901:

"I found almost intolerable the lie of the salvation of mankind which rears its head so proudly to heaven."
-Sigmund Freud, Letter to Wilhelm Fliess, Sept 19, 1901, The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters, Drafts and Notes to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1902, Doubleday, 1957, p. 336, [University of Virginia]

After studying Freud's life works, author J.N. Isbister concluded that the true goal of Freud's life was to somehow disprove God's salvation for mankind. Isbister said Freud had a "pursuit of which became the dominant, but covert, aim of his life—to expose the 'lie of salvation' and show it to be just that, a lie." Thus, Freud's true goal in life was to destroy the concept of sin, and come up with answers to the problems of mankind without reliance on God and Christ.
(See J.N. Isbister, Freud: An Introduction to His Life and Work, Wiley, 1991, p. 178, ISBN: 9780745600147)

Isbister continues to summarize Freud's philosophy:
"[Christianity and] all it stood for—anti-Semitism [hatred against the Jews]; the hypocrisy of 'Christian' [i.e. Catholic] civilisation; the stern demands of its morality; and the suggestion that man's destiny was ultimately linked with an eternal purpose. From 1900, his opposition to Christianity, hitherto mostly expressed as caustic [scoffing] comments in his letters, found an increasing outlet in his theories and in the movement they spawned [i.e. Freud's theories were reflective of his disdain for Catholic doctrine]... Freud's overt aims may well have been scientific—furthering the new [i.e. falsely so-called] science of depth psychology—but his covert aims were far more subtle and complex—to conquer the source (as he saw it) of Christianity, Rome, to accomplish that which Hannibal [commander of Carthage military who waged war against Rome] failed to... the covert [secretive] aspects of his mission became clearer as the history of the psychoanalytic movement unfolds."
-J.N. Isbister, Freud: An Introduction to His Life and Work, Wiley, 1991, p. 179-180, ISBN: 9780745600147

I could not have said it better, that the hidden aspects of Freud's true, underlying mission becomes more clear as the history of psychology unfolds. Later in this book, we will see much more of what has become of psychology over the past century, and once you see the big picture, it will become clearer that the tree of psychology is corrupt to its core.

Freud believed the lie that most people today believe, that is, the lie that Catholicism is "Christian." The Roman Catholic Church has persecuted and executed Christians for hundreds of years, teaching doctrine in complete opposition to Christ, and has adopted pagan practices of witchcraft that profane the name of God. However, despite that discrepancy, Freud still hated the concept of salvation, the saving grace of God, and that is because Freud loved his sin.
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

One of the initial points we need to understand about Freud was his obsession with sex, or rather, the lust of the flesh, and that much of his "psychoanalysis" was based on what he called "sexual repression" of a man or woman's base animal instincts, which is one of the reasons Freud so quickly accepted Charles Darwin's model of Evolutionism, which is a religion, not a science. Just as Karl Marx relied on Darwin's religious philosophies to support his invention of communism, Freud relied on Darwin's religious philosophies to support his ludicrous theories of psychoanalysis.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The following biography on Freud gives us more insight into the core philosophy of psychology:
"It is another aspect of Freud's work that has had the greatest impact on human life in the West during the 20th century: his reevaluation of the role of sex and sexual behavior. Freud taught that sexual repression was the chief psychological problem of mankind. He surmised that repression and constriction of sexual behavior in youth would become manifest in adulthood. Where Western society (often under the guise of 'Christian morality') had long treated sex as a taboo subject and covered over both normal and abnormal sexual behavior as 'sin'—or at least shameful—there had been great neglect of appropriate help and correction. Freud was able to persuade his opponents and admirers alike that sexual repression was rampant, unhealthy, and the indirect cause of much crime, illness and woe. Through psychoanalysis, Freud set out to uncover his patients' sexual repression. His influence lives on today, not only in the Freudian school of analysis but in rival schools introduced by some of his foremost followers. He added numerous words to our language, which remain in popular use today: 'the unconscious,' 'guilt complex,' 'the ego,' 'sublimation,' 'the Freudian slip,' and 'death instinct'—later to become 'death wish'—to name but a few. Though not everyone today shares Freud's contention that sex surrounds almost every human action and emotion even from infancy, his teachings have profoundly shaped the everyday thinking of modern society as a whole. At least in part, this is because people are eager to see their behavior as something other than 'sin.'"
-Wilf Hey, "Sigmund Freud: Psychoanalysis and Sexual Repression," Vision Media, 1999, retrieved Dec 12, 2018, [vision.org/visionmedia/biography-sigmund-freud/597.aspx]

As we can see, the author of this biography is also treating sexual lust as a "taboo" (i.e. a social invention) rather than sin. This is not to say that having desire for one's husband or wife is not blessed by God, because it is, but rather, it is the lusts of the flesh which are sin, and they are not of God.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
-1 John 2:16

The author is pointing out that instead of encouraging shame for sin, which is what the Bible teaches (Pro 13:18), Freud was trying to get people to embrace their sexual lust. Freud was giving people an excuse to embrace fornication, adultery, and whoremongering (i.e. sex for money) because he was teaching people that repression of these feelings would cause mental disorders.

Starting with Freud, the removal of the knowledge of sin has always been the goal of psychology, and it is still foundational in psychology today, and therefore, there is no way that Christian doctrine can ever be in harmony with psychology. The atheistic worldview teaches that if sin can be removed from the picture, then mankind is left to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without any consequences, and still today, Freud's doctrine lingers, not because he was some brilliant scientist, but because the primary sin that worldly institutions love to exploit is the lusts of fornication and adultery, which is sex outside of marriage.

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
-Hebrews 13:4

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
-1 John 1:8

Freud mocked Christian doctrine because he hated it, and institutions of so-called "higher learning" love Freud because they share the same hatred, and they all desire to remove sin from their minds. The doctrine of Christ rebukes their sexual sins, and they hate it because they want to turn to "animal instincts," or rather, they want to become as brute beasts, to freely fulfill the lusts of their flesh.

But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
-2 Peter 2:12-15

As stated in the above quote, the purpose of psychology is to destroy "Christian morality" and remove the idea of guilt and shame for sin. This is precisely the message I have heard taught in new-age church buildings many times; namely, that one should not have a "guilt complex" or feel ashamed of anything they do.

The Bible tells us that the Lord God gives men shame and guilt for their sin, and shame is good for mankind:

But thou hast cast off, and put us to shame; and goest not forth with our armies.
-Psalm 44:9

The days of his youth hast thou shortened: thou hast covered him with shame. Selah.
-Psalm 89:45

Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
-Psalm 83:16

And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens.
-Ezra 9:6

And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
-2 Thessalonians 3:14

Mankind in general (specifically those who have not been born again in Christ and been given the Spirit of God) attempts to remove any guilt and shame of their sin so they can justify themselves.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves [i.e. give yourself an excuse] 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

The following quote is from Derek Flood, an author who is a fervent follower and student of so-called "Christian" psychology, and he states clearly that people need to break free from shame and guilt:
"Our culture's shift around its relationship to shame and guilt can be traced to the broad influence that psychology has had on Western culture over the past century. That is, the reason we have become so sensitized to guilt and shame today in our culture comes from the practical insights of psychologists: As they worked to help people face their hurtful and dysfunctional behaviors, psychotherapists observed that their attempts to help were often met with resistance. Early on Freud referred to this phenomenon as 'denial,' but regardless of the terminology we use, this is a dynamic therapists have recognized over and over and again because it is, quite simply, one of the most basic elements of human psychology: When we feel threatened we get defensive. As a result of this dynamic, psychotherapists have found that people actually have struggles on two simultaneous fronts: One struggle is with their negative behavior patterns that hurt themselves and others. The other struggle are the feelings of shame and self-hatred that often accompany these. In fact, the two are frequently intertwined in a destructive spiral where feelings of shame lead to doing things to dull that emotional pain, which then lead to more feelings of shame, and round and round it goes. As a result of these insights, we have become increasingly aware of the harm that shame and self-loathing can do to us. Consequently educators today learn not to tell kids that they are 'bad,' but to instead say things like 'we don't do that' because we understand the damage that comes from shaming people, and in particular small children. In other words, if our culture has become sensitized to shame, this is actually a good and healthy thing, rather than a problem to bemoan. On the contrary, rejecting feelings of shame and worthlessness, while at the same time taking personal responsibility for our lives, is a clear moral advance. It also must be said that religion—and here I mean in particular my own religion of Christianity—has often been guilty of exacerbating [making worse] the problem of shame, rather than helping people break free of it."
-Derek Flood, "Sin, Guilt, and Psychology: What I Wish All Pastors Knew," Huffington Post, May 3, 2014, retrieved Dec 12, 2018, [huffingtonpost.com/derek-flood/sin-guilt-and-psychology-_b_4883456.html]

One factual statement Flood made was that psychology has been the primary culprit for shifting society's relationship to shame and guilt. I agree with that, however, Flood then attempts to justify that as a good thing, pushing society away from God's Word, and his philosophy is a result of his study in "Christian" psychology, which is really nothing more than a study in psychology with a little Scripture sprinkled on top to make it taste better to churchgoers.

Flood states that "shame and self-hatred" lead to people "doing things to dull that emotional pain," which is true; most people do turn to things like alcohol (i.e. drunkenness), drugs (i.e. sorcery), food (i.e. gluttony), sex (i.e. fornication), etc, in order to drown out their shame and guilt, or in other words, they turn to sin to help drown out their sin, which solves nothing. Indeed, that is a downward spiral, but Flood chooses to believe the psychological doctrine that shame and guilt are the sources of the problem, instead of having faith on the Word of God that sin is the source of the problem.

I will go into more details on this subject in chapters nine and ten, but I will briefly cover the general understanding of shame and guilt now because it will come up many times as we cover the details of psychology. Paul explained it this way:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
-Romans 7:7-9

Very few churchgoers I have met understand this, but Paul is simply saying that the law is good for us, but before faith, most people see it as a bad thing because it causes guilt and shame within them that they have succumbed to "concupiscence," or in other words, uncontrollable lusts, particularly sexual lusts. When he says that "without the law, sin was dead," he is not saying that sin did not exist, but it means that without God's law, they would not recognize that sin was indeed sin, that sin is wrong, but once the law (i.e. the knowledge of sin) entered into our minds, we were then slain in the sense of knowledge of the truth of our corruption and wretched state, knowing that our sin makes us guilty and ashamed before God. Therefore, what most people do is avoid God's law, reject it, and turn away from it, in order to avoid that guilt and shame of their words and actions; in order to feel better about themselves, they reject the law, turning toward their sin, and they will use any means necessary, including psychology, to help them have an excuse to continue in it.

Let's make sure we have a clear understanding of shame and guilt:

shame (n): a painful sensation excited by a consciousness of guilt, or of having done something which injures reputation, or by of that which nature or modesty prompts us to conceal
guilt (n): criminality; that state of a moral agent [a person with righteous principles] which results from his actual commission [committing] of a crime or offense, knowing it to be a crime, or violation of law
(See 'shame' & 'guilt', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 12, 2018, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

In summary, guilt is the state of a person after they commit wrongdoing; whether it is breaking a government law, disobeying parents, or breaking God's commandments, the establishment of wrongdoing makes a person guilty. Shame is the resulting pain and grief felt from being guilty of wrongdoing, and this is extremely important in Christian doctrine because the definition of 'repentance' in Scripture is "grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing," which goes hand-in-glove with shame and guilt, and so to convince people that they should not have shame and guilt is to lead them away from the repentance that would bring them to Christ to seek salvation.
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

There is a modern-day phrase in which people will say, "I feel guilty," and in the past, I have mistakenly used that phrase in my ignorance, but the truth is that when someone claims they are "feeling guilty," it is actually their attempt to avoid acknowledging guilt. We FEEL shame, but we do NOT feel guilt because guilt is not an emotion. We are either guilty or not guilty, which must be affirmed by an establishment of facts rather than feeling, because guilt is the state of having violated the law, and so when people claim to "feel guilty," it is actually because they are feeling ashamed of themselves for BEING guilty of doing wrong, and what is worse is that a psychologist comes along and tells them they have a "guilt complex" in attempt to talk them out of their shame, thereby searing their guilty conscience.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
-1 Timothy 4:1-2

If you follow psychology, you will never find Jesus.

For now, we will put aside those who claim to be "Christian" psychologists (because we will come back to them later in this book), but in general, psychologists do not believe in sin, nor in the Living God who judges mankind, and so a core foundation of guilt, which causes our conscience to bear witness of the law of God written in our hearts through the feeling of shame, is rejected in psychology because they want a more naturalistic view without sin.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
-Romans 2:14-15

Psychologist Susan Krauss teaches that:
"Guilt is, first and foremost, an emotion. You may think of guilt as a good way to get someone to do something for you out of a sense of obligation. Guilt is not a very good motivator... Like other emotions, there is no one explanation for guilt."
-Susan Krauss, "The Definitive Guide to Guilt," Psychology Today, Aug 11, 2012, retrieved May 22, 2019, [psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201208/the-definitive-guide-guilt]

Krauss has no explanation for guilt because the guilt of wrongdoing is something that comes from the Lord God, and her psychological foundation will not allow God in her philosophy (i.e. way of thinking). Not only does she erroneously claim that guilt is an emotion, but she also says it is not a good motivator, which is precisely the focus of psychology because psychologists want to make their clients feel good, which is why they get paid; if they would teach their clients to embrace the guilt and shame of sin, to acknowledge their wrongdoing as the Bible teaches, that would not make their clients feel good, and no one would pay them for sessions.

Let's consider for a moment why, if a man or woman is found naked somewhere, that they instinctively cover their private areas with their hands. If you remove the history of mankind, from the creation of the world and the fall of mankind as stated in Genesis, there is literally no reason to cover one's own nakedness, and thus, there would be no reason not to just join a nudist colony.

What was the first thing Adam and Eve did after they sinned by eating from the fruit from the tree of knowledge?

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
-Genesis 3:7

People are not just born nudists; children have no knowledge yet (because they have not reached an age of accountability), but in most cases, you do not see women (for example) just stripping off their clothes and walking down the street because they would be ashamed, and therefore, they cover themselves. This is not to say that some women do not practice what is called "exhibitionism," in which they walk down the street stark naked, but the point is that they have to be conditioned for that or coaxed into it; it is not something they would do automatically as a teenaged girl, and somewhere along the line, she has to be psychologically trained to put away her shame, and cling to the lust of the flesh, searing her conscience with a hot iron.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
-1 Timothy 2:9-10

Why is it that if a man and woman are committing adultery, and someone walks in on them during the act, they immediately cower, try to cover themselves, and put their clothes on? Why not just continue in the act and ignore the onlookers as if they have done no wrong? Because, once again, the law of God is written on the hearts of mankind, and by their own consciences, with the feeling of shame, they bear witness to the truth of their own guilt, which is precisely what psychology attempts to eliminate.

Of course, the so-called "Christian" psychologists claim they are including the Biblical concept of sin with psychology, but they are deceitful. Again, we will cover much more on that in chapters 9 and 10, specifically how they do not preach against sin, as they might claim on the surface, but their core doctrines are still founded in the deception of psychology, not on Scripture, and they foolishly attempt the impossible, to combine two completely opposing concepts.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
-Proverbs 9:10

The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.
-Proverbs 8:13

A man who has the fear of the Lord in his heart will hate himself and his life, and look towards the Living God for his salvation:

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

The Bible does NOT teach us that men would come to hate themselves in the extreme and need to go through six months of psychological analysis and training to learn how to love themselves more so they can feel better about their lives. That is the doctrine of devils. The Bible teaches us that wicked men would lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts, loving themselves and pleasures of this world:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:1-7

In this passage, we see that God has taught us that in the final days of this world, men would love themselves, and that they would love the pleasures of this world (i.e. they do whatever feels good). They would despise those who do good, meaning that they despise and falsely accuse those who would teach you the truth of the doctrine of Christ for the saving of your soul, and rejecting the Word of God. They would be so highminded of themselves, that they would carry about them an outward appearance (i.e. a facade or disguise) that seems to be clean, but inwardly, they are corrupt because they deny the power (i.e. the authority) of God, and that we ought to turn away from such men because they lead away people, most especially women, who are more easily discontented, after divers lusts (e.g. the sexual sins that Freud taught them to embrace). Though they are learning more and more things all the time, researching and studying, they are learning false knowledge, and can never come to a knowledge of the truth.

The Bible also tells us why they can never understand the truth:

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:13-14

This is why Sigmund Freud could not understand these basic concepts either, because he had no understanding. Just like psychologists today, Freud himself had many problems that would classify him (according to his own doctrine) as a psychological mess, but he hypocritically thought he had everyone else's problems all figured out.

For example, Freud was a drug addict, using cocaine specifically, and he praised the effects of it: "Freud began experimenting with the drug in 1884, when he was 28, at a time when cocaine was almost unknown in scientific circles. During the period 1884-1887, Freud took cocaine frequently, sometimes in heavy doses. After taking the drug himself and getting some preliminary reports from others, Freud published glowing descriptions of cocaine. Not only did Freud think at the time that the drug had antimorphine effects; he was enthusiastic as well about its contributions to mental well-being. It was an antidote to his frequent depressions, and also provided increased physical strength and sexual potency... Freud was enamored of the idea of a drug-induced rejuvenation... He enthusiastically recommended it to others, including his fiancée. He administered the drug (very likely via hypodermic needle) to his friend and colleague Ernst Fleischl, who was suffering from a drawn-out, terminal nerve condition that required the use of morphine to ease his pain. Freud got Fleischl to take cocaine, which he thought would cure his friend's morphine addiction and have no undesirable effects of its own. Instead, after a brief period of benefit from the drug, Fleischl became addicted to cocaine as well as to morphine, and suffered particularly from cocaine-induced hallucinations."
-Paul C. Vitz, Sigmund Freud's Christian Unconscious, Gracewing Publishing, 1993, p. 110, ISBN: 9780802806901

This is not something you will find in your average psychology textbook. Freud not only used cocaine, but he convinced many others to use it, destroying their lives in the process.

In the early 1980s, British medical historian Elizabeth Thornton thoroughly documented the evidence of Freud's use and theories on cocaine, which had previously been swept under the rug since the psychology movement had been picking up serious momentum over the previous three decades, and the release of such information would be an embarrassment to their profession. Thornton has been heavily criticized for publishing this information because, after all, if psychologists are making a lot of money from their industry, they cannot have it be publicly known that their so-called "profession" was founded by someone who was high on cocaine. Though most publications claim that Freud only took cocaine between 1884-1887, Thornton provided ample evidence that even if Freud got off cocaine for brief periods, he was using cocaine during much of the 1890s, through the turn of the century, and continued to use it possibly as late as 1912; in short, Freud was a cocaine addict.
(See Elizabeth M. Thornton, The Freudian Fallacy: Freud and Cocaine, Paladin, 1983 (Revised Edition 1986), ISBN: 9780586085332)

As we just read, Freud was using cocaine as "an antidote to his frequent depressions," which gives us some very interesting insight. One of the primary stated goals of psychology is to find the source of depression and remedy it via the analysis of the mind, and today, millions of people are relying on this method that even its founder, Sigmund Freud, found so unsuccessful that he turned to cocaine to try and solve his own problems, which leaves a very puzzling question for those who think psychology is something useful:

Since Freud could not solve his own problems, what makes you think he can solve yours?

Freud's 1885 medical tract, "Uber Coca" (i.e. "About Cocaine"), was a paper that promoted the heavy use of cocaine in the treatment of morphine and alcohol addicts. In simple terms, he recommended treating addicts with cocaine. In addition, Freud states that he believed cocaine was so effective that "inebriate asylums can be entirely dispensed with," or in other words, he believed all addiction treatment centers could be shut down through the widespread use of cocaine, and the reason you do not typically hear about that is because psychologists do not tend to put quotes like that in framed pictures on the walls of their patient waiting rooms.
(See Sigmund Freud, Uber Coca, M. Perles, 1885, [University of California Medical Center Libraby, San Francisco])

The next piece of information is ABSOLUTELY CRTICAL to understand how psychology/psychiatry was funded into the multi-trillion dollar industry it is today; namely, that Freud was paid by pharmaceutical companies to test and promote the use of their products, namely, cocaine extracts that were legal at that time. For those of you familiar with the deception of drug companies, you may recognize the names Merck and Pfizer (formerly Parke-Davis); these two companies hired Freud to make their products popular and medically recommended to increase sales, and this concept of hiring someone in the science or medical field to recommend the use of drugs is exactly what we are still seeing today in western culture.
(See Nancy E. Marion & Willard M. Oliver, Drugs in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law, ABC-CLIO, 2014, p. 465, ISBN: 9781610695961; Merck is the same company who brought AIDS to the United States, and the Merck scientists who developed the DPT vaccine admitted it in an interview; Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This was the major turning point for psychology because psychologists were struggling in its early days to be considered a legitimate science due to the fact that people could more easily see through the scam, and therefore, they did not make much money. However, after Freud's cocaine recommendation, drug companies realized that by using psychologists as advertisers and salesmen, their pharmaceutical drug sales would heavily increase, and thus began a never-ending cycle of advertising a "new drug" that can solve all your problems, claiming that there are little or no side effects, only to be exposed later as having many dangerous and deadly side effects after a profit was made on the drug and the damage was already done.

As you look over the following advertisements, please notice the similarities to what we see in pharmaceutical advertisements today. Whatever ailment bothers someone, or disrupts their daily activities, or makes them feel uncomfortable, the pharmaceutical companies come to the rescue with a special drop, powder, drink, pill, or tablet, to allegedly "cure" the problem and make their lives better. Similar to something today like Xanax, which is used to treat a wide variety of symptoms (from insomnia to muscle spasm to alcohol detox), Cocaine was also used to treat a wide variety of symptoms, from dandruff to tooth aches to depression. This is the philosophical concept of "snake oil," which refers to 19th century con artists who would travel around and sell "snake oil" as a cure-all for many ailments.

(Click images for larger view.)

It should also be noted that these advertisements prefer to target women, as the Bible says the female is the weaker vessel (1Pe 3:7), because they know women are more susceptable to being discontented and seeking a quick-fix for their discomforts. I will emphasize 2 Timothy 3 again, since I quoted it earlier in this chapter:

For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:6-7

Eventually, the truth about cocaine and its destructive side effects was made public, and so psychologists had to back off of it, but as I stated earlier, the cycle of profit-by-deception would continue for decades to come in their never-ending quest to find a "magic pill" which would solve all problems. For example, in 1954, the drug industry created Thorazine (or Chlorpromazine), which was originally tested as a synthetic dye, and it was discovered (by accident) to shut down the motor controls in the body, which was like giving a person a lobotomy, or cutting out the motor functions of their brain without having to do any surgery.

Thorazine was created by the pharmaceutical company Smith, Kline & French (SKF), and they advertised it by holding conferences with famous psychologists, giving press conferences about its application, and also creating television shows to promote their new product. The following are some of the advertisements for Thorazine, and you should quickly see some similarities to the advertisements we saw earlier for cocaine: (Click image for larger view.)

Later in this book, we will go into more detail about the massive amount of damage these drugs have done to millions of people around the world, and we will look at more examples of such drugs over the past few decades, but for now, the point is that Freud helped lay the foundation for this "magic pill" marketing. As we will learn in the next chapter, this is the definition of sorcery in Scripture, and Freud's effort to rationalize sorcery is what led Western culture to finally accept witchcraft cures for their ailments, under the disguise of so-called "science."

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
-1 Timothy 6:20

Earlier, I mentioned Freud's acceptance of the religious dogma of Evolutionism from Charles Darwin, and that it was a foundational philosophy to expand on his psychological ideas:
"Sigmund Freud's most important intellectual connection to Victorian England was with the work and figure of Charles Darwin. Darwin was Freud's intellectual hero. The father of psychoanalysis, never known for humility, regarded his intellectual offspring [psychology] not simply as a continuation but an embellishment [an added feature] of the Darwinian scientific revolution. In The Introductory Lectures (1900) Freud celebrated Darwin, contending that the greatest scientist of the nineteenth century had toppled the foundations of human arrogance by 'destroy[ing] man's supposedly privileged place in creation and prov[ing] his descent from the animal kingdom and his ineradicable [unable to be removed] animal nature.'"
-Daryl Ogden, The Language of the Eyes, SUNY Press, 2005, p. 179, ISBN: 9780791483022

Of course, Evolutionism is a religious worldview that has no tangible or empirical evidence to support it; that is, there is no observation or experimentation to back up Darwinian evolution, therefore, it has never been proven. However, despite its gross lack of evidence, the philosophy of Evolutionism has spread far and wide, and has affected many people, often to a destructive degree, from political author Karl Marx (who credited Darwin's theories as a philosophical foundation for communism), to German leader Adolf Hitler (who had a strong belief in Evolutionism), to Harris & Klebold, the Columbine High School shooters, one of which wore a "natural selection" t-shirt during the shooting.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" & "Seeds of Evolution" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In his writing, Freud used Evolutionism to war against God's Word:
"[B]iological research [i.e. Darwin and Evolutionism] destroyed man's supposedly privileged place in creation and proved his descent from the animal kingdom and his ineradicable animal nature."
-Sigmund Freud, quoted by Henk de Berg, Freud's Theory and Its Use in Literary and Cultural Studies: An Introduction, Boydell & Brewer, 2003, p. 62, ISBN: 9781571132543

In Freud's book, Introduction to Psychoanalysis, he based the theories of psychology on the evolutionary principles, or in other words, he used the monkey-to-man model of evolution as a basis for his ideas about the mind. Freud spoke much of the "evolution" of the libido (i.e. sexual desire) in mankind, believing that there were hidden animal sexual desires inside everyone, which needed to be identified:
"But the origin of the expressions of infantile sexuality, unmistakable as they are in later years of childhood, seem to be lost in obscurity. [the unknown] Those who disregard [ignore] the history of evolution and analytic coherence, [analysis of the mind] will dispute [argue against] the potency [influence] of the sexual factor and will infer the agency of generalized forces."
-Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis, Boni and Liverright, 1920, p. 277, [Harvard University]

In summary, he just stated that anyone who does not uphold Evolutionism in relation to the mind will argue against his theories of sexual lust, and this demonstrates not only Freud's obsession with sexual desire, but also his use of Darwin's evolutionary model as a means to justify his sinful lusts, as well as those of his clients. Though Freud was raised in a Jewish household, he made every effort he could to get away from the Living God because he loved the lusts of his flesh more than the truth. Freud's obsession with sex is what led to many of his ridiculous theories, and even though he is called the "Father of Psychoanalysis," and even though he is praised all the time among psychologists, many of them still write off Freud's theories as nothing better than the ramblings of a lunatic, despite the fact that they follow his principles in pure hypocrisy.

Freud believed that everyone was a "brute beast" inside (2Pe 2:12-14), and acted according to their animal instincts; for example, the "Oedipus Complex" was a theory Freud invented, in which he said there was instinctual sexual desires in small children, and that boys would love their mothers and hate their fathers (which he labeled as "castration anxiety"), whereas girls would love their fathers and hate their mothers (which he labeled "penis envy"). This was all based on the theory that children instinctively saw the same sex parent as a threat rather than a caretaker, and that an unsuccessful outcome in this area would lead to pedophilia and homosexuality, which is obviously not the case, as there are many contradicting examples that can be given to Freud's rules.

The problem with all this is that Freud ignored the Holy Word of God, in which pedophilia and homosexuality are sins, not a "psychosis" (i.e. a mental disorder). Mankind turns to their sin to fulfill lusts of the flesh because they first disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 3:6-7), not because they were raised too strictly during potty training, which was another theory that Freud labeled "anal-retentive."

This separation from God's Word into Evolutionism becomes very confusing because Freud was attempting to solve the problems of his clients, to make them "normal," but in an evolutionary worldview, there is no such thing as "normal." If everyone is a genetic mutation from the previous generation (which is what Evolutionism teaches), then it is impossible for anyone to be "normal." Only according to a Biblical Christian worldview is there a set standard of "normal" which everyone would be required to fit into, and so it leaves us with an unanswered philosophical problem for psychologists; namely, how can you try to "fix" people to meet a set standard with an evolutionary worldview in which there is no set standard?

The concept of "normal" only exists in the Christian worldview.

The main theory that connected evolutionary philosophy with the removal of sin in psychology was Freud's invention of the concept of the "unconscious mind." In western society, it is difficult to find someone today who has not heard of, or believes in, the so-called "unconscious mind," but in reality, it does not exist.

To some readers, the statement of the non-existence of the unconscious mind may be surprising, but I will pose a simple question: Can you show me your unconscious mind? Give it a try. Put this book down for a moment, and take your time; I will wait, and you can start reading again when you are ready.

The unconscious mind has never been proven, and it is also unprovable, which is what made it a deceptively brilliant idea. It was not that the unconscious mind needed to be proven, but rather, all Freud needed to do was get people to believe it existed, and after that, it was much easier to convince people that his theories were true.

The word unconscious is made up of two parts, the first is the prefix 'un', which means "not," and the other word is conscious:

conscious (adj): aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings
(See 'conscious', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

To have a conscious mind means that you are actively thinking, because that is what it means to be conscious. However, to have an "unconscious" mind while being conscious is itself a ridiculous thought, which required a conscious mind to come up with in the first place.

There is no such thing as an "unthinking" mind.

For many years, I thought there was an unconscious mind because that is what I was taught to believe, and I got fooled into believing this nonsense in a Psychology 101 course in college with the example of blinking. The instructor told us that we probably had not thought about blinking all day until she brought it up at that moment, which likely, many readers might be now thinking about blinking, even though you have not thought about it all day, and then fooled us by claiming that blinking while not thinking about it is the "unconscious mind" at work.

Automatic blinking is not an "unconscious mind," but rather, that is your nervous system working as designed by God, doing automated functions to keep you alive. For example, I can think about my heart beating, but I cannot make my heart beat; it runs automatically whether I am thinking about it or not because those are organic, automated systems designed to work in the background, and just because we have been given muscles that allow us to control blinking as needed, that does not prove an "unconscious mind," but more students every year get blindsided into believing in an unconscious mind through such very simple deception.

For example, the magazine Psychology Today confesses that some psychologists say that the unconscious mind does not exist, but they try to defend it anyway:
"Though later theorists eliminated some of Freud's more sordid details, they nonetheless kept the basic idea of the unconscious intact: It's a part of our mind that is thinking, feeling, and scheming behind the scenes. We literally have another mind within our mind. This other mind influences our actions even though — and this is the really important part — we have no direct access to it."
-David B. Feldman, "Does the Unconscious Really Exist?" Psychology Today, July 17, 2017, retrieved May 24, 2019, [psychologytoday.com/us/blog/supersurvivors/201707/does-the-unconscious-really-exist]

The claim is that there is another mind within your mind, which automatically thinks for you without you knowing about it. You cannot see it. You cannot hear it. You cannot touch it. You cannot access it, which means you cannot even think about it. You cannot put it in a jar and paint it blue. There is zero evidence of its existence, but psychologists say, "Trust us. We are professionals. We have degrees. Do not question us."

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm [having confidence in men for his spiritual guidance and protection], and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5

Freud invented the unconscious mind as a way to explain where thoughts go when we are not thinking them, but the problem is that they do not "go" anywhere. We have a memory in which we can recall thoughts, but there is not an unconscious mind where our thoughts go when we are not thinking, rattle around in our brains, and then secretly mess up our lives while we are unaware of them. Yet, despite the lack of evidence, most of the world has been convinced that this secret Narnia-esque (i.e. imaginary) world exists in the deep recesses in the back of the wardrobe of your mind, requiring hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in psychological counseling to unravel.
(Read "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell" here at creationliberty.com for more details; C.S. Lewis was a pagan occultist, not a Christian.)

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
-1 Timothy 6:20-21

The unconscious mind is a concept, nothing more; meaning that it is a thought that Freud had, but no evidence has ever been presented for it. The concept of the unconscious mind is an attempt to explain thoughts without the spirit (or soul) of a man, from the perspective of a materialistic, atheistic, humanistic worldview in which they believe there is nothing but the brain to support consciousness.

Freud claimed that dreams were created through the concept of the unconscious mind. (Even though the Bible says they are created through the things we actively experience and think about throughout our day. Ecc 5:3) He then taught that these dreams are messages from your unconscious mind telling you about problems in your past, which is why today, it is a common belief that going to a psychologist means that you talk about your dreams and the psychologist interprets those dreams for you.

Today, many psychologists, in order to deceive further, now say there is a difference between the "unconscious" mind and the "subconscious" mind. So people might say that they thought something "subconsciously" to avoid logical contradiction, but there is literally no difference between the two; they both refer to the same fairy tale realm that Freud invented.

What becomes more dangerous are the interpretations drawn from the fictional concept of the unconscious mind, which is that, according to Freud, in your past childhood, you had thoughts, and those thoughts were suppressed into your unconscious mind, and today, and you are reacting to things people did to you a long time ago. Thus, he tried to say that a man might do evil things, not because he inherited sin, and that his actions are the fault of his submission to the lusts of the flesh, but rather, Freud argued that he was treated poorly as a child, and he is "unconsciously" or "subconsciously" acting according to those secret, hidden thoughts that he cannot access.

In short, this is a lie. It is a lie designed to create a justification for sin, claiming that a man's sin is not really his own fault; it is the fault of everyone else around him and what everyone else has done to him. (i.e. Blame someone else, not yourself.) People go to psychologists because they do not want to be judged, and they do not want to judge themselves.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-Outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
-1 Corinthians 11:31

Freud convinced himself that his sinful lusts of the flesh were partially his base animal instinct through evolution, in combination with the way he was treated as a child. He then convinced many other people to think the same way, and then prescribed methods to help them overcome so-called "mental disorders" by traveling into the memories of childhood and recognizing them. (i.e. Not traveling into the unconscious mind, where he claims the problem is, because, after all, no one can go there, but rather, travels into the memories.)

Though I did not find much evidence to suggest that Freud believed in occult magic, he did study and practice hypnosis, which is witchcraft, in order to get people to access this "unconscious mind" that is supposed to be inaccessible by basic reasoning. Or in other words, because he could not prove it by intellect, he would turn to witchcraft for an answer.

hypnosis (n): an artificially induced trance state resembling sleep, characterized by heightened susceptibility to suggestion
(See 'hypnosis', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Hypnosis is founded in occult magic practices, which spans back thousands of years, but a man named Franz Mesmer (1734-1815) tried to put a so-called "scientific" spin on it. Franz Mesmer is where we get the word "mesmerize," which generally means to be fixated on something in a daze that ignores everything else around you.
(See 'mesmerize', Vocabulary.com, retrieved May 24, 2019, [vocabulary.com/dictionary/mesmerize])

Freud adopted hypnosis techniques from Mesmer, which is why when people in the western world think about hypnosis, they most often think of someone going into a psychologist's office. Hypnosis is not something anyone should experiment with because when someone messes around with it, they become easily susceptible to demonic possession, especially if they are under the influence of psychotropic drugs.
(See Maurice M. Tinterow, Foundations of Hypnosis: From Mesmer to Freud, C.C. Thomas, 1970, [University of Michigan])

In fact, according to the nationally accredited College of Hypnotherapy, Freud took interest and studied hypnosis techniques (via his mentor, Josef Breuer) BEFORE he went to college to study neurology. This means that hypnosis was not an option he explored to help uncover his later theories of the "unconscious mind," but rather, hypnosis was more likely a foundational pillar in creating psychology in the first place. (i.e. Freudian psychology was designed for the foundation of hypnosis, not the other way around.)
(See College of Hypnotherapy, "1885 - Sigmund Freud and Emile Coue," retrieved May 24, 2019, [hypnosis.edu/history/freud-and-coue])

Of course, it is true that Freud went on to reject hypnosis as a viable psychological practice; however, his disciples did not reject it. That is why, not only are there many people who still study and practice it in psychology to this day, there are also those who have moved on to more manipulative uses of hypnotic suggestion, to plant ideas in the mind and control behavior.

Freud may not have accepted every occult technique into his practice, but his openness to study and use them helped lay a foundation for occult practices to flourish and become readily accepted in our society as "science." As our society may have previously abhorred the idea of such things, today, especially with the help of television, such practices are not only commonplace, but now more readily accepted than ever before. As we continue in this book, we will see that what is known as "psychotherapy" today has almost no difference from the practices of mystic shamans and witchdoctors.

witchdoctor (n): a person in some societies who attempts to cure sickness and to exorcise evil spirits by the use of magic
(See 'witchdoctor', Random House Dictionary, 2018, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Edwin Torrey, a nationally recognized American research psychiatrist and founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center (which helps people get medicated quicker and easier), wrote that one of the key similarities between witchdoctors and psychotherapists is that they both claim to "treat a wide variety of physical as well as mental and social problems." In his book, Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists: The Common Roots of Psychotherapy and Its Future, he stated:
"One reason non-Western therapists and their techniques have been ignored is that they are automatically relegated to the realm of 'mere magic and superstition'... This is to distinguish them from therapists in our culture, who are thought to employ techniques based on modern science. The truth is not even close; it is a quantum jump away. The techniques used by Western psychotherapists are, with few exceptions, on exactly the same scientific plane as the techniques used by witchdoctors. If one is magic, then so is the other. If one is prescientific, then so is the other. In order to be scientific, a phenomenon must be explainable by underlying laws. These laws are arrived at by observation, measurement, experimentation, induction, hypothesis formation and testing. The rationale for most therapies used by witchdoctors and psychiatrists is not arrived at in this way—rather the techniques are used on sick clients, the clients get well, and therefore the techniques are thought to work... And both witchdoctors and psychiatrists make the assumption that their clients get well because of the techniques."
-Edwin Fuller Torrey, Witchdoctors and Psychiatrists: The Common Roots of Psychotherapy and Its Future, Harper Collins, 1986, p. 11, ISBN: 9780060970246

Of course, psychotherapy is claimed to be based on "science," but as I pointed out in the introduction, psychology is (as the word itself testifies) the study of the soul. As Torrey rightly pointed out, the problem is that science is knowledge gained of the physical world through observation and experimentation, so how exactly is physical/material experimentation supposed to be used to draw knowledge from a non-physical/immaterial soul that cannot be detected by any known scientific means?

Though Torrey still practices psychology and psychiatry, he has at least pointed out the same thing I am trying to get people to understand: There is almost no difference between psychologists and shamans; psychiatrists and witchdoctors. There is no science involved in any of it. They make the same assumptions, using the same (or very similar) techniques, and I will add that they come from the same source, which is the devil.

If you believe the doctrine of Christ, then you cannot believe that good fruit can come out of this corrupt tree. If you believe that psychology brings forth good fruit, then you do not believe the Lord Jesus Christ.

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
-Matthew 7:17-19

Sigmund Freud said to his colleagues: "Do you know that I am the devil? All my life I have had to play the devil, in order that others would be able to build the most beautiful cathedral with the materials that I produced." -Sigmund Freud, quoted by Orval H. Mowrer, The Crisis in Psychiatry and Religion, North Park College and Theological Seminary, 1961, p. 116, [University of Michigan]; See also David Bakan, Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition, Courier Corporation, 2012, p. 181, ISBN: 9780486147499

A cathedral of the devil has been built, and within it, they practice sorcery. Let's take a closer look at the devil's philosophy, and the illusion of "mental illness."



 

This chapter will likely anger and upset more people than any other, but let's define a few terms, so we are all clear about what is being said:

mental (adj): relating to the mind
mind (n): the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.
illness (n): unhealthy condition; poor health; sickness
(See 'mental', 'mind' & 'illness' Random House Dictionary, 2018, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The main problem with the concept of "mental illness" is that it is a nonsensical phrase. Illness or sickness has to do with physical properties, meaning that it is the physical body that is not in a condition that is functioning up to normal standards, and a physician is needed to help solve the problem, but the mind is a spiritual thing; the mind is not physical, just as thoughts, reasons, judgments, and perceptions are not physical, and therefore, they cannot become "ill" or "sick."

When you talk with someone and they say they are "sick," or "ill," that means they caught something by accident, whether it is a cold or flu, something along those lines. It was not their active decision to get sick, it is just something that happened to them via germs and bacteria, and when it happens, we generally feel sympathetic to them because it was not their fault that they got sick. That is the key point I want readers to remember because this is exactly what people love about being diagnosed with a "mental illness;" it automatically implies that it is something that is not their fault, and they can continue to act the way they do, have others feel sympathetic to them, and they have a socially acceptable excuse to ignore their sin. (We will discuss that in much more detail in Chapter 4.)

In a society that worships 'science' as a god, they think that all things which relate to the mind come from the brain, and therefore, they believe that a "sick mind" is a "sick brain," which is not the same thing. There are people who can have brain damage, and still think, reason, feel, and judge matters just as normally as everyone else; even studies into autism, a recent illness that came about from vaccinations, has shown that, even though an autistic child has some damage to the brain, they can think and reason just like everyone else.
(Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Most often, when the Lord God uses the words 'heart' and 'mind', He is not referring to physical organs in your body; rather, He is referring to something that is beyond the physical body. The 'heart' and 'mind' are the seat of reason, thoughts, passions, and affections of the spirit.

But ye have not so learned Christ; If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
-Ephesians 4:20-24

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
-Psalm 51:17

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
-2 Timothy 1:7

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

This is because the 'heart' and 'mind' are spiritual things (not physical), and as we learned in the introduction to this book, the word 'psyche' is supposed to be the soul or spirit, and thus, psychology/psychiatry are, by definition, studies of the soul and spirit. What psychology/psychiatry are attempting to do is offer analysis and physical remedies for spiritual problems, which is, to put it bluntly, insane.

This is the same fallacy as to say that one can do works and earn salvation; otherwise known as "works doctrine" which almost all false religious institutions teach. The problem is that they believe the cure for their corrupt, fallen, sinful soul is to do a few "good works" (i.e. physical labor), and that will solve the problem; again, that is insanity—physical remedies have no effect on spiritual problems.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
-Ephesians 2:8

Therefore, there is no such thing as "mental illness." You can have brain damage, spinal damage, muscle damage; all these things will require a physician to attempt to fix, but spiritual problems must be dealt with in an entirely different way, and there is no "illness" for the mind; there is only sin, which corrupts the mind.

corrupt (v): to change from a sound to a putrid or putrescent state; to deprave; to waste; to defile or pollute
(See 'corrupt', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 25, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
-1 Timothy 6:3-5

The image below shows an x-ray photo of a broken arm, which can be clearly identified and fixed, and it also shows an x-ray of a brain. So, for example, can you look at the brain x-ray and identify the location of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)? It should be noted that neurologists have been attempting to find such "mental disorders" in the brain over the past century, and have failed to find anything.

Of course, in instances of ADD, as with all so-called "mental illnesses," a drug is recommended. How can you medicate something that is not physically there? Are we to believe that a physical pill or drink or injection can somehow alter the spirit? Furthermore, how can you know that an undetectable problem has been fixed by a medication for a process that cannot be monitored? It is not possible to do these things; the so-called "mental illness" cannot be physically recognized, nor can any physical evidence be provided for the so-called "cure," nor can we determine that anything needed to be "cured" in the first place, and because of that, we cannot even know if a "mental disorder" exists.

However, many different "disorders" are labeled for things that are common emotions or habits that everyone experiences at various points in their lives. The following list is taken from what is commonly known as the DSM, or the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is basically the bible for psychologists:

ROOT EXPERIENCE PSYCHOLOGICAL LABEL (INDEX #) Teetering Between Joy and Grief Bipolar Disorder (296.00) Grief from Loss Major Depressive Disorder (296.2) Shyness Social Anxiety Disorder (300.23) Suspicion Paranoid Personality Disorder (301.21) Longing for Home Separation Anxiety Disorder (309.21) Easily Distracted Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (314.9)

It is near-impossible for anyone today to visit a psychologist for any of these "symptoms" and walk out without being diagnosed with a "mental illness" of some sort, and in most cases, it is for something that almost everyone experiences at some point in their lives. We have all teetered (swayed back and forth) from joy and grief, we have all suffered loss, we have all been shy at times, we have all been suspicious of something, many of us have longed for home (even if ever so slightly), and we have all had times we have been easily distracted, but that does not mean we have a "mental illness," and it certainly does not mean we need psychotropic drugs to "cure" the alleged "problems."

In God's Word, the use of psychotropic drugs is witchcraft; specifically sorcery, which is the use of enchantments in order to command spirits. In case you may not fully understand the connection, I will repeat that 'psychology' is, by definition, the study of the spirit, and likewise, psychiatry is the "healing/treatment" of the spirit. (i.e. The suffix 'iatry' means "healing/treatment.)

sorcery (n): magic; enchantment; witchcraft; the power of commanding evil spirits
(See 'sorcery', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Dec 20, 2018, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

In fact, the Greek word for sorcery is "pharmakeia," and the Latin is "pharmacia," which is where we get the words "pharmaceutical" and "pharmacy" in English:
"From Medieval Latin pharmacia, from Greek pharmakeia 'use of drugs, medicines, potions, or spells; poisoning, witchcraft; remedy, cure,' from pharmakeus (fem. pharmakis) 'preparer of drugs, poisoner, sorcerer' from pharmakon 'drug, poison, philter, charm, spell, enchantment.'"
(See 'pharmacy', Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved Dec 20, 2018, [etymonline.com/word/pharmacy]

Of course, most people in this world will write me off as some lunatic, perhaps someday suggesting that exposing the truth about the dangers and deceptions of psychology is also a "disorder" that needs to "cured," but as we learned in the introduction to this book, there is a very good reason why psychology/psychiatry does not have any strong presence in Eastern culture as it does in Western culture. This is because in Eastern culture, psychology/psychiatry is more easily recognized as "magic" and "witchcraft," and because they already have an abundant supply of witchdoctors, they have no need to reintroduce them into their society under some presumably "scientific" name.

Again, if you walk into a psychiatrist's office, 99% of the time you will walk out with a prescription for a spiritual (not physical) disorder, just as if you walk into a witchdoctor's or shaman's office in places like Africa and India, you will likely walk out with some prescription for a spiritual (not physical) disorder. The only real difference between shamans/witchdoctors and psychologists/psychiatrists is that psychologists/psychiatrists typically take longer and charge more money.


In the Book of Acts, there was a sorcerer named Simon, who "bewitched the people of Samaria" and claimed he was a great man, who many people listened to, and said "this man is the great power of God." (Acts 8:9-10) However, when he met Peter, he was immediately rebuked:

But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
-Acts 8:20-23

Most readers are likely not aware of this connection between psychology and sorcery, and that is one of the primary reasons this chapter will be upsetting to many people, but it is not a secret; it is simply not talked about in mainstream media because it would cause more citizens in Western culture to raise an eyebrow in suspicion, which would ultimately mean less money for psychologists and drug companies. For example, clinical psychologist Ralph Metzner, a graduate from Harvard University, attended a workshop sponsored by the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP) which featured a Voodoo witchdoctor who was teaching on West African spiritual trance healing (i.e. witchcraft) as a potential method to cure psychological disorders:
"I attended a workshop on spiritual trance healing by a Vodoun [Voodoo] ceremonialist and teacher from Togo [Togolese Republic in West Africa] called Akuete Durchbach. The workshop in San Francisco, sponsored by the Association for Humanistic Psychology (AHP) and the Association for Transpersonal Psychology (ATP), was organized by Danny Slomoff, a graduate student who had made several visits to Togo. He had met and studied with this healer and had written an article about him that was published in the magazine Shaman's Drum in 1986. I participated in this workshop with great interest,"
-Ralph Metzner, Searching for the Philosophers' Stone: Encounters with Mystics, Scientists, and Healers, Simon and Schuster, 2019, ISBN: 9781620557778

Shaman's Drum Magazine was a publication about experimental witchcraft and shamanism that produced issues from 1985 to 2010. The AHP frequently ran ads in Shaman's Drum, and the reason that may be surprising to some people (i.e. that a "professional" and supposedly "scientific" organization of psychology would fund a magazine on witchcraft) is because those people are unaware that psychology is Voodoo witchcraft, and has nothing to do with medical science.

When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire [abortion—see our teaching on abortion for more details], or that useth divination [communing with the dead], or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits [mediums who commune with spirits], or a wizard [one who practices sorcery], or a necromancer.
-Deuteronomy 18:9-11

In 1981, the Washington Post reported on a number of psychological organizations bringing in Voodoo healers, spirit mediums (i.e. witches via divination), and even charismatic so-called "faith healers" to help cure people of their psychological problems, even accepting them as colleagues in their field. Not only are they hiring them in their clinics to practice their rituals, but are also noting how similar their practices are to that of psychologists/psychiatrists:
"Voodoo healers, spirit mediums, rootworkers, charismatic faith healers — they have no licenses and many don't even have a grade school education. But now psychologists are beginning to accept them openly as colleagues. In New York, Miami, Sacramento and other cities, mental health clinics have brought in spiritists, magic users and other mystical folk healers to help treat patients, and an increasing number of psychologists advocate using them on a regular basis... Beginning more than a decade ago, psychiatrists discovered the existence of these networks of traditional healers among ethnic groups in America. Soon after, psychologists began to report that these folk healers shared certain approaches with mainstream therapists."
-Philip J. Hilts, "Psychology Welcomes Voodoo," Washington Post, Aug 21, 1981, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [https://wapo.st/2FwerZJ]

I urge readers to stop and consider for a moment that if psychology were an actual science, then why are they relying on witches and cultists to do their so-called "healing?" The answer is simple, and the news article stated it very well: A number of psychologists consider witchdoctors, charismatics, and mediums to be their colleagues because psychology shares the same basic principles of witchcraft, and psychiatry shares the same basic principles of sorcery, which further supports the argument that there really is no such thing as "mental illness," and that the problems of the spirit cannot be resolved by their so-called "scientific" processes; rather, they can only make things worse because they rely on witchcraft techniques.
(Read "Speaking in Tongues vs Charismatic Gibberish" & "Revivalism: The Devil's Design" here at creationliberty.com for more details on the deception of charismatic church buildings and fake faith healers.)

Emil Kraepelin, a famous 19th century German psychiatrist, spent most of his professional career attempting to classify "mental illness" as a "disease," and prove that the origin of these mental diseases was rooted in a person's biological and genetic makeup. After many years of research and experimentation, he failed to prove his case.

Kraepelin said the following in his book, Clinical Psychiatry:
"The principle requisite in the knowledge of mental diseases is an accurate definition of the separate disease processes."
-Emil Kraepelin, Clinical Psychiatry, Macmillan, 1907, p. 115

I will continue with Kraeplin's quote in a moment, but I want to briefly explain what he is saying in a simplistic manner so all readers can understand. In a nutshell, he is saying that in order to have knowledge of a "mental illness," one must first have an accurate definition of the term "mental illness," and he is right, but the question remains: How does one get an accurate definition of something that does not exist?

Kraepelin continues:
"In the solution of this problem one must have, on the one hand, knowledge of the physical changes in the cerebral cortex [outer brain], and on the other of the mental symptoms associated with them. Until this is known we cannot hope to understand the relationship between mental symptoms of disease and the morbid physical processes underlying them, or indeed the causes of the entire disease process. There are still other difficulties to be encountered in obtaining that fundamental knowledge necessary for a scientific classification of mental diseases. In the first place, it is almost impossible to establish a fundamental distinction between the normal and the morbid mental state, as was frequently indicated in our discussion of the general symptomatology."
-Emil Kraepelin, Clinical Psychiatry, Macmillan, 1907, p. 115

In simple terms, in order to obtain a definition of a "mental illness," we first have to find a connection between physical changes in the brain, and connect them with the mental symptoms of the "illness." To date, no one has ever done such a thing, and no one has seen any evidence that indicates there is a causal link between changes in brain functionality and what is known as "mental illness." As Kraepelin rightly stated, until this is done, there is no hope to understand anything concerning mental illness, and since no one can accomplish the impossible task of proving that spiritual problems are directly connected to physical ailments, psychiatrists are hopeless, ignorant, and not just useless, but dangerous.

Kraepelin also adds another important point:
"It is equally difficult sometimes to distinguish between the transition states existing between different forms of recognized types of mental diseases. Again, the symptoms of the disease are apt to be greatly influenced and exaggerated by the morbid hereditary basis which underlies so many forms of mental disease."
-Emil Kraepelin, Clinical Psychiatry, Macmillan, 1907, p. 115

Again, in simple terms, even if it were possible to prove some connection between "mental illness" and genetics, it would be further impossible to prove the differences between various mental illnesses. For example, if someone was diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (teetering between joy and grief) and Major Depressive Disorder (grief from loss), how do you tell the difference between the two? Grief is a symptom of both so-called "disorders," so how to you know that a client suffers from one and not the other? How do you know they are not suffering from both? How do you know they are not suffering from either? There is literally no way to tell if Bipolar Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder come from the same illness, or if they come from two separate illnesses; psychologists simply make these things up from their own subjective opinions, and because psychologists have a fancy "science" degree, people respect their person in sin (instead of judging righteous judgement - John 7:24), believing them automatically, and convincing themselves they are "mentally ill."
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Speaking of Bipolar Disorder, there are a number of psychologists who argue that Bipolar Disorder does not exist, in a somewhat similar manner that I am arguing against it. The debate between psychologists on the existence or non-existence of Bipolar continues to this day, but if the decision is left up to practicing psychologists who make a lot of money by convincing people that Bipolar Disorder exists, then almost everyone in the world would end up being diagnosed with Bipolar, even though it does not exist in the first place. (i.e. If psychologists start confessing the truth that these illnesses do not exist, then their jobs will also cease to exist.)
(See Stuart L. Kaplan, Your Child Does Not Have Bipolar Disorder: How Bad Science and Good Public Relations Created the Diagnosis, ABC-CLIO, 2011, ISBN: 9780313381348)

Bipolar is a good example to help demonstrate the illusion of mental illness, since no psychologist can really pin down what Bipolar is, and we will look at the DSM to help readers understand this point. Let's begin by looking at some really boring definitions of Bipolar from the DSM-5:
"Manic Episode
A. A distinct period of abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood and abnormally and persistently increased goal-directed activity or energy, lasting at least 1 week and present most of the day, nearly every day (or any duration if hospitalization is necessary)."
-American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, 2013, p. 124, ISBN: 9780890425541

The reason I am focusing on the "Manic" section of Bipolar is because manic (where we get the word 'mania') analysis is how drugs are prescribed. This is also important because it pertains to the legal world (i.e. lawyers, judges, etc), as this would be the way a psychologist/psychiatrist may attempt to give an "expert opinion" on a person's mental condition.

On page 824, the DSM-5 defines 'elevated' as "An exaggerated feeling of well-being, or euphoria," which means the patient would be feeling good. On page 825, the DSM-5 defines 'expansive' as "lack of restraint in expressing one's feelings," which would be feeling neutral, and it also defines 'irritable' as "easily annoyed and provoked to anger," which means the patient is not feeling good.
(See American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, 2013, p. 824-825, ISBN: 9780890425541)

In case you did not catch the contradiction, a diagnosis for a "Manic Episode" can be made if the patient is feeling good, feeling neutral, or feeling bad, and there is no criteria set on how to make the call of which is "normal" and which is a "mental illness." That is absurd to say the least because that is like saying, "You are sick if you have a fever, and you are sick if you do not have a fever." If I am feeling good one week, I could be diagnosed with Bipolar, but if the next week I am feeling stressed or irritated, I could still be diagnosed with Bipolar; either way, it makes no sense and has no scientific criteria to back it up, and what most people do not understand is that psychologists literally decide these things based on their own personal opinions—that is it, nothing more.

Furthermore, one of the conditional descriptions of being legally diagnosed with Bipolar is maintaining those heightened feelings for at least a week. Maintaining a consistent mood over a period of time is the opposite of the description of Bipolar because it's supposed to be someone who teeters back and forth between moods. The problem is if someone is feeling good, then suddenly becomes irritable, that contradicts the time prerequisite that it has to persist for a week because if they go back and forth between being irritable and feeling good during the week, or if there is one unseen change outside of the psychologist's view, then it cannot be diagnosed with any certainty.

Psychologist Phil Hickey makes a very similar argument:
"So the very basis for a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is either feeling particularly good about everything or feeling particularly grumpy and angry. How can the same illness manifest itself in such completely different ways? And bear in mind that these are not relatively trivial, incidental aspects of the so-called illness. These are the defining features. The very essence of bipolar disorder—according to DSM—is an episode of profound happiness or an episode of profound grumpiness and irritability. This is indeed a strange illness."
-Phil Hickey, "Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness," Behaviorism and Mental Health, Sept 6, 2009, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2009/09/06/bipolar-disorder-is-not-an-illness]

I agree; it is a strange so-called "illness," but before we go into the details of what Hickey just said, let's look at part B under Bipolar in the DSM-5. I know this will be boring to many readers, but bear with me; I will explain it afterwards:
"During the period of mood disturbance and increased energy or activity, three (or more) of the following symptoms (four if the mood is only irritable) are present to a significant degree and represent a noticeable change from usual behavior:
1. Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity.
2. Decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after only 3 hours of sleep).
3. More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking.
4. Flight of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing.
5. Distractibility (i.e., attention too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli), as reported or observed.
6. Increase in goal-directed activity (either socially, at work or school, or sexually) or psychomotor agitation (i.e., purposeless non-goal-directed activity).
7. Excessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences (e.g., engaging in unrestrained buying sprees, sexual indiscretions, or foolish business investments)."
-American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, 2013, p. 124, ISBN: 9780890425541

First of all, I would like to point out that any of these so-called "symptoms" have appeared in almost everyone at some point in their lives:
1. Inflated self-esteem is what is called pride, which is sin.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)
2. Decreased need for sleep happens to a lot of people, especially if they are in a stressful environment or have a lot to think about.
3. More talkative than usual is typically someone who is nervous or fearful.
4. Racing thoughts is just a description of what is happening to someone to cause the talkativeness or decrease in sleep, or in other words, it is a symptom of the symptoms, which means it should not even be on this list.
5. Being distracted is what happens when someone is thinking about things; it is another symptom of a symptom.
6. Increased goal-directed activity is a good thing, and opposes the rest of the symptoms, not to mention that "non-goal-directed activity" is the opposite of "goal-directed activity," but both are supposed to be symptoms, which makes no sense. If this is a symptom of an "illness," then every successful person on the planet is mentally ill, and that is absurd!
7. Excessive involvement in activities that have a high potential for painful consequences is simply people who do foolish things when they panic. None of these seven points are symptoms of a "mental disorder," but rather, it is evidence of a person who is not at peace in their spirit (i.e. heart and mind), which only the Lord Jesus Christ can heal.

So why does the APA have a minimum requirement of three symptoms from this list? Hickey continues to point out:
"First is the arbitrariness of the number chosen. Why three? Why not two or four? The answer, of course, is because the APA says so. The second objection is that different groupings of three will generate very different presentations. For instance, a person meeting criteria 1, 3 and 4 will be grandiose, overly talkative, and somewhat scattered in his choice of topics. Whereas a person who meets criteria 2, 5, and 7 will be sleeping very little, very distractible, and will be maxing out his credit cards in unrestrained buying sprees. The notion that these two presentations are in fact manifestations of the same illness is untenable. [cannot be defended by reasonable argument] This is particularly so in that the only justification for this position is that the APA says so."
-Phil Hickey, "Bipolar Disorder Is Not An Illness," Behaviorism and Mental Health, Sept 6, 2009, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2009/09/06/bipolar-disorder-is-not-an-illness]

The reason the APA required three symptoms, and not two or four, is because the APA got together, and by a show of hands voted by majority opinion to make it the standard operating procedure for Bipolar. Some readers might be inclined to think I am making that up, but in chapter three, I will demonstrate the fact that the DSM was created by a group of psychologists that got together and voted based on majority opinion; no scientific experiments or research was done. In short, what Hickey is saying is that there is no reasonable argument to defend that anyone has Bipolar Disorder, and therefore, I would argue that the so-called "mental illness" does not exist.

What Hickey had said earlier was that these seven features are the definitions for how DSM-5 describes Bipolar, and thus, it is also how psychologists make a diagnosis for Bipolar. As Kraepelin rightly stated earlier, those alleged features are not sufficient for a definition of Bipolar, and that is why there are some psychologists who are brave enough to come forward and openly confess that so-called "mental illnesses" such as Bipolar Disorder do not exist.

However, the problem gets even worse when we look at the bottom of the Bipolar diagnostic in the DSM:
"Note: A full manic episode that emerges during antidepressant treatment (e.g., medication, electroconvulsive therapy) but persists at a fully syndromal level beyond the physiological effect of that treatment is sufficient evidence for a manic episode and, therefore, a bipolar I diagnosis."
-American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, 2013, p. 124, ISBN: 9780890425541

That is a bit confusing, and I believe it is confusing by design, so no one would catch on to what is being said. The DSM-4 stated the matter more clearly, so let's read from DSM-4 to understand it better:
"Note: Manic-like episodes that are clearly caused by somatic antidepressant treatment (e.g., medication, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy) should not count toward a diagnosis of bipolar I disorder."
-National Center for Biotechnology Information, "DSM-IV to DSM-5 Manic Episode Criteria Comparison," June, 2016, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK519712/table/ch3.t7]

This is what you call a "rubber-ruler" problem, meaning that if you are measuring with a rubber ruler, the ruler can be stretched to fit any length, which means you cannot accurately measure anything to a particular standard. What they are saying here is that if someone is already on psychotropic drugs, and are expressing Bipolar symptoms, they should NOT be labeled as "Bipolar," which means if Bipolar were to exist at all, it would only exist because of prescription drugs, but no one would ever find out because, if psychologists are not allowed to diagnose a patient that is showing Bipolar symptoms, then no one will ever be able to show statistics that prove Bipolar is coming from medications. (i.e. It is hopeless circular reasoning.)

Let's instead turn to a REAL scientific experiment, one of the best ones ever produced to test psychology and mental illness; the famous "Rosenhan Experiment," (sometimes known as the "Thud Experiment") which proved that psychologists/psychiatrists are unable to tell the difference between a sane and insane person. In 1972, David Rosenhan, a professor of Stanford University, recruited eight individuals that consisted of three women and five men (i.e. three psychologists, one psychiatrist, one pediatrician, one housewife, one painter, and one graduate psychology student), and including Rosenhan himself (who also took part in the experiment), there were a total of nine people who he set up to admit themselves into a variety of twelve different mental hospitals in across five states, ranging from old to new, high-quality to low-quality, to get the most unbiased, fair results.
(See Paul Kleinman, Psych 101: Psychology Facts, Basics, Statistics, Tests, and More! Simon and Schuster, 2012, p. 237, ISBN: 9781440543937)

Rosenhan's recruits were instructed to go into the mental hospitals claiming to hear voices of the same sex in their heads (i.e. women would hear a female voice and men would hear a male voice) that simply used the words 'empty', 'hollow', and 'thud'. They were instructed to give fake names and false occupations to protect their identities, and other than the false information and the phony voices, they were to answer honestly about everything else.

Once the recruits were admitted to the hospital, they were instructed to stop reporting any symptoms, meaning that any voices in their heads were no longer there, which, under normal medical circumstances, would show recovery and would constitute release from the hospital. However, despite the fact that their symptoms were gone, the recruits were not permitted to leave, and were forced to stay from a minimum of 7 days to a maximum of 52 days, and after totaling together all twelve hospitals, the recruits had more than 2,000 antipsychotic pills prescribed, which they mostly discarded in secret.
(See Nathaniel Morris, "This Secret Experiment Tricked Psychiatrists Into Diagnosing Sane People As Having Schizophrenia," Washington Post, Jan 1, 2018, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [https://wapo.st/2FeuhbB])

Rosenhan's experiment showed that every recruit who faked mental illness passed screening and were admitted to the hospitals, and even when the symptoms stopped, they were forced to remain in the hospitals for long periods. Rosenhan then said:
"It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals."
-David Rosenhan, quoted by Michael W. Eysenck, Individual Differences: Normal and Abnormal, Psychology Press, 1994, p. 95, ISBN: 9780863772573

But the experiment did not end there because this was obviously met with outrage from the psychiatric community because, after all, this was a threat to their careers, and exposed them as frauds. One hospital challenged Rosenhan to send more recruits to their hospital over a three-month period, claiming that they would locate every one of his fake patients and reject them from admission, and so Rosenhan accepted the challenge; over the course of three months, out of 193 patients interviewed, the hospital turned away 41, and an additional 42 were considered suspicious, but what Rosenhan did not tell them is that he did not send any more recruits to the hospital over that 3-month period. (i.e. They were turning away patients from the hospital they normally would have admitted if not for the challenge.)

Of all the recruits who spent time in the mental hospitals, there was only one way out: They had to admit they were mentally ill and take medication. Even though they had no symptoms, and they were not mentally ill in any way, they had to lie and say that they were, and take psychotropic drugs to complete the program, and that should tell readers just about everything you need to know about the philosophy of psychotherapy.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
-1 Timothy 6:10

Rosenhan rightly concluded:
"The experiment is instructive. [useful and informative] It indicates that the tendency to designate [label] sane people as insane can be reversed when the stakes (in this case, prestige and diagnostic acumen) are high. [i.e. He's saying their professional reputation was on the line.] But what can be said of the 19 people who were suspected of being 'sane' by one psychiatrist and another staff member? Were these people truly 'sane' or was it rather the case that in the course of avoiding the Type 2 error the staff tended to make more errors of the first sort—calling the crazy 'sane'? There is no way of knowing. But one thing is certain: any diagnostic process that lends itself too readily to massive errors of this sort cannot be a very reliable one."
-David L. Rosenhan, "On Being Sane In Insane Places," Standford University, 1973, retrieved Jan 9, 2019, [psychrights.org/articles/rosenham.htm]

When Rosenhan said that the stakes of "prestige and diagnostic acumen are high," he means that psychiatrists and psychologists are desperate to make their falsely so-called "science" into a real science, and it all hinges on creating a prestige (a high and lofty status) and acumen (the ability to make good judgments quickly), but those things are all an illusion with it comes to psychiatric treatment. The fact is that, as Rosenhan pointed out, they could not tell if the sane people were insane, nor could they tell if insane people were actually sane, and that they could also not tell if the suspicious patients were actually crazy or not; in short, it is not science, and it is not reliable.

Attorney Jessica Leavitt and Psychology Professor Fred Leavitt point out:
"In 1974, [Robert] Spitzer [one of the creators of DSM-III, who we will discuss in more detail in the next chapter] and Fleiss published an influential paper indicating that psychiatric diagnosis remained a serious problem. Over the next few years, studies indicated that the likelihood of two psychiatrists agreeing on a diagnosis often hovered around 50 percent."
-Jessica & Fred Leavitt, Improving Medical Outcomes: The Psychology of Doctor-Patient Visits, Rowman & Littlefield, 2011, p. 216, ISBN: 9781442203037

If medical institutions operated on a 50% disagreement between doctors on a diagnosis, like for broken legs or heart failures, then not only would a lot of people be dead as a result, but the government would step in and shut down the fraudulent practices. (The only reason this was not done in America for psychiatric institutions was due to drug companies lobbying our American government.) Furthermore, just because two psychiatrists might agree on a particular diagnosis still does not make it correct (because that is a logical fallacy called ad populem, or argument from majority), and as the Rosenhan experiment proved, they have no definition for "mental illnesses" and no standard way to diagnose them.

Of course, the psychological community would immediately object in outrage to this point, claiming that the Rosenhan experiment was only during psychiatry's early development, and that the process has a much higher agreement rate in recent years, but the problem is that the agreement rate increasing has not been from any scientific research or experimentation to prove facts. The increase in agreement relies solely on the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which we will discuss more in the next chapter. This is why I call it the "bible" for psychologists, because if the psychiatric community cannot agree on their own analysis, and have to turn to a manual to figure it out, it shows us that psychology/psychiatry is really based on a more spiritual religious belief of people who make a lot of money for very little work, while demanding to have their person respected and having no fear of the coming Judgment of God for their many sins.

Their prestigious titles and degrees will not save them from hell and the lake of fire. Only Jesus Christ can save them through repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and faith in Him.
(Read "Hell Is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
-Hebrews 9:27

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty [arrogantly superior] spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

For there is no respect of persons with God.
-Romans 2:11

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:9

During Rosenhan's experiment, his recruits were almost entirely diagnosed as "schizophrenic," which, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, is claimed to be a condition that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly. However, the problem is that no one actually knows what schizophrenia is, nor is it identifiable in any way.
(See 'schizophrenia', National Institute of Mental Health, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/schizophrenia/index.shtml])

In the introduction to this book, I quoted from Ronald (R.D.) Laing, one of the world's most famous psychologists. In his 1964 book, Sanity, Madness and the Families of Schizophrenics, he stated very clearly:
"When a psychiatrist diagnoses schizophrenia, he means that the patient's experience and behaviour are disturbed because there is something the matter with the patient that causes the disturbed behaviour he observes. [i.e. the patient is not acting in a manner that is considered 'normal' or 'regular'] He calls this something schizophrenia, and he then must ask what causes the schizophrenia. We jumped off this line of reasoning at the beginning. In our view it is an assumption, a theory, a hypothesis, but not a fact, that anyone suffers from a condition called 'schizophrenia'... If anyone believes that 'schizophrenia' is a fact, he would do well to read critically the literature on 'schizophrenia' from its inventor [Paul Eugen] Bleuler to the present day. After much disbelief in the new disease, more and more psychiatrists adopted the term, though few English or American psychiatrists knew what it meant, since Bleuler's monograph [written study], published in 1911, was not available in English until 1950. But though the term has now been generally adopted and psychiatrists trained in its application, the fact it is supposed to denote [indicate] remains elusive [difficult to find]. Even two psychiatrists from the same medical school cannot agree on who is schizophrenic independently of each other more than eight out of ten times at best; agreement is less than that between different schools, and less against between different countries. These figures are not in dispute. But when psychiatrists dispute the diagnosis there is no court of appeals. [i.e. There is no one to make a final decision of what is correct.] There are at present no objective [factually-based], reliable, quantifiable [able to be measured] criteria — behavioural or neurophysiological [study of the brain] or biochemical — to appeal to when psychiatrists differ. We do not accept 'schizophrenia' as being a biochemical, neurophysiological, psychological fact, and we regard it as palpable [intense] error, in the present state of the evidence, to take it to be a fact. Nor do we assume its existence. Nor do we adopt it as a hypothesis [idea or theory]. We propose no model of it."
-Ronald D. Laing & Aaron Esterson, Sanity, Madness, and the Family: Families of Schizophrenics, Basic Books, 1964, (2nd Edition 1971), [University of Michigan]

The word 'schizophrenia' has two basic parts from the Greek, skhizein (meaning "to split") and phrën (meaning "mind"), which means "the splitting of the mind." The original term 'phrën' was supposed to refer to 'diaphragm', but was later changed to 'soul, spirit, or mind', and the reason for diaphragm was because Bleuler (the inventor of schizophrenia) studied Hindu mysticism in which they teach a balance of the elements and energies of the body along the spine, and that is where Bleuler's theory originates. (This is part of the reason why Bleuler's later disciples, like psychologist Carl Jung, studied Eastern mystic philosophies in relation to psychotherapy.)
(See Ahbishekh H Ashok & John Baugh, "Paul Eugen Bleuler and the origin of the term schizophrenia," Indian Journal of Psychiatry, PMID: 22556451, Jan-Mar, 2012, retrieved June 19, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339235])

In short, this is nonsensical. Each person only has one mind, and to have more than one mind is a contradiction, meaning that the person who is double-minded is a liar, deceiving himself and others.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.
-James 1:8

But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
-2 Timothy 3:13-15

Schizophrenia did not exist until Bleuler gave it a name.

The man who invented the term 'schizophrenia' did not know what it was, and neither do prominent psychologists even today. American psychiatrists were accepting schizophrenia as a valid condition for four decades before they even began to look at what it was supposed to be, and as it turns out, if you study where it came from and what it was based on, as Laing so aptly put it, it has no evidence, no facts, nor is it even a relevant hypothesis; there is simply nothing to support it, but we can marvel in amazement that, through mainstream media, the public has come to accept schizophrenia as a well-known medical condition even though no one knows what it is.

In 2016, the British Medical Journal published an article called "'Schizophrenia' Does Not Exist," in which British psychology professor Jim van Os (Maastricht University Medical Centre) was arguing that the term "schizophrenia" should be removed from psychiatric classification, and it was also noted that Japan and South Korea had already abandoned the term due to lack of evidence. Os was honest enough to admit:
"We [psychologists/psychiatrists] don't know enough to diagnose real diseases, so we use a system of symptom-based classification."
-Jim van Os, "'Schizophrenia' Does Not Exist," British Medical Journal, Feb 2, 2016, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i375]

It is important to note that the system of "symptom-based classification" Os is referring to is completely subjective, meaning that, just like Bipolar Disorder, it is up to the individual bias and opinion of the psychologist as to whether or not someone is classified as "mentally ill." That is why psychiatrists were unable to agree without their DSM "bible." This is exactly how Rosenhan's recruits were admitted into psychiatric hospitals in the first place without being able to tell the difference between the sane and insane; it is because the entire process is made up out of pure imagination, which is, for the most part, based on Eastern mystic witchcraft. (We will discuss more on the dangers of symptom-based medicine in the next chapter.)

The public at large is incredibly brainwashed into this psychological movement because of their philosophy of symptom-based medicine, and sadly so are some born again Christians. I sometimes have great difficulty in converting new Christians away from the rudiments (i.e. the primary teachings) they learned from the traditions of men because, without help, they often fail to see how deeply they have been deceived. Some of those born again in Christ are still under the effect of their first education, and have trouble letting go because they have been thoroughly convinced, or rather, have been taught to convince themselves and their children, that they are mentally ill, when they are not, and one of the main reasons I started working on this book is to help new Christians to throw off the deceitful and vain philosophies (i.e. ways of thinking) of worldly traditions made by men, and put on the philosophy of Christ, whose Holy Spirit can cleanse the heart and mind.

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. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
-Colossians 2:8-10

 

As we learned in the last chapter, the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or in simple terms, it is the bible for psychologists, which was first published in 1952, and since then, there have been four revisions, leaving us with the DSM-V (or DSM 5), which was last updated in 2013. I first published this book in 2019, and it is most likely there will be many more versions of the DSM published in the future, and I will explain how I can confidently predict that as we look more closely at the information in this chapter.

We have already learned that psychology is not based on any science, experiments, research, or testing, and it logically follows that if psychology has nothing to back it up, neither does the DSM. If I were to simplify the DSM in terms for Christians, it is basically a manual to justify sin.

justify (v): to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve; acquit
(See 'justify', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Whatever sin someone wants to justify will typically be called a "disorder" or "illness." The "mental disorder" eliminates personal responsibility for choices made, and the so-called "illness" is used as a shield to gather sympathy and obtain special privileges.

In our society, we do not typically charge someone with fault of wrongdoing for being sick because they did not elect to get sick. However, the DSM takes sin and transforms it into "sickness," which creates a narrative in the eyes of the public that those people are not at fault for their sin, but rather, we ought to have sympathy for them and give them privileges so they can get "treatment" for their "sickness."

The first DSM in 1952 had 112 so-called "mental disorders," and this list was NOT developed through any scientific investigation. There is no science or evidence to back up this list. A mail-in ballot was sent to 10% of the members of the American Psychological Association (a little over 900 psychologists), of which, only 46% of them responded, and based on majority vote from those ballots, the first DSM was formed.

The second DSM in 1968 grew to 182 disorders, and in over 15 years, there was still no scientific evidence that any of these disorders existed. The third DSM was developed in 1980, and it increased to 265 disorders, but because there were still disagreements on diagnoses between psychologists, this time they decided to take a different approach.
(See Shaidia Kawa & James Giordano, "A brief historicity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Issues and implications for the future of psychiatric canon and practice," U.S. National Library of Medicine, PMID: 22243976, Jan 13, 2012, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3282636])

The term "brain-based abnormalities" started appearing after DSM-III because Robert Spitzer, the primary psychologist spear-heading the project, gave up trying to identify a cause for so-called "mental illnesses," and instead just created a checklist of symptoms. Because the cause of "mental illness" was unknown (i.e. because it does not exist), and there was no science or studies to back it up, it caused psychologists/psychiatrists to argue amongst themselves about diagnosing patients, but if they could be trained to just identify symptoms without finding a root cause (i.e. meaning that they will never actually "cure" their patients), then they could create a "red means stop" and "green means go" type of so-called "medicine" that would make the traffic and management of patients in the psychological community run more smoothly.

A "brain-based abnormality" is a fancy phrase for a symptom:

symptom (n): a sign or indication of something; any phenomenon or circumstance accompanying something and serving as evidence of it
(See 'symptom', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

As I mentioned in the last chapter, the dangerous philosophy of symptom-based medicine is causing more problems than it is solving, and it is because a symptom is only evidence of "something," but what conclusion we draw from that evidence affects how we go about finding a solution. I have talked about this problem many times in every health-based teaching I have ever given, and it causes a lot more suffering and death than most people realize. If people are taught to believe that we simply need to eliminate the evidence (i.e. the symptom), then we will never find the cause.

On a philosophical level, if you took your car into a repair shop and told the mechanic, "There is a loud, clunky noise in the engine when I am driving my car," you would expect the mechanic to identify the core problem and fix it. Imagine for a moment that when you go into the shop to pick up your car the next day, the mechanic says that he covered the engine with insulation so it would muffle the sound of the clunking and you would not hear it while you were driving (i.e. he is eliminating the symptom); you would be furious that he did not fix the problem with the engine and demand your money back because he only addressed the symptom of the problem, and this would be the normal reaction of almost anyone, however, when it comes to the health of their own bodies, people often turn to "mechanics" (i.e. doctors) who will only cover you with insulation to make a symptom go away.

In fact, "symptom-based medicine" is corrupting the minds of people worldwide, in almost every field of medicine. For example, when people have a headache, they take an aspirin, but they almost never ask themselves the question: Was it a lack of aspirin that caused my headache, or am I just treating the symptom?

Do not misunderstand; aspirin has its uses under extreme circumstances, like if a person has a throbbing, pounding headache that will not go away, but we have to remember that aspirin is only a temporary relief so we can identify the problem. Aspirin is a pain reliever, not a cure-all, nor should it be used on a frequent basis because your headache is telling you about a problem that you need to identify and fix. The headache could be from dehydration, malnutrition, vitamin deficiency, neck and spinal problems, environmental problems (i.e. gas, radiation, etc), and a long list of other possibilities, and if you shut off the symptom, it could eventually result in permanent injury or death.

I will tell a personal story to help readers better understand this: Before I published this book, I had been learning about stretching the muscles and the importance of it, especially for someone like myself who sits in front a computer writing for many hours every day. I had been stretching out my wrists, but as I began to do it, I noticed a very intense pain in the mornings after not using my hands for a while; a very sharp pain in the knuckles of my pinky and ring fingers that made it extremely difficult to make a fist, and I would have to struggle to grip my hand for a while before I could use my hand efficiently.

Of course, in personal conversations and online, I was told what many of you are probably thinking: "It is arthritis." So I asked myself: What is arthritis? When I went online and searched, I obviously found many websites that talked about arthritis and defined it as "inflammation of the joints," and I said to myself, "No, inflammation of the joints is inflammation of the joints; what is arthritis?"

After reading about it for a while, and thinking about the matter on my own, something interesting occurred to me: Arthritis does not exist. Some readers may be surprised that I would make that claim, but we have to keep in mind that arthritis is nothing but a fancy name put on joint inflammation, and despite all the surgeries and drugs developed for it, the average mainstream medical website says that "arthritis cannot be cured."

Even the Arthritis Foundation admits:
"Arthritis is very common but is not well understood. Actually, 'arthritis' is not a single disease; it is an informal way of referring to joint pain or joint disease."
-Arthritis Foundation, "What Is Arthritis?" retrieved June 25, 2019, [arthritis.org/about-arthritis/understanding-arthritis/what-is-arthritis.php]

That is precisely my point: Arthritis is not a disease. It is just a fancy name put on inflammation of the joints, which is not the source the problem, and that is why they cannot cure it; because they are only labeling the symptom and attempting to eliminate it. In short, it is part of what is called "disease mongering," (i.e. selling illness to consumers) and we will learn more about that in chapter four.

So instead of investigating arthritis, I instead investigated inflammation, specifically what causes inflammation. There was a bunch of misinformation on mainstream websites about this as well, but I will not go into great detail about it so this does not turn into a long story. Inflammation is generally caused by muscle tightness and frayed muscle tissue, so if you work out your muscles, they actually become damaged and grow when they heal back (i.e. that is how you build muscle; you break them down and then build them back up), and if you do not stretch and roll out your muscles, the frayed fibers stay there, causing inflammation and pain.

To give an analogy, trying to use your muscles when you are not stretching and rolling out your muscles (i.e. you are not taking care of your muscles) is like trying to get an old rusty spring to work. If the spring is rusted, it cannot stretch out like it is supposed to, so you have to beat all that rust off the spring before you can stretch it out, and that is similar to what you have to do with your muscles.
So I went online and found a website that had a 3D model of the joints and muscles in the body, and when I focused on the pinky finger, I found a muscle with another fancy name, the "extensor digiti minimi," or in simple terms, it is the pinky finger muscle that extends from your finger and attaches to your elbow.

So with the fingers on my other hand, I pressed on my wrist and followed that muscle up my forearm, and towards the end, on my forearm near my elbow, I found a lot of pain. Knowing that frayed muscle is one of the causes of inflammation, I got a lacrosse ball, which is a weighty rubber ball about the size of a tennis ball, and pressed the ball into that muscle, and WOW—I do not have words to express how painful that was!

Because of the immense pain, I could barely hold it for thirty seconds, but after doing it for a few weeks, it became slightly less painful, and though it is still painful, it is more tolerable. I still work on it for a few minutes every night. I roll the ball up and down the spot on my forearm where it hurts to roll out the frayed muscle tissue, and then I press firmly on the ball so it stretches the muscle. The first night I did it, I woke up the next day, and it was not until the afternoon that I suddenly realized, I did not have any pain in my finger joints that morning; because there was no pain, I did not think about it, so it did not occur to me until later that day.

This is a process I am going to have to repeat almost daily to make sure I keep my muscles in good shape, but in short, by the grace of God opening my understanding, I have cured a supposedly "incurable" illness, and it was because He showed me that I should reject symptom-based medicine. It is for this reason that so many people are dying from supposedly "incurable" diseases, because they are subjecting themselves to symptom-based medicine instead of looking for the root cause.

Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.
-3 John 1:2

When I addressed the cure for cancer, which has been known for over a hundred years, I talked about how people are using chemotherapy, a dangerous method that kills many people, just to attack the symptom, which is the tumor. Cancer is NOT the tumor; the tumor is a symptom of the underlying problem, and the root problem is simply a vitamin deficiency of B17 (which is a simple fix), but people are paying out enormous sums of money, torturing and killing themselves in the process, all to address the surface symptom instead of addressing the core cause directly.
(Read "The Cure For Cancer" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate [sinful] mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
-Romans 1:28

When I addressed the dangers of vaccines, I talked about SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), which doctors claim has no known cause, but SIDS only came into existence because it is a name doctors gave to the death of a child when they had no other explanation for it. SIDS itself is not a disease of any kind; it is just what they call a death they cannot explain, but the reason they could not explain the sudden deaths of young babies is because they refused to acknowledge that vaccines were the cause of the problem.
(Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is one of the reasons I pointed out that I hate the "Autism Awareness" ribbons you see everywhere in America. There is no problem today with people being "aware" that autism exists; it is not some mystery, but rather, we need "Vaccine Awareness" ribbons to make people aware that vaccines have been proven to be the primary cause of autism, and because most physicians focus on the surface symptom instead of looking for the core problem, they cannot see the truth.

And spiritually, people are doing the same thing; they are addressing the symptoms and not the root cause of the problem. This is most often seen in works-based doctrines, in which they believe falsely that they become justified (i.e. pardoned/saved) by their works, but an outer coating of good works does NOT cure the core problem of sin.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

What so many people do is turn to their works to cancel out their sin, but good deeds do not make a man justified before God.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
-Romans 3:20

It is through repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and faith on the blood of Christ that man is justified, but sadly, most people in this world turn to their works, which puts them in an infinite loop of trying to fix a symptom which will only keep coming back. The cause is the filthy and corrupt spirits of mankind, and spiritual things cannot be fixed by physical solutions (i.e. works); it is only God who can fix the spiritual problems, and though it is a simple fix, most turn to the world's symptom-based philosophy, rather than turning to God's solution for root cause.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
-Matthew 11:28

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 13:15

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
-Romans 10:10

And likewise, no one will ever be "cured" of so-called "mental disorders" because everything classified in the DSM is based on a list of symptoms, and there is no mention of cause nor cure of anything in that document. The analysis of symptoms is subjective, meaning that it up to the opinion of individual psychologist to determine how he/she wants to diagnose a patient. Psychologists rely heavily on this symptom-based philosophy because they would never make any money without it.

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
-1 Timothy 6:10

Because the hypothesized causes of "mental disorders" listed in the DSM-II were removed in the third version, the list of symptoms became much more broad and generalized. With the details of the disorders gone, it was now possible to use the DSM to diagnose almost every man, woman, and child in the world, with no actual science, studies, or research to back them up.

Psychiatrist David Shaffer, developer of TeenScreen, attended the conference where the DSM-III was formed, and he was appalled by how it was conducted. He said:
"People would shout out their opinions from all sides of the room, and whoever shouted loudest tended to be heard. My own impression, coming straight from England, was that it was more like a tobacco auction than a sort of conference."
-David Shaffer, quoted in The Marketing of Madness: The Truth About Psychotropic Drugs, 2010, retrieved Jan 9, 2019, [youtu.be/IgCpa1RlSdQ?t=30m28s]

A tobacco auction is a very loud and fast-paced event where buyers of tobacco plants bid on harvests to get the best price for the best quality. This is very similar to the atmosphere during the creation of DSM-III; it was not a meeting of analysis of facts, but of foolishly quick and loud opinions shouted from all sides of the room.

I know that because of the prestige involved, most people believe that the DSM was formed by some highly scientific analysis, but this could not be further from the truth. The way disorders are put in the DSM is by a show of hands, or in other words, they will list off a potential "mental disease" to put in the DSM, and if there are 20 psychologists in the conference, and 11 raise their hands in favor, it is put in the DSM; that is the extent of the process for developing modern-day psychology/psychiatry.

A study published in the Anthropology & Medicine Journal found that DSM-III, just like the other DSMs, was based on majority vote, not based on science. Instead, the DSM-III was formed by a group of biased psychologists/psychiatrists who simply had financial and authoritative backing from the APA:
"This paper examines how Task Force [creators of the DSM appointed by the APA] votes were central to the development of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III and DSM-III-R). Data were obtained through a literature review, investigation of DSM archival material housed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA) [i.e. not an investigation of studies, but an investigation of their own archives, which is a collection of their previous majority opinions], and interviews with key Task Force members of DSM-III and DSM-III-R. Such data indicate that Task Force votes played a central role in the making of DSM-III, from establishing diagnostic criteria and diagnostic definitions to settling questions about the inclusion or removal of diagnostic categories... While it is broadly accepted among many sociocultural scholars of psychiatry that the DSM is a culturally constructed document [i.e. mental disorders are political, not scientific], solid empirical evidence concerning the centrality of voting-based consensus has, interestingly, remained elusive [difficult to find]... Where this paper, therefore, makes its unique contribution is by sourcing new oral and archival data illustrating that the separate disorders into which DSM-III organized diverse behavioural and mental phenomena were largely the outcome of vote-based judgements settled by a small, culturally homogenous subset [a group of like-minded and biased individuals] of mental health professionals who were socially positioned at a given moment in psychiatric history to have their judgements ratified [approved] by the institutional apparatus of the APA."
-James Davies, "How Voting and Consensus Created the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III)," Anthropology & Medicine Journal, Vol. 24, Sept 21, 2016, retrieved May 28, 2019, [doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2016.1226684]

In summary, this study found that the creation of DSM-III was just a group of biased psychologists, who happened to be available on the given days of the meetings, that looked over the previous DSM versions and gave a majority vote about them. The APA put their stamp of approval on this psychological "tobacco auction," which gave it the prestige it needed to be taken seriously by a (mostly) willingly ignorant public, who chose to respect the persons of those in the APA, rather than look objectively at the truth.

To demonstrate the deception, let's take a closer look at what DSM-I classified as "Sociopathic Personality Disturbance," which most readers have probably never heard about before, but today, it is more commonly known as "homosexuality." Again, DSM-I was developed in the 1950s when our culture was much more strict against the sin of sodomy/homosexuality, then as DSM-II was developed in 1968, during an embarrassing era of American culture that produced a culture of communist hippies and free sex, Sociopathic Personality Disturbance was reclassified from being a disorder/disturbance to a "sexual deviation," and then by DSM-III, it was removed altogether.
(See Jack Drescher, "Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality," National Center for Biotechnology Information, PMID: 26690228, Dec 4, 2015, retrieved Jan 9, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779])

I want readers to understand that getting any disorder removed from the DSM is not only extremely difficult (and almost never happens), but in the rare case for homosexuality, the removal was not based on any scientific investigation or psychological theory. The only reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM was due to cultural pressure from the shifting political movements in America, which further demonstrates the fact that the DSM is made up from pure imagination, being molded around whatever will keep psychologists in a wealthy, prestigious, and popular position.

In an attempt to explain away the fallacy of removing homosexuality from the DSM without any reasoning, Spitzer gave a statement which I do not think he realized would end up condemning the entire DSM as fraudulent, meaning that psychologists have no clue what they are doing, and have no interest in a cause or context for peoples' problems:
"What happened is that we made estimates of prevalence of mental disorders totally, descriptively, without considering that many of these conditions might be normal reactions which are not really disorders. That's the problem. Because we were not looking at the context in which those conditions developed."
-Robert Spitzer, interview with Adam Curtis, "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom," BBC Two, 2007

As Spitzer rightly pointed out, psychologists are making up disorders that do not exist; although he may have been unaware that his statements were actually destroying the foundations of his profession. Based on all the research I have done, I find Spitzer's statement very accurate, namely, that psychologists do not look at the context under which the so-called "mental conditions" are developing.

For example, in the 1850s, a well-known physician named Samuel Cartwright reported a "new disease" that he called "drapetomania." The word was developed from an ancient Greek word for "runaway slave" because he thought that African slaves trying to escape their plantation taskmasters was a "disease" that needed treatment. At this point, we have two options: We can either accept the person of Cartwright, seeing his MD or PhD and the prestige of his position as a doctor, and automatically accept this disease because he is a "professional," or we look at the context of how and why the so-called "disease" is being labeled to get an understanding of the financial and political reasoning for the idea.
(See Cherrill Hicks, "'Dozens of Mental Disorders Don't Exist': As World Mental Health Day Approaches, Has the Drive to Identify All Illnesses Created a 'Fiction' of Psychiatry?" The Telegraph, Oct 6,, 2013, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2FwmqGs])

Again, Jesus said:

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

By 1994, the fourth edition of the DSM was developed, and was now up to a total of 374 disorders. Some of the American public started to become concerned at the rapidly-growing list of mental disorders, and they were even more concerned when development on the fifth edition of the DSM began, which was completed in 2013.

David Kupfer, chairman of the DSM-5 task force, attempted to reassure the public that DSM-5 would not show an increase in mental disorders, as the previous four editions had done. However, this was deceptive because the way they ended up "decreasing" the number of disorders was by catagorizing many of them into "subtypes" under a single disorder, or in other words, the number of disorders did increase once again, but they were numbered in a different way to make it appear that there were fewer in total.
(See Robin S. Rosenburg, "Abnormal Is the New Normal: Why Will Half of the U.S. Population Have a Diagnosable Mental Disorder?" Slate, Apr 12, 2013, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2RIRU1E])

That is not the only thing that was deceptive about the DSM-5 because, whereas other editions were more open with their development conferences, the DSM-5's development was quite secretive. At this point, it should not be hard to figure out why it was secretive, namely that pharmaceutical manufacturers played a more direct role in the development of DSM-5, leading to the creation of a whole new area of "mental disorders" developed from political and financial motivations. (i.e. Not by any scientific investigation.)
(See Karen Franklin, "DSM Makover: What Will They Come Up With Next?" Oct 13, 2008, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2SUwRGY]; Franklin is a forensic psychologist and professor at the Alliant University in Northern California.)

In 1997, The New Yorker published an article in which psychologist Ivan K. Goldberg had created a joke disorder back in 1995 that he called "Internet Addiction Disorder." The joke was intended to demonstrate the DSM's rigid complexity, and how anything in the DSM can easily be called a disorder and made to look scientific. It turns out that during the creation of the DSM-5, they decided to add "Internet Addiction Disorder" to the list, even though it was not a real thing, and it was made up by pure imagination.
(See David Wallis, "Just Click No," The New Yorker, Jan 13, 1997, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [newyorker.com/magazine/1997/01/13/just-click-no])

Psychologist Christina Gregory gives us more details:
"Do you play video games on the Internet in excess? Are you compulsively shopping online? Cannot physically stop checking Facebook? Is your excessive computer use interfering with your daily life - relationships, work, school? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be suffering from Internet Addition Disorder, also commonly referred to as Compulsive Internet Use (CIU), Problematic Internet Use (PIU), or iDisorder."
-Christina Gregory, "Internet Addiction Disorder: Signs, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatments for those who may be addicted to the Web on their PC or smart phone," PsyCom, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [psycom.net/iadcriteria.html]

If someone finds themselves unable to pull away from Facebook, video games, or shopping, the Bible calls that sin; specifically, covetousness.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
-Mark 7:21-23

However, as I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, when someone has an "illness," we tend to give them sympathy, and therefore, the benefit one receives from being labeled "mentally ill," is being given sympathy for their own sin. We do not consider physical disorders something to scoff at, but rather, we give those who have physical disorders special benefits, and therefore, those who are covetous in their wicked hearts seek out a psychologist/shaman to label them as "mentally disordered" so they will get special benefits for their sin.

This concept strips away the doctrine of Christ, and leads people to hell and the lake of fire because, if they believe they ought not to have guilt for sin, and that they are not responsible for their actions because they have a so-called "disorder," they will never come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of that sin. If they never come to repentance, they will never receive God's grace for eternal life.
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

contrite (adj): worn or bruised, broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God
(See 'contrite', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

A contrite spirit is one who is humbled in grief over his sin. The one who is proud of heart, who believes he has done no wrong and thinks his sin is not his fault, but rather, believes that the fault is a "disorder" in which he should receive special care and sympathy; that is the heart that God resists, and He does not give them His grace.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

For example, a woman who frequently buys things she does not need is a covetous woman; she is a sinner that needs to come to repentance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ so He can heal her. However, psychologists offer a way to help her justify her sin by calling it "Compulsive Buying Disorder," in which she will not only be coddled and told her sin is not her fault, but she will also be given psychotropic drugs that will shut down her brain and motor functions, and cause serious, long-term problems.
(See Shahram Heshmat, "5 Patterns of Compulsive Buying Disorder," Psychology Today, June 12, 2018, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2r33TrQ])

If a woman picks up a spoon every time she feels bad and fattens herself up, she is what the Bible calls a glutton:

glutton (n): one who indulges to excess in eating
(See 'glutton', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.
-Proverbs 23:21

However, instead of rebuking the gluttonous woman to repentance of her sin, psychologists help her justify it by calling it "Binge Eating Disorder." They have gone so far as to create an organization called the Binge Eating Disorder Association, and telling these people that their gluttony "is not a choice," and of course, if she believes her gluttony is not a choice, then she also believes that she is not responsible for her sin, and therefore, she does not need a savior. (i.e. Her only savior is a psychological witchdoctor and a magic pill.)
(See Binge Eating Disorder Association, "What is BED?" retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [bedaonline.com/understanding-binge-eating-disorder/what-is-bed])

If a man is lazy and sits around doing nothing all the time, the Bible calls that slothfulness.

sloth (n): slowness, disinclination to action or labor, sluggishness, laziness, idleness
(See 'sloth', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
-Romans 12:10-11
(Read "The Christian Work Ethic" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor. The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain in the streets.
-Proverbs 22:12-13

What the Word of God is pointing out here is that a lazy man makes the most absurd excuses, like this man, who would say that he cannot go out and find work because he is afraid he might be eaten by a lion. However, instead of calling him to repentance of sin, psychologists give him another pathetic excuse by calling it "Apathy Disorder," so they prescribe drugs for him that will end up making him more lazy and unable to function.

Let's suppose a woman brings false accusations and rumors to her children about their father for the express purpose of turning them against their father, so that they will favor their mother. The Bible calls her a liar, a deceiver, and a busybody (i.e. gossiper).
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
-Titus 2:3-4
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
-1 Peter 4:15

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-Exodus 20:16

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
-Colossians 3:9

In most cases, such a wicked woman would claim that she loves her children, but she lies to them and deceives them. It does not matter how much she claims to love her children, the Word of God has declared that she hates her children.

A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it; and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
-Proverbs 26:28

This hateful, lying, deceiving wife and mother is instead told that it is not her fault she has a wicked, lying tongue. Instead, psychologists tell her that her children developed "Parental Alienation Syndrome," giving her an excuse for her sin, so she will not come to the grief and sorrow of repentance and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ to save her, and she will destroy her children in the process.
(See Shahram Heshmat, "Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Is It, and Who Does It?" Psychology Today, Feb 1, 2018, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2wF8ymv])

When a husband and wife think selfishly and fight constantly in a marriage, the Bible commands that they should consider the other first instead of themselves. The husband should love his wife as himself and harbor no bitterness against her, giving his life for her, and the wife should submit to and reverence her husband, treating him like a king in his home.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
-Ephesians 5:22-33

However, psychologists once again come to the rescue and give these sinners an excuse by calling it "Relational Disorder." The prescription drugs that come with it might cover up the symptoms by shutting down their brain and motor functions, but it will NEVER solve the problem of sin; only God can do that.

Here are just some of the many "disorders" used to justify sin:

SO-CALLED "MENTAL ILLNESS" REALITY OF SIN Alcohol Use Disorder Drunkenness Apathy Disorder Slothfulness (i.e. lazy) Binge Eating Disorder Covetousness, Gluttony Compulsive Buying Disorder Covetousness Compulsive Gambling Disorder Covetousness Compulsive/Pathological Lying Disorder Hatred, Lying, Deception Compulsive Sexual Disorder Fornication, Adultery, Covetousness Histrionic Personality Disorder Pride, Selfishness Intermittent Explosive Disorder Hatred, Emulations (i.e. rage) Homicidal Ideation Murderous, Hatred Internet Addiction Disorder Covetousness Kleptomania Theft, Covetousness Parental Alienation Syndrome Hatred, Lying, Deception Relational Disorder Selfishness, Hatred Video Game Addiction Covetousness, Slothfulness

Other sinful actions that might not be in the DSM-5 are on the list of "disorders" that will likely be added to the inevitable DSM-6 because they are constantly looking to add new so-called "illnesses" to diagnose more people. The more people they diagnose with a "mental disease," the more money they make and more authority they receive. Such sins include things like Compulsive Pornography Disorder, Compulsive Gossiping Disorder, and Movie Addiction Disorder, just to name a few, and psychologists are already writing articles about them.
(See Kristi Pikiewicz, "The Hidden Wisdom of Porn Addiction," Psychology Today, Sept 9, 2013, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2AQaefw]; See also Mark D. Griffiths, "Addicted to Gossip?" Psychology Today, Aug 3, 2016, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, https://bit.ly/2SWv97Z]; See also Arthur P. Shimamura, "Movies in Mind: Our Addiction to the Screen," Psychology Today, Oct 8, 2015, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2SYA0Fy])

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

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

Consumers gain a socially-acceptable justification for their sin, but on the other side of that coin is the business aspect, and for those businessmen, the purpose of the DSM is to find untapped market potential for pharmaceutical drug companies, create a need for it, and then exploit it for profit. In fact, during the creation of the DSM-5, news outlets reported that there was a very serious conflict of interest with the board members who were making the decisions for which "disorders" would be listed in the DSM:
"Controversy continues to swell around the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as DSM-5. A new study suggests the 900-page bible of mental health, scheduled for publication in May 2013, is ripe with financial conflicts of interest. [bold added for emphasis] The manual, published by the American Psychiatric Association, details the diagnostic criteria for each and every psychiatric disorder, many of which have pharmacological treatments. After the 1994 release of DSM-4, the APA instituted a policy requiring expert advisors to disclose drug industry ties. But the move toward transparency did little to cut down on conflicts, with nearly 70 percent of DSM-5 task force members reporting financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies — up from 57 percent for DSM-4."
-Katie Moisse, "DSM-5 Criticized for Financial Conflicts of Interest," ABC News, Mar 13, 2012, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://abcn.ws/2QPSrdR]

In short, over two-thirds of the council to develop the DSM-5 were funded by the pharmaceutical industry, with most of their additions to it having pharmaceutical treatments that were financially beneficial to the companies that provided their payroll, and in fact, the aforementioned psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, creator of DSM-3, and psychiatrist Allen Frances, editor for DSM-4, both went public in 2009 to warn people about the scam. After discussing the many problems with DSM-5, ranging from strict secrecy, to lack of review of the subject matter, to the absence of scientific investigation and quality control, Spitzer and Frances concluded:
"If these were to become official categories in DSM-V, they could add tens of millions of newly diagnosed 'patients' — the majority of whom would likely be false positives subjected to the needless side effects and expense of treatment. The APA might well be accused of a conflict of interest in fashioning DSM-V to create new patients for psychiatrists and new customers for the pharmaceutical companies."
-Robert Spitzer & Allen Frances, "Letter to APA Board of Trustees," July 6, 2009, retrieved Jan 15, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2SS0qbY]

Of course, Spitzer and Frances are hypocrites about all their accusations because DSM-3 and DSM-4 were not much different, but obviously, the concerns of previous DSM board members were ignored, and the hoodwinked public went mostly unaware of the deception. The average reader might think such a thing is worthy of headline news, but the fact that it is not headline news should be food for thought, meaning that, once you understand why it is not headline news, you will have a much clearer understanding of why psychology continues to grow in popularity. In the next two chapters, we will look at the financial ties and gross deceptions of the pharmaceutical industry in the area of psychotropic drugs, and you will see that the same people who manufacture drugs also own the media outlets reporting on those drugs.

In summary, pharmaceutical companies, which are the promoters of sorcery, have been the driving financial force behind psychology, which is the driving force behind mankind's justification for sin; or in other words, in our modern-day, so-called "scientific" society, we are still using sorcery to cover up the sins of mankind. When it concerns the hearts of mankind, the Bible is true: There is nothing new under the sun.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
-Ecclesiastes 1:4-9

Over the past 100 years, pharmaceutical companies have expanded their markets for psychotropic drugs to include people that, prior to that time, no one ever thought would have been able to be marketed for drug use. It was not just the "legally insane" that were being prescribed drugs, but the marketing campaigns quickly moved to the elderly, military soldiers, pregnant women, and children.



 

According to Scientific American, approximately one out of every six Americans take psychotropic drugs. At the end of 2018, the total population of the U.S. was 328,000,000, which means, as of 2019, almost 55 million Americans are taking antipsychotics. (Global numbers would obviously be much higher.)
(See Sara G. Miller, "1 in 6 Americans Takes a Psychiatric Drug," Scientific American, Dec 13, 2016, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [scientificamerican.com/article/1-in-6-americans-takes-a-psychiatric-drug]; See also World Population Review, "United States Population 2019," retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [worldpopulationreview.com/countries/united-states-population])

As we covered in chapter 2, drugs like cocaine and Thorazine were some of the first to be prescribed to the public as a "cure-all" medication, which had dangerous and deadly side effects for those who used them. As the decades progressed, the public lost interest in a miracle pill unless they had a more sound biological reason for taking medication, which was a difficult hurdle for pharmaceutical manufacturers.

Joseph Schildkraut indirectly (or accidentally) provided the answer pharmaceutical kingpins were looking for, namely, that people with "mental illness" had a "chemical imbalance" that needed the right medication to balance out the brain. It should be noted that, although Schildkraut did theorize that there may have been some chemical imbalances in the brain, he emphasized that it was unknown, and that there may be a lot of other causes for the so-called "mental disorders" he was trying to diagnose; however, that did not stop drug companies from taking advantage of the new magical phrase, "You've got a chemical imbalance."

There is no scientific standard for what a normal brain's chemical balance should be, which means you cannot tell if there is a "chemical imbalance" when you do not have any idea what a "chemically balanced" brain should look like, but for an ignorant public looking for a miracle pill, it sounds "scientific," so they just accept it, especially if it comes recommended by a "medical professional." For example, Healthline published an article that was approved by a medical doctor, in which they ended up diagnosing almost everyone in the world with a mental illness:
"What are the symptoms of a chemical imbalance in the brain? The idea that mental disorders are caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain was first proposed by scientists in the late 1950s. Research at the time had focused on the role that chemicals in the brain play in depression and anxiety. These researchers hypothesized [i.e. not concluded] that lower-than-normal levels of neurotransmitters can lead to symptoms such as:
-feelings of sadness, helplessness, worthlessness, or emptiness
-overeating or loss of appetite
-insomnia or sleeping too much
-restlessness
-irritability
-a feeling of impending doom or danger
-lack of energy
-distancing yourself from others
-feeling numbness or lacking empathy
-extreme mood swings
-inability to concentrate
-thoughts of hurting yourself or others
-being unable to carry out day-to-day activities
-hearing voices in your head
-alcohol or drug misuse"
-Jacqulyn Cafasso, medically reviewed by Dr. Seunggu Han, MD, "Chemical Imbalance in the Brain: What You Should Know," Healthline, June 25, 2018, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [healthline.com/health/chemical-imbalance-in-the-brain]

Have you ever felt sad or helpless in your life? You supposedly had a chemical imbalance, according to psychologists. Ever felt a lack of energy? That is allegedly a chemical imbalance in your brain. Ever wanted to be alone? Chemical imbalance. Have you ever felt emotionless at times? Chemical imbalance. Have you ever had your mood swing? Chemical imbalance. Had difficulty concentrating? Chemical imbalance. All of these are things that everyone has experienced at some point in their lives, and therefore, under the presupposition of "chemical imbalance," psychologists could diagnose every man, woman, and child on the planet with a mental illness, and not be required to provide any evidence whatsoever!

For example, Zoloft, which had commercials airing in the early 2000s, advertised this "chemical imbalance" as the primary cause of the problem. Many of you my age or older who live in America may remember these commercials:

COMMERCIAL #1: "Zoloft (sertraline HCL): Zoloft treats the chemical imbalance that can lead to depression." COMMERCIAL #2: "You know when you're not feeling like yourself. You're tired all the time. You may feel sad, hopeless, and lose interest in the things you once loved. You may feel anxious; cannot even sleep. Your daily activities and relationships suffer. You know when you just don't feel right. Now here's something you may not know: These are some symptoms of depression. (Symptoms persist every day for at least two weeks.) A serious medical condition affecting over 20 million Americans. While the cause is unknown, depression may be related to an imbalance of naturally occurring chemicals in nerve cells in the brain. Zoloft, a prescription medicine, works to correct this imbalance. When you know about what's wrong, you can help make it right. Only your doctor can diagnose depression. Zoloft is not for everyone. People taking medicines called "MAOY" should not take Zoloft. Side effects may include dry mouth, insomnia, sexual side effects, diarrhea, nausea, and sleepiness. Zoloft is not habit forming. Talk to your doctor about Zoloft, the number one prescribed brand of its kind." COMMERCIAL #3: "You know that feeling of suddenly being very nervous? Maybe you're scared of being criticized, or imagine that others are judging you. You're embarrassed and don't know why. Your heart thumps and races, so you stay back. You worry that you're the only one who ever feels this way. Actually, you could be one of 16 million with symptoms of social anxiety disorder. Zoloft, a prescription medicine, can help. It works to correct the chemical imbalance in the brain, which may be related to symptoms of social anxiety disorder. In time, you could overcome those nervous, anxious moments."

One of the first things I want to point out is that you should notice that they are careful to use phrases like, "You may feel," "may be related," and "you could be." These phrases are carefully written into the script before a voice actor reads them out because they help pharmaceutical companies avoid legal prosecution for damages when their products not only do not work according to their advertised purpose, but they also do a lot of damage and end up causing the very problems they claim to remedy.

Again, it is very likely that everyone on earth who has ever lived has had feelings of loss, sadness, hopelessness, loss of interest, anxiety, loss of sleep, and they sometimes "just don't feel right." That does not mean they have a "mental illness," nor does it mean there is a "chemical imbalance" in their brain.

In the commercial, notice that they said it was a "serious medical condition," but there is no evidence that there is a physical, medical problem of any sort. They even stated, "while the cause is unknown," which is symptom-based medicine and means they have no idea what is causing the so-called "depression," they still claim to be able to solve your problems, and everyone in America sits back and watches these commercials, accepting what they see on TV without thinking about how the whole matter is nonsensical.

However, our society is now operating on a foundation of their feelings, rather than facts, accepting how they feel as "truth," and so if a pill can make them "feel better," then they will gladly take it without considering the dangers; some of those dangers being listed out as dry mouth, insomnia, loss of sexual capability, diarrhea, nausea, and sleepiness. So you might puke and poop all over your spouse while failing to sexually satisfy them in bed, and you may not be able to explain yourself due to lack of saliva, but at least you will "feel good" about it.

Notice that, in the Zoloft commercial, they said on the one hand that your so-called "depression" is sometimes so bad that you "cannot even sleep," but the side effect of the drug is "insomnia," which means you will not be able to sleep if you take Zoloft. They list both "sleepiness" and "insomnia" as side effects, which means you may sleep too much or not sleep at all, and we are expected to believe that will cure our sleep problems?

When people watch these commercials with friendly-looking cartoon characters and fun music in the background, it seems to distract them from the fact that nothing in the commercial is reasonable. For example, they will say on the one hand that your "depression" or "social anxiety" is causing your "daily activities and relationships [to] suffer," but then people do not stop and consider that if you take Zoloft and then throw up, poop yourself, and pass out, that is also going to cause your "daily activities and relationships [to] suffer." In the end, the medications are often causing the very problems that they claim to solve.

Famous psychologist John Ratey said:
"It was Sigmund Freud who, nearly a hundred years ago, first told us that there is no such thing as normal... There is always, in the world of Freud, a dark side of the moon. Nothing is as it seems; no one is truly normal. Today, the advancing neuroscience of the twentieth century is proving Freud right: probably none of us is 'normal'."
-John J. Ratey & Catherine Johnson, Shadow Syndromes, Bantam, 1998, p. 3, ISBN: 9780553379594

Yet, there is nothing in psychology that is "proven" in the 20th or 21st century, there is absolutely no way to document or measure any such thing as a "chemical imbalance in the brain," and according to the evolution-based philosophy of psychology, there is certainly no way to classify someone as "normal" or "abnormal." In the Biblical worldview, everyone is normal, but only in Freud's twisted view of Evolutionism is everyone "abnormal," and drug companies are relying on "abnormal" philosophy to sell more drugs.

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated the following in their official report in September of 2003:
"One recent challenge contended that the lack of a diagnostic laboratory test capable of confirming the presence of a mental disorder constituted evidence that these disorders are not medically valid conditions."
-American Psychiatric Association, "APA Statement on Diagnosis and Treatment of Mental Disorders," Sept 26, 2003, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2M6aQCr]; Also documented by Seth Farber, The Spiritual Gift of Madness: The Failure of Psychiatry and the Rise of the Mad Pride Movement, Simon and Schuster, 2012, ISBN: 9781594777035

If you read the APA's document, they are obviously scoffing at this "recent challenge," but they NEVER provide a laboratory test to prove the "recent challenger" wrong, despite the fact that prominent psychologists like Ratey take the liberty to lie to the public and claim that it is "proven." They go on to say:
"As noted in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the APA, the lack of a laboratory-based diagnostic test is not unique to mental and behavioral disorders."
-American Psychiatric Association, "APA Statement on Diagnosis and Treatment of Mental Disorders," Sept 26, 2003, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2M6aQCr]; Also documented by Seth Farber, The Spiritual Gift of Madness: The Failure of Psychiatry and the Rise of the Mad Pride Movement, Simon and Schuster, 2012, ISBN: 9781594777035

In case you may not have understood the problem with their statement, let me translate it: "Other medical practitioners make assumptions without evidence, so it's okay for us to do the same." That is absurd. They know the average person will not read a statement put out by the APA, let alone stop to consider what they are actually saying, or in other words, the APA will say whatever they please, no matter how unreasonable, and they know they will get away with it. (Essentially, this is because psychology papers are so boring and nonsensical, most people do not care to read them.)

The APA concludes:
"The lack of a laboratory-based diagnostic test for mental disorders does not diminish the irrefutable evidence that mental and behavioral disorders exact devastating emotional and financial tolls on individuals, families, communities, and our Nation."
-American Psychiatric Association, "APA Statement on Diagnosis and Treatment of Mental Disorders," Sept 26, 2003, retrieved Jan 11, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2M6aQCr]; Also documented by Seth Farber, The Spiritual Gift of Madness: The Failure of Psychiatry and the Rise of the Mad Pride Movement, Simon and Schuster, 2012, ISBN: 9781594777035

What evidence? They just stated that the lack of evidence does not disprove their evidence, but they do not have any evidence to begin with; again, I will translate what they said in simple terms: "Just because we cannot provide evidence there is a problem, does not mean there is not a problem." Such a statement is not necessarily false, but let me give you an analogy to help understand how they are hoodwinking the public.

The infamous "boogie-man" is a concept that American children used to know about in which it was said that scary ghost-like man would haunt them. The boogie-man actually comes from the concept of the "booger-man," which is a Muslim superstition in which they suck water into their nose and blow it out in the pagan belief that the devil lives in the nose. (This is part of a ritual known as "Wudhu.") If I had a prestigious medical degree and said to you that nearly everyone in America was affected by the boogie-man, and that snorting cocaine was the solution to getting rid of the boogie-man, would you snort cocaine to solve your boogie-man problem?
(Read "Islam: Religion of Terror" here at creationliberty.com for more details; For more details on Wudhu, see BBC, "Wudhu," retrieved June 26, 2019, [bbc.co.uk/religion/galleries/wudhu])

Of course, some of you may ask: What is your evidence that the boogie-man is living in my nose? Suppose I respond: "Just look how crazy people act; obviously, that is the boogie-man," would you consider that as sufficient evidence to not only believe in the boogie-man, but also start snorting cocaine?

Sure, people do stupid and crazy things all the time, but does that automatically mean they have a devil living in their nose, despite there being no clinical evidence to back it up? And likewise, just because people do stupid and crazy things, does that automatically mean they have a mysterious, unidentifiable mental disorder with no clinical evidence to back it up? The public has been convinced that the boogie-man lives in their minds, and without being given any evidence of the boogie-man, they believe they must have psychological screening and psychotropic drugs to get rid of him.

There is no lab test to see what your neuro-transmitter levels are, how much you are lacking, nor what the correct balance should look like. The only thing I have ever seen that causes people to have a "chemical imbalance in the brain" is to take psychotropic drugs—once you start taking the drugs, it begins to shut down the neurological and motor functions in the body, or in other words, the psychological "solution" is the cause of the problem because once you start taking psychotropic drugs, not only will you create a chemical imbalance in your brain, you may actually start hallucinating the boogie-man. (We will see examples of this in later chapters.)

If you have ever seen psychiatrists talk about problems with "dopamine metabolism" or "serotonin disorders" (e.g. dopamine is a neurotransmitter for the brain, and metabolism is the body's chemical processes, so in short, "dopamine metabolism" refers to the process by which your brain functions), it may sound very confusing to the average person, and very prestigious because of the fancy words, but all you need to know is that it is all founded on the baseless theory of "chemical imbalance." However, a handful of psychiatric papers, that looked medically professional on the outside, was all it took to get the ball rolling into the drug craze we see in America today.
(See J. Korf & H.M. van Praag, "Retarded Depression and the Dopamine Metabolism," National Center for Biotechnology, PMID: 5565740, 1971, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5565740]; See also W.F. Byerley & S.C. Risch, "Depression and Serotonin Metabolism: Rationale for Neurotransmitter Precursor Treatment," National Center for Biotechnology, PMID: 2410463, 1985, retrieved Jan 8, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2410463])

In 1999, a vigorous American ad campaign was produced for something called "Social Anxiety Disorder." (SAD) Many different ads came out that would show someone crouching down in despair, or looking nervous, and they would say things like, "I want to talk to people, but the words just won't come out," or "I know it's normal to be nervous before a meeting, but they don't understand. I'd rather die," or "I want to join the conversation, but making eye contact is so hard for me," which are all attempts to get people to take normal, everyday feelings that most people feel on a regular basis, and turn them into a so-called "medical condition."


Posters also began to have the phrase "Imagine Being Allergic to People" on them, and told readers to contact the "Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition" (SADC) for more details. However, it turns out this was a front group, which is an organization that claims on the outside to represent the agenda of needy (whatever battle they claim to be fighting, in this case Social Anxiety Disorder), while in reality, the organization secretly serves the agenda of another financially interested party; in this case, the SADC was a front group produced by Cohn & Wolfe on behalf of pharmaceutical manufacturer SmithKline.
(See CCHR International, "Anxiety Disorders Association of America (ADAA)," retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [cchrint.org/issues/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups/adaa])

The purpose of SADC and the SAD marketing campaign was to increase the sales of a drug called "Paxil," and there was also a frenzy of advertisements created for it. Paxil even had a registered trademark that read, "Your life is waiting!" However, the harsh reality is that Social Anxiety Disorder does not exist, and the so-called "cure" pill only made matters much worse, to the point that recovering Paxil users were happy to go back to being "shy." I read one man's testimony in which he had spent six weeks on Paxil, and it almost destroyed his life. Just the migraines he suffered made it almost impossible to function normally, and the tremors he would also suffer made it very difficult to do ordinary things like pour milk into a bowl, which are things that would cause a person to be more shy around other people.

(See Seth Stevenson, "Extroverted Like Me: How a Month and a Half on Paxil Taught Me to Love Being Shy," Slate, Jan 2, 2001, retrieved Jan 16, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2HiJbPG])

The man testified that Paxil created sexual performance problems, inability to concentrate, extreme desire for alcohol, lack of desire to work, and many more various symptoms. After a month of taking Paxil, he attempted to go to a book party, in which he was sweating and nervous more than he had been before taking Paxil, which made it not only useless for its intended use, but amplified the problem, and furthermore, it became a serious health hazard.

This is only one of countless testimonies from people who took Paxil. The fact is that Paxil was never the solution to a problem; rather, Paxil's sales were low, and pharmaceutical companies needed to increase sales, so a "mental disease" was invented (in this case, SAD) in order to market Paxil, which is why Paxil's product director, Barry Brand, said:
"Every marketer's dream is to find an unidentified or unknown market and develop it. That's what we were able to do with social anxiety disorder."
-Barry Brand, quoted by Shankar Vedantam, "Drug Ads Hyping Anxiety Make Some Uneasy," Washington Post, July 16, 2001, retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [https://wapo.st/2ASXhBP]

I am going to emphasize this because if that quote did not give you cold chills or make you angry, then you may not have understood it. Social Anxiety Disorder does NOT exist. Paxil was NOT created for Social Anxiety Disorder, but rather, Social Anxiety Disorder was invented to treat Paxil's declining sales numbers!

Pfizer, another drug manufacturer, caught on to this scam, and they decided to do the same thing with the aforementioned Zoloft. They ran the same campaign by creating a non-existent "mental disorder," which in this case was Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), started a front group so that they would create a market for it, and then paid psychologists/psychiatrists to put their stamp of approval on the so-called "disorder" and the so-called "cure." (i.e. Zoloft) This same marketing technique has been repeated many times by pharmaceutical giants since the turn of the century, and they continue doing it today to a blissfully hoodwinked public.

As we discussed in Chapter 2, there is no such thing as "mental illness," but convincing the public that they have mental illnesses is the driving force behind pharmaceutical companies. The goal is to make as much profit as they can, and in order to do that, they have to get as many people as they can onto prescription medications, and in order to do that, they have to convince perfectly healthy people that they are sick.

Psychology's profit comes from convincing healthy people that they are "mentally ill."

Medical journalist Lynn Payer gave a name to this process; she called it "disease mongering." In her book, she defined it as follows:
"Disease mongering — trying to convince essentially well people that they are sick, or slightly sick people that they are very ill,"
-Lynn Payer, Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers Are Making You Feel Sick, Wiley, 1992, p. 5, ISBN: 9780471543855

monger (v): to sell, to hawk [i.e. to peddle or offer for sale]
disease (n): a disordered or incorrectly functioning organ, part, structure, or system of the body
(See 'monger' & 'disease', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In my opinion, one of the worst attacks against the public was the pharmaceutical industry's disease mongering of children, and Bipolar Disorder was the flagship for the assault. According to psychiatric sources, Bipolar was only affecting as little as 0.4% of the population in the 1970s (even though that number is actually zero because Bipolar does not exist), but 20-30 years later, Bipolar was claimed to affect as much as 7% of the population, which is almost 20 times the previous rate. (Today, rates of Bipolar are claimed to be as much as 10% of the population [i.e. 1 in 10 Americans], and the number keeps climbing every year.)
(See Sean H. Yutzy & Chad R. Woofter, "The Increasing Frequency of Mania and Bipolar Disorder: Causes and Potential Negative Impacts," U.S. National Library of Medicine, May, 2012, PMID: 22551790, retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3632412])

For example, a two-year-old child is not "Bipolar" because they have a mood swing; when a two-year-old child goes from calm, to tantrum, to calm again, it means that is how two-year-olds tend to react because they have not matured enough yet to control their emotions. It does NOT mean they have a "mental disorder," but the goal was to turn normal child behavior into a "disease." Today, we have something called "Pediatric Bipolar Disorder," which is claimed to be Bipolar in children, and that came about after a psychiatrist named Joseph Biederman began to publish alleged studies that mood swings in children is indicative of Bipolar Disorder.
(See J. Biederman & E. Mick, "A prospective follow-up study of pediatric bipolar disorder in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder," U.S. National Library of Medicine, October, 2004, PMID: 15571786, retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15571786])

Because of the efforts of Biederman, today, over a million U.S. children are claimed to be Bipolar, and that number is slowly climbing. Prior to this time, most psychiatrists would never diagnose a child as Bipolar, and they would certainly not give them drugs, but the secret purpose of getting psychiatrists to diagnose children was to get parents to fork out money to start their children on drugs from an early age.
(See Mental Health America, "Bipolar Disorder In Children," retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [https://bit.ly/1imn3Og])

Though many parents were told that their children had a "mental disorder," what they were not told is that Joseph Biederman earned $1.6 million in fees from 15 different pharmaceutical companies from 2000-2007. It should be emphasized that these 15 different companies are all competitors in the pharmaceutical industry, and they all joined forces to pay this guy for what he was about to do. Biederman wrote his Pediatric Bipolar study in 2004, and during this time, he did NOT report his income to Harvard University officials who read his study (for obvious reasons).

After Biederman was exposed in 2008, email evidence was released which proved that he told Johnson & Johnson (J&J - a company that sells a lot of products for children, and claims to care about children) that he would push their pharmaceutical agenda to increase their sales:
"When a Congressional investigation revealed in June that Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child psychiatrist, had earned far more money from drug makers than he had reported to his university, he said that his interests were 'solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study.' But e-mail messages and internal documents from Johnson & Johnson made public in a court filing reveal that Dr. Biederman pushed the company to finance a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, with a goal to 'move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.' The documents also show that the company prepared a draft summary of a study that Dr. Biederman, of Harvard, was said to have written. Dr. Biederman's work helped to fuel a fortyfold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder and a rapid rise in the use of powerful, risky and expensive antipsychotic medicines in children... Johnson & Johnson makes a popular antipsychotic medicine called Risperdal, or risperidone. More than a quarter of its use is in children and adolescents... Thousands of parents have sued AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson, claiming that their children were injured after taking the medicines; they also claim that the companies minimized the risks of the drugs."
-Gardiner Harris, "Research Center Tied to Drug Company," New York Times, Nov 24, 2008, retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25psych.html]

I want readers to take note that when the news article says that "the company prepared a draft summary of a study that Dr. Biederman was said to have written," it means that Johnson & Johnson first told Biederman what they wanted the report to say. That is what a "draft summary" is; J&J said, "Here's what we want you to tell the government and the media." Biederman then took J&J's draft, slightly changed the wording, and published it under his own name, so it appeared on the outside to be an independent case study, but in fact, it was all a ruse to push the marketing of drugs onto children and teens, and it worked because Pediatric Bipolar Disorder diagnoses increased 40 times what they were before, and up to 25% (1 out of 4) of the drugs produced were being swallowed by boys and girls as young as toddlers.

Thousands of parents filed lawsuits against companies like Eli Lilly and J&J after the scam because their children were seriously harmed or killed from the effects of the drugs. Of course, parents should not have been so foolish to risk their child's safety by putting their trust into such wicked men, but since many of the parents take psychotropic drugs themselves, they did not think there would be any harm in giving them to children as well. In the end, because a man wears a lab coat and stethoscope, they trust in him without question, and their children paid the price.

As a side note, despite the fact that Harvard doctors did investigation, a substantial number of Harvard University's medical staff has financial ties to drug companies, so even if Biederman has fully reported his income, there is still a "fox guarding the hen house" problem. According to the New York Times, as of 2009, almost 1 out of 5 medical staff working at Harvard University are being paid by drug companies, and knowing this, it should be no wonder why so many doctors seem to know more about pharmaceutical drugs than they know about staying healthy.
(See Duff Wilson, "Senator Asks Pfizer About Harvard Payments," New York Times, Mar 3, 2009, retrieved Jan 18, 2019, [nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04pfizer.html])

In another example, many women have been convinced that they have "Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder" (PMDD), which is an excuse for women to act selfish and hateful during their menstrual cycles. This allows women to do and say pretty much whatever sinful thing they please, and after the smoke clears, she can say, "It's not my fault, I have PMDD." In fact, a number of psychologists are still arguing that PMDD should not be a legal diagnosis because the so-called "disorder" does not exist.
(See T.K. Browne, "Is premenstrual dysphoric disorder really a disorder?" U.S. National Library of Medicine, June, 2015, PMID: 25164305, retrieved Jan 22, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25164305])

Despite the fact that Pediatric Biploar Disorder does not exist, and despite the fact that the so-called "mental disorder" was proven in court to be a lie that was created by Biederman along with Eli Lily and J&J, the door had been opened, and it suddenly became very difficult to close now that the money was rolling in. Eli Lilly obviously wanted to continue to use this highly-effective marketing scheme to increase their sales of Prozac, and so they started a front group to promote PMDD, changed the color of the Prozac pill to purple/pink, gave it a new, feminine-sounding name "Sarafem" to hoodwink foolish women into buying their product, and it has made Eli Lilly an enormous amount of money: "The story begins with a 1998 meeting in Washington, D.C., which was funded by the global pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company, whose lucrative patent on the antidepressant Prozac was about to expire. The company wanted to find a new market for the drug. At the meeting were six officials from the FDA, four executives from Eli Lilly and 16 researchers, report Fauber, Fiore and Wynn. Here's their summary of what happened at that gathering:
'There was strong disagreement over [PMDD], which the American Psychiatric Association had determined needed more study before it could be included in its manual defining mental disorders and symptoms. That didn't stop the meeting participants. On their own, they determined PMDD was a distinct clinical disorder and declared that a class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [i.e. for the aforementioned "chemical imbalance" in the brain] — a group including Prozac — were effective at treating it. Eight months later, the researchers wrote a paper summing up their findings and describing the process that led to them. It was published in a medical journal [the Journal of Women's Health] affiliated with an organization that had gotten money from Lilly in the past. Lilly rebranded Prozac, changing the pill's colors from green and yellow to pink and purple, and giving it a more feminine-sounding name — Sarafem. Sarafem won FDA approval [in 2000]. So did three drugs from other companies: the antidepressants Zoloft (2002) and Paxil (2003), and the birth control pill Yaz (2006). It wouldn't be until 2013 that the American Psychiatric Association formally recognized PMDD as a distinct psychiatric condition — a determination that was based on the recommendation of a panel on which nearly 70% of the members had drug company ties.'"
-Susan Perry, "How 'premenstrual dysphoric disorder' was defined and marketed by drug makers," MinnPost, Nov 17, 2016, retrieved Jan 22, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2RLBBlt]

Do not misunderstand, PMDD was not created in a laboratory with scientific studies. There is no tangible evidence to back up PMDD. PMDD was created by consultants in the marketing department of Eli Lilly.

Ultimately, Eli Lilly had patent-control over a particular drug, and once their patent expired, they would lose all that market dominance. So to keep control of their profits, they simply repackaged the drug, and sold it under a new pretense, to treat a newly created fake "disorder," and the FDA has approved it.

Many so-called "mental disorders" are simply imaginary, made-up marketing schemes to help sell more drugs. For example, formerly renowned psychiatrist Jack Gorman (who was caught having inappropriate sexual interactions with some of his patients and attempted suicide) helped promote "Compulsive Buying Disorder" to increase the sales of the drug Celexa.
(See Scott Allen, "Ex-McLean chief admits sex with patient, Guilt said to lead him to resignation, crisis," Boston Globe, Oct 10, 2007, retrieved Jan 22, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2AYjSNv])

Gorman had cited a study which claimed that up to 20 million Americans may have Compulsive Buying Disorder, 90% of which were women. Gorman did not tell the public that the study was funded by Forest Laboratories, makers of Celexa, and that Gorman himself was a paid consultant of at least 13 different pharmaceutical manufacturers, "including SmithKline, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer."
(See Brendan I. Koerner, "First, you market the disease... then you push the pills to treat it," The Guardian, July 30, 2002, retrieved Jan 22, 2019, [theguardian.com/news/2002/jul/30/medicineandhealth])

The genius behind the marketing schemes for PMDD and Compulsive Buying Disorder is to target the women to have disorders that will encourage the husband to purchase drugs to treat. After all, if a woman is causing rage and anxiety in a household during her menstrual cycles, and/or causing him debt and bankruptcy through her covetous buying habits, he would rather spend money on the drug to "help his wife" than suffer the consequences of her actions. These companies cannot target men in the same way because men are supposed to be tough, and for a man to have a "disorder" would only be seen as a sign of weakness, so it is much easier to target women because, not only are they more easily discontented, but typically a man will want to spend more money on his wife's health than his own.
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details on the illusion of a wage gap, and why men earn more.)

The average reader may not understand the full impact of how much profit the pharmaceutical industry is making from these marketing schemes, but know that it is in the trillions of dollars. As of 2019, in the U.S. alone, drug companies spent over $30 billion just on drug advertising, and that is only a portion of their expenses; please understand that their profits FAR exceed those numbers, or they would never spend that much money on it.
(See Lindsey Tanner, "US medical marketing reaches $30 billion, drug ads top surge," The Tribune, Jan 8, 2019, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [tribtown.com/2019/01/08/us-med-medical-marketing-2])

In 2003, Reuters Business Insight published a report for pharmaceutical executives, which said:
"The medicalization of many natural processes is creating markets for lifestyle drugs for those who want to 'optimize quality of life'... pharmaceutical companies are searching for new disorders, based on extensive analysis of unexploited market opportunities... The coming years will bear greater witness to the corporate-sponsored creation of disease."
-J. Coe, "The Lifestyle Drugs Outlook to 2008, Unlocking New Value in Well-being," Reuters Business Insight, 2003; See also Ray Moynihan & Alan Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World's Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients, Bold Type Books, 2006, p. 179, ISBN: 9781560258568

When the reporter speaks of "natural processes," it means those things which are normal to almost every person in our daily lives, but they are "medicalizing" those processes for the purpose of selling "lifestyle drugs." By 'lifestyle', it is meant that someone wants to feel a certain way during the course of their day, and because they do not feel the way they want to, they are taught to take a drug; if you cannot concentrate while studying, take a drug, if you do not get along with your spouse, take a drug, if you are feeling nervous, take a drug, etc. Drug companies are not just looking for new "mental diseases," they are actually creating them, and not for the purpose of curing anyone, but to turn a profit from drugs prescribed for illusionary illnesses for the alleged purpose of "improving your lifestyle."

The former President of the UK Royal College of General Practitioners wrote:
"The challenge of combating the current epidemic of disease mongering is daunting, and anyone looking for ready [quick] solutions should read no further. Those seeking a way forward find themselves ranged against powerful economic, political, and professional interests. There is an apparently limitless amount of money to be made from marketing pharmaceutical remedies for diseases and even more from remedies to reduce risk factors for disease. An emphasis on the treatment of disease minimises political responsibility for those fundamental causes of disease that are located within the structure of society, and substantial and lucrative professional careers have been built on the endless pursuit of new diseases or risk factors for disease."
-Iona Heath, "Combating Disease Mongering: Daunting but Nonetheless Essential," U.S. National Library of Medicine, April, 2006, PMID: 16597174, retrieved Jan 22, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1434491]

In case you may not have understood what was just said, this author is explaining that disease mongering is a massive problem that has no quick solutions, and that those who fight against disease mongering will soon find themselves up against some of the most powerful institutions on the planet. By convincing the people of a false disease, they can also convince them of a false cure. The author then goes on to say that when they focus on the cure (i.e. the drug), rather than focusing on the disease, then they can more easily ignore the cause of the problem, and no one seems to suspect a scam until they, or their loved ones, suffer extreme consequences; all the while, the very men who recommended the poisonous "cure" will increase the size of their bank accounts and receive promotions.

In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is supposed to be our line of defense against such scams, but the FDA is much less reliable in the area of pharmaceuticals than many people may realize. A number people I have talked to seem to have unwavering faith in the FDA, and it is just as big of a problem as the people having unwavering faith in the drug manufacturers.

For example, the following quote is from a 1998 FDA approval letter to drug manufacturer MGI Pharma for their product, Salagen. Salagen is well known to have many side effects, including (but not limited to), allergic reactions, high/low blood pressure, fainting, changes in eyesight, respiratory (breathing) problems, swelling, heart palpitations (irregular heartbeats), loss of energy, extreme headaches, sweating, diarrhea, and much more, but the drug was labeled "safe and effective" by the FDA:
"We have completed the review of this supplemental application, including the submitted draft labeling, and have concluded that adequate information has been presented to demonstrate that the drug product is safe and effective for use as recommended in the enclosed approved labeling text."
-U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Approval Letter," Department of Health & Human Services, Feb 11, 1998, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/98/20237s007_Salagen_appltr.pdf]

Is it not strange that something that can be dangerous, and even life threatening, would be approved for use by the FDA? All the drugs we have seen so far in this chapter have been required to go through this same FDA screening process, and were also approved as "safe and effective," which means there is a serious problem here.

The problem is how carelessly the FDA handles the pharmaceutical screening when it comes to clinical trials. Drug manufacturers are required to do clinical testing before a drug can be considered FDA-approved, but so-called "clinical testing" done by these companies is, in many cases, almost non-existent.
(See G.A. Diamond & J.S. Forrester, "Clinical trials and statistical verdicts: probable grounds for appeal," U.S. National Library of Medicine, March, 1983, PMID: 6830080, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6830080])

The first thing we need to acknowledge is that the clinical trials being conducted are done by the pharmaceutical manufacturers themselves. These trails are NOT being done by the FDA, nor any third party laboratory, which (again) is a "fox guarding the hen house" situation in which the one who stands to make the greatest amount of money from the drug is the one who is doing the testing to verify its "safety" for public consumption.

This is primarily what is referred to as a "conflict of interest," and most readers have probably heard that term used. For example, when a pastor gets up in front of his church building and tells everyone that they are "robbing God" if they do not give tithe money, but his paycheck is coming from that tithe money, that is a conflict of interest, and likewise, when the drug manufacturers are put in charge of making sure their product is "safe and effective," when they stand to gain money from it, that is a conflict of interest.
(Read "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Here is how the process works today: A pharmaceutical company will typically start out by creating a drug. Once the drug they want to sell is established, next, they will look through the DSM for a "mental disorder" they can attach to that drug, and once they find a "mental disease" they want to market, they will start clinical testing to somehow associate a "curative" link between their drug and the mental disorder.

The testing is done first on animals, which is absurd beyond belief. If a drug is being tested for relief from "Internet Addiction Disorder," how can that be tested on an animal? Remember, the "mental disorder" has to do with a spiritual matter, not a physical ailment, and so testing to see if a drug decreases a cat's desire to play with an iPhone is not a relevant test. I understand that they are testing lab mice to see if there are any poisonous effects that would harm people, but they are all harmful anyway, which still makes it absurd.

If the abused animals survive the drug trials, the pharmaceutical company begins testing on people, which is done in four phases; in this first phase of the experiment, trials are done on healthy people, or rather, those who are not considered to have the "mental disorder" for which the drug is being tested, and the reason is to make sure the drug does not have any extreme toxic side effects. This is an important factor because, in many cases, clinic staff will pay men and women, typically college students, to test their new drug, and these college students are usually young men and women with low body fat; the reason this is important is because the drug they are testing may be primarily used on the elderly, who have a higher percentage of body fat and a much lower metabolism, which can have a drastic differentiation of effects, but that does not matter to the drug companies, so long as they can make the numbers of the initial trial appear favorable.
(See U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "Step 3: Clinical Research," retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/ucm405622.htm])

In the next phase of the trials, the drug companies gather up more healthy young men and women to test the limitations of how much can be taken before toxic side effects occur. The problem with this phase is that it is only tested on those young men and women who have already given the drug company a positive result; in other words, the drug manufacturers are not testing a wide variety of people, but rather, they are only testing those that will give their drug a favorable review, and throwing out the rest.

In addition, the young men and women with healthier bodies may be able to handle much more of the drug than an elderly man or woman. That risk is not taken into consideration during the study, and the FDA does NOT have regulations in place that require those factors to be tested.

Once they figure out the "risk" factor of the dosage, the pharmaceutical company moves on to test their drug against a placebo (i.e. a sugar pill) to see if the drug has any effect on the condition being tested. For example, if a company is creating a medication for high blood pressure and someone takes it, the positive results could be scientifically observed by recording a person's lowered blood pressure; however, psychiatric drug testing cannot do the same thing.

Remember that we have already covered the fact that mental illness does not exist, and that the entire process is subjective (i.e. based on opinion and bias), so when doing medical trials on a drug, psychiatrists have no way of measuring improvement in a patient's mental condition by any scientific means. (Remember, psychiatry is about the "treatment of the spirit," and there is no scientific testing that can be done on a person's soul.) Thus, the results of any drug trial can be skewed to make it appear that there is a benefit to the drug, when in fact, the conclusions of the trial are based purely on the personal opinion of the psychiatrists (i.e. sorcerers/witchdoctors), who are being paid by drug companies to perform the trial, which is another conflict of interest.

As pointed out by psychiatrist David Healy, it is commonplace for drug companies to use what is called a "placebo washout" in order to manipulate the results of a study. During a placebo washout, the company will throw out people who say they felt better after taking a placebo, which means that instead of listing that fact in the study, they hide them and throw them out of the study, and in addition, they also use this opportunity to throw out anyone who is having a bad reaction to the drug. In short, if someone is taking a placebo and feels better, but takes the drug and feels terrible, the company throws them out so the drug statistics will look better.
(See David Healy, "The tricks that drug companies do live after them, their patients are oft interred with their trials," Feb 7, 2012, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2B1PW2K])

To give a more simple analogy, let's say I ran a study to see how many people like turkey sandwiches, and during the study, I threw in some chicken sandwiches to test against the turkey sandwiches, but I did not tell the test subjects about it. Some of the test subjects said they really liked the chicken sandwiches they were given (believing that it was turkey), but I threw those results out of the study because they were not really turkey sandwiches; that is called 'skewing' the results of the experiment because it is an important factor to know that someone cannot tell the difference between turkey and chicken, and that (ironically) it could be all in their head.

Furthermore, test subjects are switched between control groups to make the data lean in favor of the drug. Healy goes on to point out that during a 2003 trial for Prozac, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) found a number of suicides among those who were taking Prozac, and so to skew the results in their favor, they took POST-trial period subjects (i.e. after the experiments were over) who had taken Prozac during trial, but killed themselves after the trial was over, and filed them under the "placebo" category:
"After his trial was over one of the patients had been put on clotiapine, oxazepam, and fluoxetine. He went on to commit suicide, and this Prozac-treated patient was coded as a placebo suicide. A second killed himself on day 33 after the trial was over. The post-trial period at the end of these GSK trials was a 30-day period. This patient shouldn't have been included. The third patient might have committed suicide 19 days after completing the study, but all that is filed is a brief mention that the patient's brother called to report the death with no confirmation of cause of death. We don't know if this patient was also put on an SSRI [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - as stated earlier, they are drugs that affect neurotransmitters in the brain] and then committed suicide."
-David Healy, "The tricks that drug companies do live after them, their patients are oft interred with their trials," Feb 7, 2012, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2B1PW2K]

Under the turkey sandwich analogy, let's suppose I investigated subjects after the trials were over and found that some of them had eaten raw turkey and gotten food poisoning. If I took those food poisoned subjects and added them to the list of those who did not like turkey sandwiches, that is another example of skewing the results.

Let's say there is a drug experiment that shows five suicides in subjects who took the drug during the trial period, but those who were put on placebo had no suicides; then, five subjects killed themselves within a few months after the trial period was over. If you take those post-trial subjects and put them into the live-trial suicides on the side of placebo, then it makes it look as if there is no reason to suspect people are committing suicide because of the drug.

In other instances, there are some subjects who were put on the drug BEFORE the trial period started, and they had experienced withdrawal symptoms. These subjects are put back on the drug during the trial period, and say they "felt better" because they were being given the drug their bodies were already craving because of the addiction. (Also note that if that subject is put in the placebo category, they will "feel worse" because they are experiencing withdrawal.)

CBS News reported on Bruce Diamond, who is in prison on 53 criminal counts after he was found guilty of prescription fraud and skewing clinical trials. The report stated that psychiatrists and schools can be offered up to $20,000 by companies per patient for the clinical trials of their drug, which is just inviting corruption into the entire process. The CBS reporter interviewed one of Diamond's research coordinators who, when she brought up concerns about the patients' health, was told:
"We don't care how these patients are doing. We want to know how many patients you recruited in the past week."
-CBS News, "Drug Money: Medical Trials Run Without Real Doctors," July 31, 2000, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [cbsnews.com/news/drug-money-31-07-2000]

Diamond's partner, psychiatrist Richard Borison, had skewed clinical trials by taking patients off of the drug to create a psychotic-like symptom, and then put them back on it to create an effect of so-called "relief." Both Diamond (sentenced to 5 years in prison) and Borison (sentenced to 15 years in prison with 15 years of probation afterwards) were hired by various pharmaceutical companies (e.g. J&J, GSK, Eli Lilly, etc) to "test" a variety of different drugs (e.g. Risperdal, Paxil, Seroquel, etc), but what I think readers should take into careful consideration is the fact none of these drugs were recalled and taken off the market for further testing after the deception was exposed.

It gets worse when we consider the fact that Diamond and Borison's studies are still sometimes cited in support of professional papers written on mental health, even after they were convicted and sentenced to prison.
(See K.J. Vijay Sagar and C.R. Chandrashekar, "A double-blind randomized trial between risperidone and haloperidol in drug-naive patients with paranoid schizophrenia," U.S. National Library of Medicine, Jan-Mar, 2005, PMID: 2918314, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2918314]; See also Peter E. Nathan & Jack M. Gorman, A Guide to Treatments That Work, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 201, ISBN: 9780199342211)

Another way to skew data is by claiming that a "majority" of studies showed positive effects for the drug, which, under normal scientific circumstances, would be a viable argument, but you will not see the problem unless you look closer. For example, let's say there were three different studies done, one study had 10 people, one study had 20 people, and one study had 5,000 people; the study that had 5,000 people showed negative effects for the drug, but the 10 and 20 person studies showed a positive result, they will then conclude that "Two out of three studies showed the drug was effective," when in fact, of all those who participated in the study, 98% showed an overall negative effect.

As I did research on this subject, I found that, in many cases, other drugs were introduced into the clinical trials. In short, a patient would take the drug being tested, would suffer side effects, and then the psychiatrists on staff would prescribe them other drugs to help counter the side effects, which further manipulates the results of the study. (i.e. Introducing other drugs into the study would normally disqualify the study, but again, this information is covered up and skewed.)

In addition, some subjects drop out of these tests because the side effects of the drugs are making them sick. These subjects will be removed from the results of the study since they did not fully complete the trial, which means the public will never get to see the full results of the experiment.

For example, the drug olanzapine (brand named Zyprexa) is used to treat the non-existent "mental disorders" of Bipolar and Schizophrenia, and during testing for the drug at Yale University, it had serious side effects for most of the subjects treated. In fact, two-thirds of the test subjects dropped out before the end of trials because they had such adverse reactions to the drug, they could no longer tolerate it; however, their involvement was NOT included in the final report.
(See Richard P. Bentall, Doctoring the Mind: Is Our Current Treatment of Mental Illness Really Any Good? NYU Press, 2009, p. 230, ISBN: 9780814791486)

Zyprexa, after being approved by the FDA, was found to cause severe weight gain and blood sugar problems, turning many users into full-blown diabetics. This danger was known to the makers of Zyprexa during clinical trials, but they hid that information from the public.
(See Alex Berenson, "Lilly Waited Too Long to Warn About Schizophrenia Drug, Doctor Testifies," New York Times, Mar 8, 2008, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [nytimes.com/2008/03/08/health/policy/08drug.html])

Physician Peter Breggin, who testified in court trials against the makers of Prozac, found that out of 10,000 subjects who participated in the Prozac clinical trials, only 286 (less than 3%) were claimed to have gone through the entire experiment; everyone else dropped out due to adverse side effects. However, Breggin says that even the 286 number is deceiving:
"I found estimates by drug advocates that Prozac had been tested on 10,000 people before it was approved. I then went to a great deal of trouble to count the total number of patients who finished the controlled clinical trials for the FDA approval of Prozac. The total turned out to be 286 patients—a far cry from the thousands that most people imagine. In deposing me and in cross examining me in court, Eli Lilly and Co. has never challenged this figure. Even the total of 286 is deceiving. Many of the clinical trials are very small with only one or two dozen patients finishing them. As a result, the individual doctor is looking at a very small pool of patients. With such a limited number of patients to look at, the doctor can easily fail to see an emerging pattern of adverse effects and can easily dismiss a possible harmful effect as unrelated to the drug."
-Peter Breggin, The Antidepressant Fact Book: What Your Doctor Won't Tell You About Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa, And Luvox, Hachette Books, 2001, p. 148, ISBN: 9780738204512

In some cases, psychiatrists flat-out lie, like in the case of Faruk Abuzzahab, former President of the Minnesota Psychiatrists Society (MPS) and former Chairman of the MPS Ethics Committee (i.e. for moral actions in psychiatry), who received a patient, Susan Endersbe, for his clinical drug study in Minneapolis. After a few weeks in the study, taking the drug being tested, Endersbe was reported by nurses to be getting worse, but Abuzzahab reported that she had no adverse effects.

One night, nurses reported that Endersbe was talking about committing suicide, and the next day, despite the suicidal thoughts, Abuzzahab wrote that Endersbe was "medically improving," and even approved her to walk by herself to her home five blocks away to check her mail. (It should be noted that leaving the hospital was in violation of the rules for the study.) Endersbe shut her apartment door, slid the keys underneath the door into her apartment, walked out to the Franklin Avenue Bridge, and jumped to her death. (As a side note, as of 2015, Abuzzahab has been confirmed responsible for the injury and death of 46 of his patients, but has never had his license to practice psychiatry removed.)
(See New York Times, "A Battle With Depression and Suicidal Tendencies," June 3, 2007, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [nytimes.com/2007/06/03/health/03docside.html])

In fact, physician John Ioannidis, professor of Medicine at Stanford University, published his research claiming that most research findings in the medical community are false. He states that the reason many research findings are published as "true" are typically because of some outside influence of bias, like money or fame, and that influence can far too easily skew the results of the research. (Based on the medical research I have done on numerous topics, I agree with Ioannidis, namely, that medical studies are often skewed and fraudulent; not all of them, but most.)
(See John P. A. Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," PLOS Medicine, Aug 30, 2005, retrieved Jan 23, 2019, [journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124])

Furthermore, readers should understand that in order to pass FDA inspection, a drug is only required to have two medical studies done. It does not matter how long it takes, or in what order they are completed. Drug manufacturers could perform over 1,000 different studies over the course of many years, and as long as they get at least two that show their drug in a positive light, they can submit them to be FDA-approved for market.

FDA committee physicians were gathered to review Pfizer's application for Zoloft in 1990, and one of the physicians, Paul Leber, commented:
"How do we interpret... two positive results in the context of several more studies that fail to demonstrate that effect? I am not sure I have an answer to that, but I am not sure that the law requires me to have an answer for that—fortunately or unfortunately. That would mean, in a sense, that the sponsor [pharmaceutical company] could just do studies until the cows come home until he gets two of them that are statistically significant by chance alone, walks them out and says he had met the criteria."
-Paul Leber, quoted by Melody Petersen, Our Daily Meds: How the Pharmaceutical Companies Transformed Themselves Into Slick Marketing Machines and Hooked the Nation on Prescription Drugs, Macmillan, 2008, p. 49, ISBN: 9780374228279

In 2008, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that demonstrated this cherry-picking of clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies. According to the 74 FDA-registered clinical trials they analyzed, the published studies by pharmaceutical companies made it appear "that 94% of the trials conducted were positive", but in reality, only about 32% of the studies showed any positive results, which means, on average, over two-thirds of the studies done by drug manufacturers show negative results, that is, harm to the health of the patient and no psychological benefit, and that is just on the surface; it does not include all the many skewed results I listed out in this chapter.
(See Erick H. Turner & Annette M. Matthews, "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy," New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 17, 2008, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779, retrieved Jan 25, 2019, [nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779])

The same year, Irving Kirsch and his colleagues obtained copies of every clinical trial done for the drugs Paxil, Serzone, Effexor, and Prozac. The study of these unpublished trials demonstrates that the drugs were so bad, they fell far below the very lackadaisical standards of FDA approval:
"Meta-analyses of antidepressant medications have reported only modest benefits over placebo treatment, and when unpublished trial data are included, the benefit falls below accepted criteria for clinical significance."
-I. Kirsch & B.J. Deacon, "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration," U.S. National Library of Medicine, PLoS Med, February, 2008, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045, retrieved Jan 25, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18303940]

Remember that the clinical trials are experiments which compare the drug to a placebo (sugar pill). This means that, according to the raw data, sugar pills are better for treating depression than pharmaceuticals.

The New York Times reported that psychologists and psychiatrists have nothing effective to combat depression when it comes to younger patients:
"The [FDA] panel shied away from urging a complete ban on antidepressants for children and teenagers, and for good reason. Left untreated, depression can create a far greater suicide risk than the pills. [NOTE: That is actually not true, and we will see more evidence of that in chapter 7.] Doctors desperately need weapons to combat major depression, even if those weapons carry some risk. [In other words, even if they kill people, they do not have anything else.] Unfortunately, nothing in their arsenal is notably effective. One large trial showed that talk therapy was no better than a placebo at alleviating depression in these young patients, and a vast majority of antidepressant pills have also failed when tested for this age group. Only Prozac has shown consistent effectiveness, and only Prozac has been specifically approved for use in young patients, although there is new evidence that it, too, can cause suicidal tendencies. The other antidepressants are prescribed by doctors in the belief, perhaps mistaken, that they are effective in young people."
-New York Times, "Risks of Antidepressants," Sept 16, 2004, retrieved Jan 25, 2019, [nytimes.com/2004/09/16/opinion/risks-of-antidepressants.html]

I wanted to quote this article because of the foolishness of the author. Notice that on the one hand, the author claims that the FDA would not consider banning antidepressants for "good reason," but then the author turns around and says they do not have anything that works, which would mean they do NOT have a good reason to NOT ban them (except the fact that many who are allowed to testify at these hearings are on pharmaceutical payroll); the only thing they claim they have to prevent suicide actually causes more suicide, and in chapter 7, we will go over more details on psychotropic-related suicides.

The above quote is mainly addressing the subject of teenagers and children, who have been a big target for pharmaceutical manufacturers, and to further demonstrate the deception, we will look at Martin Keller, who was formerly the Chairman of Brown University's Department of Psychiatric and Human Behavior, as well as the lead author of the Paxil Study 329, which opened the door to prescribing children psychiatric drugs. The study was intended to treat depression in children using paroxetine (i.e. Paxil), comparing it to placebo, and concluded that:
"Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents."
-Martin B. Keller, "Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial," U.S. National Library of Medicine, July, 2001, PMID: 11437014, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11437014]

Because of this report, and because so many big names in psychology worked on the project, doctors were permitted and encouraged to prescribe Paxil for use in children, even though it was not approved for use by the FDA, and sales to teens and children alone were $55 million in 2002. During an investigation into GlaxoSmithKline, internal documents were found that proved GSK had hidden important documentation to prove the dangers of Paxil, instructing staff to "manage the dissemination of data [facts showing the dangers of Paxil] in order to minimize any potential negative commercial impact," or put in simple terms, they are saying, "We don't care if we are killing your children, so long as our positive commercial image is preserved."
(See Associated Press, "New York Sues GlaxoSmithKline," New York Times, June 2, 2004, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [nytimes.com/2004/06/02/business/new-york-sues-glaxosmithkline.html])

In short, Keller and GSK LIED; I know people do not like to use such a bold phrase, mostly because they do not like to talk about sin, but it is a fact that they lied. Since they ignore the coming judgment of the Lord God, at the very least, they had a lawful duty to consumers to bring forth ALL the information, but they hid that information on purpose, and I am sure, given the opportunity, they would make a psychiatric argument in court, claiming that they did not lie, but rather, they have "Truth Withdrawal Disorder."

Psychologists Jon Jureidini and Anne Tonkin peer reviewed the Paxil studies, and found that:
"[A] study that did not show significant improvement on either of two primary outcome measures is reported as demonstrating efficacy. [i.e. They were not effective, but reported being effective.] Given that the research was paid for by GlaxoSmith-Klein, the makers of paroxetine, it is tempting to explain the mode of reporting as an attempt to show the drug in the most favorable light."
-Jon Jureidini & Anne Tonkin, "Paroxetine in Major Depression," Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, May, 2003, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567(09)60932-1/fulltext]

According to various reports I saw, at least eleven children in the Paxil study had serious side effects, at least seven children were hospitalized, and it was found that the risk of suicide in children was six times greater when they were on Paxil. Medical doctor Peter Breggin points out that, during the trials, not only was Paxil shown to increase the risk of suicide by six times, but practical application of it, which are prescriptions that are unsupervised when used in private homes, could potentially be ten times worse:
"If Paxil increased the rate of suicidality by more than six times in the drug company's controlled clinical trials, it may be doing so by sixty times in actual practice. We can't determine exactly how much greater the risk will be in clinical practice but it will be astronomically greater."
-Peter R. Breggin, "FDA warns Paxil makes adults suicidal," Psychiatric Drug Facts, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [breggin.com/fda-warns-paxil-makes-adults-suicidal]

During deposition with attorneys, Keller confessed that the injured children during the Paxil study were removed from the documentation. In other words, he confessed to deceiving the government and the public. They were labeled as "non-compliant" so they would not have to be included, in order that Paxil would not be shown in a negative light.

However, an important point to note is that, during the deposition, Keller seemed to have lost all his memory; not that he had any medical problem, but that he claimed to "not remember" anything that happened during the study. Remember, Keller was supposed to be the LEAD AUTHOR of the Paxil 329 Study, and here are some examples from the deposition transcript when he was asked pointed questions about his involvement in the study:
"[Keller was asked about the last time he prescribed Paxil as a new treatment:]
I can't remember. [p. 35]
[Keller claimed he answered questions to the FDA about Paxil, and was asked what he said:]
I can't remember exactly what I said. [p. 37]
[Keller was asked if he was approached by GSK to do the study:]
I don't recall whether I personally approached GlaxoSmithKline or whether a member of the research team other than myself did so. [p. 40]
[Keller was asked if he remembered any of the topics on sales presented at meetings he attended:]
I can't remember anything specific that was presented at any of these meetings... I don't recall seeing that data at any of the meetings here. [p. 73]
[Keller was asked about the outcome of the study:]
I don't recall the process by which any one given aspect of this were changed... [p. 91]
[Keller was asked about the other colleagues involvement in the study:]
I don't recall which -- what. [p. 112]
[Keller was asked about his discussion with people at meetings:]
I can't remember, you know, sentences which we had a discussion and what we said about it... [p. 197]
[Keller was asked about his involvement in one of the study publication meetings:]
I don't recall the meeting taking place on that date. I assume because it's dated that, that's when it took place. [p. 202]
[Keller was asked about meeting his statistician for the study:]
I may have met her, but I don't recall meeting her... [p. 216]
[Keller was asked if he gave a specific presentation:]
I may have, you know, was there -- I don't recall... [p. 217]
[Keller was asked if he presented slides at a meeting:]
I said that I don't recall... [p. 229]
[Keller was asked if he presented raw data to investigators to examine:]
I don't recall. [p. 237]
[Keller was asked if he reviewed documents with co-workers in the study:]
I don't recall that. [p. 242]
[Keller was asked if he saw reviews of his study:]
I don't recall seeing it. [p. 266]
[Keller was asked if he was present with a colleague at various meetings:]
I don't recall whether he was ever present at any of these meetings. [p. 311]
[Keller was asked if he met with GSK and investigators along with his team:]
I don't -- I don't recall if we had meetings... [p. 320] I was aware that SSRIs [i.e. Paxil] were being prescribed to adolescents. I don't recall whether I had awareness that they were being prescribed for children... [p. 324]
[Keller was asked if he knew his GSK exhibit included children 12 and under:]
I don't recall. [p. 325]
[Keller was asked if he was aware he and his colleages were prescribing Paxil to children:]
I don't recall... [p. 327]
[Keller was asked if he remembered any discussions about Paxil being prescribed to children before the study was published:]
I don't recall, which doesn't mean I didn't have a conversation, doesn't mean I did. [p. 332]
[Keller was asked to remember discussions about variables used in the data of the study:]
It's just that I can't remember the -- any of the actual conversations... [p. 338]
[Keller was asked about his testimony the previous day of the deposition:]
I don't recall exactly what I said... [p. 345]
[Keller was asked who funded prints of his article:]
I don't recall... I just don't recall. [p. 355]
[QUESTION:] So you don't recall anyone — any physicians ever asking you about the results of Study 329 that you published in your article; is that correct? [KELLER'S ANSWER:] That's correct. [p. 362]
[Keller was asked if he talked with physicians about prescribing Paxil to children:]
No, I don't recall the conversation... [p. 364]
[QUESTION:] Do you recall that you and the other investigators submitted a copy of the manuscript for what became the article for 329 to JAMA [Journal of the American Medical Association]? [KELLER'S ANSWER:] No. [p. 369]"
-State of Minnesota District Court, "LEIGH ANN ENGH, DARCENE and GREG LENSING vs SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, GLAXOSMITHKLINE," No. PI-04-012879, Fourth Judicial Circuit, September, 2006, retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [psychrights.org/states/Minnesota/martin-keller-depo-329.pdf]

A lot of Keller's sudden lapse in memory was very convenient for him. Ask yourself: How could the leader of the study, the main author and organizer of it, know so little about it? Would you trust a man like this to be your doctor? This man's memory is so terrible, I would not trust him with a driver's license, let alone a medical degree. At this point, either Keller is a liar, or he could possibly be the most brainless, unintelligent person who has ever been in leadership of an American medical board, and either way, it looks really bad.

However, it turns out that Keller is just a liar because the study was ghostwritten by Sally Laden, a Scientific Communications expert hired by GSK. Just to clarify, that means GSK wrote the Paxil 329 article, and paid Keller a large sum of money for permission to put his name on it. It is quite common today for drug companies to underwrite articles, leaving the author blank, and then find a reputable psychologist to pay to put his/her name on it, so it will have medical prestige behind it and be more believable, and many times, the authors being paid do not even read the study. Keller was never involved in any study or clinical trial for Paxil, and it is even possible that Keller never read the article, or at least he only skimmed through it, which is why he experienced convenient "memory loss" when asked about the Paxil 329 study.
(See Northern California Regional Organization of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, "Study 329 - Update," retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [ncrocap.org/study-329-update])

One of the key moments in the deposition was the following quotation in which Keller was asked to read aloud an email that went out in the GSK office confirming that Paxil had no effect in treating depression in children, which is something that Keller himself allegedly "could not recall:"
"[Q] Can you read that into the record please?
[A] 'Essentially the study did not really show Paxil was effective in treating adolescent depression, which is not something we want to publicize. However, we should prepare a Q&A and key messages in case reporters do cover this study.'"
-State of Minnesota District Court, "LEIGH ANN ENGH, DARCENE and GREG LENSING vs SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION, GLAXOSMITHKLINE," No. PI-04-012879, Fourth Judicial Circuit, September, 2006, p. 482, retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [psychrights.org/states/Minnesota/martin-keller-depo-329.pdf]

Without having to quote a lot lawyer objections back and forth in the deposition, multiple documents from GSK were read aloud by Keller. Those documents confirmed that Keller's Paxil 329 did not show any effect in treating Major Depressive Disorder in individuals under the age of 18, and yet, Keller's name is on the Paxil 329 Study, that said Paxil was effective for minors.

In an interview with Karen Menzies, one of the prosecuting attorneys, after reading numerous GSK documents contradicting Paxil 329, and stating clearly that they do not want the public to know the truth, Keller was asked how he, in good conscience, could recommend Paxil for kids. Menzies testified that:
"He couldn't answer the question. He sat back, he put his head in his hands, and for, you know, the longest two minutes, sat there silent."
-Karen B. Menzies, quoted in The Marketing of Madness: The Truth About Psychotropic Drugs, retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [https://youtu.be/IgCpa1RlSdQ?t=1h8m10s]

The summary of the court ruling said:
"In the criminal information, the government alleges that, from April 1998 to August 2003, GSK unlawfully promoted Paxil for treating depression in patients under age 18, even though the FDA has never approved it for pediatric use. The United States alleges that, among other things, GSK participated in preparing, publishing and distributing a misleading medical journal article that misreported that a clinical trial of Paxil demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of depression in patients under age 18, when the study failed to demonstrate efficacy. At the same time, the United States alleges, GSK did not make available data from two other studies in which Paxil also failed to demonstrate efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18. The United States further alleges that GSK sponsored dinner programs, lunch programs, spa programs and similar activities to promote the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. GSK paid a speaker to talk to an audience of doctors and paid for the meal or spa treatment for the doctors who attended. Since 2004, Paxil, like other antidepressants, included on its label a 'black box warning' stating that antidepressants may increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in short-term studies in patients under age 18. GSK agreed to plead guilty to misbranding Paxil in that its labeling was false and misleading regarding the use of Paxil for patients under 18."
-Office of Public Affairs, "GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data," U.S. Department of Justice, July 2, 2012, retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report]

It should be noted that I could continue with such examples almost endlessly, and because there will be more examples of these deceptions in later chapters, I think this is sufficient evidence to the prove the point; that our country has gone insane because of the practice of sorcery (i.e. taking pharmaceutical drugs). Though we have not yet begun to cover the deception of "Christian" psychology, it is important to understand that this disease mongering and drug craze all come from psychology's foundation; it is the driving force of psychology, and it is the same foundation upon which "Christian" psychology is built.



 

The meaning of the title to this chapter does NOT include all doctors, as some doctors have refused to have any part of the drug craze, and some of them actually attempt to warn and protect their patients from the disease mongering tactics of pharmaceutical companies. However, because doctors are almost all trained to be drug-reliant from a young age, even from the beginning of their college education, such dedicated and vigilant doctors are NOT in the majority of American physicians today, and we are about to find out how the majority of doctors in our society have been transformed into little more than snake-oil salesmen.

In the last chapter, we went over GSK's (GlaxoSmithKline's) deception on Paxil, and how they lied and covered up the dangerous results of the Paxil 329 Study in order to market Paxil to children WITHOUT FDA approval. By now, some of you may have wondered HOW that happened, and it is all about marketing.

At the end of the last chapter, we read the court ruling of the lawsuit against GSK, and let's read a portion of that one more time to highlight the perks involved:
"The United States further alleges that GSK sponsored dinner programs, lunch programs, spa programs and similar activities to promote the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. GSK paid a speaker to talk to an audience of doctors and paid for the meal or spa treatment for the doctors who attended."
-United States Department of Justice, "GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data," July 2, 2012, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmithkline-plead-guilty-and-pay-3-billion-resolve-fraud-allegations-and-failure-report]

Let me put this in simple terms: Doctors are taking bribes to sell you medications you do not need.

bribe (n): money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person; anything given or serving to persuade or induce
(See 'bribe', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Some readers may be surprised to learn that the U.S. Federal Government has no law prohibiting commercial bribery. This is why major corporate industries do it so frequently. It is only a practice that is generally frowned upon in the public eye, but there is no law against it, and that means it is up to you, the consumer, to make sure you understand the facts and make educated decisions for your family because in a free market, the primary responsibility for your purchases rests on your shoulders. (i.e. With much liberty comes much responsibility.)

It is quite common for drug companies to pay representatives to visit the offices of doctors personally, pay for meals, take them to fancy restaurants, and sometimes entire spa weekends, in order to convince them to promote a certain pharmaceutical drug to their patients. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out that many of you have likely been prescribed a drug by your doctor, not because you needed it, nor that it would cure your ailments, but that he was coaxed and bribed into selling you that prescription; a prescription drug that he also will profit from.

According to the Mayo Clinic, a study concluded that, as of 2013, almost 70% of Americans now take at least one prescription drug. This does not include over-the-counter medicine; this is only prescriptions. Over 50% of Americans take at least two prescription drugs on a regular basis, and 1 out of 5 Americans take five or more prescription drugs all at once. Total drug sales in the U.S. for 2011 was $319.9 billion, and if you take into account that there were around 300 million Americans in the population at that time, that works out to be about $1000 per person, and again, that is just for the U.S. Just on psychotropic drugs alone (i.e. those which are prescribed for a so-called "mental disorders"), as of 2011, 57 million U.S. prescriptions were filled; that does not include painkillers, or any other variety of pharmaceutical drug, so as you can see, this is a VERY lucrative industry, and on a worldwide scale, it is a multi-trillion dollar business. (See Mayo Clinic, "Nearly 7 in 10 Americans are on prescription drugs," Science Daily, June 19, 2013, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130619132352.htm]; See also Craig W. Lindsley, "The Top Prescription Drugs of 2011 in the United States: Antipsychotics and Antidepressants Once Again Lead CNS Therapeutics," U.S. National Library of Medicine, Aug 15, 2012, PMID: 22896807, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419448])

It is for these reasons that we are bombarded with endless commercials for drugs in which they play gentle, calming music in the background while listing out potentially fatal side effects that could permanently injure you and your family, and then tell you to "ask your doctor" about them because they are not legally permitted to sell you the drugs directly:

SPIRIVA: "Stop taking Spiriva and call your doctor right away if your breathing suddenly worsens, or throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes, or eye pain, or problems passing urine. Other side effects include dry mouth and constipation... Ask your doctor about Spiriva." CYMBALTA: "People taking MAOIs [antidepressants] or Thioridazine [antipsychotic], or with uncontrolled glaucoma [eye pressure buildup], should not take Cymbalta. Taking it with NSAID pain relievers [anti-inflammatory], aspirin, or blood thinners may increase bleeding risk. Severe liver problems, some fatal, were reported. Signs include abdominal pain, and yellowing of the skin or eyes [jaundice]. Talk with your doctor about your medicines, including those for migraine, or if you have high fever, confusion and stiff muscles, to address a possible life-threatening condition. Tell your doctor about alcohol use, liver disease, and before you reduce or stop taking Cymbalta. [red flag for addiction] Dizziness or fainting may occur on standing. Side effects include nausea, dry mouth, and constipation. Ask your doctor about Cymbalta. Depression hurts. Cymbalta can help." AMBIEN CR: "When taking Ambien CR, don't drive or operate machinery. Sleep walking, and eating or driving, while not fully awake, with memory loss for the event, as well as abnormal behavior, such as being more outgoing or aggressive than normal, confusion, agitation, and hallucinations may occur. Don't take it with alcohol, as it may increase these behaviors. Allergic reactions such as shortness of breath, swelling of your tongue or throat may occur, and in rare cases, may be fatal. Side effects may include next day drowsiness, dizziness, and headache. In patients with depression, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide may occur. If you experience any of these behaviors or reactions, contact your doctor immediately. Wake up ready for your day. Ask your healthcare provider about two-layer Ambien CR." MIRAPEX: "Prescription Mirapex may cause you to feel drowsy, or fall asleep during normal activities such as driving, or feel faint or dizzy when you stand up. Tell your doctor if you experience these problems. If you drink alcohol, or are taking medicines that will make you drowsy, or if you experience increased gambling, sexual, or other intense urges. Other side effects include nausea. Talk to your doctor about Mirapex... because when your legs feel better, you feel better."

The calming music, relaxing voices, and comforting scenery in the background of these commercials helps people to ignore the potentially fatal side effects, and if you read the above transcript without all the background effects involved, it is amazing to consider how many brain-dead TV-watchers there are out there who just accept this as a normal everyday thing. My wife and I do not watch TV, but the last time I was at someone's house and they had a television on, I noticed that there was at least one of those drug ads on every commercial break that I could remember.

Again, drug companies cannot sell these drugs directly to you because it is illegal, and that is because they are addictive and dangerous. You will notice that some of the commercials do not just say "ask your doctor," they will also say "ask your healthcare provider," which is a wide range of medical professions, including, but not limited to, MDs, OB/GYNs [obstetricians & gynecologists], cardiologists, dermatologists, neurologists, physician assistants, and a wide variety of nurses.

In comparison to the total amount of investment made by pharmaceutical companies, very little is put into research and development (R&D) of their products to ensure consumer safety:
"In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on drug promotion — more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians and over $3 billion on advertising to consumers (mainly through television commercials). This approach is designed to promote drug companies' products by influencing doctors' prescribing practices."
-Pew Charitable Trusts, "Persuading the Prescribers: Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing and its Influence on Physicians and Patients," Nov 11, 2013, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2JbQmXg]

They spend billions on advertising because they care far more about making sure you are taking the pills, than whether or not they are effective. According to Fierce Pharma's reports, "9 out of 10 Big Pharma companies do in fact spend more on marketing than on R&D."
(See Tracey Staton, "New numbers back old meme: Pharma does spend more on marketing than R&D," Fierce Pharma, Nov 6, 2014, retrieved Feb 6, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2MSGlAj])

But again, the focus is mostly on doctors rather than consumers because drug manufacturers know that marketing to consumers is useless if consumers are not allowed to buy directly from the manufacturer, so they need to make sure doctors know about their drug, and at the very least, convince doctors that there is some benefit to their drug. At this point, it should not be hard to figure out what drug companies are doing; to put it bluntly, drug companies wine and dine doctors so they can get into a financial bed together, and in the end, you are the one left with the bill.

Before we go into details, I want readers to understand that it is the patients of the doctors who end up paying for those meals and spas. Pharmaceutical companies are not stupid, and they do not just give away these free meals and spas out of the kindness of their hearts; they are charging more for the prescriptions so that they can pay for those, and as doctors accept the bribes, it is the patients of the doctor who end up paying for all of it.

In order to market to doctors, drug companies hire sales representatives, and these representatives attend conferences to learn how to sell certain drugs specifically to doctors. To show you what a sales meeting might look like, a video of an Advair (asthma medication) sales conference was made public after the U.S. government investigated the company's unethical sales practices:
If you watched the video, you might be wondering why they needed smoke and pyrotechnics, along with hyped-up music (i.e. Are You Ready For This by Jock Jams) that is typically heard during a half-time show at a sports arena, just to talk about an asthma medication. The reason is because most people in the audience were pharmaceutical sales representatives who were going to be selling the asthma medication, but they were not being sent out to sell to consumers—they were selling to doctors.

In the video, one of the presenters at the sales conference says the following:

HOST: "There are people in this room who are going to make an ungodly sum of money selling Advair, and you know who you are!"

Providentially speaking, I think the adjective "ungodly" was a very accurate choice of words. In order to get consumers/patients to pay for (and swallow) the pills prescribed, drug companies hire sales representatives that are typically young, attractive people, who take doctors out for dinners and spa treatments, in order to get the doctors to prescribe the drugs, but these sales reps are nothing more than sales reps, meaning that the grand majority of sales reps for drug companies have NO scientific education whatsoever.

The following is a testimony from Ken Berry, a medical doctor with his own practice, in which he talks about the day he put his foot down and would never allow another drug saleswoman in his office:
"I was in the hallway of my office talking to a drug rep, and you may or may not know this, but big pharmaceutical houses, who sell the drugs you see advertised on TV... they always send out the most attractive, polished, articulate people they can, and they actually teach these people how to interact with doctors and how to talk to us and how to stroke our ego [sense of self-importance], and how to make us feel like a bigger deal than we actually are... and so I was standing at the entrance of my hallway talking to a particularly attractive drug rep... and she was telling me everything in detail she knew about this drug... never do these drug reps actually know about pharmacokenetics or anything else in the way of pathophysiology or biochemistry, but they teach them to sound like they know what they're talking about. So I was talking to her and I heard a door open behind me, an exam room door, and I just glanced out of the corner of my eye, and there stood one of my sweet little old lady patients, and she kind of gave me this look, and she just shook her head and went back in her room and closed the door. And so I finished my conversation with the attractive drug representative, and we'll call her 'Ms. McGillicuddy', I went into Ms. McGillicuddy's room, who I love very much and she's passed on now, but she taught me a valuable lesson that I'll never ever forget, and I immediately changed how I practice medicine based on what she said. And so I walked in and shook her hand and patted her on the back, and said 'What can I do for you today?' And she said, 'You know, I wish I was still a young, attractive thing, and then you could make everyone else wait while you talked to me.' And I could feel my heart dropping down amongst my livers, as they say, and inside my head I was like, 'Yep, that's the end of that. I'll never do that again.'"
-Ken Berry, "Why I Don't Talk to Drug Reps," KenDBerryMD, Oct 13, 2017, retrieved June 4, 2019, [https://youtu.be/EoVwXD7lcss]

Most patients are unaware that doctors DO NOT have to talk to drug sales reps. If you see a drug rep in a doctor's office, they are there by the doctor's allowance only; if he kicks them out and tells them not to come back, then they cannot come back, and therefore, you should ask yourself: "Am I seeing a doctor who is taking bribes to prescribe me drugs?"

Bob Goodman, physician for the Columbia University Medical Center said:
"Let's be honest: They're there to sell their drug. They're not there to educate doctors. They get paid, they get bonuses, on how much drugs the doctor prescribes, not whether the doctor is prescribing the most appropriate drug. So, I don't think any doctor would get their information from reps if it wasn't for that the information came with free food, and other sorts of perks."
-Bob Goodman, quoted in Money Talks - Profits Before Patient Safety, Hummingbird Pictures, May 16, 2006, ASIN: B000FGGNB4

I have read some people scoff at this information, as if sales reps are doing good work in educating doctors, but those who make such claims are completely ignorant of the facts (or they are lying). In fact, many of those opposing testimonies I read came from people who benefited from big-pharma, either from the bribes, or being paid to bribe doctors, or in short, they are biased. However, a few others are willing to be honest and come forward with the whole truth; for example, in a U.S. Senate hearing on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, Shahram Ahari, former Eli Lilly Pharmaceutical Sales Representative, went public with his testimony about his time and training as a big-pharma sales rep:
"Among the myriad of myths that the industry uses to justify the pharma-physician relationship, none is more dangerous than the notion that the drug rep provides valuable education to the doctor. As their formal title implies, pharmaceutical sales representatives are hired to sell. Period. The idea that the drug rep is an effective vehicle for disseminating objective science is pure fiction. Drug reps are not scientifically trained, they are not provided with objective scientific information, and it is not in their economic self-interest to distribute evenhanded information about therapeutic choices. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sales, the great extent to which physicians believe that they are recipients of a wholesome, evenhanded view of the science endangers not only the doctor's judgment, but the public's health and the very foundations of the patient-physician relationship. To begin with, it is no coincidence that we reps are often recruited from the ranks of former cheerleaders, ex-military men or athletes, rather than those trained in the sciences. It is also no mistake that our sales training focuses on persuasion skills."
-Shahram Ahari, "Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging," United States Senate, Washington, DC, Mar 12, 2008, Senate Hearing: 110-624, retrieved Feb 8, 2019 from the U.S. Government Printing Office, [https://bit.ly/2SBEGUP]

I am pausing this quote to summarize; making sure readers understand everything that is being said. Ahari is stating that it is a lie to say that pharmaceutical companies present doctors with rational information and research studies for their drugs; rather, they hire handsome men and beautiful women to make their product more attractive, and then pay them a lot of money to simply sell the drug, without any thought or concern for the health of the patients in various clinics.

I want to continue Ahari's testimony, though it is long, because it is vital to understand what actually goes on behind the scenes in many clinics and hospitals around our country, and around the world:
"We are taught to present our products in the best possible light, to trivialize problems associated with them and to emphasize the shortcomings of our competitors' products. Our instructors walk us through the academic articles that our marketing department has deemed most relevant to our current sales strategy, cherry-picking the data along the way. From these selected articles, we receive neither a balanced nor a comprehensive sense of the literature. We learn only how to limit the scope of our discussions to most effectively sell our products. This training, combined with our persuasiveness and controversial physician prescriber data, allows us to make our targeted discussions seem unrehearsed and coincidental. To reinforce our sales efforts, we look for credible, loyal physicians to speak on our product's behalf. We count these doctors as objective thought leaders, but we have no reservations in dismissing them when their product loyalty falls into question. Furthermore, we supply these doctors with presentations crafted by our marketing department, that expound on the points that we reps make. This provides marketing synergy. It is like the physician's repeated sales pitch masked in scientific credibility."
-Shahram Ahari, "Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging," United States Senate, Washington, DC, Mar 12, 2008, Senate Hearing: 110-624, retrieved Feb 8, 2019 from the U.S. Government Printing Office, [https://bit.ly/2SBEGUP]

To summarize, doctors are given a sales pitch that is masked to look like something that is scientifically credible on the outside, when in truth, it is not. Sales reps are trained to cherry-pick data that only appears to look good on the outside, similar to how the sales reps themselves look good on the outside, but behind the scenes, drug companies are looking for nothing more than financial gain, despite the risks to patients.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

Ahari continues:
"Although drug reps learn a modicum [small amount] of science, the fact is our science training is secondary to our ability to establish a friendship with our clients, and we maximize every opportunity to befriend them. For example, when I was recruited for Eli Lilly's elite neuroscience and sales division, selling two products—an antidepressant and an antipsychotic—that constituted over half of the company's profits, I was in a room with 21 classmates and two trainers, and I was the only one with a science background. In fact, on the first day of training, I taught my class—and my instructors—the very basic process by which two brain cells communicate. It is very likely that the majority of my class couldn't explain the difference between a neuron and a neutron prior to sales school, which is not to say that my classmates weren't intelligent. On the contrary, we were all charming, bright and—myself the obvious exception—physically attractive. Yet, for all my abilities to discuss the pharmacological benefits of my products, I can attest to the many times when my clients would begin prescribing more of my drugs, not based on the merits of my arguments, but on the fact that we shared dinner at a fancy Manhattan restaurant. How did I know this? The physician prescriber data showed a distinct rise in my market share after these meals."
-Shahram Ahari, "Hearing before the Special Committee on Aging," United States Senate, Washington, DC, Mar 12, 2008, Senate Hearing: 110-624, retrieved Feb 8, 2019 from the U.S. Government Printing Office, [https://bit.ly/2SBEGUP]

In short, pharmaceutical companies had found an effective way to bribe doctors into selling their drugs. However, the deception does not end with the meal or spa treatment, but the sales reps themselves were often viewed as scientific or medical experts, without having any formal training, and former pharma sales rep Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau testified that she was sometimes showed private patient charts and asked advice on what she would recommend to a doctor:
"I even had one physician who would often bring out a patient chart if she was having a difficult patient, or whatever the case is; she would bring out a patient chart and be like, 'Okay Kathleen, I've tried this, I've tried this, what do you recommend here in terms of tweaking,' and I'm sitting here thinking, 'I'm a political science major. You're asking me what to prescribe for this patient?'"
-Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau, quoted in Money Talks - Profits Before Patient Safety, Hummingbird Pictures, May 16, 2006, ASIN: B000FGGNB4

Sales reps are also instructed to help lift doctors up in their wicked pride by referring to them as "thought leaders," as Ahari pointed out. This is not an uncommon practice, as testified by former pharma sales rep Angie Maher, who was a saleswoman for four different companies during her career:
"The companies, all four companies that I worked for, at the beginning of the year they will give a list of the top prescribing 20 physicians in the territory, and as a pharmaceutical marketing rep, it's my responsibility to pick three doctors. I have to find three doctors, and I get paid a bonus when I develop a doctor to be a key opinion leader or a thought leader. And I essentially say to a doctor, hey, our company has identified you to be a thought leader. Would you like to be a thought leader for our company? The doctor will normally almost every time say yes and then the next step is that the doctor will have to find ten patients to try the drug out."
-Angie Maher, interview with Sanjay Gupta, "Big Pharma's Big Payout," Cable News Network, Nov 23, 2010, retrieved Feb 8, 2019, [transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1011/23/acd.02.html]

It is the pride of heart in which doctors lift themselves up to be "thought leaders." It is the sinful haughtiness and loftiness in themselves that blinds them to the fact that they are scamming and being scammed.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But what the average American citizen does not understand is that this relationship between drug companies and medical doctors begins VERY early on. Most people are not aware that, in many colleges, drug companies start giving these special gifts to medical students, and sometimes even to preclinical students to create a trusting relationship before they have even begun their clinical training, as the following professors from the University of California Irvine School of Medicine point out:
"The [pharmaceutical] industry has been criticized for its marketing practices, with marketing expenditures nearly double that of research and development costs at three of the largest US pharmaceutical manufacturers. The industry spends at least $5 billion annually on marketing, which is more than $8,000 per physician. This marketing effort directly affected physicians, enticing them to prescribe the latest pharmaceuticals. Though not obvious, the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry begins long before doctors have the power to prescribe medication. Medical students are subjected to a barrage of advertising that inevitably leads to a physician-industry connection that can be harmful to our health care system. Medical students' exposure to pharmaceutical marketing begins early, growing in frequency throughout their training. Students receive gifts such as free meals, textbooks, pocket texts, small trinkets and even drug samples. Forty to 100 percent [depending on the school being polled] of medical students report exposure to the pharmaceutical industry, with clinical students being more likely than preclinical students to report exposure. The number of students recalling over 20 exposures to marketing rose from 33.3 percent to nearly 72 percent as students entered their clinical training. Pharmaceutical companies, recognizing the formative nature of the clinical years of medical education, seek to form relationships with medical students years before they are ready to independently practice medicine."
-Rijul Kshirsagar & Priscilla Vu, "The Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in U.S. Medical Education," In-Training, Apr 3, 2016, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [in-training.org/drugged-greed-pharmaceutical-industrys-role-us-medical-education-10639]

If you have ever wondered why doctors are so hell-bent on having you walk out of their office with a prescription drug, wonder no more. This is how it is happening, and it goes deeper than this because the schools themselves also have ties to pharmaceutical manufacturers even among their board members, and I went over more details on that in another teaching called "The Cure for Cancer," which demonstrates how the owners of big-pharma will use charity drives in order to pressure college boards to include a big pharma representative on their staff and in their meetings to make sure the decisions and cirriculum of the school are big-pharma-friendly.
(Read "The Cure for Cancer" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This tactic is also very deceptive when we consider that it is a strategy that targets vulnerable students. Medical training is often a stressful and lonely environment in which a student must spend long hours in study, and therefore, they are often secluded and do not make a lot of friends, and under those circumstances, to be given free gifts and welcomed into a "special community," giving them inclusion instead of exclusion, that they are a part of a higher level of society, builds up a good feeling about pharmaceutical companies early in their development as doctors, leaving them with the impression that the pharmaceutical companies are their friends and family who will support them.

As UCLA Medical professor and physician Jerome Hoffman puts it:
"Relationships between physicians and the drug industry doesn't begin once you have your MD or your own private practice; it begins the day you hit medical school. Many medical students are given quote 'gifts' on their very first day. It's interesting that those 'gifts' are never things like free dinner at a fancy restaurant or free tickets to a basketball game, they're not even pens or prescription pads; what they tend to be is things that look like they're about education. So they're a textbook, or an ophthalmoscope [instrument for inspecting the eye] that you can look through and say, 'Oh my god, I'm going to be a doctor', and I think what that's about is establishing a relationship, establishing good feelings, and a dependency and a sense of entitlement: 'I work really, really hard, nobody else is really nice to me, but these guys are really nice to me', and at the same time a notion [idea] that we're all in this together; we're all on the same side, the side fighting against disease."
-Jerome Hoffman, quoted in Money Talks - Profits Before Patient Safety, Hummingbird Pictures, May 16, 2006, ASIN: B000FGGNB4

Most Americans are completely ignorant that most doctors are being conditioned from the first day of medical school to be snake-oil salesmen for drug companies. Not every doctor takes that route, and some have even repented and acknowledged the truth, but many of them remain intimately tied to big pharma, most especially psychologists/psychiatrists.

Before I was born again in Christ, fresh out of high school, I dated a girl whose father and mother were both pediatricians; her father operated his own practice in Oklahoma. I remember that if we were sick and wanted a prescription medicine, he would just go to his giant storeroom of drugs at his clinic, pull something out and hand it to us like it was no big deal. When I saw his storeroom, there were thousands of prescription drugs in there, and knowing now that the average price of a prescription drug is around $90, there may have been anywhere from $100,000-$250,000 dollars of legal drugs in that storeroom, and he was making a hefty profit on all of them because the average pill only costs a few cents to make (per pill), and after taxes and research costs, there is over a 75% profit margin on the bottle.
(See Virginia Commonwealth University, "What's the average price of a prescription?" Pharmacy Business and Economics, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [wp.vcu.edu/nvcarroll/2015/09/15/whats-the-average-price-of-a-prescription]; See David Belk & Paul Belk, "The Pharmaceutical Industry," The True Cost of Healthcare, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [truecostofhealthcare.org/the_pharmaceutical_industry])

It is the combination of the profit potential, plus the "gifts" (i.e. bribes) from the pharmaceutical companies, that is having a major effect on what your doctor is prescribing to you. Though you may think they have your best interest in mind, in many cases, you are being prescribed what the drug manufacturer's marketing department wants you to swallow.

A PLOS (Public Library of Science) study analyzed local and federal databases on drug prescriptions by physicians, assistants, nurses, and other specialists. For the sample size they studied, they found that almost 40% of doctors/nurses received gifts that ranged anywhere from $7-$200,000 in meals, trips, speaking fees, and other various perks. They also found that doctors/nurses who received gifts prescribed drugs more often than those who did not receive gifts, they prescribed more name-brand drugs, and they were more likely to prescribe more expensive drugs. (Click Image for Larger View)
(See Susan F. Wood & Joanna Podrasky, "Influence of pharmaceutical marketing on Medicare prescriptions in the District of Columbia," PLoS ONE, 12(10): e0186060, Oct 25, 2017, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186060])

You can see the love of money in this chart if you look carefully. For example, pediatricians are one of the rare medical sectors that do not receive much in the way of gifts from pharmaceutical companies, and the reason is because most pharmaceuticals are illegal to prescribe to children; so because they would not make much money from pediatricians, those doctors and nurses get ignored.

In fact, this is such a problem in the medical community that in 1999, physician Bob Goodman of the Columbia University Medical Center started an organization called No Free Lunch [nofreelunch.org] which was to educate doctors on the manipulative practices of the pharmaceutical industry, and encourage them to abide by their oath to do no harm to their patients. After all, if patients are being treated based on drug company suggestions rather than medical analysis for the best interest of the patient, there is a lot of harm being done.

However, there is a serious problem overlooked by many people in the medical field. Going back to the interview with Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau:
"I do believe that ultimately, the responsibility lies with the physician who is going to write the prescriptions, and that's why I feel that one of the biggest things we can do, one of the biggest solutions we can provide here is to raise this awareness with physicians, and future physicians about the tactics the industry uses to promote their drugs."
-Kathleen Slattery-Moschkau, quoted in Money Talks - Profits Before Patient Safety, Hummingbird Pictures, May 16, 2006, ASIN: B000FGGNB4

And Bob Goodman also said:
"Again, I'm hopeful that we don't need more regulation, that just getting doctors—educating doctors, getting them to do the right thing, may be enough."
-Bob Goodman, quoted in Money Talks - Profits Before Patient Safety, Hummingbird Pictures, May 16, 2006, ASIN: B000FGGNB4

This is foolish. Do not misunderstand, I agree that the responsibility lies with the physician, I agree that raising awareness of the deception of drug companies is a good thing, and I agree that more government regulations will not solve the problem, but the error is that these people believe that if awareness is given to physicians, they will automatically choose do the "right thing" because they have a fallacious philosophy (i.e. a foolish way of thinking) that everyone is naturally good inside, but that is NOT what the Lord God has taught us.

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Psalm 14:2-3

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Romans 3:10-12

The truth is that everyone is naturally wicked inside, but because these people hold a fallacious idea that everyone is good, and they think if they just educate doctors, the problem will be solved. Very quickly, people forget that drug companies are buying out people from the White House all the way down to physicians, and manipulating consumers through advertising. If all these people were "good" inside, then no amount of "gifts" would have manipulated anyone, but because they are wicked, prideful and covetous in their hearts, they pervert the ways of righteous judgment.

A wicked man taketh a gift out of the bosom to pervert the ways of judgment.
-Proverbs 17:23

The bosom is the chest, and so the gift is being covered up by the person who is holding it to his chest, under his cloak, so that he can give the gift to a man. Notice that the Word of God did NOT say, "A good man taketh a gift out of the bosom because he did not know any better," rather, it is a WICKED man, that is, a man full of sin in his heart, who is corrupted, that takes the gift in the first place.

If the true heart of all these corrupted doctors and nurses was to help those in need, then they would have never taken a gift, even something so small as a pen. Of course, many falsely believe that most doctors and nurses get into the medical practice to help people, but that is not necessarily what we see if we just look around. There are some people who do get into medicine to help others, but there are many families that push their children to be doctors and lawyers; not because they have a strong desire for their children to help others, but rather, they have strong desire for the children to make lots of money, and the children grow up thinking, "If I make lots of money, my parents will be pleased with me."

Thus, it does not matter if they harm someone else they do not know (even if they took an oath to do no harm), as long as they make money in life, and get the things they want, they will pervert righteous judgment. I do believe that many doctors have some guilty conscience about what they do and feel ashamed, but they quickly accept any excuse a drug manufacturer might give them to relieve their guilty consciences because they are looking for an excuse to feel better about making a profit off of the sick, and I have somewhat covered other medical topics in which similar excuses are made so a doctor/nurse does not have to lose sleep at night over the fact that they have permanently injured others by their love of money.
(Read "The United VacciNations" & "The Cure for Cancer" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. [stop and consider this] Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
-Psalm 82:2-4
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If there was any government regulation to be made, it would be to strip the practicing license of any healthcare provider if evidence was found that they took special gifts from a pharmaceutical sales rep. That would mostly shut down the bribes. However, that will never happen so long as pharmaceutical companies keep lobbyists in Congress to keep such bills out of law.

The solution is to get all men to come to repentance of their sins, meaning that they need to hear the law of God so they come to grief and godly sorrow of their wrongdoing, falling on their knees and humbling themselves before the Christian God of the Bible. The heart is not good, it is deceitful and wicked, and through grief of their wrongdoing (i.e. repentance) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, He will heal them, and the heart is made better:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
-Ecclesiastes 7:3

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:7-10

Again, I want repeat that doctors ALLOW drug reps to speak to them, to make pitches, and to visit their clinics to promote drugs. It is completely optional for doctors to listen to drug reps. And once again, it should be noted that when doctors accept these "gifts" that it is NOT the drug company is that is really paying for the gifts, but rather, it is you, the consumers, the patients, that are paying for the pens, coffee mugs, fancy dinners, and special trips, because the cost is covered by higher prices at the pharmacy.

The point is that doctors and nurses are benefiting at the cost of their patients, and the suggestion is ludicrous that we would have to lie to the men and women, and massage their pride by saying, "Hey, you're a really good person inside, but won't you please stop scamming us?" The physicians and their staff hold FAR greater responsibility in this matter than drug companies because, to give an analogy of a restaurant, there is no sin for making a rancid, moldy burger, because any fool can do that, but there is sin in using one's prestige as a chef to make a recommendation that people buy it and eat it without verifying the safety of the sandwich; the only difference is that chefs would be quickly prosecuted for negligence under those circumstances, while doctors are typically not.

Thus, rather than putting our trust in prestigious men and women, I would rather strike deeper into the heart of the matter and warn individual readers of this book that if you put your trust in men, that is where you are in danger, but if you put your trust into God, and stop trusting in men, you will be safe:

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5

It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
-Psalm 118:8

Just thinking about the logic, I decided to do a bit of simple internet investigation, and to show you how far this deception really goes, we will look at an example of WebMD, one of the foremost searched medical websites on the internet. Being ranked almost top 500 on Alexa's most popular websites in the world, WebMD is the place where many people go, not just patients, but doctors and nurses as well, to find information on illnesses and symptoms, and news on medical issues.
(See "Traffic Statistics for webmd.com" Alexa, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [alexa.com/siteinfo/webmd.com])

This is because education is not always knowing everything, but it is knowing where to find everything. However, if what you are looking at has been tampered with, and does not give the whole truth, then your education of knowing where to find everything may not just be in vain (i.e. useless), but it could be dangerous.

WebMD is an American corporation and in 2017, it was sold for $2.8 billion to a media company called Internet Brands, which is owned by a company called KKR (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts). I decided to go online and check out KKR's business portfolio, and it turns out that they own a number of companies that would be a conflict of interest to their ownership of WebMD, and here are just a few: Ajax Health (a company that performs clinical trials for drugs), Arbor Pharmaceuticals (drug manufacturer), BridgeBio Pharma (drug research and manufacturing), Cohera Medical (R&D for medical devices and chemicals), and that was only under the first three letters of the alphabet (i.e. the A, B, and C listings); they have a lot more pharmaceutical companies in their pocket besides these few.
(See Sintia Radu, "WebMD Health to be sold to a KKR company for $2.8 billion," Washington Post, July 24, 2017, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [https://wapo.st/2tiYRsp]; See also KKR Portfolio, KKR, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [kkr.com/businesses/kkr-portfolio])

I decided to visit WebMD to get some information off the site when doing research on this topic, and the front page looked like this on Feb 12, 2019:
(See WebMD, front page, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [https://www.webmd.com])

The article itself was not a problem, as it was pointing out the FDA warnings on the dangers of taking fluoroquinolones, which are strong antibiotics, but the problem was the giant picture they put on the side. This is what most people are not going to catch.

According to the FDA, the patented names of fluoroquinolones produced include evofloxacin (Levaquin), ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin (Cipro, which is shown on the WebMD image), gemifloxacin (Factive), ciprofloxacin extended-release tablets, moxifloxacin (Avelox) and delafloxacin (Baxdela), and there are more than 60 other generic versions of these pills. The interesting part about the article was that it seemed to focus target Cipro, produced by Pfizer, Levaquin, produced by J&J, and Avelox, produced by Bayer, all of which are competitors to KKR and their antibiotics. The point of this is to demonstrate that, although there might be some helpful information in various places in WebMD, and the article might have some truthful information, you can never know when you are being manipulated into leaning towards or away from certain products that financally benefit KKR, or in other words, it is a legal way of scamming you because, after all, journalists would be out of a job if they bite the hand that feeds them, meaning that they will never report in a way that will financially harm the company who owns the corporation they work for.
(See Pharmaceutical Technology, "FDA orders safety label changes for fluoroquinolone antibiotics," July 12, 2018, retrieved Feb 12, 2019, [pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/fda-safety-label-changes-fluoroquinolone-antibiotics]; See also Matt McMillen, "Fluoroquinolones Overprescribed Despite Dangers," WebMD, Feb 7, 2019, [webmd.com/drug-medication/news/20190208/fluoroquinolones-over-prescribed-despite-dangers])

This means that when searching the internet for health information, we need to be vigilant about what we are reading. I have heard numbers as high as 80% of all medical information on the internet is provided by companies who have a conflict of interest, meaning that four out of five articles you read on health are backed by those who will financially benefit from products you buy.

Health News Review has reported on this conflict of interest hundreds of times over the past few years, as the information is seemingly endless. The point is that the few examples I have presented in this chapter are just a tiny fraction of the near-countless number of scams forged by pharmaceutical companies just in the U.S. alone.
(See Health News Review, "Conflict of Interest Search" retrieved Feb 13, 2019, [healthnewsreview.org/page/2/?s=conflict+of+interest])

A percentage of those prescription drugs are psychiatric drugs, and there are many Americans taking them. As of 2013, 1 in 6 Americans were taking psychotropics, and the number is increasing every year.
(See Sara G. Miller, "1 in 6 Americans Takes a Psychiatric Drug," Scientific American, Dec 13, 2013, retrieved June 5, 2019, [scientificamerican.com/article/1-in-6-americans-takes-a-psychiatric-drug])

Psychiatrist Jeff Lieberman, former president of the American Psychiatric Association, made a statement via Psychiatric News to the members of the APA, having full knowledge of the scams we just learned about in this chapter:
"Drug companies aren't held in high esteem by the public these days. There are many reasons for the companies' poor showing, including high drug prices, aggressive marketing practices and direct-to-consumer advertising, efforts to buy influence with physicians, and, perhaps most egregiously, the suppression of data on drugs' dangerous side effects. Couple these issues with the fact that innovative drug development has slowed to a crawl, and it's not easy to muster much defense of the pharmaceutical industry. But let's face it, they need us and we need them. We must recognize the important, beneficial role that drug companies have long played in all areas of medicine. While not minimizing problems, we simultaneously must remember how products have improved the quality of health care and quality of life in our society, and their funding has helped to advance research, public outreach, and training."
-Jeffery Lieberman, "Time to Re-Engage With Pharma?" Psychiatric News, July 20, 2013, retrieved June 5, 2019, [psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2013.8a30]

In short, Lieberman is admitting the underhanded practices of the drug industry, but he concludes that psychiatrists have no choice but to join hand-in-hand with them. After all, psychologists and psychiatrists were originally financed by the pharmaceutical industry, and nothing has changed in over a century.

Furthermore, Lieberman goes on to say that the pharmaceutical industry has played a long beneficial role in the area of medicine. Perhaps that might be true when we consider basic things like anesthesia for surgery, but there are very few examples in which the drug industry offers anything of actual benefit to anyone, especially in the area of psychotropic drugs, and worst of all, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the drug companies are deceiving doctors, nurses, and patients, not bothering to do proper research on their products, and do nothing to educate doctors on legitimate practices of medicine, he makes the absurd claim that "their funding has helped to advance research, public outreach, and training."

Steven Sharfstein, another former President of the APA, was more open and honest than Lieberman when he said:
"In order to survive, we psychiatrists must go where the money is,"
-Steven Sharfstein, quoted by Jacqueline Langwith, Postpartum Depression, Greenhaven Publishing LLC, 2012, p. 58, ISBN: 9780737765601

In later chapters, we will find out exactly where the money is, but for now, most readers should have a pretty good idea where the money's coming from. In the next chapter, we are going to look at the twisted influence these psychological witchdoctors have gained in the legal arena.



 

It is no secret that psychologists/psychiatrists have been used in many court cases to give "mental analysis" of a defendant, but very few Americans know the extent to which lawyers, judges, police officers, and even insurance companies are heavily affected by the word of a psychologist. A smart defense lawyer knows that the key to being an effective lawyer is to know how to argue your case to a jury because winning a case is not necessarily done through the letter of the law, but rather, it is done by arguing "reasonable doubt" for a defendant in a criminal trial.

We have already learned that psychology is not a legitimate science, but today, in the legal and public arena, it is treated with the utmost seriousness. Though lawyers do not often attempt an "insanity plea" in the courtroom, due to the low rate of success it has with a jury, the arguments are still allowed in the courtroom, and it sometimes has the power to turn an open-and-shut (i.e. straight-forward) criminal trial, with clear evidence of the defendant's guilt, into a questionable debate over the defendant's guilt because of his so-called "mental condition."

Though the majority of "insanity pleas" have failed, over the decades, there have been many instances in which the guilty party has gone free due to the word of a psychologist/witchdoctor. Psychology has played a major role in making vicious and threatening criminals look like poor, needy victims, reducing their sentences and getting them back on the streets, only to create more victims.

To begin, we are going to briefly look at a man named Garrett Trapnell, a name some older Americans may recognize. Trapnell was somewhat infamous in the 1960s and early 70s, being arrested and charged on many criminal counts, including armed robbery, kidnapping, hijacking of an aircraft (which later became known as "skyjacking"), and later in his life, he attempted to escape prison.

This was a period of time when skyjackings were more commonplace than they are today, and it was a serious problem for the U.S. government at the time because it was difficult to track the skyjackers after they parachuted. According to a 1973 New York Times article, Trapnell's trial for skyjacking ended with a hung jury: "Since then, Trapnell has robbed at least seven banks, forged thousands of dollars' worth of checks, pulled off a $100,000 jewel theft in the Bahamas and been implicated in numerous other serious crimes. He has been arrested at least 20 times for major crimes, but has spent less than two years in jail." -Robert Lindsey, "Sane or Insane? A Case Study of the T. W. A. Hijacker," New York Times, Jan 18, 1973, retrieved Mar 20, 2019, [nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/sane-or-insane-a-case-study-of-the-t-w-a-hijacker-a-military-family.html]

Of course, the obvious question is: How could a man commit all those crimes, be arrested so many times, and suffer so little punishment? Keep in mind that Trapnell was infamous for being a very smooth con man, and his greatest con was manipulating the system by using psychology/psychiatry as a defense:
"For almost 15 years, Trapnell once said, he made a point of trying to fool psychiatrists and psychologists in Florida, Texas, Maryland, New York, California and Canada into believing that he was a genuine 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde'—normally a sane, honest man, whose mind, every so often, was taken over by a sinister alter ego called 'Gregg Ross.'... Trapnell evaded prison once again this week. He admitted trying to extort $306,800 from Trans World Airlines after hijacking one of its jetliners last Jan 29. But he claimed that he was not the skyjacker, that 'Gregg Ross' was."
-Robert Lindsey, "Sane or Insane? A Case Study of the T. W. A. Hijacker," New York Times, Jan 18, 1973, retrieved Mar 20, 2019, [nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/sane-or-insane-a-case-study-of-the-t-w-a-hijacker-a-military-family.html]

Trapnell was easily able to fool many psychologists and psychiatrists into testifying that he was "mentally ill," and therefore, Trapnell was able to convince a jury that he was not responsible for his actions. Remember that in previous chapters, I pointed out that the true hidden purpose of psychology is to give people an excuse for sin; this is another example which demonstrates the point that people are given an excuse for their crimes, and our own government has bought into the facade because if judges, lawyers, and a jury were really judging righteous judgment, they would not allow psychology into a courtroom.

At this point, I think Trapnell did a great job at summarizing the problem:
"'Whether it [the mental illness] exists can never be proved,' he continued, 'because psychiatry as a science is the only science in the world that deals with extreme intangibles. [i.e. no physical evidence] I probably know more about psychiatry than your average resident psychiatrist; I can **** the hell out of one in 10 seconds.' At Trapnell's recent trial, one psychologist and four psychiatrists testified that he was mentally ill during the hijacking, while two psychiatrists, including Dr. Abrahamsen, asserted that he was sane and was 'malingering.' [faking] None of the medical witnesses had read or heard the taped interview in which he discussed his techniques before they testified, according to the United States Attorney's office. 'I have committed all of these crimes,' Trapnell said in the interview, which was recorded in April, 1971, 'and have never gotten a [prison] number for any of them. It's the fallacy of your legal system.'"
-Robert Lindsey, "Sane or Insane? A Case Study of the T. W. A. Hijacker," New York Times, Jan 18, 1973, retrieved Mar 20, 2019, [nytimes.com/1973/01/18/archives/sane-or-insane-a-case-study-of-the-t-w-a-hijacker-a-military-family.html]

He is absolutely correct; Tranpell was taking something that has no physical evidence (i.e. psychology) and using that to override the physical evidence of his crimes. Trapnell was talking about the "insanity plea," and it is so commonplace, the phrase has been used in a variety of courtroom movies and TV shows. The entire concept is centered around the claim that a person who has a "mental illness" is not really responsible for their crimes (i.e. their sins) because they are allegedly "sick" and need medical attention.

In December of 1994, 26-year-old Ralph Tortorici walked onto campus at the State University of New York at Albany with a knife and a hunting rifle (.270-caliber Remington) hidden under his clothes. Tortorici had previously attended this university and had enough college credits to be a senior. He entered into a lecture hall where a professor was teaching 35 students, pulled out his gun and told them he was taking the class hostage, and demanded to speak to President Bill Clinton, other officials (including the Governor of New York and the university's president), and two local news reporters, because he believed he had microchips implanted in his brain and penis. (See James Dao, "Gunman Terrorizes Students in Campus Siege," New York Times, Dec 15, 1994, [nytimes.com/1994/12/15/nyregion/gunman-terrorizes-students-in-campus-siege.html])

During the hostage situation, Tortorici spoke with multiple hostage negotiators, and even shot at one (and missed), but eventually 19-year-old student Jason McEnaney wrestled the gun away from Tortorici, and during the altercation, McEnaney was shot and wounded in his abdomen, genitals, and upper leg. Tortorici went for his knife to attack McEnaney, but other students ran over to help and pinned him to a wall, allowing police to enter the scene and make the arrest.

Questions were raised over Tortorici's competancy to stand trial because the defense made the claim that he was "mentally ill," but as we have already seen, there is no such thing as mental illness. This was simply the best argument defense lawyers had to get a "not guilty" verdict, or at least to get reduced sentencing for the defendant. Competency to stand trial is a matter in which the defendant would have a brain injury drastic enough that he would not be able to tell the difference between a judge and grapefruit, but a man like Ralph Tortorici, who was competent enough to acquire a Remington rifle, sneak it onto campus without being noticed, and even instruct his hostages to spray a fire hose out the front door of the classroom because he knew it would slow down SWAT team progression, has enough competency to understand a judge and jury in a courtroom.

Tortorici was allowed by the judge to waive his right to be present during the trial, and so he was not there for most of it. Over the next eight days, evidence was presented, the witnesses (including McEnaney) were heard, and the jury took no more than one hour of deliberation to find Tortorici guilty on four counts of kidnapping and aggravated assault, one count of first-degree assault, and one count of first-degree criminal use of a firearm.

Ralph Tortorici was allowed to speak his peace before his sentencing, and what he says is very reminiscent of speech I hear from those who are part of the "conspiracy ministry" movement, like Alex Jones fans: "I want to briefly say something about the modern era, the government's advanced technology on me. For many years now, I've been studying the government and the Jews of advanced technology. You will find out in military tests in Bethesda, Maryland, [unintelligible] they've been experimenting by monkeys and dolphins with advanced technologies, including microchips... And I am a descendant of the Roman Empire. And in AD 70, when the Jewish temple was destroyed... You see, if you study these Jewish doctors, you will find out that Jewish doctors, they mess up as they did on my body here, they messed up my operations... I went to many officials, and they would not listen to me. I had to find some sort of extreme way to get the Jews to be identified as troublemakers in society and trying to overthrow the government."
-Ralph Tortorici, quoted by David Murdock & Miri Navasky, "A Case of Insanity," PBS, retrieved Mar 22, 2019, [pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/etc/script.html]

It is obvious that Tortorici had studied materials from authors and speakers who come out of the "conspiracy" crowds (which is not to say that conspiracies do not exist, but some people lose rationality and restraint while studying them), and he sounds exactly like the typical Alex Jones fan that occasionally writes to tell me that Jesus has landed with aliens in Russia, coming from the planet Kent in the Alpha Centauri system. (I am not joking; I have emails in my archives from people who state such things.) The point is that Tortorici obviously did not come up with these ideas on his own out of nowhere; someone convinced him of these cultic ideas, and he chose to believe them with a sound mind.

For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-Acts 28:27

Psychologists and psychiatrists can do nothing for men like Tortorici, nor anyone else in the "conspiracy movement." Only the Lord Jesus Christ can heal them because these are spiritual problems from corrupt, sinful hearts, and because they have gone so deep in the sin of their hearts, God gives them over to their wicked minds to do inconvenient things (i.e. things that do not make sense).

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
-Romans 1:28

After listening to his rant, Tortorici was given maximum sentences on all counts, totaling 20-47 years in prison. For the next three years, Tortorici was in and out of a prison psychiatric center, and in 1999, he was found dead in his cell after hanging himself with a bed sheet.

A documentary published by PBS Frontline attempted to portray Tortorici's case as a sad situation in which a "sick" (i.e. "mentally ill") man was punished too harshly for his crime. They focused the entire documentary on Tortorici not getting help, instead of focusing on the victims of his crime. They went so far as to claim that Tortorici did not know what he was doing was wrong, and that is a ridiculous claim because if he did not know what he was doing was wrong, why did he HIDE his weapons when he walked on campus?
(See PBS Frontline, "Crime Stores By Reason of Insanity," 1994, retrieved Mar 22, 2019, [youtube.com/watch?v=TYhtqoM-AGY])

His conscience bears witness to the truth: He knew what he was doing was wrong, and that he would have been stopped immediately if his intentions had been known. That is why he hid his weapons.

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
-Romans 2:15

What also irritated me about that documentary was that the young man who was shot, John McEnaney, had his scrotum ripped apart by the bullet, potentially ruining his chance to bring forth children with a future wife, which in turn would ruin her joy to bring forth a child for her husband. If that bullet had hit a woman in her genitals, and ruined her ability to get pregnant, there would have been a media storm from feminists that called for this man's execution, but because a man was injured in the scuffle, it seemed that more people cared about getting a criminal help than seeing justice done.
(Read "Feminism: Castrating America" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Furthermore, it was generally overlooked that Tortorici was a frequent user of marijuana and cocaine (i.e. sorcery), and had been previously arrested for cocaine possession two years before the campus shooting. It is impossible to believe that a man who can acquire and manipulate weapons, hide them from sight, acquire drugs, and use them, is too incompetent or "mentally ill" to stand trial.

The fact is that Tortorici committed a crime because he had sin in his heart. There is no mental illness. He rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and chose to live in a constant state of fear because he believed the lies that he was told; he made a CHOICE to live according to the ideals of the conspiracy movement, and he ended up causing others to suffer because of his choice.

The problem is philosophical, not psychological.

Again, a philosophy is a way of thinking, and people actively choose which philosophy they live by. There will be no excuse for men when they stand before the Living God in judgment.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [lies] , after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
-Romans 1:20

The major problem that has arisen in our courtrooms is the false belief that psychologists are making scientific assessments about a person's mental health. Instead of being held accountable for sins and crimes, lawyers are now trying to convince judges and juries that a man can cause any amount of suffering to another person, and get away with it under the pretext that they have a "mental disorder."

One of the most famous cases of an insanity plea is the John & Lorena Bobbitt case from the 1990s, and this is one I somewhat remember because I was roughly eleven years old when it was airing on the news. The general story is this: One night, while John was sleeping in his bed, Lorena went downstairs to the kitchen, grabbed an 8-inch carving knife, went back upstairs to the bedroom, pulled the sheets back, cut off two inches of John's penis, drove down the road, and threw the severed member out on the roadside.

(Image of Lorena and John Bobbitt, 1995, J. Scott Applewhite, Rolling Stone, "John and Lorena Bobbitt, 25 Years Post-Castration," July 6, 2018, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/lorena-bobbitt-john-bobbitt-25-years-696573])

Of course, under normal circumstances, this would have been a clear case of assault that would normally give John grounds for divorce and would put Lorena in jail, but due to the wicked feminist movement and the psychological community of witchdoctors, Lorena was found not guilty. The media always portrays Lorena as the good wife, and John as the abusive husband, and I do not want readers to misunderstand; after analyzing the data, I believe John was abusive to Lorena, but what the media tends to cover up was the fact that Lorena was also abusive to John, which, as I pointed out in my book Feminism: Castrating America, that at least 70% of domestic abuse cases involve both the man AND the woman being physically violent with each other, and of those, women are more often the initiators of the violence, even though in most cases, only the men suffer any legal consequences.

I have seen John testify in public interviews that he had hit Lorena on certain occasions, and Lorena testified the same thing; however, John also testified that she hit him on numerous occasions, indicating that she was a violent woman from the start. However, because he is a man, no one really paid much attention to this fact, and wrote it off as "self-defense," which is the typical excuse; generally, most of the media attention is given to Lorena, and very few people will hear the other side.
(See Nightline, "The Bobbitts: Love Hurts," ABC News, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [abc.go.com/shows/2020/episode-guide/2019-01/04-the-bobbitts-love-hurts])

I have to put a lot of emphasis on the wicked feminist movement in this case because if it were a matter in which John had come into the bedroom one night and cut off Lorena's nipples, and threw them out the car window as he drove away, I guarantee no amount of insanity plea would have kept him out of prison. Feminists would have been calling for his death if such a thing had been done to a woman, and no one would be laughing, but because it is a man, if you watch numerous interviews, you will see how people, especially women, just laugh at John's circumstance. Because the instigator was a woman, and because there is so much female privilege in this country, she can make an insanity plea while offering up some crocodile tears, and walk away with not just her freedom, but interviews, popularity, and book deals, making so much money that she will never want for anything the rest of her life.

Thanks to psychology and feminism working together, criminals are glorified for their sin.

After listening to both sides, I do not think John was totally innocent in the big picture, but neither was Lorena. Lorena also made the claim that John raped her repeatedly, and that is a claim I do not believe because it is not possible to rape your spouse; you can be an abusive wife or husband during sexual intercourse, which can call for police to investigate, but it does not matter what the courts want to say about the subject, you cannot rape your spouse because you are one flesh, and at the very least, John found justice in that case because he was found not guilty of rape.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

John may have held Lorena down and forced her to have sex with him on occasion; I believe that, but I also believe she was withholding sex from him out of viciousness, and that she lied to the court about it. Lorena claimed in the courtroom that she went downstairs to get a drink of water from the kitchen, then "blacked out," and the next thing she remembered, she was driving down the road with John's severed penis in her hand, but what many people do not know that when Lorena was first taken into police custody the day of her attack on John, she had complete recollection of attacking her husband, and even told them why she did it:
"'He always have orgasm, and he doesn't wait for me ever to have orgasm. It's selfish,' she told the detective, according to the transcript. 'I pulled back the sheets and then I did it.'"
-Lorena (Bobbitt) Gallo quoted in New Straits Times, "Wife cannot recall cutting off man's penis," Jan 16, 1994, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [http://bit.ly/2TwEKln]

As you can see, she was upset that she did not feel sexually fulfilled in bed, and that is why she attacked him, but by the time her testimony got to court, she changed her story. Obviously, the reason there was a drastic change in her testimony is because her lawyer was trying to get an insanity plea.

During the trial, she was claimed to have "clinical depression" and "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" (PTSD), and in the next chapter of this book, we will find out that PTSD does not exist. In the end, Lorena's insanity plea worked; she was found not guilty of assault on John, she was ordered to be evaluated at Central State Hospital in Virginia for a month and half, and after that, she was released, which leaves us wondering how many women were emboldened to brutally attack their husbands if they felt like it, knowing they would not only get away with it in court if they make an insanity plea, but might also become rich and famous for it.

However, the insanity plea seems to be more political than anything else because if the crime is intense enough, no amount of "insanity" will keep a man from execution. Case in point, serial killer John Wayne Gacy, who murdered at least 33 people, many of whom were young boys who he raped before killing. Gacy was well-liked among his friends and family, and was well-known from his involvement in many local charities, but he was eventually exposed as a "clown serial killer," who tortured his victims and buried them under his house. All psychologists/psychiatrists who analyzed Gacy claimed he was "mentally ill," due to the fact that Gacy seemed completely unaffected by the crimes he committed. Once the public found out about his horrific murder spree, there was no amount of pleas that would save him from lethal injection, which took place in 1994, around the same time as the John and Lorena Bobbitt case was in the media.

As I stated in a previous chapter, the true hidden purpose of psychology is to take away guilt of sin, and to give people an excuse for wicked words, thoughts, and actions, and this is commonly seen by comments made by psychiatric "doctors" in court cases. For example, Kelly Meining pleaded guilty to charges of stabbing her 20-month old son to death in her living room in 2006, and in 2010, she pleaded her case to the court, asking to instead be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

California psychologist Dianna Barnes (along with psychiatrist Jerry Larson) testified in the case:
"'I do not believe, in her psychotic state, that she could tell the difference between right and wrong,' Barnes said. Dr. Jerry Larsen, a psychiatrist from Oregon City, Ore., testified Meining was 'actively psychotic' at the time of the stabbing because she was under a paranoid delusion that her son was going to be killed by somebody else and to spare him from that torture, she had to kill him herself. 'She couldn't understand that there were alternatives,' he said, adding that she'd stopped taking her medications and had missed an appointment with her psychiatrist."
-Stephanie Rice, "Kelly Meining was insane when she killed her son, witness testifies," The Columbian, Apr 19, 2010, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [columbian.com/news/2010/apr/19/kelly-meining-was-insane-when-she-killed-her-son-w]

Notice that Barnes can only testify that she did "not believe" that Meining knew the difference between right and wrong. Barnes could not tell if it was true or not because psychology has nothing to do with evidence. Psychologists cannot know these things because there is no science behind their so-called "profession," which is why they talk about belief instead of fact.

In a normal murder trial, for someone to be found not guilty, there would need to be reasonable doubt that came from evidence presented, or a lack thereof. This was not the case in Meining's crime because she stabbed her baby; there was no accident, all the evidence corroborated together, and she confessed to doing it. In short, a "psychological analysis" is nothing more than someone's personal opinion about whether or not someone else is telling the truth, which, under any other circumstance outside of the sacred cow of psychology, would normally be considered hearsay and inadmissible (i.e. not allowed) in court.

Next, they try to take away the knowledge of good and evil, which the Bible tells us that all men have. Their conscience might be seared to do evil because of their wicked hearts, but they have knowledge of it, meaning that there is no excuse.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
-1 Timothy 4:2

Why did Meining kill her baby behind closed doors instead of openly in the daylight so everyone could see? Why did John Gacy kill in the dark and hide the bodies? Why did Lorena Bobbitt not attack her husband out in the open where everyone could look on? Why did Ralph Tortorici hide his weapons under his coat as he approached the classroom he was going to hold hostage? God's Holy Word answers that too; they hide because they know what they do is evil.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
-John 3:19-21

Furthermore, Meining had been on psychotropic drugs for a long period of time, which is well-known to be a cause for murder and suicide in many instances, and we will cover that more in the next chapter. The drugs themselves lead people to do irrational things, and when they come off of them, the withdrawal symptoms can sometimes be worse than being on the drug itself. However, instead of confessing that the psychotropic drugs were part of the problem, they are instead used as an excuse that, because she was not taking the drugs in the prescribed manner, a baby-killer is now being given the opportunity to be transferred from a prison to a hospital and have a reduced sentence.

As I stated earlier, most insanity plea defenses do not work, but they should still be removed from our court system completely because it wastes taxpayer time and money. Furthermore, insanity pleas end up dragging grieving families through a drawn-out court trial where a proven-guilty defendant makes a fool out of himself in hopes that he will avoid the full punishment for his crime.

For example, Anthony Montwheeler from Oregon faked mental illness for 20 years to avoid imprisonment for the many murders he committed. He only had to serve a smaller sentence in a mental hospital before being released in 2016, but after release, he kidnapped his ex-wife, murdered her at a gas station, and then, during a police chase, he had a head-on collision with an SUV that killed a man and woman, making orphans out of their five children.
(See Jayme Fraser, "He Said He Faked Mental Illness to Avoid Prison. Now, Accused in 2 Killings, He's Sent Back to a State Hospital," ProPublica Sept 24, 2018, retrieved June 19, 2019, [propublica.org/article/anthony-montwheeler-sent-back-to-hospital])

What is worse is that Montwheeler, after killing three more people, was sent back to a state mental institution, being declared not fit to stand trial, even though he told psychiatrists directly: "I've been using the system, and I'm done... I basically made that up to make myself sound crazy. I didn't hear anything, I was just saying that's what I was hearing." The psychiatric review board, after hearing his confession, released him (because they are required to discharge anyone who is not medically qualified under its jurisdiction), and because of the involvement of the psychological community, it took two years before the man could face trial for an open-shut case of murder, while never having to face trial for his murders in the 1990s.

In another example, Hemy Neuman shot and killed Rusty Sneiderman outside of a day care as Sneiderman was dropping off his children. The police had linked video evidence of the van Neuman rented to the crime scene, and linked the bullets used to kill Sneiderman to the gun Neuman had recently purchased; the evidence was overwhelming.
(See Joshua Sharpe, "Hemy Neuman gets life without parole in Dunwoody day care murder retrial," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug 23, 2016, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [https://on-ajc.com/2Ub4KHm])

However, Neuman entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, despite his obvious guilt, and despite the heart-broken family of the victim. During the trial, psychiatrists testified that Neuman was Bipolar (which does not exist), claiming that he had gone insane with infatuation with Sneiderman's wife, and that he did not understand what he was doing at the time of the murder. Neuman claimed that a devil who sounded like Barry White spoke to him and told him to kill himself, and then he claimed an angel who looked like Olivia Newton-John told him to kill Sneiderman because he was a threat to his own children, but despite all the ridiculous efforts and lies, Neuman was still sentenced to life without possibility of parole; the point being that, without all the arguments from the witchdoctors, the trial would not have lasted near as long, less taxpayer time and money would have been wasted, and the victim's family would not have been dragged through that nonsense.
(See Joel Provano, "Dunwoody daycare shooting trial | Day 10," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Mar 5, 2012, retrieved Mar 26, 2019, [https://on-ajc.com/2uyc3KO])

In another case, James Holmes entered a Century 16 theatre in Aurora, Colorado on July 19, 2012 and opened fire with a multitude of weapons, killing 12 people and injuring 70 others, and had booby-trapped his home with bombs, which were thankfully disarmed by law enforcement before anyone else was injured. Holmes was charged with 24 counts of first-degree murder, 140 counts of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of possessing explosives. The trial seemed like it was going to proceed very straight-forward, until Holmes' lawyers entered an insanity plea, which stretched out the hearings and trial for three more years (2012-2015).
(See Noelle Phillips, "Aurora theater shooter's psychiatric reports unsealed by 2015 trial judge," The Denver Post, July 3, 2018, retrieved Mar 27, 2019, [denverpost.com/2018/07/03/james-holmes-psychiatric-reports-unsealed])

REPORTER #1: "A new plea for James Holmes, this is video of the Aurora theatre shooting suspect. He was in court today, changing his plea to 'not guilty by reason of insanity'..." REPORTER #2: "James Holmes will be heading to the state mental hospital in Pueblo, but it could be more than a month before he's transferred from the Arapahoe County Jail to Pueblo because a clinician at this hospital wants to review all 40,000 pages of discovery first. How long he'll be down there is unknown, but the judge wants a status report by August 2nd." REPORTER #2: "Aurora theatre shooting suspect James Holmes looks down at the terms he must agree to in order to plead 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. Judge Carlos Samour read it word for word and then asked Holmes if he had any questions. Holmes, off camera, said one word: 'No.' His attorneys then asked the judge for a new plea of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. The judge accepted." VICTIM #1: "The whole insanity plea—I have a hard time with it based on some of the evidence I've seen." REPORTER #2: "Marcus Weaver is among the victims who meet regularly with prosecutors. He was shot in the arm inside the Century 16 theatre. His date, Rebecca Wingo, one of the twelve murdered. The change of plea is at least progress for a case that's nearly 11 months old." VICTIM #1: "Really, I kind of just went—*sigh*—that we're finally moving this thing forward." VICTIM #2: "The defense team keeps on wanting to push back further and further when we all just want to move on and get this done and get it over with so we can move on with our lives." REPORTER #2: "Joshua Nolan was shot in the arm and leg. He questions the intent of an insanity plea." VICTIM #2: "I believe that's just his next move to personally hurt me now on a mental factor, not on a physical factor..." REPORTER #1: "And Seven News did some checking, right now there are 124 people being treated at the state mental hospital in Pueblo who have been found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. Another 138 people are being treated after being found incompetent to proceed with their criminal case, but the insanity plea doesn't always work. This year alone, two people have been sent to prison after jurors found them 'guilty' after they entered pleas of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'. Edward Romero who killed and dismembered a 16-year-old girl, and Bret Luckett Thompson who kidnapped and sexually assaulted an 8-year-old girl."

After two more years of delays, Holmes ended up being charged with 12 life sentences, plus an additional 3,318 years in prison, and I know what some readers might be thinking: "Why don't they just give him the death penalty?" That was the original intention. The prosecution pleaded to court for the death penalty, and the option of execution was brought before the jury for deliberation, but one juror among the twelve did not think it was right to give him the death penalty on the grounds that Holmes was "mentally ill," which should be infuriating Denver residents, considering the fact that the victims, after already having to pay for their own hospital bills, now through their taxes, they will be responsible to also pay for Holmes' food, clothing, shelter, and utilities in prison, and of course, they will be paying for his psychiatric treatment and prescription medications as well.
(See Chuck Hickey, "Max: Aurora theater shooter gets 12 life sentences plus 3,318 years," FOX Denver, Aug 26, 2015, retrieved Mar 27, 2019, [http://bit.ly/2TDbsRR])

It should be noted that Holmes was on four different prescription medications at the time of the shooting. Official reports did not disclose what medications he was taking and for what, but Holmes was seeing a psychiatrist, and there is no doubt in my mind that those were psychotropic drugs. I also suspect that the names of those drugs were kept silent because this shooting was a big media event that would tarnish the branding, and decrease the sale and use of those drugs.

There should be no room for witchdoctors (i.e. psychologists/psychiatrists) in our U.S. courtrooms. Murderers, thieves, rapists, and many other criminals are getting leniency, reduced sentences, and sometimes even their freedom, on the basis of sorcery; meaning that, in many cases, the very drugs that psychiatrists are prescribing are causing the problems they allegedly solve, and we are about to find out how sad this situation has become over the past few decades.



 

John Rees, psychiatrist and military colonel, said the following in a speech he gave at the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Mental Hygiene in 1940:
"We can therefore justifiably stress our [psychology's/psychiatry's] particular point of view with regard to the proper development of the human psyche, even though our knowledge be incomplete. We must aim to make it permeate every educational activity in our national life: primary, secondary, university and technical education are all concerned with varying stages in the development of the child in adolescent... Public life, politics and industry should all of them be within our [psychology's/psychiatry's] sphere of influence."
-John R. Rees, Speech given at the Annual Meeting of the National Council for Mental Hygiene, June 18th, 1940, Mental Health, Vol. I, No. 4, October, 1940, p. 103

In previous chapters, we have already seen how deeply the psychological movement has embedded itself into our society, but we are about to see even greater tragedy in our own military. In this chapter, we will discover that the military has been one of the primary stages for experimentation in psychotropic drugs, so that they could be tweaked and brought to market for the general public.

In his book, The Shaping of Society by War, Rees said:
"The army and the other fighting services form rather unique experimental groups since they are complete communities, and it is possible to arrange experiments in a way that would be very difficult in civilian life."
-John R. Rees, The Shaping of Psychiatry by War, W.W. Norton, 1945, [University of Wisconsin - Madison]

Whereas we citizens have some form of government regulation on why, when, and how people can get access to psychotropic drugs, and strict laws against abuse during experimental drug trials, the military has far fewer regulations or restrictions on the matter. Ultimately, the military is a psychiatric playground; an unlimited taxpayer-funded budget that comes with a guarantee that any casualties from their experiments would be hidden under "classified" status.

The following video is a series of clips taken from an hour-long U.S. Army instructional training video for medical officers to treat soldiers with psychiatric techniques:

OPENING: "Any medical officer may be called upon to treat neuropsychiatric casualties. Because of the shortage of neuropsychiatrists, the burden of early recognition and treatment of these casualties will fall on medical officers without specialized training. The attention of all medical officers, therefore, is invited to their responsibility for the mental as well as physical health of military personnel." INSTRUCTOR: "He displays the picture of a typical American boy, and now he's sick. And unless we do something for him, he may remain sick for an indefinite period of time. Gentlemen, you are not requested to treat these patients; you are directed to do so."

(See Department of the Army Office of the Chief Signal Officer, "Combat Exhaustion," U.S. Department of Defense, ARC IDentifier 35906, Local Identifier 111-M-1197)

In the video, medical personnel are instructed to use amytal sodium, nembutal, phenobarbital, and pentothal, all of which carry side effects which include, but are not limited to: sleepiness, confusion, nervousness, insomnia, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache, fever, agitation, nightmares, anxiety, sleep apnea, low blood pressure, fainting, injection site reactions, muscle spasm, loss of coordination, hallucinations, abnormal thinking, slow breathing, slow heart rate, hypersensitivity reactions (such as skin swelling, peeling, or rash), liver damage, loss of balance, aggression, excitement, memory loss, drowsiness, hangover effect, loss of appetite, tiredness, cardiac arrhythmias, and more. In addition to these drugs, sodium bromide was recommended, which was banned for use in drugs in 1975 due to its toxicity, meaning that it could be fatal in some cases.
(See amytal sodium, nembutal, phenobarbital, and pentothal, RxList, retrieved Mar 1, 2019, [https://www.rxlist.com]; See also Phyllis A. Lyday, "Bromine," United State Geological Survey, retrieved Mar 1, 2019, [minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/bromine/bromimyb03.pdf])

It should be noted that the application of psychology/psychiatry into the military was not something that took place over night. It took many years for psychiatric treatment to worm its way into the military, and that was mostly due to the fact that, back in the early 20th century, psychiatry was not trusted by people on a worldwide scale, because it was neither science nor medicine.

The Nazi German Army was most famously known for experimentation in psychiatric treatments on soldiers during WWI and WWII. For example, the "Kaufmann Cure," named after neurologist Fritz Kaufmann, was a series of electro-shock therapies (otherwise known as torture), in which soldiers were electrocuted while being given visual or verbal suggestions; these were often used on those who would attempt to flee from the battlefield, doubly reinforcing terror in soldiers who abandoned their post.
(See Paul F. Lerner, Hysterical Men: War, Psychiatry, and the Politics of Trauma in Germany, Cornell University Press, 2003, p. 102-105, ISBN: 9780801440946)

Such "treatments" would land a psychiatrist in jail under normal circumstances, but because they were soldiers, they had only two choices: Go to the front line and be shot, or suffer the pain of living in a psychiatric military clinic as a guinea pig. Because the psychiatrists had legal authority to do whatever they wished to a soldier, many young men were electrocuted, drugged, and sometimes permanently injured or killed through these treatments, without the public knowing anything about it since they were just a few of the thousands of casualties coming in every week during the wars.

Because of such brutal actions, in combination with Freud's insane ideas, psychology/psychiatry was generally met with disapproval early on, but after experimenting on countless soldiers throughout the course of WWI and WWII, psychiatrists grew to high positions in U.S. military power behind the scenes. By 1943, U.S. military commander Francis Braceland bragged that:
"Psychiatry now has a place in every step of the Navy man's career, from his induction to his eventual separation from this service."
-Francis J. Braceland, quoted by Bruce Wiseman, Psychiatry, the Ultimate Betrayal, Freedom Publishing, 1995, p. 87, ISBN: 9780964890909

In 1945, William Menninger, Brigadier General and Chief of Psychiatry for the U.S. Army, created a manual that listed out potential "mental disorders" in soldiers. This manual had no scientific research supporting it, and it had no medical testing behind it; it was purely Menninger's opinions about what he thought might be wrong with a soldier. This document would become a staple for the U.S. War Department, and would be named the Nomenclature and Method of Recording Diagnosis, but what readers need to understand is that this document went on to be the foundation upon which DSM I was created, which means that, ultimately, all standardized psychology and psychiatry in existence today was created out of the non-medical, unscientific opinions of those who, behind closed doors, tortured our nation's military personnel.
(See U.S. Department of the Army, Nomenclature and Method of Recording Diagnosis, Washington, DC, 1945, Technical Bulletin MED 203)

In fact, today, even military chaplains, who are supposed to be helping to serve spiritual problems of the mind, are now often sending soldiers straight to a military psychiatrist. A 2011 article published in the Military Medicine journal concluded that more straight-forward guidelines should be instituted to give chaplains clear instruction that they should refer soldiers to a psychiatrist:
"We conclude that with the correct training and a sufficiently mutual understanding of each other's roles, a collaborative model between military doctors [i.e. psychiatrists] and chaplains is likely to prove successful in improving the mental health of service personnel. Successful joint working relies upon chaplains maintaining and updating their counseling skills and improving their understanding of emergent mental health issues. Also, while religion is an understandably important part of chaplains' military roles, care needs to be taken not to confuse the religious role with the mental health one. Lastly, we also suggest that a formal collaborative model should be clear as to when chaplains should refer cases on to, or at least liaise [lee-aiz - to create a working relationship] closely with, mental health professionals to ensure the best possible outcome for distressed service personnel."
-Rachel L. Seddon & Edgar Jones, "The Role of Chaplains in Maintaining the Psychological Health of Military Personnel: An Historical and Contemporary Perspective," Military Medicine, Vol. 176, December, 2011, p. 1360

The chaplains send the soldiers to the psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist, after meeting with the soldier for maybe five to ten minutes, puts him/her on drugs. In 2001, the U.S. Military spent $7.5 million on prescription medications for soldiers, and by 2010, that number jumped to $39 million; during that time, in a five-year period, the amount of soldier prescriptions for just Ritalin and Adderall alone had increased almost 1,000%.
(See Richard A. Friedman, "Why Are We Drugging Our Soldiers?" New York Times, Apr 21, 2012, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/why-are-we-drugging-our-soldiers.html])

According to a 2009 study, from 1988-2003, the U.S. Department of Defense spending on medical care increased from $14.6 billion to $27.2 billion (almost doubling), and throughout each passing year, it continues to rise. The reason it continues to rise at such a sharp rate is due to the increased use of prescription drugs to soldiers, to the point that U.S. President Donald Trump has attempted to decrease the cost of prescription drugs as a whole, so the overall budget decreases; even though it would make more sense to stop drugging citizens and soldiers alike, Trump's just trying to make them cheaper instead of solving the problem, which would be to cut off all tax-payer funding for prescription medication, but that is not going to happen because they are all deceived by the lie of "mental illness."
(See Joshua W. Devine & Shana Trice, "Trends in Prescription Drug Utilization and Spending for the Department of Defense, 2002-2007," Military Medicine, Vol. 174, Issue #9, Sept 1, 2009, p. 958-963, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-01-2309]; See also Avik Roy, "The Trump Plan To Reduce Prescription Drug Prices Will Have A Major Impact," Forbes, May 14, 2018, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2tNG8pg])

It should be noted that this is happening in militaries of other countries all around the world; not just in the U.S. However, I am focusing on the U.S. because our country is where many of these drug companies are owned and operated, and through the terrible example we have set, falling prey to the deception of witchdoctors (i.e. psychiatrists and psychologists), sadly, other countries have followed suit.

The prescription drug epidemic has gotten so bad that, as of 2013, about 17% of U.S. soldiers were on prescription medication, and that percentage keeps on climbing every year. Worse still, many of these soldiers are on an array of pills:
"[M]any troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily "cocktails" — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations... 'It's really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people's cognition and behavior,' said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist. A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars."
-Military Times, "Medicating the military — Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers," Mar 29, 2013, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2TwwOnX]

As stated in the quote, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) spending on psychotropic drugs has increased many times over in the past two decades. They also found that the prescriptions for the psychotropic drugs Seroquel and Risperdal more than tripled, while the annual spending on them more than quadrupled, the use of Valium and Ambien almost tripled, while spending also tripled, and while antidepressant spending showed a decrease, that was only because the military started purchasing generic versions of the drugs to decrease costs, but the prescription orders for antidepressants still increased by 40%.

However, I want readers to understand that these numbers only reflect those prescriptions that were documented; meaning that an official prescription order was written for those specific soldiers. This does not account for the drug handouts soldiers will get "down range," which is a military term used to describe soldiers on the field, either in war or in training.

In fact, in a Senate Report from 2010, it was admitted that the DOD (Department of Defense) even had missing records for pharmaceutical drugs taken in clinic, but they also had "no visibility" for what soldiers were taking down range:
"In addition, the committee remains concerned about DOD's inability to track the prescription and administration of medications in theater, especially of psychotropic medications. In response to questions for the record from a March 2010 Subcommittee on Personnel hearing on the military health care system, the committee was informed that the Military Health System Pharmacy Data Transaction Service has no visibility of pharmacy data for prescriptions dispensed in forward operating areas."
-U.S. Senate Report 111-201, "Authorizing Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011 For Military Activities of the Department of Defense and for Military Construction, to Prescribe Military Personnel Strengths for Such Fiscal Year, and for Other Purposes," 111th Congress, June 4, 2010, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-111srpt201/html/CRPT-111srpt201.htm]

In case you may not have understood that, I will summarize it: The Senate committee was questioning whether or not they would approve funding for the DOD, and they were worried about the DOD being incapable of tracking their spending on drugs, who was taking them, and how much, and that was just "in theater," which means in the clinic. The U.S. Department of Defense is struggling enough in-house, but down range (i.e. in the field), they concluded, based on the reports, that there is ZERO oversight of prescription medications and their use, and as we will discover later in this chapter, that their bumbling ignorance on this matter has consequences.

We have to remember that the funding of psychologists/psychiatrists by pharmaceutical manufacturers does not stop at civilian life; these military psychologists are poised to potentially make far more in pharmaceutical drug money than civilian doctors because military psychologists have access to a far greater budget. This means that total spending on off-the-record drugging of soldiers is likely FAR higher than the numbers are showing, and drug manufacturers want to keep things that way because if the Senate forces oversight and regulation for use of psychotropic drugs in theater and down range, then drug manufacturers will not be able to sell as many to the military.

For example, one of the most popular diagnoses for soldiers is PTSD, or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, claiming that it is a "mental illness," but as we have already seen, mental illness does not exist, and therefore PTSD does not exist either. PTSD is a label put onto battle fatigue and the grief a soldier experiences from being in the military, and even some psychologists have recently come forward and stated that PTSD is non-existent:
"Professor Dinesh Bhugra, a former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, suggests the condition [PTSD] is not a true mental illness but instead is being diagnosed as a result of the influence of 'insurance firms and drug manufacturers'. He claims labelling patients with the term could delay recovery and worsen the problems... Rather than being a cohesive, well-defined and meaningful condition such as depression, Prof Bhugra says that PTSD is merely a 'cultural construct that is a reflection of the American healthcare system, which is dictated by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies'."
-Paul Strudwick, "Post-traumatic stress? It doesn't even exist! Top psychiatrist hits out at doctors who diagnose disorder at the 'drop of a hat'," Daily Mail, Feb 28, 2015, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://dailym.ai/2IPGOoi]

Bhugra's analysis is correct, and I would only correct one thing. He says that the label of PTSD "COULD delay recovery and worsen the problems," but I disagree because it ABSOLUTELY delays recovery, and by the end of this chapter, you will see why it not only delays it, often times, psychologists/psychiatrists completely destroy a soldier's chance at recovery.

Another psychiatrist, Derek Summerfield, wrote an article for the British Medical Journal in which he explained that PTSD was used by anti-war proponents to help justify their political agenda, whereas psychiatrists found it beneficial because they could take all sorts of so-called "mental illnesses," like schizophrenia, an alleged "personality disorder," and other such fake diagnoses, and lump them all into PTSD for a quick diagnosis and prescription. In simple terms, they want to get the patient in and out in 10 minutes or less, while making a good profit on the prescription drug sale. What was typically known as being "shell shocked" in the early 20th century, and what was normally seen as pain and grief that most soldiers had to work through in their own hearts (hopefully, turning them to the grief and godly sorrow of repentance and faith towards Christ), is now being labeled as a disease of the mind, which gives them an excuse to say they are sick, and helps them to ignore the foundational problems that will never go away through the use of psychiatric medication.
(See Derek Summerfield, "The invention of post-traumatic stress disorder and the social usefulness of a psychiatric category," British Medical Journal, Jan 13, 2001, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7278.95])

PTSD does not exist.

I know there may be some readers out there who will hate me because I state boldly that PTSD does not exist, and the reason is because either they, or family close to them, have experienced a lot of after-war grief and pain. The problem is that you have been told that the grief and pain from wartime activity is "PTSD," but PTSD does not exist; the grief and pain from wartime activity exists, and that is simply a soldier dealing with stress in a normal fashion, but PTSD is not a real condition, and we need to stop connecting normal grief and pain of the heart to a "mental illness," otherwise, no one is ever going to be healed from that grief and pain because they are given an excuse to remain "sick," and then take drugs to drown out their sorrows, ultimately leading to addiction, substance abuse, and sometimes death.

PTSD has FAR more ties to politics and dirty money than it does to actual science and medicine. For example, let's look at the Executive Director of the National Center for PTSD, Matthew Friedman, who claims to have "45 years of experience treating individuals with PTSD."
(See Matthew Friedman, "Matthew Friedman Biography," National Center for PTSD, retrieved June 6, 2019, [ptsd.va.gov/professional/continuing_ed/presenters/matthew_friedman_md_phd.asp])

Friedman admits to "having served as a paid speaker for GlaxoSmithKline, Ortho-McNeil, and AstraZeneca," all of which are drug manufacturers, and this means that he is on the payroll of big-pharma. He also sat on the Scientific Advisory Boards for GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer, who uncoincidentally are the makers of the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft, which are the only two psychiatric drugs that are FDA approved for the treatment of PTSD. In short, Friedman has been paid handsomely to help push his financial backers' drugs into FDA approval and distribution into the armed forces.
(See Matthew J. Friedman, "Veterans' Mental Health in the Wake of War," U.S. National Library of Medicine, Mar 31, 2005, PMID: 15800223, retrieved June 6, 2019, [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15800223]; See also Kelly P. O'Meara, "Two Soldiers Prescribed 54 Drugs: Military Mental Health 'Treatment' Becomes Frankenpharmacy," Citizens Commision on Human Rights, Oct 30, 2012, retrieved June 6, 2019, [cchr.org/documentaries/the-hidden-enemy/military-mental-health-treatment-frankenpharmacy.html])

The following is a short list of the many symptoms someone can have which will lead to a "PTSD" diagnosis. You will notice that any number of these symptoms are experienced by almost every soldier in the military, which means, under the right circumstances, every U.S. soldier, from any branch, in any position, both men and women, can be legally diagnosed with PTSD from the moment they enter basic training; these include, but are not limited to:

Recurring memories of traumatic events Reliving traumatic events Upsetting dreams about traumatic events Emotional distress about traumatic events Avoidance of talking about traumatic events Avoiding places that remind one of traumatic events Negative thoughts about yourself Negative thoughts about other people Hopelessness Lapse in memory Difficulty with relationships Feeling detached from family or friends Lack of interest in certain activities Hardship with positive emotions Feeling no emotions Easily startled or frightened Being on guard from danger Excessive drinking Trouble sleeping Trouble concentrating Irritability Guilt or shame Anxiety or depression

These are just a few of the many alleged "symptoms" of PTSD, and if you look closely at some of them, you will see ridiculous things like being easily startled or frightened, but if that were the case, then just about every female I have ever encountered would be diagnosed with PTSD because I have found that many of them are easily startled or frightened. And what is really insane is that, according to the Mayo Clinic, one of the listed causes of PTSD is excessive drug use! If drug use is the cause of PTSD, then how is taking more drugs supposed to fix it?
(See Mayo Clinic, "Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)," retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20355967])

Symptoms Are Not Proof of Illness There will be many "professionals" who will scoff at this book as a whole, claiming that disorders like PTSD should automatically be assumed as true because they falsely believe it is been proven to exist countless times. However, as we learned in chapter 3, they are basing their evidence on symptoms, not on causation. Symptoms can lead us to a core problem, and they do provide evidence of an underlying problem, but the symptom itself is not sufficient evidence to prove a causal link. For example, if I presented a psychiatrist with a young man who had a broken arm, and the psychiatrist said, "a mental disorder is causing pain in his arm," I would ask him, "On what basis do you know that his arm pain is caused by a mental disorder?" The psychiatrist is going to answer with symptoms; meaning that he will say, "Look how much pain the young man is in, obviously he has a mental disorder!" That is not a scientific, reasonable, or medically professional response. I can do x-rays and demonstrate that the young man's bone is broken, needs to be reset, and that will eventually fix his pain, but all a psychologist can do is tell you about the pain, not the cause, and then he/she will give you drugs that will attempt to cover up that pain because they have no solution. diagnose (v): to ascertain the cause or nature of (a disorder, malfunction, problem, etc.) from the symptoms (See 'diagnose', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 6, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com]) Though a psychologist/psychiatrist claims they "diagnose" patients, they actually do no such thing. The definition of a diagnosis is to "ascertain [to find out with certainty] the cause or nature of a problem from the symptoms," but that is not what psychologists do; they convince you that you have a "disorder" based on a list of forged symptoms out of the DSM, claiming that the "mental illness" (which does not exist) is the cause (which is not true), by using so-called "symptoms," most of which are not symptoms of anything. (i.e. They are just normal things we all experience.) Do not be deceived: What psychologists do is NOT science. It is nonsense. Psychologists and psychiatrists are people who draw conclusions without evidence, and spend most of their time convincing you that they know the cause, when in reality, they do not even understand the symptoms they are analyzing.

At this point, it is not just military, but under these "symptoms," nearly every man, woman, and child on the planet could be diagnosed with PTSD. As we learned in earlier chapters, these diseases do not have clear definitions, and because of the vagueness, everything is left up to personal opinions of the psychologists who are analyzing these soldiers, and because they cannot define what PTSD is, nor do they have physical evidence of it, therefore, they cannot prove that it actually exists.

Some of the symptoms labeled as "PTSD" come about from soldiers who have suffered Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), which is a condition that is physically and scientifically verifiable. This can happen if a soldier suffers a blow to the head or spinal cord from a closed head wound or concussive blast during combat, but these are physical wounds, not mental ones, and they cannot be solved by taking pills.

What is even more tragic than combat trauma is that, with the rise of drugs to treat the illusionary "PTSD," there has also been a rise in suicides. One would think the treatment for PTSD would lead to a lower rate of suicide, not a higher one, but in reality, the opposite is true; with increased use of psychotropic drugs, there has been an increase of suicide rates among active and former military.

Since 2004, the FDA requires that all antidepressants come with a warning label that the drug increases the risk of suicide; although this is typically put on a package insert, which means it comes in the box it is shipped in, rather than being put on the side of the bottle itself, and that means most consumers never see it. (i.e. A regulation that makes a politician look good on the outside, but the regulation is mostly useless because of how it is implemented.) Here is a packet insert warning for Prozac: "WARNING: Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs — Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of Prozac or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. Prozac is approved for use in pediatric patients with MDD and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). (See WARNINGS, Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk, PRECAUTIONS, Information for Patients, and PRECAUTIONS, Pediatric Use.)"
(See Food & Drug Administration, "Revisions to Product Labeling," retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [fda.gov/downloads/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm173233.pdf])

Even though it is a warning, it is a deceptive warning because no one can know the full effects of a drug on any individual, and as any honest psychiatrist would tell you, the effects of a drug on an individual are unknown until observed. (i.e. You have to become a lab rat to know how the drugs will affect you.) However, when it comes to the military, especially down range, the suggestion that a patient "should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior" is either ignored, or additional drugs are stacked on top, which creates a ticking time bomb for suicide.

It is also important to notice that they stated "short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality," which means it was a study done only over a short period of time. After all, companies want their drug on the market, and long-term studies prevent that, which means we do not know the full effect these drugs have on individuals of any age.

Worse still was that in 2008, a discovery was found in data that was submitted to the FDA about the so-called "benefits" of antidepressants. As we have already seen in previous chapters, data is often manipulated by drug companies when submitting their findings to the FDA, and once again, we find the same pattern of deception. A handful of professors from colleges around the world got together to analyze the antidepressant data submitted to the FDA:
"We obtained data on all clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the licensing of the four new-generation antidepressants for which full datasets were available... Drug-placebo differences increased as a function of initial severity, rising from virtually no difference at moderate levels of initial depression to a relatively small difference for patients with very severe depression, reaching conventional criteria for clinical significance only for patients at the upper end of the very severely depressed category... What do these findings mean? These findings suggest that, compared with placebo, the new-generation antidepressants do not produce clinically significant improvements in depression in patients who initially have moderate or even very severe depression, but show significant effects only in the most severely depressed patients. The findings also show that the effect for these patients seems to be due to decreased responsiveness to placebo, rather than increased responsiveness to medication."
-Irving Kirsch & Brett J. Deacon, "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration," U.S. National Library of Medicine, February, 2008, PMID: 18303940, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2253608]

In simple terms, they found that antidepressants were only effective with the most severely depressed patients, but even then, this was only a short-term experiment (i.e. we do not know if the long-term effects are dangerous), and the antidepressant still does not solve the problem. For the grand majority of cases, the data showed that antidepressants did nothing for depression, which means the drugs are not only useless, but dangerous.

Psychiatrist Joanna Moncrieff argues that psychotropic drugs do not "cure" anyone's depression, but rather, the drugs put them into an abnormal brain state that makes it appear outwardly that their symptoms are relieved:
"Do antidepressants 'cure' depression? No, says Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist at University College London—no more so than insulin 'cures' diabetes or alcohol 'cures' social anxiety."
-Jonathan Beard, "...Yet Antidepressants Offer No Cure," Scientific American, Aug 1, 2006, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [scientificamerican.com/article/yet-antidepressants-offer-no-cure]

A lobotomy is a brain surgery in which pieces of the frontal lobe of the brain are cut off, and it puts a patient into a state in which they can somewhat function, but they can no longer think, reason, and feel as they once did. In short, soldiers are being chemically lobotomized because the antidepressants and other drugs they are being given to treat PTSD is putting them into a docile state, and although they will seemingly remain docile and emotionless while being screamed at by a drill sergeant, which the military views as a desired effect, the soldiers will also remain docile and emotionless when faced with suicidal thoughts, being more conditioned by the drugs to act on those thoughts without remorse or caution, and considering that these are fully armed and trained soldiers, they may not only hurt themselves in the process.

Clinical studies are only looking at suicide as a negative consequence to antidepressants, but they are not monitoring for things like domestic violence against spouses or children, which have increased overall with the use of psychiatric drugs. They are not looking at violent behavior in the long-term, which is a very real problem that many soldiers face when on these drugs.

For example, in 2009, John Russell, a 46-year-old sergeant, was stationed at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, and one day, without warning, opened fire on five of his fellow soldiers in the clinic where he was being treated. A few weeks before the shooting, Russell was ordered to have psychiatric counseling, and as a result, he was put on drugs; though some media outlets decided to include this very important information, if they mentioned it at all, it was only tossed in at the end like an afterthought, rather than being taken into serious consideration for causation.

In fact, according to the report, Russell's military psychiatrist put him on antidepressants the day before the shooting:
"Jones testified via telephone that he saw Russell the day before for the first time and prescribed him an antidepressant."
-Associated Press, "Witness heard soldiers cry out when shot," Topeka Captial-Journal, Aug 9, 2011, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [cjonline.com/news/2011-08-09/witness-heard-soldiers-cry-out-when-shot]

In 2011, David Lawrence shot and killed a suspected Taliban prisoner in his cell. Days before, Lawrence received antidepressants, Zoloft and Trazodone (a generic antidepressant), from a psychiatrist at a combat stress clinic in Afghanistan, which he was taking at the time of the shooting.
(See Associated Press, "U.S. soldier sentenced to prison in death of detainee in Afghanistan," NOLA Media Group, May 26, 2011, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [nola.com/military/2011/05/us_soldier_sentenced_to_prison.html])

In 2012, honorably discharged ex-Marine Terence Tyler suddenly killed two co-workers and then committed suicide outside of a grocery store where they worked. Though most media reports did not include the information, Tyler's uncle reported that he was taking Prozac for depression at the time of the shooting.
(See Mark Di Ionno, "Di Ionno: Sister of N.J. supermarket gunman says 'we had no idea what was going on with him'," New Jersey On-Line, Sept 1, 2012, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [blog.nj.com/njv_mark_diionno/2012/09/di_ionno_sister_of_gunman_in_n.html])

The same year, Robert Bales pleaded guilty to premeditated murder after opening fire on sixteen innocent Afghani villagers, who mostly consisted of women and children. Though Bales had been drinking alcoholic contraband, and had been taking steroids in secret, the day of the shooting, he snorted his prescribed psychiatric medication, Valium, and murdered nine children.
(See Elizabeth Weise, "Soldier gets life in prison for Afghan massacre," USA Today, Aug 23, 2013, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/23/afghanistan-massacre-bales/2692917])

In 2013, Aaron Alexis opened fire on sixteen people at the Washington Navy Yard, leaving twelve dead and four wounded before he was shot and killed. He had no history of suicidal thoughts, depression, or thoughts of harming others, but came to the clinic to be treated for insomnia. In weeks leading up to the shooting, he was visiting psychiatrists who prescribed him Trazodone, which he had in his system during the killing spree.
(See Steve Vogel & Sari Horwitz, "Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis told VA doctors he was not thinking of harming others," The Washington Post, Sept 18, 2013, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [https://wapo.st/2SO0vg6])

In 2015, Eddie Routh killed two people at a shooting range in Texas. In the weeks leading up to the shooting, Routh was seeing a psychiatrist at a veteran's medical center and had the drug Risperidone in his system when the murders took place.
(See Manny Fernandez & Kathren Jones, "An American Sniper, His Killer, and Deep Scars Bared for a Jury," New York Times, Feb 19, 2015, retrieved Mar 6, 2019, [https://nyti.ms/2UoD1Qe])

We need to keep in mind that soldiers are trained to make quick decisions about who or what gets shot on a battlefield, and those speedy decisions need to be made with a clear head. Psychotropic drugs cloud the brain, so that soldiers cannot make clear decisions about who is an enemy, or what is a threat, and so when a fully trained and armed soldier is operating solely on muscle memory, rather than cognitive reasoning and emotional conscience, terrible things can happen.

A veteran soldier and his wife recall their experiences when he was on psychotropic drugs, and even begins to break down in tears while remembering how he had pointed a loaded gun at himself and his wife at one point:

MICHAEL: "Ever since I was a little kid, I always loved the military. I always loved the army. I think I always knew that I wanted to join. I always said I wanted to go, and experience it, just to serve my country. I went to the recruiting station, and said 'I want to jump out of airplanes and ride motorcycles," and right then they said, 'We've got a job for you!' [*laughter*] I did it, and it was good. It was right after combat, so I started getting these dreams and flashbacks and all that stuff, and kind of anxiety and all that stuff, and I went to my doc, and they said 'Yeah, we've got to get you some meds.' They gave me them, and that was it. You first start taking it, you feel great. 'Whoa!' Then it just like, it was like, you get immune to it, and then let's take a higher dose; let's take a higher dose." ELISE: "In my experience, I didn't see anything helping at all. I felt like it was making everything worse." MICHAEL: "I gained like—how many—like forty pounds taking the meds. We looked it up, and that one med—I don't remember what it was called, but it said it acted like you had 1500 calories every pill you take, and I had to take it three times a day." ELISE: "If he missed a dose, then every—the whole family would know, the whole house would be kind of on edge because you couldn't talk to him. He would snap." MICHAEL: "You take your meds and you can just start feeling it going down, and then you would just like, 'Bam!' and then you're a zombie, you know." ELISE: "It almost seemed like he just didn't care about life anymore. He wasn't himself." MICHAEL: "My body was breaking down, and my wife, she's all into herbs, and you know, she said 'This isn't right.' And then one—uh... [long pause]... Ahh! I was ****ing drunk, and... [pause]... and, you know, the meds just—taking that ****—and it just, **** it, I'm done. And I—I took my pistol and I ****ing put it in my mouth, and lets'... [pause]... and she opened up the door, and I ****ing took [gestures to his gun and pointing it at his wife] it and... [pause]... I said, I told her, I was like **** it—it's just so... [pause]... I said something's—we've got to ****ing do something, and it just—it didn't work." ELISE: "I had to literally grab the weapon away from him because... [pause]... it probably would have happened." MICHAEL: "That's when I said '**** it, I'm stopping'. I'm stopping taking all this ****. It's killing me. You know, it's going to kill me! It's going to kill my wife!" ELISE: "That was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't working, and something had to be done. I didn't want to lose my husband. I didn't want him to kill himself, and I didn't want to be killed as well in the process." MICHAEL: "I knew I wasn't me. It was the drug that was doing it. I knew I had to change, or I'd be dead, and that's why I changed it."

Thankfully, God had mercy on Michael and Elise; there were no casualties, and they were able to heal, but for many soldiers and their families, a line was crossed and there is no going back, especially when it comes to suicide. Suicide in the military has risen dramatically over the past 30 years, as has the use of psychotropic drugs, but it is not just citizens who are hoodwinked, the military is blinded to the problem as well.

Before his death in 2012, Vice Chief of Staff General Peter Chiarelli said the following in a U.S. Department of Defense news briefing:
"And I would only add to what both [Maj. Gen.] Ray [Carpenter] and [Lt. Gen.] Jack [Stultz] said here is, that I've been looking at this hard for two years like they've been looking at it for two years. And I think our underlying message to you is, if you think you know the one thing that causes people to commit suicide, please let us know, because we don't."
-Department of Defense, "News Transcript," Jan 19, 2011, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [archive.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4756]

My message to our U.S. military is that I have your answer of why there has been such a sharp rise in soldier suicides: You are drugging them to death, and that is one of the many reasons the Lord God has condemned sorcery. The military's generally willful ignorance of this matter is killing a lot of people, and though few will listen to me, I report these things so that as many as possible will live in the hopes that they will come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of sin) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ before the Day of Judgment.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

According to averages taken from 2005 to 2015, over 20 U.S. soldiers (either active duty or veteran) are killing themselves every day, which is almost one every hour. This is not only an increase for men, but also for women in the military; both of which are being drugged at a rapid rate. This means that in just over a 14-year period (from 2005 to 2019), more soldiers have died from suicide than died in the Vietnam War.
(See Nikki Wentling, "VA reveals its veteran suicide statistic included active-duty troops," Stars and Stripes, June 20, 2018, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [stripes.com/news/us/va-reveals-its-veteran-suicide-statistic-included-active-duty-troops-1.533992])

This is not to say that every suicide involves psychotropic drugs, so please do not misunderstand. Suicide in the military was around long before psychiatrists came on the scene, but the fact is that suicide rates are increasing as drug use is increasing, and not only do the drugs themselves state in their packet inserts that they increase the risk of suicide, many soldiers have testified that they felt more suicidal after taking antidepressants.

Taylor Leacox was a Corporal in the U.S. Army Military Police, and he testifies that it was a common occurrence for suicides in the military to have a strong link to psychotropic drugs:
"I was military police, actively working as a police officer on a military installation, and in one week, I went to about 8 or 9 suicide attempts, where the person either overdosed, or, you know, said he was going to kill himself, something like that, and one-for-one, every single person was on psychiatric drugs."
-Taylor Leacox, interviewed in The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry's Covert Agenda, 2013, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/YmvuYTH5nU0?t=54m53s]

Based on the reports I have seen, the corporal's assessment is supported by the findings of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of the Inspector General, because they discovered very similar connections. The following report concerns a military patient who was put on psychiatric medication by an on-call psychiatrist, and later that week, the following happened:
"On hospital day (HD) 4, the family visited and the patient reported his medication seemed to be working; he was sleeping better, and he denied suicidal thoughts. On HD 5, the patient attended a discharge planning meeting. At approximately 10:00 p.m., the MH nurse contacted the psychiatrist to report that the patient said he had not been completely honest as he had been experiencing nightmares and hallucinations. The psychiatrist increased the psychiatric medications and added a sleep aid medication. On HD 6, a nurse documented at approximately 6:30 a.m. that the patient's mood was depressed and that he was being observed every 15 minutes. At 12:30 p.m., another nurse documented that the patient's mood was depressed, and that he scored a 7/10 (with 10 being the highest) on the depression, anxiety, and agitation scales. The psychiatrist documented at approximately 2:00 p.m. that the plan remained the same, and that observation should continue every 15 minutes. The psychiatrist noted that if there were no changes, the patient would be discharged on HD 7. At approximately 3:30 p.m., the patient participated in art therapy group—the topic of the group was 'Masks that Conceal and Reveal.' According to the 15-minute check sheet, the patient was observed either in his room or in the common area every 15 minutes from 12:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. At 7:00 p.m., the shift change began and nurses were receiving report while the HTs were calling patients to the nurse's station to check vital signs. At approximately 8:15 p.m., the patient was called to the nurse's station, but he did not come. A MH [mental health] HT [health technician] went to the patient's room and found him leaning into a sheet that had been looped through a bed frame that was standing upright. The HT removed the sheet, lowered the patient to the floor, and called for help. The patient was conscious but not responding appropriately. Documentation reflects that when the Rapid Response Team arrived, the patient became increasingly agitated and stated, 'Please just kill me now, please let me die!' He followed these statements with pleas of 'Please don't harm me! Please don't kill me!' He had left a note on his nightstand saying he was being held prisoner and would not betray his country by giving the enemy any information. The patient would not answer any questions regarding his suicide attempt or current level of orientation. He was medicated with olanzapine (antipsychotic medication) and lorazepam (antianxiety medication), placed on 2:14 observations, and transferred by stretcher to the intensive care unit (ICU) for further evaluation."
-Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General, "Healthcare Inspection Attempted Suicide During Treatment West Palm Beach VA Medical Center West Palm Beach, Florida," July 25, 2011, Report No. 11-01052-233, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [va.gov/oig/54/reports/VAOIG-11-01052-233.pdf]

It seems the psychiatrist did not bother to analyze whether it was the drugs or the family visiting which caused a positive result in the patient's mood. However, knowing what we have learned so far, it was obviously the visit from family that lifted his spirit. Also, a reasonable person would see someone who is scoring high on a scale of being prone to suicide to remain under careful watch, but the psychiatrist recommended that he be discharged the following day anyway, and that is because he increased his medication; after all, if the meds do not work (which they never do), then it would be more clearly seen that the psychiatrist is doing no good, and because he did not really care about the condition of his patient, he just decided to move him on anyway.

U.S. Army Military Police and Criminal Investigator TaiAri Zimmerman discovered the same thing in many of the cases she was assigned:
"Because of my role as a criminal investigator, I didn't witness the soldiers while they were taking psychiatric drugs. All I got to see was after the suicide or after the death, and then the reports come out. We'd get called pretty often to investigate. We would have an autopsy [surgical analysis of the corpse] performed, and would include a toxicological exam, which would determine any drugs in the system, and usually there was some type of drug. A lot of them were taking some sort of medication for depression or anxiety. There were a lot of suicides happening in the military, overseas, in theatre [clinic], and back in the states."
-TaiAri Zimmerman, interviewed in The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry's Covert Agenda, 2013, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/YmvuYTH5nU0?t=55m16s]

It should be noted that toxicological exams only test for drugs that are targeted, meaning that you have to know ahead of time which chemicals you are testing for, otherwise, the exam will not find them. Toxicological exams have a standard list of chemicals they look for in a person's system depending on how they died, and searching for psychiatric medication has obviously become standard operating procedure in the military when analyzing suicide victims, which is more evidence that they KNOW about this connection, but no one is doing anything about it because there is too much money at stake.

Of course, the average person might think that these suicides are just from soldiers who were involved in combat situations, thinking that the drugs were only part of the problem. Such false notions are reinforced by people like former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and although he may have been sincere in his words, he has done nothing but help cover up the truth behind these suicides:
"As Secretary of Defense, my institutional priority is to taking care of those who have borne the burden and paid the price for protecting our nation. That includes doing everything possible to prevent military suicides. It's always a horrible tragedy to see a service member safely off of the battlefield only to lose them to this scourge—we can, must, and will do better."
-Robert M. Gates, speech given at the launch of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, National Press Club, Sept 10, 2010

The assumption (and deception) is that these soldiers are committing suicide due to combat fatigue, but that is not the case. According to Department of Defense statistics for 2011, 53% of soldiers who died by suicide had NO history of deployment, and almost 85% NEVER saw combat action even if they were deployed. Are we to conclude that those who never saw battlefield combat are committing suicide based on something they never experienced?
(See Sarah Childress, "Why Soldiers Keep Losing to Suicide," PBS, Dec 20, 2012, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/why-soldiers-keep-losing-to-suicide])

One of the drugs commonly prescribed to soldiers who have anxiety and combat-related nightmares is Seroquel, which is so addictive, it has streets names, including, but not limited to, Quell, Squirrel, Susie Q, baby heroin, and some soldiers refer to it as "serokill." The European Union has issued at least 55 warnings about the side effects of Seroquel, but psychiatrist and retired colonel Elspeth Ritchie states that:
"[Seroquel] is proving very useful for the treatment of anxiety and combat-related nightmares. Thus it has been increasingly utilized as an adjunct for PTSD, in both the civilian and military worlds."
-Elspeth C. Ritchie, quoted by Jim Edwards, "Trial Spotlights Pentagon Use of Unapproved Antipsychotics for Post-Traumatic Stress," Mar 9, 2010, retrieved June 6, 2019, [cbsnews.com/news/trial-spotlights-pentagon-use-of-unapproved-antipsychotics-for-post-traumatic-stress]

The interesting fact about this statement is that Seroquel was never FDA approved for use in treating combat-related nightmares, but despite the legal conflicts and dangers, they do it anyway; most notably at the expense of U.S. civilians:
"Between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Veterans Administration and the Defense Department spent more than $850 million on Seroquel, yet another huge profit center for the psycho-pharmaceutical industry at the expense of active-duty troops and vets."
(See Citizens Commission on Human Rights, "Antipsychotics: Sudden Death," retrieved June 6, 2019, [cchr.org/documentaries/the-hidden-enemy/antipsychotics-sudden-deaths.html])

Just as a reminder to U.S. citizens, our government is not funded by harvesting orchards full of money trees; these funds are coming out of your paycheck via taxation. That means that you are helping to fund the suffering and death of U.S. soldiers without your knowledge or consent.

Retired military psychologist, Lt. Colonel Bart Billings, said:
"We have never drugged our troops to this extent and the current increase in suicides is not a coincidence. Why hasn't psychiatry in the military been relieved [taken out] of command of Mental Health Services? In any other command position in the military, there would have been a change in leadership."
-Bart Billings, quoted by Citizens Commission on Human Rights, "Psychiatric Drugs Cause Suicide," retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [cchr.org/documentaries/the-hidden-enemy/psychiatric-drugs-cause-suicide.html]

Billings is correct; any other department of the military would see punishments and demotions for failing in their duties. If a combat general was constantly losing battles, he would be relieved of his command, but because of the pharmaceutical industry's involvement, psychiatrists can fail as much as they want and never lose their jobs.

Many civilians do not know the extent to which suicide in the military has been a problem, nor do they know that suicides continue to increase. In 2009, Fort Campbell in Kentucky closed down for three days on two separate occasions during the year because they had a record suicide count of 133 soldiers in that base alone, which comes out to about one suicide every two and half days, and that was a 15% increase from 2007.
(See Richard A. Greene, "Army post shuts down for anti-suicide event," CNN, May 27, 2009, retrieved Mar 12, 2019, [cnn.com/2009/US/05/27/kentucky.army.suicide/index.html]; See also Associated Press, "Kentucky's Fort Campbell Stands Down to Combat High Suicide Rate," FOX News, May 27, 2009, retrieved Mar 12, 2019, [foxnews.com/story/kentuckys-fort-campbell-stands-down-to-combat-high-suicide-rate])

As of 2018, the Veteran Crisis Line, the hotline phone number for Veterans to call if they need help, reported that they were taking 2,000 calls per day, and there are only 1,440 minutes in a day. That is a lot of tax dollars going to support staff to keep up with all the calls for a 24-hour hotline. Though Veterans can call in for a number of emergency issues, most of them are from veterans who are considering suicide.
(See Sarah Harris, "The VA Has Expanded Its Crisis Line, Helping It Better Respond To Veterans In Need," WUSF Public Media, Sept 20, 2018, retrieved Mar 12, 2019, [wusfnews.wusf.usf.edu/post/va-has-expanded-its-crisis-line-helping-it-better-respond-veterans-need])

Despite drug company lobbyists attempting to skew the information, Billings has taken great pains to get our U.S. Congress to discuss the strong connection between military suicides and psychiatric medication:
"Dr. Bart Billings, a retired Army psychologist who has treated thousands of veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), maintains that there is 'a direct correlation' between the increased use of psychiatric medications to treat PTSD and the high rate of military suicides. A surge of prescriptions since 2005 'coincides with the gradual increase, to this day, of suicides in the military. I feel there's a direct relationship,' Billings told CNSNews.com, adding that the side effects of medications often prescribed by military psychiatrists include an increased risk for suicide. 'If you take a look at people who commit suicide, most of those people—I would say as much as 80 percent—are on some type of psychiatric medication where there's a black box warning that indicates caution for suicidality, poor judgment and reasoning, anger and hostility, which can translate to homicide, depression, etc.,' he said."
-Barbara Hollingsworth, "Army Psychologist: 'Direct Correlation' Between Military Suicides, Psychiatric Drugs," Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Sept 4, 2014, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [cchrint.org/2014/09/04/army-psychologist-direct-correlation-between-military-suicides-psychiatric-drugs]

In a 2010 U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing, lawyer and Army Commander Donald Farber testified that the majority of his work concerns antidepressant suicide cases, and he said:
"Most telling in this debate, antidepressant enthusiasts have sat silent for 20 years as the antidepressant manufacturers have refused to test for suicidality. There has never been a prospective trial designed to test the link between antidepressants and suicide. This should be a big deal. I leave with the Committee 27 sources confirming this fact from all varieties, mostly pro-antidepressant enthusiasts I might add. And Chief Executive Officers I left, it is not in my prepared statement, but I left with the staff a 10-page, 27 sources of quotes, and there is no dispute about this fact. FDA officials conducting their suicide reviews reported last year in the British Medical Journal, 'Antidepressant drugs can have two separate effects. An undesirable effect in some patients to promote suicidal ideation or suicidal behavior, and a therapeutic effect in others.' So, do antidepressants cause suicide? Of course they do. Antidepressant manufacturers would not secretly settle the suicide lawsuits for the large sums they do if these were merely nuisance lawsuits."
-U.S. House of Representatives, "Hearing before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs," 111th Congress, Serial No. 111-62, Feb 24, 2010, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg55230/html/CHRG-111hhrg55230.htm]

But it is not just antidepressants; there are a multitude of drugs that can cause problems that lead to suicide. There is a historical term called 'polypharmacy', which indicates someone who is taking a cocktail of drugs all at the same time.

polypharmacy (n): the use of two or more drugs together, usually to treat a single condition or disease
(See 'polypharmacy', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2002, Houghton Mifflin Company)

These can consist of a long list of drugs, including opioids. In case readers may not be familiar, according to the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, an opioid (oh-pee-ohyd) is defined as the following:
"Opioids are a class of drugs that include the illegal drug heroin, synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, and pain relievers available legally by prescription, such as oxycodone (OxyContin), hydrocodone (Vicodin), codeine, morphine, and many others."
-National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Opioids," retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids]

Essentially, psychiatrists have a license to prescribe heroin, and there are currently no military regulations to oversee opioid distribution and usage. In 2018, a bill was proposed to the U.S. Congress to require opioid prescription rates for soldiers who benefit from TRICARE, but this is only a bill, which means it is only an idea, not something that is currently law, which means for decades, soldiers have been pumped full of heroin-based drugs, being prescribed by so-called "doctors," (i.e. psychiatrists posing as doctors) without any rules or regulations on them.
(See Geoff Ziezulewicz, "Bill could require Pentagon to report opioid prescription rates among TRICARE beneficiaries," Military Times, May 2, 2018, retrieved Mar 5, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2NJTNqv])

In many cases, soldiers are taking not just two, but even ten or twenty different medications all at once, on a daily basis. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, VA doctors are reporting that many of their long-term patients are taking anywhere from 15-20 prescribed medications every day.
(See U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Helping Veterans stop unnecessary medications, Taking too many medicines?" Nov 2, 2018, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [blogs.va.gov/VAntage/53716/helping-veterans-stop-unnecessary-medications])

Furthermore, there is no study of soldiers after they start taking these medications, and there are no studies as to the side effects of drug cocktails, meaning that drugs are only initially tested individually, but not together. Where are the studies being done to find out the results of medications while in active-duty combat? Those studies do not exist. There is rarely any follow-up (i.e. checking in with the patient and monitoring the results of treatments), which most doctors will do with their patients, but when it comes to soldiers, the philosophy is: "Get them in, drug them, get them out." In fact, as of 2011, it is U.S. Central Command policy that troops can be given up to a 180-day (six month) supply of psychotropic drugs before they are shipped out to the front lines, and no regulations are put in place to monitor how those drugs are taken or administered, or in other words, soldiers will just take the pills when they want, they can share them with their friends if they want, and in many cases, can get refills upon request, but only a handful of our government and military officials seem to care.
(See Bob Brewin, "Military's drug policy threatens troops' health, doctors say," Nextgov, Jan 18, 2011, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2011/01/militarys-drug-policy-threatens-troops-health-doctors-say/48321])

The sad part is that many soldiers have also killed themselves while trying to get OFF psychiatric medication, and though psychiatrists will quickly make an excuse to say that it was because their "mental illness" had returned, in reality, it is because when a soldier is on 20 different addictive medications and comes off of them, he experiences 20 different withdrawal symptoms at the same time. Withdrawal is not "mental illness," but psychiatrists use that convenient excuse because they do not want to be held responsible for killing a soldier with their prescriptions. Coming off all those psychotropic drugs at the same time creates a far more intense withdrawal than someone who is addicted to one type of drug. Often, this kind of intense physical and mental pain, in combination with someone who has not dealt with the emotional trauma a soldier may experience, creates a recipe for disaster, which is why it is imperatve that if you know anyone, soldier or not, who is looking to stop taking psychiatric drugs, you need to make sure they have a support system in place, including a reasonable physician that understands the serious problem with medications.
(In case you don't know what I mean by "support system," you need to get together a group of family, friends, and/or neighbors who care about the person involved. Make sure that the group is in constant communication with one another, and that the person has someone to be there for him/her at all times, 24 hours a day until they are better, and be prepared because it can get very rough, sometimes taking many months to get past the initial physical symptoms.)

But it is not only soldiers killing themselves; sometimes, the drugs just do the work for them. In 2011, the New York Times reported on Airman Anthony Mena, who had gone on two deployments to Iraq:
"He returned from his second deployment to Iraq complaining of back pain, insomnia, anxiety and nightmares. Doctors diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and prescribed powerful cocktails of psychiatric drugs and narcotics. Yet his pain only deepened, as did his depression. 'I have almost given up hope,' he told a doctor in 2008, medical records show. 'I should have died in Iraq.' Airman Mena died instead in his Albuquerque apartment, on July 21, 2009, five months after leaving the Air Force on a medical discharge. A toxicologist found eight prescription medications in his blood, including three antidepressants, a sedative, a sleeping pill and two potent painkillers. Yet his death was no suicide, the medical examiner concluded. What killed Airman Mena was not an overdose of any one drug, but the interaction of many. He was 23."
-James Dao & Benedict Carey, "For Some Troops, Powerful Drug Cocktails Have Deadly Results," New York Times, Feb 12, 2011, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13drugs.html]

Sergeant Chris Bachus suffered similar effects after he had been on a total of 27 different medications, including Celexa, Klonopin, and Risperdal:
"In early March 2008, a military doctor began giving him an opiate painkiller for his back. A few days later, Sergeant Bachus, 38, called his wife, who was living in Ohio. He sounded delusional, she told investigators later, but not suicidal. 'You know, babe, I am really tired, and I don't think I'll have any problems falling asleep tonight,' he told her. He was found dead in his on-base quarters in North Carolina nearly three days later. According to the autopsy report, Sergeant Bachus had in his system two antidepressants, the opiates oxymorphone and oxycodone, and Ativan for anxiety. The delirium he experienced in his final days was 'most likely due to the interaction of his medications,' the report said."
-James Dao & Benedict Carey, "For Some Troops, Powerful Drug Cocktails Have Deadly Results," New York Times, Feb 12, 2011, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [nytimes.com/2011/02/13/us/13drugs.html]

Andrew White was another soldier who had come home from Iraq and went to a VA hospital, only to be prescribed drugs for PTSD, and in the following weeks, his parents saw his mind begin to deteriorate. On Feb 12, 2008, Corporal White died in his sleep, leaving his parents demanding answers:
"Mr. White [father of Andrew] has met with members of Congress and asked for Capitol Hill hearings to investigate the deaths. His research prompted a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) investigation into Andrew's and one other death, which were found to have been caused by 'combined drug intoxication.'"
-Audrey Hudson & Andrea Billups, "Dead veteran's kin demand inquiry," Washington Times, Nov 13, 2008, retrieved Mar 13, 2019, [washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/veterans-kin-demands-answers-on-ptsd-drugs]

What is interesting about White's case was that he was only one of a handful of cases in the northeast region of the U.S. in which a young soldier had suddenly, without warning, died in his sleep. There was also 22-year-old Derek Johnson, and 29-year-old Eric Layne, just to name a couple; these men died in their sleep within months of each other, and no one was able to figure out why, but when neurologist Fred Baughman was asked to investigate the problem, he found two simple similarities: All of the men were soldiers, and all of them were taking psychotropic drugs.
(See Veterans for Common Sense, "Four Veterans Taking PTSD Drugs Die in Sleep in West Virginia," May 28, 2008, retrieved Mar 14, 2019, [veteransforcommonsense.org/2008/05/28/four-veterans-taking-ptsd-drugs-die-in-sleep-in-west-virginia])

A local reporter interviewed Baughman:
"'I'm telling you right now, these drugs are unfit for human consumption, across the board,' Baughman said. 'Their side effects take two to three pages to list.'"
-Julie Robinson, "Veterans' Families Question Cause of Deaths," Charleston Gazette, Mar 1, 2009, retrieved Mar 14, 2019, [commondreams.org/news/2009/03/01/veterans-families-question-cause-deaths]

Of course, psychiatrists are quick to defend themselves and call these "overdoses," but in many cases, the victims were only taking what was prescribed by the psychiatrist. It is not because most psychiatrists are trying to kill their patients, but rather, it is because the side effects are unknown with each person, especially when combining them with other drugs; yet, most psychiatrists are playing with fire, and then apathetically shrugging their shoulders when someone gets burned.

We also need to take into consideration the children of these soldiers, and in previous chapters, we have already seen that they have also been targeted by the pharmaceutical industry. In short, dad experiences grief from war and he gets pumped full of drugs, then the stress from the drug use affects his wife, and she gets prescribed drugs as well, but then the children are affected by the parents, and in turn, they are prescribed drugs, creating a trickle-down effect for "mental illnesses" that do not exist in the first place, and in some instances, they destroy families forever.

For example, 11-year-old Daniel Radenz became withdrawn after his father, Lt. Col. Blaine Radenz, was shipped out in June of 2008. Daniel's grades dropped dramatically, and he would have mood swings. Daniel's mother took him to a psychologist, and according to her testimony, Daniel was prescribed some antidepressants after a psychiatrist saw him for only 10-15 minutes; after that, things got much worse:
"Daniel started cutting himself and once used his own blood to write 'the end' on a bathroom wall at school. One day in band class, he began hallucinating and ran into the hall, where teachers found him crouched and hitting and scratching his face. On June 9, 2009, Daniel hanged himself from a bunk bed in his home."
-Karen Jowers & Andrew Tilghman, "Prescriptions increase as families struggle with repeated deployments," The Army Times, Jan 3, 2011, retrieved Mar 14, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2THBOaB]

Many child deaths in which psychotropic drugs may be involved will typically not be reported to be a death that is blamed on a psychiatrist prescribing dangerous drugs because, as we have already seen in previous chapters, these drugs are approved for use by the FDA under very flimsy rules. The "FDA approval" often becomes a wall of defense that shuts down any objective questions about a drug or a psychiatrist. Since they are "legal" under prescription, then the psychiatrist is never held responsible; however, it should be noted that over 90% of children who visit a psychiatrist will be put on drugs, and that according to statistics released by The Citizens Commission on Human Rights in 2017, over 7 million American children are taking psychiatric medication.
(See CCHR International, "Number of Children & Adolescents Taking Psychiatric Drugs in the U.S.," retrieved June 6, 2019, [cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/children-on-psychiatric-drugs])

I want to repeat that, not only are military soldiers and their families being used and abused by the drug industry, but worse still is that American citizens are paying for it. These drugs do not come out of some charitable donation by pharmaceutical companies; they are purchased on the Department of Defense budget, meaning that our government is taking money out of your paychecks to slowly kill our American soldiers under the guise of "medical help."

This is why, for a long time, it has made me sick to my stomach when I see veterans in parades, and people saying "thank you for your service to our country," when in reality, most people really do not care. It is a facade, or in other words, it is something people do to make each other feel better about one another and look "patriotic" on the outside. If we really cared, then we would spend the time and make the effort to help soldiers that had suffered in combat, but just like how many American elders are treated, it is a lot easier for citizens to call them crazy, chemically lobotomize them, and forget about them until they die or kill themselves, but Americans are vigilant to give soldiers a 21-gun salute on the way out to keep up appearances.

Investigative journalist Anthony Gucciardi said that he has seen an increase in soldiers contacting him and telling him about the adverse effects of the psychiatric drugs they have been taking:
"One of the things I have the benefit of, really, is getting thousands of emails a week, whether it's from Veterans or other people suffering from pharmaceutical damage, specifically veterans these days. We see an increase. We see people calling out and saying they feel betrayed."
-Anthony Gucciardi, interviewed in The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry's Covert Agenda, 2013, retrieved Mar 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/YmvuYTH5nU0?t=1h35m9s]

Sadly, many of these betrayed soldiers know if they are told to go see a psychiatrist, they have to do it because soldiers have to follow orders, and there are grave consequences to defying those orders. However, I want anyone who is in the U.S. military to understand that just because you have to go see a psychologist/psychiatrist, it does NOT mean that you have to accept their "treatments," meaning that if they prescribe you drugs, there is NO U.S. law that requires you to take those drugs, and I would urge soldiers to stay away from psychologists/psychiatrists if at all possible, but if not (i.e. your superior orders you to see a psychologist/psychiatrist), then sit through the session, listen to what they tell you (i.e. follow your orders), then leave and refuse treatment because you have that right.

Some soldiers may argue that they were "forced" to take a drug at threat of losing medical care, other benefits, or even a threat of punishment for insubordination, but all military personnel need to understand that, in the U.S. military, if a psychologist orders you to take a prescription drug, that is an ILLEGAL order. They cannot force you to take that drug. A psychologist can threaten you all they want, but if they take any action against you for refusal to take a drug, then you need to immediately contact the next higher ranking officer to report the matter, or if need be, contact the Army CID (Criminal Investigation Command) to investigate. In short, though the military legally owns you as a soldier, it is only to a certain extent to which the law allows, and you do still have a right to refuse an order to take a prescription drug against your will.

Just to make sure military personnel understand their rights, the following is taken from the Department of Defense's explanation of "Informed Consent," which is document Number 6000.14, Sept 26, 2011, under "Patient Rights," and it says:
"Patients have the right to any and all necessary information in non-clinical terms to make knowledgeable decisions on consent or refusal for treatments, or participation in clinical trials or other research investigations as applicable. Such information is to include any and all complications, risks, benefits, ethical issues, and alternative treatments as may be available."
-U.S. Department of Defense, "Department of Defense Instruction," Number 6000.14, Sept 26, 2011, p. 5, retrieved Mar 14, 2019, [esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/600014p.pdf]

That means soldiers are supposed to be informed that they have rights of consent. In addition, on page 11, under "Participation in Treatment Decisions," the same document declares that the DOD Military Health System is required to:
"(f) Give competent patients the opportunity to refuse treatment and to express preferences about future treatment."
-U.S. Department of Defense, "Department of Defense Instruction," Number 6000.14, Sept 26, 2011, p. 11, retrieved Mar 14, 2019, [esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/600014p.pdf]

So ultimately, the concept of "informed consent" is defined by the DOD as your right to know the risks and benefits of any proposed treatment, any known alternative treatment, and you have the right to refuse those treatments. I even once saw an interview with a Judge Advocate General who stated that soldiers have the right to refuse psychiatric medication, even though many do not know that they have this right because they are not told (even though the DOD Instruction manual says that soldiers are supposed to be told this information). Sadly, this does not necessarily mean you can refuse vaccines under the same clause, although they are just as harmful, because a vaccination is not necessarily considered a "treatment" for an illness, and so the military bylaws may be different in that regard. (NOTE: This last sentence is in the original book, but soldiers DO have the right to say "No" to the COVID vaccine because the definitions of a vaccine have been deceptively changed by corrupt individuals [as of 2021], as well as the fact that no information on the ingredients, studies, and risks are being provided to soldiers; all of this means you can say "NO" to the vaccine.)
(Read "The United Vacci-Nations" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But it is important for those of you in the military to know what your rights are, and not just what orders you have lawful ground to refuse, but what unlawful orders you need to report to your superiors to have investigated. Every report made is another stepping stone to help identify the problems in the military, expel the evil, and protect your fellow soldiers from being harmed because the problem is going to get worse.

Military psychiatrist Brigadier General Steven Xenakis said that he wants to increase the amount of psychiatric screening that soldiers receive, which will, in turn, increase the amount of prescription medications distributed:
"NEAL CONAN: And are the health assessments before and after deployment enough?
XENAKIS: I don't think they are. They are screening instruments, and these instruments only have so much fidelity. They're useful, and they give an indication if someone might be at risk, but I think that there needs to be a more extensive assessment of these soldiers both before and after."
-Steven Xenakis, "Grading The Military's Mental Health Screenings," National Public Radio Inc, Mar 20, 2012, retrieved June 6, 2019, [npr.org/2012/03/20/149002197/grading-the-militarys-mental-health-screenings]

Do not think these are third-party psychiatric screenings either; these screenings are funded directly by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Just to provide a general example, NAMI, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, started a campaign called "Stigma Free," to stop the "stigma" (a mental or physical mark characteristic of disease) of "mental illness," offering free testing to see if you have a mental illness, but the deception is that NAMI is a front group that is funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers Abbot Labs, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham, and Wyeth-Ayerst Labs; frankly, it is like a pedophile in a van offering children candy, but once the children get inside, they have to pay for the candy too.
(See National Alliance on Mental Illness, "Stigma Free," retrieved June 6, 2019, [nami.org/stigmafree]; Citizens Commission on Human Rights, "Psycho-Pharma Front Groups," retrieved June 6, 2019, [cchrint.org/issues/psycho-pharmaceutical-front-groups])

I hope that everyone, not just military soldiers, not only sees the evil and the danger involved in psychology/psychiatry, but because this is what the Bible calls sorcery, I hope that readers can now see why the Lord God has said that sorcery is an abomination in His sight. With this understanding, let's take a closer look at how principles of psychology are being used to manipulate the blind masses, not only keeping them in the dark, but even finding ways to get the public to demand more.



 

The term "branding" is something consumers do not typically think about, but it is done everywhere, all the time, every day. First used for cattle, in which a brand would be burned into the skin of an ox for proof of ownership, branding is done for products all the time, and certain products are recognizable by the branding done for them.

brand (n): kind, grade, or make, as indicated by a stamp, trademark, or the like
(See 'brand', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

There is nothing inherently wrong with branding from a business perspective, especially in the fast-paced commercial industry we see today, but the main problem is that consumers rarely understand how branding can affect them, and their willful ignorance leaves them vulnerable to manipulation. The goal of commercial branding is to create a symbol or logo that will draw a link in your mind between your desire and the product being sold.

See if you can recognize some of these brands. Try to consider what comes to mind when you see each brand and/or how it makes you feel when you look at it:

Although some of these symbols will be recognized mostly by Americans, many of them are symbols known worldwide. For example, one of the symbols is simply two circles, one red and one orange, that come together in the middle to form an area of a reddish orange color, and without any other words involved, most people know that to be the MasterCard logo.

The question is, how did you know that was MasterCard? How is it that two colored circles made you think of not just the company MasterCard, but also spending money? The answer is that you have been conditioned to think that way by many different media sources and advertising campaigns, and this is no coincidence; it is something that is carefully planned by trained artists and psychologists in the advertising industry.

The purpose of this branding is to get you to see the MasterCard logo whenever you spend money, in order that you will start associating the MasterCard logo with getting things that you want. Whether it is food at a restaurant, gas in the car to travel with your family, or entertainment on a family vacation, they want you to think "MasterCard" so the emotional experiences of that which is important to you is immediately linked in your mind to the symbol of a red and orange circle interconnected; thereby, the company is attempting to connect your intimate experiences with MasterCard, which, if you think about it for a moment, is completely absurd, but it works on a blissfully ignorant society.

Here is an example of a MasterCard campaign called "One More Day," in which they are encouraging customers to go to more exotic destinations, while charging all that money on their MasterCard credit card:

Of course, this is completely unbiblical. The implication is that the couple is having such a great time, and they cannot afford to stay longer, but if they charge it on a credit card (i.e. unbiblical debt), then they can stay "One More Day."

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
-Proverbs 22:7

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
-Romans 13:8

In the above image, the MasterCard company wants you to see the ocean and the beauty of a sunset, they want you to feel the excitement of being with a man or woman, and eating fine dining while watching a gorgeous horizon, and then they want you to see the MasterCard logo front and center of it all. The average consumer remains blissfully unaware that when they look at this advertisement, even for just a moment, and think on it, it begins the programming process to condition a person's mind that whenever they see those two colored circles symbol, they will think on and feel the emotions of exotic destinations, and start to plan those things out.

The reason that MasterCard has spent billions of dollars on these marketing campaigns is because they are seeing a return on their investment. These advertisements are working; their statistics are showing an increase in consumer use of MasterCard after running ad campaigns, and so what readers need to understand is that commercial branding works, which is why so many companies do it.

Although today my wife and I would never touch McDonald's food, and I have not stepped foot inside a McDonald's restaurant in many years, there are many people who experience a strange feeling when looking at the red and yellow McDonald's 'm' logo, which is commonly referred to as the "double golden arches." Obviously, the logo was created with the 'm' standing for the name of the company, but what many people do not actively think about is that the tips of the 'm' are designed to look like the ends of French fries, put on a red background that typically indicates ketchup, and so when looking at the symbol, many people will become hungry instinctively, based on the conditioning of the advertising, often without realizing that is what is triggering their hunger. (i.e. It is really triggering a lust for food; to get people to react to their gluttonous and covetous sins.)

(It should be noted that McDonald's French fries contain 19 ingredients, some of which are silicon-like additives that are preservatives used in things like silly putty.)

Do two circles interlocked represent travel and exploration? No. Does an 'm' represent delicious food? No. However, the branding creates an illusion that the symbol is representative of experiences, philosophies, and products. Generally, people do not create these links between intimate moments and products in their minds with just written words alone; it takes some sort of image or symbol to create that instant connection between the visual perception and the desires and emotions of the heart.

One of the most common forms of branding known all over the world is found in the religious sector, namely the "cross" (✞) symbol, and today, it too is a form of commercial branding. Many people see the cross symbol and think that it represents "Christianity," but it does not represent Christian doctrine. Just because a service has a MasterCard logo does not mean that service is good for you, just because a product has an 'm' symbol on it does not mean that product is good for you, and just because a building has a cross (✞) symbol on it does not mean that you will get the Gospel of Christ inside.
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is one of the many reasons why idolatry is such an abomination in the sight of God, namely, because the images create an impression, or an illusion in the mind, that the image represents something real, when in reality, it represents nothing. Please do not misunderstand; the Bible does not condemn paintings or statues, so we have to keep our understanding in the context of what Scripture is talking about. The Bible is not a picture book for a very good reason, and does not use symbols because the Lord God wants you to use the reasoning He gave you to see the truth clearly, with no manipulation involved; even the cross (✞) symbol is pagan in its origin, and is not supposed to be used to represent God or Christ.
(Read "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" & "The Biblical Understanding of Idolatry" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
-Acts 17:29

The cross symbol has become a commercial brand for church buildings, preachers, products, and many other things. That cross symbol has become a universal brand to make merchandise of those who put their faith in Christ, and it is up to born again Christians to gain discernment of these things so they are not deceived.

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:1-3

Most Americans are conditioned to think in these ways, not even realizing that they are being manipulated almost every day by newspapers, TV shows, signs, magazines, websites, and various other social media sources; pretty much anything visual, and sometimes audible if possible. Advertising companies started using what are called "jingles," which are short songs, slogans, or verses that are easy to remember, set to a catchy tune, and often, they will get stuck in your mind, keeping your mind focused on the brand.

Not every generation will understand these, but for my generation and further back in time, you all can probably finish these jingles:

_____ will help you get your Z's. _____: The quicker-picker-upper. Give me a break; break me off a piece of that _____. Like a good neighbor, _____ is there. _____, They're magically delicious. The best part of waking up is _____ in your cup. I don't want to grow up, I'm a _____ kid. I wish I was an ____ wiener.

Of course, there are so many jingles out there, there is no way I am going to be able to list them all, but if you think about it for a moment, you will probably know of some more recent jingles you are familiar with. Essentially, these jingles and logos are an attack on the mind because they are conditioning you to stop thinking for yourself and think a specific way, instead of allowing you the freedom of thought and objective reasoning on your own about each product or service. (i.e. They are ultimately changing your philosophy, which is your "way of thinking.")

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [lies] , after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

Most Americans have complained at some point about having a particular jingle stuck in their head, and that is part of the attack on the mind; it is difficult to shake away the thoughts about the product and brand. When they drive past a sign and are tempted by food by looking at the 'm' McDonald's logo, that is an attack on the mind, leading people into the temptations of their lust, and since it has to do with sin, people never think that, in many cases, this is a spiritual attack, just as it can be with the cross (✞) logo.

It used to be that advertisements were more oriented towards logical thinking, and choosing products based on the merits of the quality and price, but today, everything is focused on the emotional attachments. To help demonstrate this point, I created the following video about Jif Peanut Butter, a popular name brand peanut butter in America, and as you will see, commercials in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s were focusing a lot more on product quality and description, along with product comparisons to show that their product was superior, but as we get into the 90s and 2000s, we start to see an emphasis on emotional attachments to family and friends linked to Jif Peanut Butter:

Commercial from the 60s: WOMAN #1: "You're sure choosey making soup from scratch, and you serve THAT peanut butter?" WOMAN #2: "It's the leading brand and they're all alike." WOMAN #1: "Wrong. New Jif's better." WOMAN #2: "What's new about Jif?" WOMAN #1: "Well, new Jif's the fine-grind peanut butter." WOMAN #2: "Fine grind?" WOMAN #1: "Jif's peanuts are ground even finer to get out all the flavorful goodness. Smell yours." WOMAN #2: "So?" WOMAN #1: "Now Jif." WOMAN #2: "Smells more like fresh peanuts!" WOMAN #1: "Taste Jif." WOMAN #2: "Tastes—tastes better; REALLY better!" ANNOUNCER: "Choosey mothers choose new Jif; now it's fine grind." Commercial from 1999: SONG: "Every day brings something more, that you just can't wait to explore. Were my eyes that wide when I was your size? Moms like you choose Jif." ANNOUNCER: "You bring out a sense of wonder and discovery in your family, and with creamy Jif, you'll find the pea-nuttiest taste of any leading creamy brand." SONG: "Moms like you choose Jif. Moms like you choose Jif."

What does peanut butter have to do with children having a sense of "wonder and discovery?" NOTHING! Those two concepts have no connection whatsoever, but put it with a song, and pictures of mother and children spending time together, and suddenly viewers are willing to accept whatever they are seeing and hearing.

In more recent commercials from 2017 (shown in the video), Jif Peanut Butter is being connected to the idea of having or creating childhood memories. There is no logical connection between peanut butter and childhood memories, and even if there was, if you consider that someone grew up eating Skippy peanut butter, or Peter Pan peanut butter, which are Jif's leading competitors, then that is like Jif stomping on childhood memories in order for you to create new ones with Jif, which very few people think about because they are not approaching the subject from a logical standpoint, rather, they are sucked into the emotion of it.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that such advertising has no effect on the buying habits of consumers because companies like Jif, and many others, do not spend millions of dollars on these commercial ads for no reason; they obviously get results or they would not keep doing it. How did we get to this point? How have so many people abandoned reasonable shopping and accepted nonsense as a philosophy for their purchases?

We have already learned about Sigmund Freud, but there is an equally infamous name people should recognize, and that name is Edward Bernays, but sadly, most Americans have never heard of him. Whereas Karl Marx put the philosophy of Charles Darwin into a structure of practical application, and whereas men like Joseph Stalin put the philosophy of Karl Marx into practical application, Edward Bernays put the philosophy of Sigmund Freud into practical use, which would forever change the face of American society in the 20th century, and ultimately, the world as a whole today.
(Read "Seeds of Evolution" here at creationliberty.com for more details on the connection between Darwin, Marx, and Stalin; Marx dedicated his original draft of Das Capital to "Charles Darwin, from a sincere admirer.")

Edward Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, and he took the ideas of Freud and applied them to corporate advertising. In short, he took the concept of selling products by showing the virtues of the product, allowing the consumer to decide from a rational standpoint, and replaced it with the concept of selling products by tapping into the lusts of consumers and connecting those lusts with a product, or in simpler terms, he was able to change our society from one of reason and production, to a society of sin and consumption.

For those readers who may have listened to or read my teachings for a long time, you may recall that I have often referred to "public relations tactics," or "PR tactics," and I have always used those terms negatively. In this chapter, I will explain the fullness of why I do that, and we will begin by looking at a general dictionary definition of 'public relations':

public relations (n): the actions of a corporation, store, government, individual, etc., in promoting goodwill between itself and the public, the community, employees, customers, etc.
(See 'public relations', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Let's take Jif Peanut Butter for example; the company that produces Jif is attempting to promote its product as a resource that will provide or promote childhood memories and warm family feelings, even though we all can reason within ourselves that it is impossible for peanut butter to accomplish any such thing. Instead of using superior product production and business ethics, Jif turned to creating a "goodwill" view of their product, which is public relations, and Edward Bernays is considered the father of public relations by applying propaganda to marketing.

propaganda (n): information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
(See 'propaganda', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

In short, propaganda is information spread with a hidden purpose behind it, but the problem with this definition of propaganda is that the definition itself IS propaganda, meaning that it gives the reader the impression that, under certain circumstances, propaganda is good. There are NO circumstances, contexts, or situations in which propaganda is good; it is evil in that it consists of deceptions (i.e. lies) that are intended to influence a crowd to act in accordance to the benefit of a manipulative few.

In short, propaganda is lies, and the Lord God hates lies:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
-Proverbs 6:16-19
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

As I said before, Bernays was the first person to create a practical application for Freud's philosophy; that application being manipulation. He was able to make people want things they did not need, or in Biblical terms, he was able to trigger their inner lust, make them discontent, and condition them to act on their sin in covetousness.

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-Hebrews 13:5

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
-Philippians 4:11

But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
-Ephesians 5:3

As we saw in MasterCard, Jif Peanut Butter, and McDonald's, the branding is a way to link mass-produced goods to the desires of the flesh. This mentality has gotten so bad that instead of being a nation of production philosophy (i.e. way of thinking), which is what America was over a hundred years ago, we have now become a nation of consumption philosophy, in which factories that produce need-based goods all over the country are closing, and want-based stores are opening all over the place.

In simple terms, most Americans have allowed themselves to devolve into nothing more than a baby-like mentality. When they have problems, they often do not turn to rational solutions and Biblical philosophy, but rather, they turn to something shiny and new that gives them a temporary happy feeling inside, which is no different than putting something shiny in front of crying babies to pacify them.
This is the concept of consumerism, or the belief that getting people to consume more goods is the way to boost the economy:

consumerism (n): the concept that an ever-expanding consumption of goods is advantageous to the economy
(See 'consumerism', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Consumerism makes no distinction between buying what is needed versus buying what is desired, and thus, provoking desire-based economics will drive a country into ruin. This is why it was so stupid for former U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to try and "jump start" the economy by sending all American households a small amount of money from the U.S. treasury, otherwise known as a "Stimulus Package," and because our foolish leaders failed to cut government spending while giving away money, it created huge deficits in the federal budget, creating a lot of debt, which only drove taxes back up later to pay for it, increasing prices across the board and making the economy worse off than before the "Stimulus" checks were sent out.
(See Kimberly Amadeo, "Did the Bush Economic Stimulus Package Work?" The Balance, June 26, 2019, retrieved July 2, 2019, [thebalance.com/bush-economic-stimulus-package-3305782]

(Click Image For Larger View)

In short, the transformation from productionism (i.e. the concept that producing needed goods is good for the economy) to consumerism came about by Bernays looking at the acceptance and effectiveness of propaganda during wartime, and finding a way to make propaganda acceptable and effective during times of peace. During the 1920s, the term 'propaganda' had earned a bad reputation due to Germany's use of it to propagate Nazi philosophy during World War I, and so to avoid association with that term, Bernays simply called it "public relations." The image on the left portrays a shady Jewish man hiding behind the national flags of England, Russia, and the U.S., implying that it was the Jews who were behind major world governments, and it was intended to get the public to believe that eliminating the Jews from German society would increase the prosperity of low-class German workers.

Obviously, this kind of propaganda left a bad taste in mouths of citizens across many countries around the world, and therefore, most people viewed propaganda as bad; which it is, and it should still be viewed as evil. However, changing the name to "public relations," and using it during peace time, would serve to not only to brainwash the public, but also to get them to like public relations, and want more of it.

An effective example of public relations manipulating the masses would be found in Edward Bernays' strategy to market cigarettes to women. In the 1920s, it was socially unacceptable in most places for women to smoke, as it was seen as a masculine thing to do, especially since smoke was often associated with more manly things, such as trains, coal, foundries, and other such industries that employed mostly men.

During that time, the President of the American Tobacco Corporation, George Hill, contacted Bernays to find a way to get women to smoke because he believed that excluding women from smoking was cutting the market potential of cigarettes in half:

BERNAYS: "He [George Hill] said 'We're losing half of our market because men have invoked a taboo against women smoking in public. Can you do anything about that?' I said, 'Let me think about it.' And then I said, 'Can I have your permission to see a psychoanalyst to find out what cigarettes mean to women?' He said, 'What'll it cost?' So I called up Dr. Brill, A.A. Brill, who was the leading psychoanalyst in New York at that time." WOMAN: "How come you didn't call your uncle [Freud]?" BERNAYS: "Because he was in Vienna."

Bernays contacted psychologist Abraham Brill and paid him to find out what cigarettes mean to women, and after analysis, Brill told Bernays that cigarettes were a phallic symbol (i.e. a penis symbol) in the eyes of women, and therefore, smoking itself was not feminine because, although I am not trying to be graphic, the idea would be that women would be walking around with a penis symbol in their mouths, which would obviously not be viewed as lady-like (i.e. it was not feminine to have a penis). This is why, after it became acceptable for women to smoke, you will see old movies in which a man offers a woman a cigarette because offering a woman a penis was seen as sexually acceptable, but women did not offer men a cigarette, specifically because they felt it was like offering a man her penis.
(See Jacquie L'Etang & David McKie, The Routledge Handbook of Critical Public Relations, Routledge, 2015, p. 310, ISBN: 9781317918868)

Remember that Freud taught that everyone was operating from base animal sexual instincts, even though we know it as the lust of the flesh, which is sin. Bernays simply took their sin, and aimed it in the direction he wanted it to go, so the people would fulfill the lust of their flesh in a manner according to the financial benefit of Bernays' clients.

In the spring of 1929, Bernays got together a handful of feminists and used them to help change the public's perception on cigarettes by calling them "torches of freedom." During New York's annual Easter parade and festival, Bernays had the feminists hide cigarettes under their clothes, and then get them out at the right time and smoke openly while walking down the street to gain the attention of the crowd, and more importantly, the media, who Bernays had previously contacted and informed about a protest was going to take place and to be ready for it. In essence, Bernays was manipulating female perception of cigarettes as an opportunity, rather than a taboo; being a symbol of male power or dominance, and by having cigarettes, it became a symbol of women no longer needing a man because they had their own "penises."
(Read Feminism: Castrating America here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Because they were now called "torches of freedom," anyone who objected to the protest would be considered "anti-American" since the connection had already been made between the Statue of Liberty (i.e. a woman holding up a torch) and the protest. The New York Times ran a headline that said, "Group of Girls Puff at Cigarettes as a Gesture of 'Freedom'," and few dared to speak out against it due to fear of being called a traitor against American ideology.
(See New York Times, April 1, 1929, retrieved Feb 27, 2019, [https://nyti.ms/2IGfp8o])

The bottom line is that with a single ad, cigarettes were now viewed in a way that if a woman smoked, she was more powerful and independent. It is an idea that is still around today, which is why feminists will sometimes still smoke in protests, despite the fact that we now have a more generally health-conscious society that no longer looks favorably on smoking, because women still feel like the cigarette is a phallic symbol of female empowerment. For many years, advertising for cigarettes to women was centered around this concept, as you can see in the Virginia Slims advertisement below under the campaign slogan, "You've come a long way, baby," and you can see the subtle manipulation in the image, with the women in red dresses (symbolizing the traffic color of 'STOP') being restrained, while the woman with the green dress (symbolizing the traffic color of 'GO') is free.

(Click Image for Larger View)
It is amazing that such little effort was made, and it had such a huge impact on not only American society, but also on the profits of big tobacco companies, who enjoyed a large increase in revenue because now they could sell to women. Women smoking being connected to freedom and empowerment is completely illogical, unreasonable, and irrational; it is absurd from any aspect, but people accept it because they are following their feelings and passions instead of their rationale.

Bernays also knew it was much easier to manipulate women in this manner than it was to manipulate men, because women are (in general) more easily discontented than men, and are more easily swayed by emotion than men. For example, when Betty Crocker first invented an instant cake mix (which are very popular in America today), it was not selling very well, and Bernays was hired to find out why.

It turns out that many women rejected buying an instant cake mix because they felt guilty; their husbands were out working hard all day, and she felt like she was not doing enough to earn her keep at home. Bernays' solution was an egg. All he told the company to do was add one egg to the instant cake recipe, so the women would feel like they were contributing, and sales skyrocketed to the point that, today, most wives and mothers do not make their cakes from scratch anymore.
(See Erik M. Gregory, "Edward Bernays, Uncle Freud, and Betty Crocker," Psychology Today, Apr 6, 2016, retrieved Feb 28, 2019, [https://bit.ly/2IGcpIZ])

Some readers may be surprised to learn that "bacon and eggs," which is considered to be the "All-American breakfast" was never something that Americans decided or preferred, nor was it cultural in any sense. The entire concept was a public relations tactic to sell more bacon, and it was created by Bernays:
"The Beechnut Packing Company was suffering lagging sales in one of its key meat products: bacon. In 'Propaganda' (1928), Bernays wrote about his campaign to increase bacon sales and contrasted Freud's group psychology with behaviorist principles. An 'old style' behaviorist campaign would repeat a stimulus to create a habit—inundate [overwhelm] consumers with full-page ads and follow up with an incentive or reward by offering discount coupons. But in creating the new Freudian-style campaign, Bernays asked himself, 'Who influences what the public eats?' His answer was to survey physicians and ask them whether they would recommend a light breakfast or a hearty breakfast. Physicians overwhelmingly recommended a hearty breakfast, paving the way for Bernays to convince Americans to swap their usual juice, toast and coffee for the now-ubiquitous [well-known], all-American "hearty" breakfast of bacon and eggs."
-Lisa Held, "Psychoanalysis shapes consumer culture," American Psychological Association, Dec 2009, Vol. 40, No. 11, p. 32, retrieved Feb 28, 2019, [apa.org/monitor/2009/12/consumer]

Please do not think that this type of marketing technique and psychological attack are ancient history. All these public relations techniques, whether making people feel less guilty to buy a product, or taking irrelevant products and turning them into emotional symbols, are still being used today because the process gets results, and many people remain blissfully ignorant that they are being manipulated on a daily basis, but as long as they feel good when they buy products, the general public could care less. (FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How can anyone in this country complain about the economy when they will not take the time to learn the truth?)

In another example, Bernays invented the idea of taking the products of his clients, and linking those products to famous actors and actresses, who were also his personal clients that had hired him for improving their image with the public. (i.e. He was financially benefitting in many ways.) This practice is still done today with famous figures promoting products.
The consumer looks at the actor, actress, musician, sports star, etc, and immediately gets a feeling in their hearts, whether towards the music, the handsome or beautiful person, the laughter of jokes from a comedian, the success and victory from sports, etc, and they look at a product brand while having that feeling. Again, the goal is to get you to connect your feeling to the product. Ultimately, the paid spokesperson becomes the channel through which intimate feelings are connected to a product, and it obviously has a great effect on sales, or these companies would not dish out millions in advertising costs for it.

These techniques are not just used for the purpose of sales. Propaganda, slogans, and branding is also used for politics, preying on the minds of a mass public that is mostly unaware of the power of public relations on the ignorant majority.

If most presidential candidates came out and spoke honestly about what they believed, and what their plans were in office, in most cases, you would not vote for them. Instead, what many of them do is create secret focus groups, where they question hundreds or thousands of people on their voting habits, their desires and feelings towards candidates, etc, and then they have ghostwriters create speeches and campaign slogans that will reflect the desires of the masses, which is why you see so many politicians "flip-flop," meaning that they contradict themselves by claiming to be on both sides of an issue at different times. (i.e. The presidential candidate could care less about what the public hears, so long as they vote him into office, and the majority could care less about the truth, so long as they feel patriotic.)
(Read "Should Christians Vote?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Once more, I want to emphasize that the practice of branding by itself is not a wrong action; meaning there is no sin in creating a branding label for pretty much any business or organization to separate itself from others of its kind. This is something that simply has to be done in an internet-based, high-traffic of information type of world. However, what is wrong about branding is when the brand begins to deceive by advertising subliminally false information and connecting that with the brand, and even though many readers might frown upon companies and organizations for using such deceptive practices, ultimately, the responsibility is on the consumer (i.e. you and me) to make sure we are educated and vigilant, to guard our minds from the propaganda.

However, without the Lord Jesus Christ to open our understanding and renew our minds, there is no guarantee that we will not become a victim of public relations:

For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
-2 Timothy 1:7

If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
-Ephesians 4:21-23

Again, the father of all these public relations techniques is Edward Bernays, and he used Sigmund Freud's philosophy to develop them; in fact, many of you would have never heard of Sigmund Freud if it were not for Edward Bernays because Bernays actually used the same public relations techniques to promote Freud's works and make them popular. Freud was suffering financially later in his life, and Bernays had helped to increase Freud's popularity by simply spreading ideas like, "Did you hear what Freud said about sex and the mind?" and then when rumors spread, more people wanted to read his writings because Bernays created intrigue (i.e. an arousal of curiosity in the public).

In 1927, after getting into business with Bernays and understanding public relations propaganda, Paul Mazur, a Wall Street banker, said:
"We must shift America from a needs to a desires culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. We must shape a new mentality in America. Man's desires must overshadow his needs."
-Paul Mazur, quoted by Alvin Soon, "Keeping Up with the Joneses," HWM, June, 2008, p. 51, ISSN: 0219-5607

This quote is incredibly vital for Christians to understand, but not for the quote itself; rather, for the philosophy behind it because this is the driving philosophy behind the new-age church buildings, most new-age preachers, and the so-called "Christian" psychology movement. Freudian psychology has not only been applied to products, famous people, and branding, but it is also been applied to religion.

With product advertising, the general idea is, "If you have this product, you will feel better," but the same idea is applied to the false doctrines we now see used in most church buildings, not just in America, but around the world. The new idea has the same philosophy, and says, "If you have Jesus, you will feel better," which leads us to many false gospels, including "God's got a wonderful plan for your life," "If you have Jesus, you will have love, joy, peace, and happiness," or "Tried sex, drugs, and alcohol? Now try Jesus!" which is an attempt to create drawcards that churchgoers can use to lure lustful people into church buildings based on their inner sinful desires, transforming them into just another feel-good churchgoer, rather than bringing them to the grief and godly sorrow of repentance they would need to be converted unto the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are many pastors in America today who are bringing many people into a church building, but training them up in traditions and doctrines of men, which will make them doubly the child of hell than the pastors themselves:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:15

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
-Mark 7:7

 

As I pointed out in the introduction, the advocates of "Christian" psychology (CP) and "Christian" counseling will fervently disagree with me, but the fact is that there is no difference between psychology and "Christian" psychology; they are just attempting to take two opposing philosophies and mix them together. Normally, such a thing is not possible, but the mass majority of CPs believe in a false, new-age "jesus" that opposes the doctrine of Scripture, and using that false doctrine, they are able to fuse it into their core psychological foundation. In the previous chapters, we have demonstrated the philosophy and fruit of psychology/psychiatry, and if there are any readers out there who, at this point, believe that psychology has anything to do with Gospel of Christ, then you may have actually lost your mind, and you need the Lord Jesus Christ to get it back.

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 [turned and changed], and I should heal them.
-Matthew 13:15

In the average church building, psychology has slowly become the replacement for Biblical doctrine. For churchgoers, psychotherapy has become the solution for spiritual problems, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Psychologist and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, in his book The Myth of Psychotherapy, said:
"Through psychotherapy, we have taken the salvation of sinful souls, and we have turned it into the cure for sick minds."
-Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing as Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression, Syracuse University Press, 1988, ISBN: 9780815602231

Please do not misunderstand the context; he is not saying that sinful souls were somehow transformed into sick minds, but rather, sinful souls have been RELABELED as having "sick minds" or "mental illness," and they presume that psychology holds more answers than the Word of God. In other words, psychologists (who often now become pastors, counselors, and sometimes "life coaches," which we will discuss more in the next chapter) talk about the same spiritual problems as we Christians do, but they use different terms for those problems, and then handle those problems in ways separate from Scripture; so a preacher becomes a psychotherapist while under the guise of a "pastor," and lust becomes a mental disorder while under the guise of "sin." (i.e. It is sin, but they believe it is a "mental disorder," while calling it 'sin' on the outside to appease churchgoers with Bible terms so it sounds "Christian.")

The interesting thing about the quote is that Szasz is not a Christian; he is unsaved Jew, but even as an unbeliever, he still recognizes the core philosophical problem and tells Christians that they already have the answers that they seek in the Bible, and that they have no need to turn to psychotherapy:
"You Christians have the answer, you ought to take this back into the Church. What's it doing out here? We've [i.e. psychologists have] got nothing to offer."
-Thomas Szasz, The Myth of Psychotherapy: Mental Healing as Religion, Rhetoric, and Repression, Syracuse University Press, 1988, ISBN: 9780815602231

When the new "pastoral therapists" get up from behind the pulpit and treat sin as a "mental illness," and tell everyone that they need their "professional techniques" to help them overcome those mental illnesses, then the Gospel of Christ has no effect.

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
-Mark 7:13

When the doctrines of men are offered up as a solution for lost souls, it keeps the hearers from understanding and calling upon Christ to heal them.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
-Matthew 15:9

There are three primary professions I know of which offer a huge amount of pay for very little work, and more recently, the differences between them have become much harder to discern: They are psychologists, pastors, and witches. (Witchcraft includes psychics, witchdoctors, mediums, etc.) As I demonstrated in chapter two, there is little difference between a psychologist/psychiatrist and a witchdoctor, and now we are seeing a blend of psychology and pastors, which means the line between a pastor and a witchdoctor is getting thinner every year.

I should make a disclaimer here and say that this is not a condemnation of all pastors, as the Lord God has said that He would give pastors to the people to feed them with knowledge and understanding (Jer 3:15), but most of the pastors we have in America today are false because they only give lip service to the Lord Jesus Christ, while their hearts are far from Him because they do not care about His Word:

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

I also want to make it clear that it is not wrong to seek counsel from Christian brethren, so I do not want any reader who is born again in Christ to misunderstand what I am teaching in this chapter. The Bible teaches us that someone who seeks good counsel is wise to do so:

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
-Proverbs 12:15

However, what many churchgoers miss is that there is ungodly counsel from wicked men who deceive others by feigning wisdom with a prestigious outward appearance:

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
-Psalm 1:1

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

On the website for the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC), who are at the forefront of the CP movement, psychologist Paige Patterson, who writes for ACBC, teaches her readers in her article entitled, "Why Christians Need Freud" (because, according to her, the Holy Spirit of God is insufficient), that Freud's atheistic philosophy is an essential foundation of CP:
"I would exhort the practitioners of psychology and psychiatry to acknowledge their indebtedness to the atheistic philosophies of B. F. Skinner and Sigmund Freud, confess the limitations of scientific foundation upon which they are constructed, and admit the degree to which the acquisition of money has motivated conclusions for what is one of the 'soft sciences.'"
-Paige Patterson, "Why Christians Need Freud," Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, retrieved Dec 5, 2018, [https://bit.ly/2SykAr5]

Of course, Patterson rightly points out the money-motivated drive of CP, which we will cover more on later, but the point I want to make for now is that this so-called "Biblical Counselor" is praising men of atheistic philosophy for founding CP. This is sickening and absurd. There is nowhere in the Bible that promotes, praises, or encourages anything that has to do with atheistic beliefs of any kind, nor does God's Word tell us that we should take into ourselves the wicked philosophies of men.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
-Psalm 14:1

This demonstrates that Patterson does not believe on the Christian God of the Bible; she worships and serves a different god, who she calls "jesus," (i.e. a new-age ecumenical "jesus"—not the Lord Jesus Christ), and so do the rest of her colleagues. The Living God has told us clearly that atheists like Freud and Skinner are corrupt, they do wicked deeds that God hates, and that there is not one of them that does good, but Patterson ignores God's Word, and chooses to believe whatever she feels is right in her own eyes.

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
-Proverbs 21:2

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
-Matthew 7:17-18

A tree that starts out with corrupt roots, like the philosophy of Freud and psychology, ends up with corrupt fruit, and there is no good that comes from it, as God has spoken. Lawrence J. Crabb of New Way Ministries, another popular "Christian" psychologist (who we will discuss more later), praises Freud:
"'If only Freud had read his Bible, he would have been okay.' I believe that psychodynamic theory is both provocative and valuable in recognizing elements in the human personality that many theologians have failed to see."
-Lawrence J. Crabb, Understanding People: Deep longings for Relationship, Harper Collins, 1987, p. 215-216, ISBN: 9780310226000

I find it fascinating that his organization is called "New Way" because that seems so fitting. They believe that you cannot understand the truth by the wisdom of God alone; they believe you need the Bible AND atheistic philosophy to know the truth, and furthermore, he believes that Freud discovered the cure for sinful souls outside of the Lord Jesus Christ. You would be surprised how many so-called "Christian" psychologists believe the same way; they reject the way of Christ, and instead put their trust in men, leading people down a "New Way" that ends in destruction.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
-Matthew 7:13

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5

Paul Meier, a psychologist who now owns and operates Meier Clinics, a counseling institution that has locations in nine U.S. states, alongside psychologist Frank Minirth, argued that getting guidance from a pastor/psychologist/psychiatrist is essential to be a Christian and overcome stress:
"Getting guidance from a knowledgeable Christian pastor or professional counsellor can help bring about victory over life's seemingly overwhelming stresses. To obtain and apply to one's life good-quality Christian counselling is synonymous with discipleship. God sanctifies many people (brings them toward Christ-likeness in their attitudes and behaviour) through confrontation by loving and insightful friends, pastors, counsellors—and even psychiatrists sometimes. Don't ever be ashamed to get counselling when going through life's stresses."
-Paul Meier & Frank Minirth, Happiness Is a Choice, Monarch Books, 1995, ISBN: 9781854243058

Just to clarify, the word 'Christian' means "Christ-like," which denotes a disciple (i.e. student) of Christ, in that a student will be like unto his master (i.e. teacher). Meier stated his belief that God brings people to "Christ-likeness" through psychiatrists, meaning that he believes that salvation can be found through the devilish deception of psychology.

Notice that Meier never said that the wisdom of God will help a man overcome stress, but proper "professional" counseling is what is needed, or in other words, he means someone who has professional training in psychology. In the eyes of psychologists, the Holy Spirit of God and Christ's church are not sufficient, but rather, wolves like Paul Meier argue that the no one can truly be "Christ-like" (i.e. a Christian) unless they adopt the philosophy of Sigmund Freud, a man who hated the Christian God of the Bible.

Some readers may be surprised by Meier's statement, but in my experience in dealing with many pastors over the years, this does not surprise me in the least; rather, when I learned about all this, it made perfect sense to me. This is exactly what I have experienced in working with various pastors in the past, and what I have come to expect for the most part when I occasionally run into them. The reason most churchgoers cannot see this clearly is because they have been trained to rely on so-called "Christian" psychological counseling (i.e. when they have a problem, go to the pastor instead of going to God), and nearly all of them have no clue how much money is really flowing through it.

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-1 John 2:27

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
-Matthew 11:28

For example, Top Counseling Schools offers information on available schools for people to go to if they want to become a "Christian Counselor," which offers degrees in marriage, pastoral, and family counseling, being psychologically trained in the SAME WAY that any typical secular counselor would be trained in order to get "official" certifications. If you consider U.S. government regulation and the freedom of religion in the First Amendment, this should not be surprising because schools have to meet certain state requirements for someone to be certified into a profession, and the state requirements for a "Christian" counselor has nothing to do with Christian doctrine because the First Amendment of the United States Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
(Read The Biblical Understanding of Weddings and Marriage here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Remember, there are "counselors" in many other various religions. There are Hindu counselors, Buddhist counselors, and even Muslim counselors. The state's regulation of legal certifications are based on psychology/psychiatry under the falsely so-called label of "science," not on a religious institution, and therefore, all students under any religion, including "Christian" religious institutions, are required to be grounded in the philosophies of Freud and his disciples before they are allowed to enter pastoral ministry. (This is one of the many reasons why most pastors in America today are frauds.)
(Read 501c3: The Devil's Church here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

On their website, Top Counseling Schools tells students what type of salary they would expect for becoming an official "Christian" counselor:
"The salary for a Christian counselor varies by state and experience. The general range is from $26,000 to $79,000 annually, with the average being around $40,000. For a pastoral counselor, the average salary is $39,000."
-Top Counseling Schools, "Christian Counseling," retrieved Mar 19, 2019, [topcounselingschools.org/careers/christian-counseling]

To say the least, that is a lot of money for someone to be paid to sit around and listen to peoples' problems. The following is from the website Best Counseling Degrees, under "Christian Counseling:"
"The U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics reports that mental health counselors and marriage and family therapists earned an average of $39,710 per year in 2010, and the job growth projected for the next decade is 37 percent, which is much faster than average for other occupations. While Christian counselors are not classified under this exact designation by the BLS, they perform similar duties and can expect to earn a comparable salary. Of course, salary varies by location. According to SalaryExperts.com, for example, the average salary of a Christian counselor in Chicago, IL is around $60,000 per year."
-Best Counseling Degrees, "How Do I Become A Christian Counselor?" retrieved Mar 19, 2019, [bestcounselingdegrees.net/faq/how-do-i-become-a-christian-counselor]

The field of Christian counseling is growing by leaps and bounds, far faster than most industries, and a lot more pastors are getting degrees in this because of the financial benefits. Do you really believe that more and more young men and women are looking to get into this occupation because they really want people to know about Jesus Christ, or are they getting into it because it is a light amount of work for a large amount of pay? (There is some food for thought.)

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
-1 Timothy 6:9-11

Apparently, those numbers have increased over the past decade because the website PayScale, under Psychologist - Christian Counseling, states that, as of 2019, the average salary for a Christian counselor is just short of $50,000 a year (i.e. between $18,383 and $88,084). Depending on how popular the counselor is, there is a lot more income to be made through book and DVD sales, workshops, and an assortment of other assets.
(See PayScale, "Average Psychologist, Christian Counseling Salary," retrieved Mar 19, 2019, [payscale.com/research/US/Job=Psychologist%2C_Christian_Counseling/Salary])

Because these men are lured in by the money instead of the truth, they end up teaching a lot of heresy, and for those who thoroughly study the doctrines of Scripture, their false doctrines can be easily seen.

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

Without the Holy Spirit of God, these things are not clearly seen, which is why so many churchgoers fall prey to these wolves. This is why we need to stay vigilant and firmly grounded on God's Word, relying on the Holy Spirit to educate us, so we can discern the good from the evil.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

False preacher Frank Gaebelein, former editor for Christianity Today, in his book The Pattern of God's Truth, said:
"We have been too prone to set up a false dichotomy [i.e. drawing a distinct line; a black or white, one or the other, situation] in our thinking and thus in our education. We have rightly enthroned the Word of God as the ultimate criterion [standard] of truth; we have rightly given pre-eminence [superiority] to the Lord Jesus Christ as the incarnation of the God of all truth. But at the same time, we have fallen into the error of failing to see as clearly as we should that there are areas of truth not fully explicated [explained in detail] in Scripture and that these, too, are a part of God's truth. Thus we have made the misleading distinction between sacred and secular, forgetting that, as Cervantes said in one of those flashes of wisdom that punctuate the strange doings of Don Quixote, 'Where the truth is, in so far as it is truth, there God is.'"
-Frank E. Gaebelein, The Pattern of God's Truth: Problems of Integration in Christian Education, Association of Christian Schools International, Jan 1, 1968, p. 21, ISBN: 9780802464507

I will break down what he said in a moment, but the reason I wanted to quote Gaebelein in particular is because his works are often used in psychological training for theological seminaries (i.e. Bible colleges). For example, Biola University, a nationally ranked "Christian" college, praises Gaebelein:
"A man is often best evaluated by his contemporaries. Frank Ely Gaebelein's protégé, biographer, and colleague declared him 'a Christian educator without peer in this century' (Lockerbie, 1972, p. 47). Robert Ells declared Gaebelein a 'leading example of an evangelical educational reformer' (Ells, 1984, p. 13-29). 'The evangelical Christian education movement's most creative thinker and articulate apologist,' says another (McLeod, 1993, p. 43). Ken Gangel and Warren Benson praise Gaebelein's Pattern of God's Truth (1954) as 'the one significant volume that must be mastered' if one is to grasp the true distinctiveness of evangelical perspectives on education (Gangel & Benson, 1983, p. 358). And finally, 'one could perhaps say that Gaebelein's stature as a statesman of the neo-evangelical movement, at a critical time in its postwar resurgence, allowed him, perhaps more than any other person except Billy Graham, Carl Henry and a few others, to give shape to and define the [evangelical] movement itself' (Wright, 1999, p. 531)"
-Cheryl L. Fawcett & Jamie Thompson, "Frank Ely Gaebelein," Biola University, retrieved Mar 20, 2019, [biola.edu/talbot/ce20/database/frank-ely-gaebelein]

When I find church-ianty scholarship praising a man as much as they would Billy Graham, I am on full guard in caution, and after reading what Gaebelein wrote, it should give us good reason to be cautious. The primary problem with Gaebelein is that he helped to usher in the new-age ecumenical (i.e. one-world religion) movement by teaching a fusion of the "knowledge of God" with the "knowledge of men," and those who follow Gaebelein's philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) have no understanding of Christ's doctrine.
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Billy Graham" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.
-1 Timothy 6:20-21

In the quote above, Gaebelein stated that there is a "false dichotomy" in the thinking and education of Christians, which in the view of Christ's doctrine would mean that God has drawn a distinct line in Scripture, telling us that things are either good or evil, which is what we just read from Hebrews 5:14, but Gaebelein believes we should not think in this way, and we should look for other options. He went on to use generic terms that are common among pseudo-Christian cults all over the world; phrases like "we enthrone the Word of God as truth," and "the Lord Jesus Christ is the incarnation of truth," but avoids stating what that "truth" really is.

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
-John 17:17

Jesus tells us that His Word is the definition of 'truth' in Scripture, but Gaebelein believes that other "spiritual truths" have been "discovered" by mankind apart from God's revelation to us in His Word, or put another way, he believes you cannot learn the truth of Christ from the Bible alone. Again, this should not be surprising because, after all, if God's Word is the beginning and end of all spiritual truth (which it is), then Gaebelein is out of a job, so the only way he keeps his lucrative salary is to label his demonic Freudian philosophy as "good."
(As a side note, the Catholic Church also believes and teaches that Scripture alone is insufficient to understand doctrine, which is why, at one point in European history, the Catholic Church made the Bible illegal to read. See "Catholic Inquisition: The Result of Papal Rule" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-Isaiah 5:20

Gaebelein then attempts to cast doubt by pointing out that Scripture does not answer everything. I agree that Scripture does not answer everything, but that does not mean that Scripture is not sufficient for its purpose, that is, the instruction of spiritual matters unto mankind, the knowledge of sin, how to avoid the terrors of hell, how to obtain eternal life, and the philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) by which mankind should live their lives.

For example, Scripture does not tell us how to make bagels, and so I would agree that there are "areas of truth not fully explicated [explained in detail] in Scripture," but that is not what Gaebelein meant by that. Gaebelein is trying to say that there are areas of spiritual truth that are not talked about in Scripture, and this is where he departs from the Word of God and instead teaches the wisdom of man's words, as he did by quoting "Don Quixote" [kee-ho-tay], which is a character in a series of 17th century fiction novels by Miguel de Cervantes. (i.e. Technically, the "man" Gaebelein's quoting is not even real.)

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
-1 Corinthians 1:17

The problem is that when men go to the wisdom of the world, they end up taking people away from the Word of God as their foundation for wisdom because, after all, if a particular man came up with some "words of wisdom," people start looking to that man instead of Christ, which makes the cross ineffective when preaching His doctrine. A good example of this can be found in social media, especially places like Facebook, where people will post an image of a scenic background with words from some famous author, in which they highly esteem the "wisdom of words" from mankind, rather than looking to the Living God for His wisdom, and so the focus becomes the word of men, not the Word of God.

The Word of God is sufficient on its own to give us every bit of spiritual advice we need to face the problems of this life, and most importantly, sufficient instruction to obtain salvation and eternal life to come, but Gaebelein believed and taught that we need to look OUTSIDE of Scripture for other answers to spiritual truth. That point is key to understand because that is why others in his profession praise him so highly; Gaebelein offered them a path to take their worldly philosophy and apply it to churchgoers, which would also give them a lot more opportunity to become rich and famous through followers who were more invested because of the religious aspect. (i.e. Through Gaebelein, they were able to successfully become gurus and gather a following of religious cultists.)

In short, if others in the corrupt, so-called "Christian" organizations today can get people to believe there are other "spiritual truths" outside of Scripture, then they will become reliant on those "other truths" for answers, and also psychologically-trained leadership to guide them. Thus, churchgoers worldwide are deceived by those who pine after their psychological counseling degrees and pat each other on back for having them.

I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.
-3 John 1:9-10

preeminence (n): superiority in rank, dignity, power, or influence
(See 'preeminence', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 20, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

These men and women love preeminence, or in other words, they love to be lifted up in the pride of their hearts, and to have men put them up on high pedestals. This is a common problem in most church buildings today, especially with pastors, as church leadership most often loves to have their person respected, especially if it is to have others honor them for their alleged "words of wisdom," and often, I have seen them go so far as to demand it from their congregations.
(Read "Repsecting Persons Is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.
-Proverbs 26:12

conceit (n): fanciful imagination of favorable or flattering opinion of oneself
(See 'conceit', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 2, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
-1 Corinthians 3:18

Make no mistake: Wisdom does not come with a college degree. Wisdom comes by first fearing God and trembling at His Word.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
-Psalm 111:10

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
-Proverbs 1:7

For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit [one who is humbled and broken-hearted over his sin against God], and trembleth at my word.
-Isaiah 66:2

Christians need to keep in mind that it is not the mighty, wise, and noble who are called by God. It is very rare for such a man to be called by God, but rather, it is much more common that the weak, foolish, and despised are called by God to teach His Word:

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.
-1 Corinthians 1:26-29

The word 'mighty' is used here in terms of power, not just in physical strength, but also in authority, and those who seem to be wise of this world, along with those who are noble, meaning that they are lifted up because of their rank or title. Such people are almost never called by God to teach, but rather, in order that such people would not glorify themselves, and that God would receive the glory for His work in men, He chooses those who are lowly, not valued at all by society, and those who are not very smart or wise, having little worth to others around them; He gives them understanding and sends them out to tear down the lofty imaginations of the conceited, and bring their wicked philosophies (i.e. ways of thinking) to nothing.

For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, [i.e. they do and say things to earn a paycheck] and whose glory is in their shame, [i.e. they praise themselves and one another for things they ought to be ashamed of] who mind earthly things. [e.g. fix their thoughts on worldly philosophies]
-Philippians 3:18-19

Thus, what men like Sigmund Freud did is approach spiritual matters from a God-hating, atheistic, evolutionary worldview, and though his ideas were mostly rejected by a more rational society at the turn of the 19th century, eventually, Freud's works were more readily accepted (due to the influence of men like Edward Bernays). Now that psychology is a highly prestigious industry, fake pastors and fraudulent evangelists want a piece of that prestigious influence and financial benefit, and so in order to get psychology into the church, prideful false preachers like Gaebelein were necessary to come along and insert the idea that "the Bible does not answer everything," casting enough doubt to break down the mental defenses of churchgoers so that worldly philosophies can enter freely.

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's [i.e. money's] sake.
-Titus 1:10-11

This is no different than when Satan cast doubt in Eve's mind in the Garden of Eden:

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
-Genesis 3:2-5

Eve gave the Devil the Word of God, which says "you either abide by My Word and live, or eat that fruit and die," which is a black and white, clear line of distinction. The Devil retorted by saying the same thing that Gaebelein told us, "Eve, that's a false dichotomy [i.e. no clear line of distinction]; there is another way to explain this," and that lie is exactly what deceived her in the first place.

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
-John 8:32

When Jesus said these words, he was not talking about knowing the truth of how to make bagels, how to change a tire on your car, or practicing psychological techniques. Again, Christ defined what He means when He says the word 'truth':

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
-John 17:17

Knowing the truth about God's Word will make people free, not only in the knowledge itself, but because it will lead them to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and faith in Christ, and through that, Christ will heal and convert them. That salvation in Christ gives us liberty, making us free:

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
-2 Corinthians 3:17

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
-Galatians 5:1

However, there are many people who use John 8:32 deceitfully because, as we just read, there are men of corrupt minds who use that verse to manipulate people into thinking that the "truth" is found in their psychological seminars. They twist Christ's doctrine, leading people to believe that they need to "know the truth" about themselves, about their feelings and desires, and that will "make them free," but that is a lie in which they promise liberty to the hearers, but are the servants of corruption.

For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
-2 Peter 2:18-20

It is very common to see so-called "Christian" psychologists and counselors who twist Scripture to get it to say what they want it to say, and they do so to their own destruction.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
-2 Peter 3:16

wrest (v): to distort
distort (v): to twist out of natural or regular shape; to force or put out of the true posture
(See 'wrest' & 'distort', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 14, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

If people want to be set free, they need to know the truth of God's Word, but in a generation that has been taught a focus on self instead of others, most especially to focus on self instead of Christ, the Word of God has taken a back seat to "Christian" psychology, which has taught them false doctrines that make them feel good and give them an excuse for their sins. The "Christian" psychologists, who are not Christians at all, teach people they need to love themselves more, and they make every effort to scratch their itching ears, meaning that they tell them sweet things that make them feel good, which leads them away from repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing).
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:1-7

In this passage, we are taught that as we approach the last days before Christ's return, mankind will be lovers of themselves instead of others. They will be lifted up in the pride of their hearts, and they will seek after the pleasures of this world rather than loving the Lord God. They will "have a form of godliness," meaning that on the outside, they will appear to be Christians, but inwardly, they deny the authority of God over their lives, and in the context of this chapter, we will focus on the wolves in sheep's clothing among the psychological "Christian" counseling crowd.
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For example, false teacher Patricia Jones of the Dove Christian Counseling Center attempts to teach people to love themselves more because she believes they do not love themselves enough. She begins by quoting a man saying, "You demonstrate love by giving it unconditionally to yourself," then goes on to say:
"People who have been abused for most of their lives are very down on themselves. They feel worthless and lonely. Because love has never been without conditions for them. They feel like Cinderella who had to earn every single bit of kindness that she got from the Queen and two ugly step-sisters. However, deep inside her heart Cinderella knew that she was a good, kind and decent person who did not deserve such despicable treatment. Somewhere deep inside of her there lived that spark of self-love. And she held out hope that someday, she would be released from the prison that she was in and find her Prince."
-Patricia Jones, "Learning to Love Yourself," Dove Online Christian Counseling Center, retrieved Feb 28, 2019, [dovechristiancounseling.com/Learniing-to-Love-Yourself.html]

In Jones' article, she quoted many Bible verses about loving your neighbor as yourself, and then went on to argue that people really need to love themselves more. This is a common teaching among church buildings today; namely that you need to learn to love yourself first before you can love others, and it is a lie. The problem is that they ALREADY love themselves, and false teachers like Jones try to convince them that they do not.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Love" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I remember when I was a teenager, I had a lot of suicidal thoughts, and there was a time I pointed a large hunting knife at my stomach and asked myself why I should not run it through my body and kill myself. In the end, I did not do it because I had been taught God's law, "Thou shalt not kill," (Exd 20:13) and therefore, I reasoned within myself that taking my own life would be killing. However, during those years in my life, even though I may not have realized it, I had always loved myself; I would clothe myself, I fed myself, I put on a coat when I was cold, I sought shade from the heat, I drank when I was thirsty, I bathed, and I did all the other small things for myself that are loving to oneself, but what I lacked was loving the Lord God and others in the same way.

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Matthew 22:37-39

Loving your neighbor as yourself does NOT mean you need a six-week psychological training course in learning how to love yourself because people, including those who are sad or depressed, love themselves all the time; we automatically love ourselves, and so we are to learn to love our neighbors the same way. Jones teaches a false message that "one cannot love another correctly UNTIL they love themselves correctly," treating it like God just made an "oopsy-daisy" mistake and forgot to include that note in His Word. The fact is that you will love yourself up until the moment you die, and that loving yourself is not the problem, which is why the Bible NEVER talks about "learning to love yourself," but rather, the Bible warns us about those who will be lovers of their own selves instead of others, and love pleasures more than God.

We Christians are taught that we should be lowly of mind, esteeming others better than ourselves, and looking to the things of others over our own things, which is the same mind that Jesus Christ has:

Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
-Philippians 2:2-5

The teaching Jones gave is just one example among thousands and thousands of teachers who preach the same false message. The reason it is so commonplace is because it comes from the same psychology courses that these corrupt men and women take when they are in seminary, which is why I prefer to call them "cemetery colleges" rather than seminary colleges.

Every year, more and more church buildings convert away from the mind of Christ, and bring in new-age psychologists as their lords and saviors. It is almost standard operating procedure in American society that if a man goes to a seminary college to be a pastor, he is trained in the philosophy of psychology, and with each passing decade, the deception gets worse and the doctrine becomes more corrupt.

Carl Rogers was an American psychologist who was considered to be one of the founding fathers of psychotherapy, and his work also helped pave the way for a psychology-based church system. According to Review of General Psychology, of the top 25 most cited psychologists in psychology textbooks around the world, Carl Rogers was #5 on the list, and of the top 100 most famous and respected psychologists of all time, he was ranked #6. The main reason for this is that Rogers taught a system of psychology that focused on oneself, rather than a psychological standard, method or technique.
(See Steven J. Haggbloom, "The 100 Most Eminent Psychologists of the 20th Century," Review of General Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 142-146, retrieved Mar 28, 2019, [creativity.ipras.ru/texts/top100.pdf])

Rogers' approach to psychotherapy is centered around what he called "self-actualization," believing that all of his clients were inwardly good, and that through a non-judgmental and empathetic approach that the patient's true feelings would be revealed, and Rogers would help them to accept their feelings. In short, Rogers created a brand of psychology that focused on patients giving in to feelings instead of looking at objective facts.

When commenting on Rogers, E.S. Williams, former Public Health Director for the UK Health Authority, said:
"Rogers believed that his clients possessed a core self that is essentially healthy. A client has the potential for personal growth in a counselling situation that is non-judgemental, non-directive and empathic. [i.e. ability to share and understand feelings] A key objective of non-directive counselling is to help a client uncover and express his true feelings. Rogers found that at an early stage of the counselling process 'there is very little acceptance of feelings. For the most part feelings are revealed as something shameful, bad or abnormal, or unacceptable in other ways.' However, as counselling progresses, 'feelings are very close to being fully experienced'. Rogers wants a client to be free to fully own and express his feelings. A client must be helped to trust his feelings and do what 'feels right' in a particular situation."
-E.S. Williams, The Dark Side of Christian Counselling, Wakeman Trust, 2009, p. 67, ISBN: 9781870855655

Since I started working in ministry back in 2009, I have long taught Christians not to put faith in their feelings, meaning that they should trust in the Word of God over their feelings. Sometimes our feelings can be in line with the Word of God, as the Lord God gives us such gifts and convictions through His Holy Spirit, but the feelings in our hearts can also oppose the doctrines and commandments of Scripture, and so we need to be cautious that we are not putting aside faith in God's Word to follow the feelings of our hearts instead.

And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink.
-Jeremiah 9:13-15

Due to the new-age methods of psychology and "Christian" counseling that have come about through the teachings of men like Rogers, we now have an overwhelming number of church buildings that rely on their feelings instead of looking to the truth of God's Word. I cannot count the number of times I recall a pastor standing up in front of a congregation and saying, "I felt the Holy Spirit tell me," or "We felt like the Holy Spirit was leading us in this direction," — that concept comes from a psychological philosophy that one's feelings are most important, and thus, a new-age doctrine that one's feelings are the equivalent of the Holy Spirit of God have taken over.

And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring:
-Numbers 15:39

Rogers' removal of righteous judgment is another important pillar that is also being removed from church buildings. The Bible teaches us Christians that we are supposed to judge matters in righteous judgment, and that if we are to be spiritual according God, that we should judge all things in accordance to His Word.

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
-1 Corinthians 2:13-15

In the typical church building today, sin is not judged with righteous judgment, but rather, the only time they will judge others is if their sin is rebuked. If you judge their sin, making them feel bad, they will get angry, but if you judge them in a way that makes them feel good, they will be pleased with your judgment.

I find it fascinating how many times I have had churchgoers lash out at me in sudden rage if I called them to repentance of sin, but if you were to go into a church building, approach a lady, and say, "You look really pretty in your dress today," what do you suppose she would say in return? Would she lash out at you in rage and say "How dare you judge me?!" No. She would typically say, "Oh thank you, you're so kind!" because she is a hypocrite in that she follows the typical narrative of the new-age church buildings and wolves who teaches the false doctrine of "don't judge anyone," even though they love to hear judgment when you pour honey in their ears.
(Read "Unbiblical Cop-Outs: 'Don't Judge Me!'" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood
(See 'judge', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Mar 2, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

We judge things and people all the time, every day. If you opened a jar of food and found mold at the top, and you threw out the bad food, you judged the matter, determining that food was not good for consumption. If you stop at a crosswalk when a pedestrian passes, you judged the matter and made a decision to wait for the sake of others' safety. I could give thousands of such examples, and if we were to go through all of them, we would very quickly realize that if we never judged anything or anyone, we (and others around us) would end up dead; meaning that judgment is a very necessary part of our lives, but when it comes to sin, suddenly, people tend to hate the judgment they use every day.

And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
-Matthew 16:3

Rogers' brand of psychology has created a path for churchgoers to remove judgment (i.e. to be non-judgmental), and opened up a reliance on feelings. Although this trend has not just affected church buildings, meaning that it can been seen in all media, where people are requested to express opinions and emotions rather than facts, I would argue that the greatest detriment has been the acceptance of this false doctrine into church buildings, where unsuspecting churchgoers are deceived, and made to believe that the Gospel of Christ is based on how they feel.
The Bible teaches that it is folly for any man or woman to allow their philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) to be dictated by the feelings of their hearts:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
-Proverbs 21:2

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves [i.e. give yourself an excuse] 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

However, despite these simple-to-understand verses, the philosophy of Rogers is followed by many churchgoers today, who follow the feelings of hearts rather than the truth of God's Word. Rogers wanted nothing to do with the Christian God of the Bible, and openly denied the authority of God because he stated that his own personal experience (i.e. his limited worldly perception) was his god:
"Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity [the quality of being logically sound] is my own experience. No other person's ideas, and none of my own ideas, are as authoritative as my experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to discover a closer approximation to truth as it is in the process of becoming in me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets—neither Freud nor research—neither the revelations of God nor man—can take precedence over my own direct experience... If I read a theory of psychotherapy, and if I formulate a theory of psychotherapy based on my work with clients, and if I also have a direct experience of psychotherapy with a client, then the degree of authority increases in the order in which I have listed these experiences."
-Carl R. Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy, Houghton Mifflin, 1961, p. 23, [University of Michigan]

The problem with this sort of philosophy (i.e. the idea that experiences lead to truth) is that experience is based on your senses (i.e. sight, touch, smell, etc), and your senses can easily be fooled into believing something that is not true. A mirage is a good example of this; it is something that can appear to exist by the eyes, but upon closer investigation, it is not real. For example, driving down a hot paved road can sometimes show what looks to be water farther down the road, but as your car approaches, it disappears, and therefore, your sight is not always reliable to determine facts in general, but when it comes to the discovery of spiritual truth, your sight is mostly useless (i.e. in the sense that your sight cannot give you understanding of spiritual matters), otherwise, blind people could not be saved.

This is also the philosophical approach of an atheist, in which they believe whatever they experience with their senses is truth, despite the fact that they cannot verify their senses without hopeless circular reasoning. How can any man verify the thoughts of his own mind are valid without using the thoughts of his own mind to validate the thoughts of his mind? Often, the desperate atheist will turn to other people's minds to validate each other's minds, but this is the logical fallacy of majority opinion (ad populem), which means, no matter which way you turn, using one's own experience as the "touchstone of validity" is a flushing toilet of logical fallacy in hopeless circular reasoning.
(Read "Everything You Need to Know About Atheism" here at creationliberty.com for more detail.)

Many years ago, I used to have atheists onto a YouTube podcast show I had produced, and in discussion with them, they were unable to account for their experiences. In one interview, I asked a man how he knew he did not come into existence 30 seconds ago with all his memories intact, and he was stunned for a moment because he had never thought about that before, but he did not have an answer because he relied solely on his experiences for a path to truth, and that simple question started to make him realize that his experiences were meaningless in determining truth because he lacked a foundation of spiritual understanding outside of our experiences, in which the Lord God must first verify our reasoning and senses to be valid.

One of the most foolish and deceptive philosophies that comes out of Rogers' absurd belief is, "If it works, it's truth," or "If it gives us a desired result, then it's good for us." For example, a woman can be depressed, feeling very low, and turn to alcohol to sooth her aching heart, but that alcohol can lead her to addiction and death, and thus, even though she got a desired result of "feeling good," even if the feeling was temporary, the alcohol is not good for her, meaning that her experience is not the determining factor for what is good for her.

What many people do not understand is that this corrupt philosophy is often why people turn to witchcraft: Because it gets results. In America, witchcraft is often taken to be a fanciful, fictional concept they see in TV and movies, but in reality, witches can get results from their magic because, whether the pagans involved understand it or not, they are dealing with devils who have the power and knowledge to deceive them.
(Read "Fantasy Novels: Invitations to Hell" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles [i.e. pagans/witches] sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
-1 Corinthians 10:19-21

Thus, for a man who worships his experiences (or rather, his own brain) as his god, it should be no surprise that Carl Rogers turned to witchcraft as part of his own therapy:
"In the eighteen months prior to my wife's death in March 1979, there were a series of experiences in which Helen and I and a number of friends were all involved, which decidedly changed my thoughts and feelings about dying and the continuation of the human spirit... Helen was a great skeptic about psychic phenomena and immortality. Yet, upon invitation, she and I visited a thoroughly honest medium, who would take no money. There, Helen experienced, and I observed, a 'contact' with her deceased sister, involving facts that the medium could not possibly have known."
-Carl R. Rogers, A Way of Being, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, reprint 1995, p. 90, ISBN: 9780547524443

Though it is typical for an American to see this as just something silly, I firmly believe he was telling the truth—that they did contact a spirit, but again, if we turn to Scripture for understanding of spiritual matters, this is not her "deceased sister," but rather, this is a DEVIL posing as his wife's sister. The Bible refers to them as "familiar spirits," meaning that they are spirits who are familiar (i.e. have intimate knowledge of) a particular person, whether he/she is dead or alive, and the Lord God took this matter of deception so seriously, He commanded that the Jewish government put to death all those who were mediums that communicated with familiar spirits:

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.
-Leviticus 20:27

Rogers continued to describe his experiences, about messages being communicated from spirits through Ouija Boards in which they described private letters no one could have known about. His wife began to have dreams and visions about family members who told her she would be "welcomed on the other side."
(Read "Halloween: Are Christians Lovers of Death?" here at creationliberty.com for more details on the terrifying dangers of the Ouija board.)

This is yet another lie because those who die without Christ will perish, meaning that they will be thrown into hell and the lake of fire for eternity:

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-John 14:6

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
-1 John 5:12-13

Rogers described his wife's death, and then goes on to talk about using a witch to contact the spirit of his dead wife. I want to remind readers that this is coming from one of the world's most prominent psychotherapists:
"That evening, friends of mine who had a long-standing appointment with the medium previously mentioned held a session with this woman. They were very soon in contact with Helen, who answered many questions: she had heard everything that was said while she was in a coma; she had experienced the white light and spirits coming for her; she was in contact with her family; she had the form of a young woman; her dying had been very peaceful and without pain... These experiences have left me very much interested in all types of paranormal phenomena."
-Carl R. Rogers, A Way of Being, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, reprint 1995, p. 92, ISBN: 9780395755303

Rogers' wife, Helen, was very ill the final years of her life because she was dying with cancer, and she required a lot of help, but Rogers was not there for her very much because, after all, his philosophy was a focus on self instead of others, and he believed that he had to be true to himself. In his book, he confessed his belief in Eastern mystic religious philosophy, namely, the corrupt and nonsensical philosophy of Taoism:
"But perhaps my favorite saying, which sums up many of my deeper beliefs, is another from Lao-tse: 'If I keep from meddling with people, they take care of themselves,'"
-Carl R. Rogers, A Way of Being, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, reprint 1995, p. 42, ISBN: 9780395755303

This is an interesting note because Taoists do not believe that sin has any consequence outside of oneself (i.e. physical or mental problems on a personal level), nor do they believe a person needs salvation and purification from sin. They reject the concept of needing to be saved, and instead believe that one just needs "enlightenment" in order to cure themselves of consequences of sin, which is a philosophy that is perfectly in line with the corrupt philosophy of modern-day psychology, but is completely opposed to God's Word.

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
-Luke 13:3

While Helen was dying, Rogers left her bedside and started an affair with another woman because he felt too "heavily burdened" by his wife, and wanted to live a life of his own:
"Then I have baffled and hurt her by the fact of my own independent life. While she was so ill, I felt heavily burdened by our close togetherness, heightened by her need for care. So I determined, for my own survival, to live a life of my own. She is often deeply hurt by this, and by the changing of my values. On her side, she is giving up the old model of being the supportive wife."
-Carl R. Rogers, A Way of Being, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, reprint 1995, p. 86, ISBN: 9780395755303

In fact, Rogers taught that adultery was good for marriages, calling them "satellite relationships." He taught that extra-marital relationships were needful for a healthy marriage, and his corrupt doctrine helped open the door for "swingers" and "wife-swapping," which began to pick up popularity in America back in the 1970s, renaming their sin as "good" or "marriage therapy," rather than fornication and adultery.
(See Richard M. Ryckman, Theories of Personality, Cengage Learning, 2012, p. 333, ISBN: 9781111830663)

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
-Hebrews 13:4

Even though this was Rogers' philosophy, it did not help cure him of his guilt for cheating on his wife and leaving her to die alone in her bed. (i.e. He and his family were by her side when she died, but she was in a coma by that time.) It should be noted that Rogers' conscience was bearing witness to the evidence of the law of God written on his heart, meaning that he knew what he did was wrong, and instead of repenting, he turned to witchcraft to justify his sin.

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean [i.e. their thoughts intervene against the truth of the conscience] while accusing or else excusing one another;
-Romans 2:15

William Kilpatrick, in his book The Emperor's New Clothes, testified of Rogers' speech when he attempted to communicate with his dead wife's spirit:
"It is Helen, and her message is one of complete absolution: 'Enjoy, Carl, enjoy! Be free! Be free!' 'Well by gosh!' says Rogers, and he wipes his hand upward across his brow. 'What a wave of relief swept over me when I heard that.'"
-William K. Kilpatrick, The Emporer's New Clothes, Crossway Books, 1985, p. 177, ISBN: 9780891073871

Rogers said this during a presentation he was giving to a large audience of psychologists, and according to other eye-witness testimonies I heard, Rogers was receiving a standing ovation from the crowd before he even finished his sentence. They were just as overjoyed as Rogers to have found an excuse for the "absolution" of their sin, and just to make sure we understand this clearly, let's define the word 'absolve', which is the base word for "absolution:"

absolve (v): to free from guilt or blame or their consequences; to grant pardon for
(See 'absolve', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Psychology is mankind's attempt to justiy sin.

Rogers was looking for absolution for his sins, but not from Jesus Christ; rather, he wanted absolution from his feelings of shame for his guilty pleasures, and sought out the false messages from devils to scratch his itching ears. Rogers died in 1987, he ended up in hell without Christ, and if anyone follows that man's philosophy, which is the foundation for "Christian" psychology, they will end up in the same hell.
(Read "Hell Is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

With this in mind, it should be no wonder that Rogers received the "Humanist of the Year" award from the AHA (American Humanist Association). Mankind will continue to worship those who help them justify sin.
(See American Humanist Association, "Humanist of the Year Awards," retrieved Apr 2, 2019, [americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/humanist-of-the-year-awards])

As I said before, Rogers' philosophy on psychotherapy opened a doorway to church buildings, and over the past few decades, a new brand of church building doctrine has appeared, which focuses on self. This is commonly referred to as "Christian" psychology, and as I stated in the introduction to this book, claiming a difference between psychology and "Christian" psychology is just as absurd as claiming there is a difference between a chicken sandwich and a "Christian" chicken sandwich.

Rather than giving credit where credit is due, meaning that the credit for psychology should go to the reprobate atheists, humanists, and pagans (e.g. Freud, Gaebelein, Rogers, etc) who developed it, psychologist Keith Palmer of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors claims that "Christian" psychology (CP) has been around for thousands of years:
"Christian psychology is a relatively new movement, but its followers rightly point out that a uniquely 'Christian' understanding of persons began with the writing of the Bible itself and was later developed by various authors throughout church history."
-Keith Palmer, "Christian Psychology: An Introduction & Biblical Analysis," Association of Certified Biblical Counselors, retrieved Dec 5, 2018, [https://bit.ly/2KZ2OdR]

What is really interesting about this statement is that it is identical to the absurd claims of the Catholic Church. Instead of admitting the truth that Catholicism was formed by a pagan Roman Emperor, which makes them look bad, they claim that Peter was the first Pope, and that Catholicism was started in the early first century A.D., despite the fact that they have no evidence for the claim. Likewise, proponents for the CP movement are doing the same; instead of admitting the truth that CP was formed by men like Freud and Rogers, which makes them look bad, they instead claim they have been around since the Bible was first authored.
(Read "Catholic History: A Pagan Foundation" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Psychology is mankind's attempt to justify sin. So-called "Christian" psychology is no different.

It does not matter what they claim about their CP movement, we can expose their true purpose by their doctrine, and that is exactly what Jesus warned His disciples to watch out for. Jesus told them to beware the leaven of the religious authorities of that day (i.e. Pharisees and Sadducees), and through some reasoning among the disciples, they figured out that Jesus was warning them to beware of their doctrine:

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up? How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:6-12

The general narrative of "Christian" counselors is almost always the same; they believe that you are inwardly good, and need to raise your "self-esteem," meaning that they believe you just need to bring out your inward goodness, and feel good about yourself. This is completely antithetical to the doctrine of Scripture.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
-Revelation 3:17

For example, Christian counselor Ben Wilson says:
"The challenging process of grief provides healing and release to celebrate what has been good in your life, identify the good inside you and develop a hopeful vision for your future."
-Psychology Today, "Ben Wilson," retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/christian-counseling/co/longmont/248908?sid=5ca619375be70&ref=9&tr=ResultsRow]

This is a man who does not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not inwardly good, nor do we do good in and of ourselves.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Romans 3:10-12

It is only God who is good, as Jesus said:

And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
-Mark 10:17-18

Many churchgoers misunderstand this verse, as to why Jesus, who is good, rejected the man's description of Him as being good. It is not that Jesus was not good, because Jesus is God, but the inquiring man did not believe that Jesus was God; he just thought Jesus was a prophet of God, and so when the man called Jesus "good," he only believed that Jesus was an ordinary man, and Jesus, seeing his unbelieving heart, corrected him according to the folly of his error.

Christian counselor Jeri Strong says:
"It's time to create satisfying relationships, experience joy and personal happiness, and feel good about yourself. You are valuable and you deserve to feel good about your life and relationships."
-Psychology Today, "Jeri Strong," retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [psychologytoday.com/us/therapists/jeri-strong-littleton-co/420478]

When Job went through his suffering in the Book of Job, at the end, when God had come down and corrected Job, what was Job's response? Did Job say, "Lord, I now see that I am valuable and feel better about myself?" No. Job said:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
-Job 42:5-6

To abhor oneself means to hate oneself with the utmost hatred, and to repent means to have godly sorrow and grief of one's wrongdoing, humbling oneself in acknowledgment that we are no more than the dust and ashes of the ground. Strong has no understanding of the Gospel of Jesus, and instead follows the psychological narrative of wicked, pagan adulterers like Carl Rogers.

Seattle Christian Counseling writes the following to their readers:
"When you accept yourself, you live comfortably with both your strengths and your weaknesses, without unreasonable self-criticism. With a healthy self-esteem, you are able to feel good about yourself, appreciate your personal worth, and respect and acknowledge your own dignity and value as a human being."
-Seattle Christian Counseling, "A Christian Counselor's Approach to Low Self-Esteem," Aug 6, 2012, retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [seattlechristiancounseling.com/articles/a-christian-counselors-approach-to-low-self-esteem-part-3-of-3]

King David did not hold himself in high esteem, but rather, he considered the creation of God and found himself to be so worthless, it left him to question why God was even mindful of mankind:

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
-Psalm 8:3-4

Paul did not profess to be a man of esteem, nor did he esteem himself, but rather, he called himself wretched:

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
-Romans 7:24-25

wretched (adj): very miserable, worthless, despicable
(See 'wretched', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The Bible does not teach that God gives grace to the proud of heart, that is, those who love and feel good about themselves. He does not give mercy to those who esteem (i.e. put high value upon) themselves.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

We need to confess the truth: that we are nothing but dust and ashes, and that God is the only one who is good in this world. Mankind needs to humble themselves, and bring themselves low according to the truth of God's Word, confessing that they are weak, foolish, wretched, and worthless, and it is through the power and mercy of the Living God, not through the vile philosophy of psychology, that men are saved and made whole.

The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
-Psalm 34:18

For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the LORD: but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.
-Isaiah 66:2

contrite (adj): broken-hearted for sin; deeply affected with grief and sorrow for having offended God, humble, penitent
(See 'contrite', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

I want to point out the first chapter of Corinthians again for emphasis; that it is not those who are mighty, lofty, well respected, and highly esteemed who God calls to teach His Word. It is not the prestigious psychologists who God has blessed with His wisdom and understanding, but those of a contrite spirit, those who are weak, lowly, vile, worthless, and foolish; it is they who God blesses with knowledge, that no man would attempt to rob Him of His glory.

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty [strong, powerful, great], not many noble [elevated, esteemed, persons of rank or title, like "doctor"], are called: But God hath chosen the foolish [void of understanding and wisdom] things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak [not strong, not powerful, not great] things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base [lowly, vile, worthless] things of the world, and things which are despised [hated and considered to be unworthy], hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
-1 Corinthians 1:26-31

Seattle Christian Counseling continues:
"How you feel about yourself can influence how you live your life, how you respond in various relationships, and how well you do in school and work. Having good self-esteem allows you to accept yourself and live life to the fullest."
-Seattle Christian Counseling, "A Christian Counselor's Approach to Low Self-Esteem," Aug 6, 2012, retrieved Apr 4, 2019, [seattlechristiancounseling.com/articles/a-christian-counselors-approach-to-low-self-esteem-part-3-of-3]

Worldly psychologists who disguise themselves as "Christians" focus on how much enjoyment they (and others) get out of their lives. However, Jesus taught the opposite doctrine, namely that everyone who looks to "live life to the fullest" will find only death and destruction at the end of the road:

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
-Acts 14:22

tribulation (n): severe affliction [grief, stress, and pain], distresses of life, vexations [irritation, persecution, and trouble]
(See 'tribulation', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 3, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

These self-focused concepts are used by almost every "Christian Counselor," "Life Coach," and "Christian Psychologist" in any organization you will find. Psychology professor Robert Roberts wrote a research paper on Rogers, claiming that his work was "useful in the formation of the Christian values," as he states in his summary:
"This article is a conceptual evaluation of the therapeutic theory and practice of Carl Rogers, using as critical vantage point the personality theory suggested in the various New Testament virtue-concepts. The topics discussed are Rogers' concept of the self, the power of unconditional positive regard, integrity as congruence [harmony], the absence of transcendence [beyond normal] in Rogers' thought, and Rogers' concept of autonomy [self-government]. The verdict is mixed features compatible with Christian psychology and useful in the formation of the Christian virtues are discerned, but the limits of this usefulness are delineated [described]."
-Robert C. Roberts, "Carl Rogers and the Christian Virtues," Journal of Psychology and Theory, Dec 1, 1985, retrieved Apr 5, 2019, [journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/009164718501300403]

In truth, the value of Rogers' contribution to Biblical doctrine is zero; nothing. Some may want to give Roberts credit for "limiting" the usefulness of Rogers' teachings, but that only shows how corrupted Roberts is in his philosophy because, in order to help him reinforce the New Testament doctrine, he turns to a sinful man who hated the Christian God of the Bible; a man so corrupted himself, in the end, he had to turn to witchcraft to help him solve his own personal dilemmas.

It is important for readers to understand that these are just a few examples of the volumes of books that could be written exposing these false teachers. My goal is to show the general philosophical problem that wars against the Word of God, even from those who seem outwardly to be of Christ, so that the born again elect will be better equipped to spot the wolves hiding in sheep's clothing.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
-Acts 20:29-31

Most people will be deceived by men like so-called "Christian" psychiatrist Richard Winter, a "Christian" counselor for the Forum of Christian Leaders. Winter gives a seminar called "Christian Counseling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," in which he quotes some of the very authors I have quoted in this chapter, and makes himself seem like he has been properly sanctified and teaches Biblical truth, but as I listened to his talk more carefully, I was able to see the deceitfulness of his doctrine, which is what Jesus was talking about when He told his disciples to beware of the doctrine of the hypocrites (Mat 16:5-12) because they are often very subtle.

Winter says:
"David Benner, in his book, says, 'We exhort as prophets,' — we as Christians he means — 'exhort as prophets, mediate as priests, pastor as shepherds, and bring godly wisdom to those in need.' You are part of that; working with pastors, with counselors, with psychiatrists, with doctors, as a team, to minister to the needs of broken people."
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

Winter is suggesting that those born again in Christ should yoke together with the world, to work with psychiatrists in their worldly philosophies and sorcery. That is not what Scripture teaches us to do:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
-2 Corinthians 6:14-18

yoke (v): to couple together; to join with another
(See 'yoke', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 14, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
-Ephesians 5:11

Winter, like every other "Christian" psychologist, is assuming that mental disorders exist. He would often bring them up in his talk, expecting his disciples to assume the same. For example, he would mention what he referred to as "serious" mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, which as we have already seen in previous chapters, does not exist.

Winter later says:
"So we as Christians are looking through a Biblical worldview, and looking at each of these systems of psychology, saying 'What is true and what is false in each of these?' Because each of these people, like Freud and B.F. Skinner, and others, have discovered things, even if they don't believe in God, that are really true about human beings."
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

Men like Freud did not discover anything that was helpful to mankind. The only person who can help mankind is the Lord Jesus Christ, who was hated by both Freud and Skinner, but these atheistic men are praised by Winter.

In short, Winter is trying to say that there are truths outside the Bible. In earlier chapters, I gave the example that the Bible does not tell us how to make bagels or change a tire, and that is because the Bible is for spiritual instruction in doctrine unto righteousness, not an installation manual for a dishwasher. However, he is using the logical fallacy called a "false equivocation," or sometimes known as "doublespeak," meaning that he is taking two concepts and comparing them together as if they are similar, when they are not.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17

For example, later in his talk, Winter makes the comparison of planting seeds:
"Here's an example: I think of common grace, wisdom, or general revelation. You don't learn where to plant seed from the Bible. You learn it from experimenting from creation, don't you? And in the same way, there are areas dealing with, say, anorexia nervosa; there are broad principles in Scripture, but the details come out as we experiment in how to help people."
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

The fallacy Winter created looks like this:

We experimented with planting seeds and discovered truth about them. The process of planting seeds is not found in the spiritual instruction of Scripture. Therefore, we can discover truth about spiritual matters apart from Scripture.

Most people who listen to this man will not notice this because it is so subtle, but Winter, as most "Christian" psychologists today, believes that discovering spiritual truth is like figuring out how a vehicle operates, and that is insane considering the fact that our five physical senses cannot detect spiritual activity. Psychologists create processes based on the corrupt philosophies of men like Freud (who hated God), and think that his discoveries are somehow compatible to Scriptural understanding because he "observed the truth," but not only did Freud discover nothing that was helpful to anyone, he was also trying to achieve the impossible by comparing physical things with spiritual things, instead of spiritual with spiritual, and that is not how the Lord God teaches us to handle such matters.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
-1 Corinthians 2:13

I can say this boldly and firmly: If any reader believes that you can get something good out of corrupt psychological philosophy, then you do NOT believe the doctrine of Christ because He taught us that a corrupt tree (e.g. psychology/psychiatry) CANNOT bring forth good fruit:

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
-Matthew 7:17-18

Furthermore, Winter presumes, due to his training in the worldly philosophies of psychoanalysis, that anorexia (a loss of appetite for food) is a "mental disorder." In fact, anorexia is centered around the sins of covetousness, lust of the flesh, and people (mostly women) being generally discontent with the things they have, and through extended time with so little nutrients in food, they end up damaging their bodies to the point that they need physical therapy to get back to normal. (i.e. That is something to be handled by physicians, not witchdoctors.)

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
-Hebrews 13:5

This is a good verse to address many problems, but it is NOT meant for the world; this is only for those who are the elect of God, born again in the Lord Jesus Christ. God will eventually leave and forsake those who do not come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and faith on the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and so if you want to help an anorexic person, give them the law of God and the doctrine of Christ because that is their ONLY help.

Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Galatians 3:24

Some readers may disagree, claiming that a number of people have gone through therapy and healed from anorexia, but they are only looking at the surface. What good does it do for a woman to be healed from anorexia, cleaning the outside, but not be healed from the sin of covetousness and lust of the flesh?

That woman will only end up replacing one sin with another sin because she did not fix the core problem in her corrupt spirit, which only Christ can heal. To give an example, it is like when Alcoholics Anonymous helps people get free from their alcohol addiction, and in the process, I have read suggestions to turn to things like eating ice cream to replace drinking alcohol, but that just turns them from drunkenness to gluttony, from one sin to another, because the root problem was not addressed. (i.e. It is another example of the symptom-based medicine that we covered in chapters two and three.)

Jesus is the one who heals our spirits, but Winter and his organization, as well as millions of deceived churchgoers, believe that they can go to wicked atheistic men like Freud to find general spiritual solutions for everyone.

For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
-Acts 28:27

When Jesus would heal someone, He would do so because of their humility and faith in Him. They submitted to Him, and He healed them, but there is no guarantee in Scripture of healing for those who will not submit themselves unto God, most especially when we deal with matters of the spirit, which is what 'psychology' is supposed to be all about.

Winter not only praises Freud, but also highly reveres one of Freud's students, Carl Jung, who conducted demonic séances (i.e. witchcraft rituals to commune with the dead) in his home. Jung continued to participate in séances for about 30 years, and it was debates over the existence of spirits that Jung and Freud argued past the point of reconciliation and ended their friendship.
(See Roderick Main, Jung on Synchronicity and the Paranormal, Psychology Press, 1997, p. 4, ISBN: 9780415155090)

Winter praises Carl Rogers as well, saying that both Rogers and Freud provided the answers for mankind's problems:
"[Describing the doctrine of Carl Rogers:] 'We have unlimited potential for perfection and goodness.' So Carl Rogers is very optimistic. Freud focused on the brokenness and the depravity of human beings. Carl Rogers focuses on the glory and the dignity of human beings. And from a Christian perspective, we're saying actually both are true."
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

Sadly, many people will look at Winter and consider that he is a Christian who understands the truth of God's Word, claiming that he knows what the "Christian perspective" is, when in fact, Winter is yet another deceiver; a disciple of wicked men. When it comes to Freud's god-hating philosophy and Rogers' witchcraft and false doctrine of the so-called "inner goodness" of man, Winter agrees with both in an abomination of beliefs.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
-Isaiah 5:20

Again, this concept of "inner goodness" and the lust for knowledge goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
-Genesis 3:4-5

Instead of rebuking heretic Carl Rogers, Winter goes on to compliment Rogers' philosophy, as do most psychologists today, and if you have been reading up to this point, you should recognize the quote Winter uses:
"But here is a classic saying from—which many people live by today—from Carl Rogers, written in the 1960s: 'Experience is, for me, the highest authority. It is to experience I must return again and again to discover a closer approximation to the truth as it is becoming in me. Neither the Bible, nor the prophets, neither Freud, nor research, neither revelation of God or man, can take precedence over my own direct experience.' So this is the voyage of self-discovery. Look within and you will find who you were intended to be. What an optimism about human nature, isn't it?"
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

When a man denies the instruction and revelation of God to view himself through his own eyes, he does not find the truth, but rather, he DENIES the truth. Rogers' own experience led him into witchcraft to commune with devils, and he professed the words of demonic spirits to be "truth," but his successors continue to sing his praises while deceiving others by claiming they are of Christ.

And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:4-5

Do not misunderstand; we are sometimes deceived by such men. However, if we are presented with the truth of Scripture, we depart from the false doctrines because we, who are of Christ, do not follow after the voice of strangers who teach the doctrines of men.

Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.
-Deuteronomy 12:8

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
-Galatians 5:19-21

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
-Proverbs 14:12

The Bible does not tell us to rely on our own experiences to lead us to truth, otherwise, there would be death and hell for all mankind. Our experience tells us that sin makes our flesh feel good, and so to follow sin would give us pleasure, but that is not what the Bible teaches us to do:

By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.
-Hebrews 11:24-26

It was not by experience that Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter, but it was by the gift of repentance and faith that was given to him by the revelation of God, understanding the spiritual things of the Lord. If he followed only after his experience, he would not have left Egypt, he would not have communicated with God, and he would not have traveled back to Egypt to free the Hebrews.

It is by NOT trusting in ourselves that we are saved and healed. We trust in the Living God and His Son for our salvation, and by His blood to cleanse us of all unrighteousness by which our spirits are regenerated, not by our own experience. Even the peace of God surpasses our limited capability to understand, thereby, we cannot know it through our own experience alone, but rather, by the gift of God do we understand.

And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
-Philippians 4:7

Rogers, Jung, Freud, Winter; all these men claimed to have wisdom, but they did not fear God. This goes for all those who seek psychology as their savior from their problems; if you want to be healed, fear God, repent, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
-Psalm 111:10

What Winter does next is a very sly deception:
"The idea of common grace is that God cares for all creation, and all benefit, whether you're a believer or not, the rain and the sun come on you, don't they? Unbelievers can do good things."
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counselling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

Did you notice the sleight-of-hand? It is true that the kindness of God generally falls on all mankind:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
-Matthew 5:44-46

God causes the rain and sun to fall on the just and unjust, that is, those who are justified by Christ, and those who are not. However, nowhere does this say that unbelievers do good, and I will quote this again from Romans:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Romans 3:10-12

For example, let's consider a Catholic hospital in a war-torn country in which there are Catholic nuns who care for the injuries of those who cannot get the medical care they need. The world would call that "good," but again, the Bible warns us not to see things through our own eyes, but to consider the Word of God.

Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:21

The question is: What happens to those people after they have received medical treatment? They are led into the false doctrine of Catholicism, which teaches them a wide array of heresies that will lead them to hell for eternity, and thus, when a man is healed of his wounds (i.e. only addressing the outward wounds), but ends up being thrown into the lake of fire forever, what good came from that Catholic hospital?
(Read "Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Do not misunderstand; I am not against people getting medical treatment under any circumstance because I want their lives to be saved, as Jesus taught that it was better to save life then to kill. (Mark 3:1-4) It goes the same for a Catholic soup kitchen that feeds the poor; I am in favor of them being fed, but I am not in favor of the false doctrine they will hear from them because it will destroy them, making the food meaningless.

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
-Luke 4:4

These so-called "Christian" psychologists convince themselves (via their own experience) that what they do is "good" because they believe they help people. However, the Bible says they are not good, and worse still, those psychologists go around convincing people of their own "inner goodness" to make them two-fold the child of hell than themselves, which is why things are getting worse with each generation.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass [travel] sea and land to make one proselyte [to convert one to a religious belief], and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
-Matthew 23:15

There is no evidence in Scripture that Jesus ever healed the proud of heart. (e.g. those who make excuses via "mental disorders" instead of confessing their sin - Rom 10:10) Jesus healed the humble, just as the Lord God does not give His grace of justification to the proud of heart, but rather, He gives it to the poor (i.e. contrite) in spirit.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
-Matthew 5:3

Winter goes on to give an excuse for why he lays a foundation in worldly philosophy while claiming it is "Christian," and this is a very common excuse for a variety of heresies among church buildings:
"We take back the good things that secular psychology has discovered and say, 'Actually, this is ours. It's in Scripture, but you think you discovered it, but we've known it all along.'"
-Richard Winter, "Christian Counseling: An Integrated and Biblical Approach," Forum of Christian Leaders Online, Oct 16, 2014, retrieved May 15, 2019, [https://youtu.be/3AKL6TlfdP8]

For example, in my teaching on Halloween, I show how the origin of the holiday is founded in witchcraft traditions, but often, pastors preach a false message that churchgoers need to "take back Halloween for God," even though the Lord God has nothing to do with their wicked rituals. The same thing is seen in the pagan Christmas traditions, where the celebration is founded in witchcraft that was merged with the Catholic Church, but churchgoers participate in it in their willful ignorance, while claiming that people need to put "Christ back in Christmas," even though Christ has nothing to do with Christmas. Likewise, "Christian" psychologists claim that we need to "take back the good things from secular psychology," when those things were never of God in the first place; they were part of atheism, humanism, and mysticism.
(Read "Halloween: Are Christians Lovers of Death?" & Christmas: The Rejection of Jesus here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It should also be noted that, in the one-hour presentation Winter gave, he only mentioned the word 'sin' one time. His use of the word 'sin' was not to acknowledge the truth of mankind's sin, but he used it to describe doctrine that opposed his own view, namely, that men must be cleansed of their sin by the Holy Spirit to be healed.

In truth, counseling unbelievers is like trying to give medicine to a dead man; they can never fully understand the truth of these matters because such things must be imparted to men by the Holy Spirit of God:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

These so-called "Christian" counselors believe they can bypass spiritual discernment (which they themselves do not have, otherwise, they would have nothing to do with psychology), and instead, they become the cure for the souls of perishing men, putting themselves in the place of the Holy Ghost.

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:5-7

They cannot come to knowledge of the truth, but psychologists want to believe that through the secular methods of god-hating men, they can impart wisdom to the world. It is utter foolishness and vanity.

For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work [i.e. not our own]: I will triumph in the works of thy hands [i.e. not our own]. O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep. [i.e. not our own] A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever: But thou, LORD, art most high for evermore.
-Psalm 92:4-8

Such wicked psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, life coaches, and any other such name they adopt for themselves, will come to destruction in their time if they do not repent in dust and ashes. (i.e. That means to come to grief and godly sorrow on their knees in humility.) They will be destroyed for the pride of their hearts because God resists the proud.

The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud.
-Proverbs 16:17-19

Towards the end of his talk, Winter goes on to call the Bible a "psychological textbook," and gives praise and endorsement to yet another famous "Christian" psychologist, Lawrence (Larry) Crabb, who you might recall I quoted earlier in this chapter. Crabb has authored dozens of books on "Christian" counseling, and he is widely revered in many church buildings.

As Houston Baptist University states on their website, advertising a conference they were hosting in his honor:
"Dr. Larry Crabb may be the most influential leader in Christian counseling during the past 50 years. He published his first article in Christianity Today in 1971... The purpose of this conference will be to celebrate his amazing ministry through a consideration of his contributions to Christian counseling and the evangelical church by hearing from friends, colleagues, leaders in the field, former students and mentees, as well as Larry himself... Crabb's influence as a teacher, writer, mentor and friend is broad. He has not been afraid to ask hard questions about what constitutes a biblically faithful approach to soul care."
-Houston Baptist University, "Living in the Larger Story: The Christian Psychology of Larry Crabb May 16-17, 2019 Mabee Theater," retrieved May 16, 2019, [http://bit.ly/2Ywn0cD]

Many churchgoers have been deceived by Crabb because, over the years, he has taken terms and phrases that he started out using from his education in psychology, and changed to them Biblical terms and phrases. The Christians who had criticized his work over the years showed him that he only needed to change the words he was using to Biblical-sounding terms, while never changing the psychological philosophy behind his doctrine, and due to his influence, he has taught thousands of "Christian" counselors and psychologists to do the same because they realized what any other religious cult quickly realizes: the more churchgoers you can get behind you, the more money you make.

And Crabb makes A LOT of money. A 2019 seminar, hosted by Billy Graham's "Training Center at The Cove," charges $500 per person for a weekend seminar, but what I found really hilarious is that they have one seminar that they label a "Free Seminar," but you have pay $20 to register for it. (Do not forget that Crabb will also be promoting and selling his books and DVDs at the event, and all this from "non-profit" organizations.) (See Billy Graham Training Center at The Cover, "Kept From Falling in a Fallen Community," retrieved May 17, 2019, [register.thecove.org/events/detail/60])

The following authors do a good job of summarizing Crabb's deception:
"Crabb interprets the message of the cross according to his psychological ideas about the nature of man and how he changes. The 'gospel' becomes the good news that Jesus meets the needs/longings/passions which motivate all behavior from the unconscious. 'Sin' becomes wrong strategies for meeting the needs/longings/passions. 'Confession' is telling our stories and gaining insight into those wrong strategies. 'Full repentance' comes through getting in touch with the pain of the past. Hence, the gospel message itself is directly tied to a psychological construct. Not only is the doctrine of man psychologized, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are made subservient to Crabb's psychospiritual theories."
-Martin & Deidre Bobgan, Larry Crabb's Gospel, EastGate Publishers, 1998, ISBN: 9780941717144

As we can see, this is reinforcing what psychologist Thomas Szasz pointed out, that psychotherapists like Crabb have taken the salvation of sinful souls and converted that into the cure for sick minds. The entire concept is a perversion of the sacred doctrine of Jesus Christ, but the craftiness and deception lies in the very simple process of changing definitions of words without telling anyone. (That is why you may have noticed that I spend a lot of time defining the words and phrases I use in this book; that way, you will not be deceived about what I believe, and will more clearly understand the doctrine I teach.)

Agnieszka Tennat, journalist for the leavened Christianity Today magazine, and ardent fan of Crabb, gives a more general overview of Crabb's definitions:
"[A] concurrent cycle in spiritual formation begins with brokenness (hurt caused by your and others' sin), which leads to repentance (a realization that God is not there to cooperate with your agenda), which leads to abandonment (you resist the temptation to escape or to curse God, instead abandoning yourself to him), which arouses confidence (the Spirit witnesses to your spirit that you belong to God, and that he is present even in your darkest night), which finally leads to release of what's most alive within you (springs of Living Water)."
-Agnieszka Tennant, "A Shrink Gets Stretched," Christianity Today, May 1, 2003, retrieved May 17, 2019, [christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/may/7.52.html]

Some of you might be a bit confused after reading this, and that is normal because psychological definitions are confusing due to their vagueness and ambiguity. (i.e. They are not well understood.) I am going to go over all the points in these quotes, but it is important that we understand that there is one key definition that has been altered which has affected every definition Crabb has come up with, and that is altering the definition of the word 'sin'.

sin (n): the voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law; a wicked act; iniquity
(See 'sin', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 17, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
-1 John 3:4

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.
-James 4:17

Sin is the transgression of the commandments of God, to depart from good and do evil. The Bible also tells us that the law of God is written in the hearts of men, their consciences bearing witness of that, and so because all men have sinned, all have come short of the glory of God.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;
-Romans 2:14-15

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
-Romans 3:23

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
-James 2:10

However, this is not what Larry Crabb teaches, as he states in his own book:
"But the structure of sin in the human personality is far more complicated than the isolated [singular] acts and thoughts of deliberate [willful] disobedience commonly designated by the word [i.e. sin]. In its biblical definition, sin cannot be limited to isolated [singular, specific] instances or patterns of wrongdoing; it is something much more akin [related] to the psychological term complex: an organic network of compulsive attitudes, beliefs, and behavior deeply rooted in alienation from God."
-Larry Crabb, Understanding People: Why We Long for Relationship, Zondervan, 2013, ISBN: 9780310337027

Even though Crabb mentions that sin is disobedience, he only believes that is a small part of sin, and lays a foundation of humanistic psychology underneath sin so you will change your philosophy from Christ to psychology, and rely on Crabb to help you work out your own sin through his psychological methods. (i.e. He does not want you to rely on the Holy Spirit and the Word of God because that will not bring him financial gain.) Crabb also says that sin is more like "the psychological term complex," and that is a major point that we need to understand:

complex (n): a system of interrelated, emotion-charged ideas, feelings, memories, and impulses that is usually repressed and that gives rise to abnormal or pathological behavior
(See 'complex', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

A complex, according to psychology, is thoughts or feelings that are repressed into the "unconscious" (which does not exist, as we covered in chapter one), and if left untreated without a licensed psychologist, will lead to a "mental disorder" (which also does not exist — the phrase 'pathological behavior' means "mental illness"). In the end, Crabb believes that by using the methods of the demonically corrupt psychologists, one can "medically treat" his own sin, which will fix all his "mental illnesses," and then he will become what "God intended him to be," which, in short, is mysticism.

mysticism (n): a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition [perception] of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation [thoughtful observation] or ecstasy [pleasant feelings]
(See 'mysticism', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Mysticism is belief that a man has achieved enlightened understanding through methods like meditation or heightened feelings. This is why it is so common for those who are on drugs to claim that they have gained "spiritual enlightenment," and that is also one of the reasons witches use drugs (i.e. sorcery).

God's Word teaches us spiritual truth, and His Word gives understanding to the simple (Psa 119:130), which means it can be comprehended by ordinary understanding. By changing sin from disobedience to a "psychological complex," Crabb has now also changed the remedy for sin. When you change the illness, you change the cure, meaning that if you change what sin is, you then change how sin is dealt with. Though Crabb and his followers may give lip service to Jesus Christ, they believe it is no longer Jesus Christ that is needed to heal your corrupt soul, but rather, now you need to read books and watch DVDs and attend weekend seminars by Larry Crabb (or any other "Christian" psychologist) so he can help you clean out the skeletons in your "unconscious" closet.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
-1 Timothy 2:5

So now we will go back to the Christianity Today article, and point-by-point, we will look at the corruption of Crabb's definitions:

"brokenness (hurt caused by your and others' sin)" Notice that it is hurt caused by the sin of others, which is taken in context to mean that others have done you wrong, so you have to deal with the "unconscious" problems that are in your brain. This also tells us that the phrase "your sin" is actually meant that you have hurt others in the process (not offense against God), which makes this completely horizontal repentance (i.e. sorrow of the world, man-to-man) rather than vertical repentance (i.e. godly sorrow, man-to-God), and thus, the term 'brokenness' according to Crabb has nothing to do with what the Bible says about a man being broken-hearted over his sin in a contrite spirit (Psa 34:18), and everything to do with "treating mental illness" based on his psychological training.

I said, LORD, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.
-Psalm 41:4

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-10
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

repentance (n): sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct
(See 'repentance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 12, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

"repentance (a realization that God is not there to cooperate with your agenda)" Repentance is grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing, not a mystic "realization" that God is not there to cooperate with what you think. In Crabb's wicked worldview, he has replaced the godly sorrow of a contrite spirit, and put in its place a placid "God's in control" statement.

"abandonment (you resist the temptation to escape or to curse God, instead abandoning yourself to him)" Someone who is of a contrite spirit is not tempted to "escape or curse God." In their humility, that thought does not even cross their minds because repentance is a gift from God. (2Ti 2:25) Crabb is not pulling this out of the Bible, but rather, this is all from his psychological training, and as we will see in a moment, this contradicts what Crabb teaches in other areas.

"confidence (the Spirit witnesses to your spirit that you belong to God, and that he is present even in your darkest night)" The word 'confidence' means 'faith', and the Bible uses those terms interchangeably because faith is an affectionate, practical confidence in the testimony of God. However, you may notice that, according to Crabb, it is not confidence in Christ and the promises of God unto salvation for healing, but rather, it is Crabb's vague doctrine of "knowing God is there," even though "knowing God is there" is not a prerequisite for the saving grace of Jesus Christ that heals the souls of men.

The Bible teaches us that many people know God, but they hold the truth in unrighteousness:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
-Romans 1:21-22

And all these false doctrines are supposed to:
"release of what's most alive within you (springs of Living Water)" Releasing "what's most alive" inside you is not "abandoning yourself" to God, and that is the contradiction I was pointing out, but furthermore, this is dangerous doctrine because it assumes that the "Living Waters of God" are automatically in all of mankind, and by meeting Crabb's psychological prerequisites, you can release that "living water." The reason Crabb is accepted worldwide, by various religious cults and new-age church institutions, and the reason the Billy Graham Crusade loves him so much, is that he ignores the fact that repentance and faith in Christ comes first before God gives us the gift of His Living Water, which is His metaphor for eternal life.

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
-John 4:14

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
-John 7:38

Crabb simplifies his doctrine by saying:
"[P]eople have one basic personal need that requires two kinds of input for its satisfaction. The most basic need is a sense of personal worth, an acceptance of oneself as a whole, real person. The two required inputs are significance (purpose, importance, adequacy for a job, meaningfulness, impact) and security (love—unconditional and consistently expressed; permanent acceptance)."
-Lawrence J Crabb, Effective Biblical Counseling: A Model for Helping Caring Christians Become Capable Counselors, Zondervan, 2014, retrieved ISBN: 9780310515883; As a side note, Zondervan is a division of HarperCollins Christian Publishing Inc, which prints new-age Bible versions like the NIV and RSV, and Avon, also a division of HarperCollins, prints the Satanic Bible by Anton Levay.

Now it is clear to see, through this simplification, that Crabb, once again, contradicts Scripture. Whereas the Bible teaches us that people have one basic personal need, which is the cleansing blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, Crabb teaches that they need to esteem themselves more by having a "sense of personal worth."

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

It is the things that mankind highly esteems which God hates with the utmost hatred (i.e. abomination), and that high esteem in oneself does not at all sound like "abandoning oneself to God." These people are lifting themselves up to accept themselves as they are, rather than be changed into the likeness of Christ (i.e. conversion); or in other words, they are exalting themselves, and trained to do so by CPs.

exalt (v): to raise high; to elevate with joy or confidence
esteem (v): to set a high value on; to prize
(See 'exalt' & 'esteem', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 21, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Jesus told us that those who would raise themselves up and set high value on themselves, as Crabb is teaching, would be "abased," meaning that God will bring them down and reduce them to nothing on the Day of Judgment. However, those who abase themselves, meaning that they think little and low of themselves, who are humbled in repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing), will be exalted on the Day of Judgment.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-Luke 18:13-14

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
-Philippians 2:3

Without the healing of the Holy Spirit of God, none of mankind's problems can be resolved, including Larry Crabb's personal problems. (I assure you, he has a lot more personal problems than he would confess publically.) That healing will only come when a man is humbled before the Living God, and then He will grant them His grace, and through faith in Christ, they will receive living waters.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
-Philippians 2:5-8

Even Christ, who is God, humbled Himself, as an example to us that we are to be humbled before God.

humble (adj): low; opposed to lofty or great; not magnificent; modest; meek; submissve; in an evangelical sense, having a low opinion of one's self, and a deep sense of unworthiness in the sight of God
(See 'humble', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 21, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

And I quote again, so that readers will embed this into their minds:

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

Job had a wife, many children, hoards of cattle, many servants and lands, and he was brought down to have nothing; all his children died, his wife left him, and he became sickly. God also came down Himself to rebuke Job because Job had claimed he had not sinned, when in fact, it was his pride to think he had no sin which was the problem in the first place. After this ordeal, God gave Job twice as much as he had before (Job 42:10), but it was not that God just handed it to him because Job had a positive self-image; rather, Job answered God through all this and said:

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [i.e. not that Job demanded this from God, but was referring back to God's demand of him in Job 38:3] I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
-Job 42:2-6

Dust and ashes is part of repentance, in that a man is brought to grief and godly sorrow, considering himself to be nothing but dust and ashes, without worth or value. Furthermore, Job hated himself with an extreme hatred:

abhor (v): to hate extremely; to lothe, detest, or abominate
(See 'abhor', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 21, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

But that is not the doctrine you are going to hear from Crabb, nor will you hear that from any other psychologist. Crabb will teach you the opposite, to love yourself more, to have more self-worth, to give yourself value through your "purpose" and "meaningfulness," and worst of all, he teaches heaps of false converts a "permanent acceptance" before God has ever accepted them.

This know also, that in the last days perilous [dangerous] times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves...
-2 Timothy 3:1-2

As we can see, Crabb's teaching perverts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and he will lead people away from repentance, faith, and salvation. Yet, he has become one of the biggest names in Christian psychology/counseling, which more and more church buildings are accepting every year, and that should help us understand one more reason why Jesus said:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14

There are thousands of such men (and women) I could have covered in this chapter who teach similar things, and that is because most of them were trained by the same few people, under the same demonic psychological philosophy that Sigmund Freud introduced to the world. The "Christian" psychologists often praise the blasphemous Freud, and even if they do not praise him, they still base their "counseling techniques" on his philosophy, and in a twisted abomination, they distort Scripture so it can be restructured to fit Freud's doctrine.

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [twist, distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
-2 Peter 3:16-17

Be warned: CPs will talk about grace through faith, forgiveness and salvation, and they might even mention sin and repentance, but what they mean by these words is something completely different from what the Lord God teaches us in His Word. Without the Holy Spirit of God, these "Christian" psychologists might be trying to learn and study, but they will NEVER understand the truth.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:7

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
-Luke 24:44-45

 

After all the deception, sin, witchcraft, false doctrines, and death that I have covered in previous chapters on psychology, and how it is not a legitimate science of any sort and has nothing to do with the doctrine of Christ, we now have a growing movement today that shines an interesting light on psychology. They typically refer to themselves as "Life Coaches," which is, for the most part, a bunch of people acting as psychologists, but most of the time, they do not go to a university to get a degree, or in other words, it is the less prestigious form of psychology/counseling.

Ever since I first saw the term "life coach" and the people claiming the title, there were always alerts going off in my mind of the danger of these people, and so I steered clear of them. Of course, at the time, I did not understand what a life coach was, nor all the reasons why I was immediately driven away from them, but as I studied the Word of God and submitted myself to God's understanding instead of my own, it started to become clear why life coaches, most specifically "Christian" life coaches, are so dangerous.

Just like psychology, life coaching is a scam. Just like psychologists, life coaches claim to help you through problems in your life, or as they like to put it, "to get from point A to point B," because they believe you cannot figure things out for yourself; you need "coaching" to overcome life's hurdles.

The conceited attitude psychologists have when addressing the subject of life coaching is somewhat funny when we consider that many studies have been done which compare the effectiveness of "professionals versus paraprofessionals," or in other words, the question was posed: Do licensed mental health professionals get better results than non-licensed assistants? The following quote is from a study which analyzed the results of 42 different studies on the matter:
"Although studies have been limited to examining helpers functioning in narrowly defined clinical roles with specific client populations, it is argued that the findings are consistent and provocative. Paraprofessionals achieve clinical outcomes equal to or significantly better than those obtained by professionals. In terms of measureable outcome, professionals may not possess demonstrably superior clinical skills when compared with paraprofessionals. Moreover, professional mental health education, training, and experience do not appear to be necessary prerequisites for an effective helping person."
-Joseph A. Durlak, "Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, January, 1979, retrieved July 3, 2019, [psycnet.apa.org/buy/1979-31736-001]

It turns out when objective studies are done comparing the therapy of licensed professionals against non-licensed help, the non-licensed people had equal or better results in the clients than the licensed psychologists. Thus, the conclusion of the study was that having a degree and a license in the mental health field is meaningless, meaning that being a "life coach" has no more or less impact than being a "psychologist," and if people can get the same job without the degree and license, it should start to make more sense why life coaching is increasing in popularity.

The tricky thing about life coaches is that it is based on the word 'coach', which can be applied to a lot of things. The word coach has its origin from the 16th century in Hungary, where the original "coach" was made; meaning that it was a covered wagon designed specifically for transporting passengers from one point to another, and was later picked up by Oxford University as slang for someone who trains others.
(See 'coach', Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved Apr 25, 2019, [etymonline.com/word/coach])

coach (v): to give instruction or advice; instruct
(See 'coach', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, there are tennis coaches, career coaches, financial coaches, management coaches, diet coaches, marriage coaches, and there are even COACHING coaches. (I kid you not; it is a coaching designed to help others coach better.) Not only are there hundreds more beyond this, but you can also get "official" certifications in all of them.
(See Universal Coach Institute, "Types of Coaches / Coaching Niches," retrieved Apr 25, 2019, [universalcoachinstitute.com/types-of-coaches])

In short, life coaches believe that they have the wisdom, communication, and techniques to help people get through life's problems. It is no different from psychologists; the only difference is that psychologists have spent the past century developing a special club that one must enter via training and a university degree (which is a fancy phrase for a piece of paper which claims they are legitimate), while life coaches can take a weekend seminar and get a certificate (which is also a fancy word for a piece of paper which claims they are legitimate).

Over the past 10 years, I have seen a near-unbelievable number of so-called "Christian" life coaches start appearing, especially over social media, and when a career like that starts growing very fast, there is bound to be money behind it. According to PayScale, the average salary for a life coach in the U.S. is $46,966, averaging over $33 an hour, which is extremely high pay for someone that can get quick certification in such a short time.
(See PayScale, "Average Life Coach Hourly Pay," retrieved Apr 25, 2019, [payscale.com/research/US/Job=Life_Coach/Hourly_Rate]; Specific states, like Alaska and New Jersey, average as high as almost $60,000 a year.)

You will find that many of the people advertising their life coach business are young or middle-aged, not elderly. What life experience do you think a young man or woman has that someone twice their age does not have? For that matter, why is it that those young men and women think they can help their peers through life's troubles when they are still going through those same troubles?

Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
-1 Timothy 3:6

The Word of God tells us that novices (i.e. a young man who is inexperienced) should not be allowed to be an elder, otherwise, he will be lifted up in his pride and fall into the hands of the devil. The same principle should apply with life coaches as well, but the coaches do not care because life coaches want the same thing psychologists want: fame and fortune.

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Keep in mind that it is easier to market your business when you are young and beautiful. The elderly are not typically eye candy for the average viewer, and if you consider that for a moment, it will not be hard to figure out that, in most cases, those who listen to life coaches are not really looking for wisdom, but rather, they are looking to "feel good" (i.e. achieve a positive inward feeling), which is exactly what life coaching is all about.

For example, life coach Jonathan Conneely, who refers to himself as "Coach JC," starts out his speech to Victory Christian Center by getting the crowd to chant "Victory!" over and over. Anyone can clearly see this man is hell-bent on getting false converts in church buildings to feel good about themselves, and lift themselves up in the pride of their hearts:
"If you can honestly say, 'Coach JC, I am grateful right now to attend the greatest church in America, yeah that's Victory Christian Center, with the greatest leader in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Pastor Paul Daughrity,' if you're grateful right now, then I want you just to shout right now, put your hands together and give it up for this great leader and this great church, baby! [crowd cheers] YES! Come on! YES! YES!"
-Jonathan Conneely, Speech to Victory Church in Tulsa, OK, COACH JC, Feb 5, 2016, retrieved June 18, 2019, [https://youtu.be/oYtngSnsW8s]

First of all, it is likely that the pastor of that church building was called the "greatest leader" because he is the only one in that city who invited Conneely to speak. Second, that is pride.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

pride (n): inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable conceit of one's own superiority in talents, beauty, wealth, accomplishments, rank or elevation in office
(See 'pride', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 18, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

And third, you will not have to listen to these life coaches for very long to realize they are there to make you feel good because, after all, leading someone to grief and godly sorrow of their sin is not something people want to pay for. People want to throw money at people and things that make them feel good, and that obsession with inwardly feeling good is what keeps them from repentance and salvation.

I have often been accused of being evil simply because I teach that "feeling good" is not necessarily a good thing. Someone can "feel good" by taking heroin, but it can also kill them, which means that the heroin was not good for them. Someone can "feel good" by eating a lot of junk food, but they can have a heart attack and die, which means it was not good for them. Following our feelings is very dangerous, and so for people to rely on their feelings, esteeming themselves (i.e. setting high value on themselves, otherwise known as "self-esteem") can lead them into a trap, but sadly, most people do not want to hear the truth because they do not want to know that sorrow is better than laughter.

So many times over the years, I have been accused of being evil because I would dare to question that it is wrong for people to "feel good" about themselves, or highly esteem themselves. That is because most people do not want to hear the truth; namely, they do not want to know that sorrow is better than laughter, and by sadness, the heart is made better.

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:8-10

This is because God will only save the repentant heart, that is, one who is broken-hearted over his own wrongdoing:

repentance (n): sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct
(See 'repentance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 18, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
-Ecclesiastes 7:2-4
(Read "Revivalism: The Devil's Design" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

mirth (n): social merriment; high excitement of pleasurable feelings in company
(See 'mirth', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Apr 26, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The primary goal of the life coaching movement is to help people love themselves more and feel good about themselves, which is contrary to the doctrine of God's Word, and we will see examples of this later in this chapter. Therefore, life coaches are contrary to the Lord God and His Word, showing us that the term "Christian Life Coach" is an oxymoron because life coaching has nothing to do with Christian doctrine.

This know also, that in the last days perilous [risky, dangerous] times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
-2 Timothy 3:1-7

For many years, I have taught fellow Christians that if you want to know one of the easy ways to discern someone's heart, just take a look at their "About" page on their website. The way someone speaks about himself is very telling to what is in his heart.

O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
-Matthew 12:34

For example, so-called "Christian" life coach, Brenda Martin, labels herself as a "Professional Life Coach," and from someone claiming to be a Christian, we might expect to hear something about her conversion unto the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 6:19-20), that we might hear of her repentance and remission of sin (Luke 24:47), and her faithfulness in His shed blood for our souls (1Jo 1:7), however, that is not what we find. Instead, Martin lists out her credentials (i.e. her worldly accomplishments), and builds others up in the wicked pride of their hearts:
"As a Certified Christian Life Coach the passion of my heart is to see people reach their potential, attain desired goals and live with purpose and destiny. My Clients are people seeking successful outcomes, willing to develop skills for personal growth and to overcome everyday life challenges. Whether your challenges come in the work place, home, self discipline or other relationships you can be equipped for positive outcomes. You are more than you think you are and You [sic] can do more than you think you can. Our lives are meant to be lived with passion, purpose and joy. Every person has within a greater grace available to accomplish plans, goals, visions and dreams. As a Christian Life Coach, my niche is centered on this....Our lives are not by chance or happenstance we can approach each day, every obstacle, all relationships equipped for success. Acknowledged Truth and Actual Conduct will never be at odds with each other."
-Brenda Martin, "About Me," Identify The Way, retrieved Apr 26, 2019, [identifythewaylifecoach.com/about-me]

Notice first that the "passion of her heart" was not to see the lost sinners of this world come to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and faith, but rather, her passion is to see people live more fulfilling lives. Most people in this world are covetous, looking to live more fulfilled lives, and there will be a lot of supposedly "fulfilled" people end up in hell.
(Read "Hell Is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

There is no "personal growth" under a lie, which is why earlier, when I quoted from 2 Timothy, the Bible says they are "ever learning," meaning that they are always acquiring new information, but are "never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," in that what they are learning are lies that will lead them to hell and the lake of fire. Anyone who has been born again in the Lord Jesus Christ knows that the Bible has the answers for challenges, self-discipline, and relationships, but Martin, like every other life coach out there, wants you to believe that you need people like her to accomplish these things, and in reality, she is putting herself in the place of the Holy Spirit of God.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
-1 John 2:26-27

Worse still is the gross and willful ignorance of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in her statement that, "Every person has within a greater grace available to accomplish plans, goals, visions and dreams." Thus, Martin effectively tosses aside the Gospel of Christ by claiming that grace is within everyone, when that is the exact opposite of what God has taught us.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6
(Read "Is Repentance Part of Salvation?" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It is the proud of heart, those who lift themselves up in high esteem, who God resists, and will not give them His grace, but Martin deceives her listeners by telling them they have it anyway. The world may need psychologists and life coaches to build them up, but for those of us who are born again in Christ, it is God's Word which builds us up, not the worthless and destructive advice of a life coach.

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. [i.e. set apart]
-Acts 20:32

For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
-Romans 12:3

In the end, Martin does not care if her clients have life or not. She only cares about making herself and others feel good about what she does, and if they end up perishing in hell, that is okay with her as long as she feels justified.

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

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
-1 John 5:12

The Christian Coach Institute's website says:
"We educate, equip and encourage Christian Coaches around the world to bring out the best in God's people. We do this through teaching internationally recognized core coaching competencies integrated into our Christian coaching model. We take personal interest in your success and our goal is to build a coaching support community for you that will continue long after graduation. Our training provides the life skills, practical tools and business strategies for you to launch a fulfilling coaching career. Our emphasis is on helping you find your 'sweet spot' in coaching, and to build upon your passion for helping you to be all that God intends you to be!"
-Christian Coach Institute, "About Christian Coach Institute," retrieved Apr 26, 2019, [christiancoachinstitute.com/about-christian-coach-institute]

Exactly what spiritual "core competencies" are they teaching that God failed to provide in His Word? Again, we see that their goal is not to teach the doctrines of Christ and bring people to repentance and faith, but rather, they want to build a life coach community and teach business strategies.

I have an interesting question: What if God's intention for me is to expose life coaching as an unbiblical scam of the devil? Will they then help coach me to successfully coach others on how to expose life coaches as con artists? Of course, we all know they would not do that because it is not profitable to them, and that love of money is something we will see more later in this chapter.

Furthermore, life coaches are doing the same thing the so-called "Christian" psychologists are doing: They take the techniques of the materialist world, and try to fold the Bible to fit into those principles by adding in a few verses out of context. It is like taking black paint and trying to make it white paint by adding a few drops of white paint into the bucket; it does nothing to get rid of the darkness.

On the same Christian Coach Institute website, their president, Janice LaVore-Fletcher, goes on to reveal this foundational problem, although I am sure she is ignorant that she did it. After talking about her list of "qualifications," (i.e. Gallup-Certified Strengths Coach, Master Masteries Coach, Professional Certified Coach, Certified Professional Christian Coach, Board Certified Coach, Certified ICF Mentor Coach, Master Coach Trainer, Licensed Human Behavior Trainer, Certified Executive Mastermind Coach, Licensed Get Clients Now Facilitator, and Certified TeleClass Leader) she goes on to talk about the coaching schools she attended:
"Both of these coaching schools are highly reputable with rich coaching curriculum and I loved the courses and people. I found the concepts had more of a 'new age/universal approach' to coaching and centered around a humanistic model of 'I can do all things in my own strength.' For me, there was an obvious critical component missing. Scripture teaches 'I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.' Philippians 4:13 I included my Christian values in the coaching process with my clients, and continued my path to complete formal Christian Coach training and Master Christian Coach training."
-Christian Coach Institute, "About Christian Coach Institute," retrieved Apr 26, 2019, [christiancoachinstitute.com/about-christian-coach-institute]

As I said before, life coaching uses all the fundamentals of psychology, and just like psychology, it was developed by the secular world. The unbiblical concept of life coaching was developed, and then later, churchgoers (like LaVore-Fletcher) wanted to profit from it, so she added (or rather, was trained to add) her church-ianity principles into her life coaching to create a so-called "Christian" version of life coaching. In other words, the Bible is not the foundation of "Christian" life coaching, but rather, psychology is the foundation for it.

Lavore-Fletcher goes on to quote the philosophy of a churchgoing comedian:
"Coaching is about personal growth and action. My personal philosophy is to learn, grow and share until I take my last breath. My favorite quote is by Erma Bombeck, 'When I stand before God at the end of my life, I hope I have not a single bit of talent left and can say I used everything you gave me.'"
-Christian Coach Institute, "About Christian Coach Institute," retrieved Apr 26, 2019, [christiancoachinstitute.com/about-christian-coach-institute]

That is the problem that the world, with all its churchgoers, does not understand: Jesus will say to them on the Day of Judgment: "I never knew you: depart from me." They will come to Him on that day, call Him "Lord," and tell Him about all the life coaching they did in His name, but they never had a humble heart of repentance of their sin, and therefore, He never knew them.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

These life coaches are all about seeking after and loving the things of this world, and "coaching" you to do the same. To a born again Christian, it's clear evidence that they do not have the love of God in them, or they would forsake the things of this world, cast off their worldly "qualifications," and teach the truth of the Word.

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
-1 John 2:15-17

To understand the full foundation of "Christian" life coaching, we need to look at the philosophical connection to Scientology, the religious cult started by L. Ron Hubbard. Scientologists are people who believe a dictatorial alien named Xenu of the "Galactic Confederacy" seeded life on earth 75 million years ago. To understand that connection between Scientology and life coaching, we need to look at a man named Werner Erhard.

Erhard, whose real name is John Paul Rosenberg (son of Jack Rosenberg), left his wife and four children in the 1960s, and created the name "Werner Erhard" out of combination of Ludwig Erhard (former Chancellor of Germany) and Werner Heisenberg (atomic scientist), in a secretive way of demonstrating his philosophical combination of physics and economics. Erhard allegedly stole Scientology manipulation and mind-control techniques, and started what is known today as "EST" (Erhard Seminars Training), which became so popular in Hollywood, some people thought that the company Warner Brothers ought to have been renamed "Werner" Brothers.
(See Peter Haldeman, "The Return of Werner Erhard, Father of Self-Help," New York Times, Nov 28, 2015, [nytimes.com/2015/11/29/fashion/the-return-of-werner-erhard-father-of-self-help.html])

To give an example, Valarie Harper, best known for her role in the 1970s TV series The Mary Tyler Moore Show, gave Werner Erhard the place of her highest, more private honor, moreso than her own husband, at the end of her Emmy Award speech:
I am not going to go into details of the techniques used by Scientology and Erhard for two reasons, the first being that it is not the focus of topic for this book, and the second is that I do not want to, because there is a lot of foul language involved in Erhard's sessions, as the following author points out in his biography on Werner Erhard:
"Werner Erhard was also making enemies, beginning with L. Ron Hubbard, who was angry that the upstart salesman had taken Scientology courses and lifted some of its methodology. Abrasive as well as unconventional, with no academic credentials beyond a high-school diploma, Erhard managed to alienate roomfuls of strangers with a single talk. One memory that still rankles MIT professors is of Erhard's telling a faculty audience, including Nobel Prize winners, that they were ***holes. 'You can't speak that way to such people!' one recently steamed. But Erhard did—and earned their enmity [hostility]."
-Dan Wakefield, "Erhard's Life After Est," Common Boundary, March, 1994, retrieved Apr 30, 2019, [wernererhard.com/boundary.html]

If you do research on the subject, you will find that when people describe going to an EST seminar for the first time, you will hear witnesses use the term 'shocking' or 'surprising' in a negative way because the seminar leaders tend to try and rattle people when they go into them in order to put them on edge and break them down, very similar to how a military drill sergeant might operate, only in a less threatening manner. They also attempt to use group think and peer pressure to make you feel like you are stupid if you do not agree with them; these are just some of the many tactics Erhard and Scientologists use in common to influence the minds of their audiences, and life coaching does things in a similar, yet evolved manner, using subtle "peer pressure" influences.

To understand what kind of man Erhard really is, CBS's 60 Minutes reporters put together a series of interviews with the families of Erhard back in March of 1991, but due to Erhard's legal threats, it is very difficult to locate this video on the internet today. I was able to locate a copy of the episode, and I will write out a transcript of some of the testimony from Erhard's family and co-workers:

CELESTE ERHARD, WERNER'S OLDEST DAUGHTER FROM HIS 2ND WIFE: "I have been afraid—deeply afraid—of my father my whole life. *pauses as tears well up* It's funny because you almost feel stupid that you're afraid of him, but he's a terrifying man—he can be very terrifying..." JOURNALIST ED BRADLEY: "Just how terrifying? Dawn Damas was the family's governess [private teacher/tutor] and is still a close friend. She says she saw Erhard assault his son, St. John, or 'Sinjon' as he's called, when the boy was only twelve." DAMAS: "He started to ask St. John about school, and started to notice St. John's grades, and got livid, and went over to Sinjon, and started to slap him and hit him, and picked him up and threw him on the ground, and started to kick him in front of everybody and nobody moved. Everyone was paralyzed. And then said to St. John, 'If you ever get grades like this again, I'll break both of your legs with a baseball bat.'" BRADLEY: "And no one said a word? No one made a move to stop him?" DAMAS: "*pauses and looks down regretfully* No, which is hard for me to believe except that I was there and I didn't either." BRADLEY: "Erhard's daughter Adair says, she saw it." ADAIR: "My dad just—he freaked out. He pushed him back in a chair. He fell over. At this point, my brother was so petrified he actually peed in his pants. You know, he's down on the floor, he's kicking him, he's hitting him." BRADLEY: "Your father's kicking and hitting him?" ADAIR: "*nods in agreement* Mm-hmm. You know, for a bad grade." BRADLEY: "Sinjon, who is now 23, didn't want to speak on camera, but he told us the beating did take place, and that he wasn't the only family member to be a victim of Werner's abuse: His mother was too. Erhard didn't live with his family, but once a month or so, he would summon his wife and children to come here, to his San Francisco headquarters, for a meeting attended by his inner circle. Erhard's daughter Adair recalls a time about 13 years ago [1978] when, at one of those meetings, he launched into a jealous rage toward his wife." ADAIR: "He accused her of having an affair with this man, which was totally untrue. At one point, someone picked up a statue and hit her over the head. My dad constantly saying, 'What aren't you saying?! What aren't you saying?!' " BRADLEY: "And you saw your mother physically attacked? By your father and others?" ADAIR: "Mm-hmm. Yeah, he himself also got up while she was on the floor and kicked her a number of times." BRADLEY: "The assault on Ellen Erhard, her daughters say, went on for two nights... Did you try to stop them?" CELESTE: "At one point, on the second night, I did stand up and say, 'Please, you're killing her! You're killing her!' I mean, my mother was blue. Her face was blue. She had like drool coming out of the side of her mouth. She was dying. She was, you know, suffocating. And all he said to me was, 'Sit down, or you'll get more of the same.' And that's a direct quote. I remember every word. And that's all he said, and I sat down." ADAIR: "She was strangled, literally. She turned blue. There was spit running down the side of her mouth." BRADLEY: "Strangled? Who?" ADAIR: "This consultant was the man who was doing the actual choking." BRADLEY: "And he worked for your father?" ADAIR: "Yes." [Bradley goes on to interview Robert Larzelere, the consultant working for Werner who was tasked to choke Werner's wife Ellen. He testifies that he was so brainwashed into the organization, and that he was so afraid of Werner, his only thought was to please Werner, and that later, Larzelere was horrified by what he had done.] BRADLEY: "According to witnesses, that ordeal didn't end Ellen's punishment. Her daughters say Erhard wouldn't allow her to live with them for two years, and that's not all." ADAIR: "She had to come into our house and be like the maid, scrub the floors, and we had to watch this while my dad made her do these things." BRADLEY: "She didn't live with you for two years?" ADAIR: "No, she didn't live with us for two years. I mean, I saw her, like when she came in to clean house, but we weren't allowed to speak with her." BRADLEY: "So she moves out of your house? Per your father's instructions? But she comes back to clean?" ADAIR: "*nods in agreement* You know, he—whatever he said that she should do she had to do, and that was part of the instructions. You know, you have to be a maid for the house." BRADLEY: "And what would you do then?" ADAIR: "*pauses and sighs* I don't even remember. I just— *pauses again and wells up in tears* It's like I wanted to say something so bad, or just do something about it, and there's—I was just so petrified all the time that there was just no way I could be okay with myself to just tell anybody or do anything about what was going on." BRADLEY: "At about the same time this was going on, Erhard was busy teaching thousands how to improve their relationships... Ellen Erhard divorced her husband two years ago. [1989] As part of the divorce settlement, she's agreed not to talk publically about their marriage. " BRADLEY: "Does your mother know that you're talking to us?" ADAIR: "Yeah. Before we left tonight, I talked to her and she's just—you know, she said, 'I can't thank you enough for doing this,' for saying these things that need to be said, and I know she wishes she could do the same." BRADLEY: "Deborah Rosenberg [Pimental] is one of Werner Erhard's daughters from his first marriage. She's never spoken publically about her father before, but she told us that her father sexually abused her." DEBORAH: "I don't have a problem saying that it happened. I don't like describing it, but I don't have a problem admitting that he molested me." BRADLEY: "How old were you?" DEBORAH: "I was 16." BRADLEY: "Has your father ever sexually abused any of your siblings?" DEBORAH: "Yes, and it runs from—I don't know—maybe you want to call it pornography, all the way to rape." BRADLEY: "Rape?" DEBORAH: "Yes." BRADLEY: "What happened?" DEBORAH: "I wasn't there, but I believe my sister when she says that my father raped her." BRADLEY: "She told you what happened?" DEBORAH: "Yes." BRADLEY: "And what did she say happened?" DEBORAH: "She says that they were on a trip together, and they had come back after dinner in a very large suite, and they were reading a magazine together, and— *pauses* You know, I'd rather not go specifically into, you know, the details, but he forcibly had sexual intercourse with her." [Bradley played a taped recording of a newspaper interview in which Werner was asked about the alleged rape incident. He denied that the event ever occurred.] DEBORAH: "That sounds like a typical response. What he did say when I confronted him about it was that there had been sexual intercourse [i.e. with his own daughter] and that it had been a nurturing experience for my sister... he admitted there was sexual intercourse, and that it was a nurturing experience. He said he did not rape her." BRADLEY: "So he's saying that she consented?" DEBORAH: "Yes." BRADLEY: "Have you talked with her about this?" DEBORAH: "Oh yeah, extensively. It was not a nurturing experience for her, and she's had to have a lot of therapy about that." DAMAS: "There's something about the fact that he is still out there doing all this, and people still believe in him. This man still gets people sitting in an audience, looking up at him, believing that what he says is just so wonderful. And this man does relationships on seminars, and he beats his wife, he beats his children, and rapes a daughter, and then he goes and tells people how to have marvelous relationships." CELESTE: "I kept thinking that, he would be a father. I kept thinking that when he got older, he'd want children, *wells up in tears* and that he'd want his daughters. I just—I thought that, you know, that maybe he'd get wiser with age and that he'd regret what he'd done, but he didn't."

(See Ed Bradley, "Werner Erhard," 60 Minutes, CBS News, March, 1991, [imdb.com/title/tt1355734])

The media has presented mixed messages about these interviews, and as far as I know, CBS has taken the broadcast down off their site. As I checked on a variety of sources, I found that no one really knows for sure why Erhard has not been prosecuted, nor why all this information got buried; there are a lot of assumptions, but no solid facts, and whenever I see that happening, it is almost guaranteed that there is dirty money being exchanged behind the scenes, which is something that Werner Erhard is in no short supply of.

Vikki Brock, an executive and leadership coach working with Fortune 500 companies, did a study into the origins of life coaching and found that there were three main influencers of the movement: Werner Erhard, Thomas J. Leonard, who was a former employee and student of Erhard, and Laura Whitworth, who was trained by Thomas Leonard. This means that the entire root structure of life coaching comes from the core philosophies of an incestual, abusive rapist, who stole his techniques from the Church of Scientology.
(See Vikki G. Brock, "Who's Who In Coaching: Who Shaped It, Who's Shaping It," Call Me Coach!, 2006, retrieved Apr 27, 2019, [http://bit.ly/2PxHOgx])

As a side note, some readers will probably expect that I will mention men like (Anthony) Tony Robbins, who is famous worldwide for his motivational speaking, but I am focusing on "Christian" life coaching, and not only does Robbins never claim to be a Christian, he also never claims to be a life coach; rather, he claims to be simply a "coach" in general. I would say they are mostly the same, but it does not really matter for the purpose of this chapter. On his website, Robbins claims he is the "Father of the Coaching Industry," when in fact, industry leaders point to Thomas J. Leonard, the disciple of Erhard, as the founding father of the coaching industry. Robbins was trained by Jim Rohn, who was a separate branch from Werner Erhard, which is why Robbins' speaking techniques slightly differ from that of life coaches, but nonetheless, it is all still founded under the devilish philosophy of psychology.
(See Tony Robbins, "See Why Coaching Delivers Results Faster," Robbins Research International, retrieved June 18, 2019, [tonyrobbins.com/my-mastery-coaching])

Erhard's company, Werner Erhard and Associates [WE&A] was later sold to a group of Erhard's employees; today it is called Landmark Education or the Landmark Forum, and is run by Erhard's brother, Harry Rosenberg. However, Erhard's organization has been training life coaches since the 1970s, and though they may not have learned directly from Erhard, many of today's life coaches and motivational speakers owe a large debt of gratitude to Erhard for laying the foundation of their industry, and teaching them the techniques they needed to successfully manipulate millions of people around the world.

However, knowing that Erhard was coaching on relationships, it was obviously going to get out that he had left his first family, and so he got ahead of the media by making public statements:
"He publicly apologized to his first wife and family and made 'completing' relationships one of the bedrocks of his programs, which drew not only Hollywood stars like Raul Julia [actor] and Ted Danson [actor] and studio executives (one studio was dubbed 'Werner Brothers') but also Buzz Aldrin ["astronaut"], Joe Namath [professional football player], Yoko Ono [musician], John Denver [musician], and Harvard professor of psychiatry John Mack, whose Biography of Lawrence of Arabia, A Prince of Our Disorder, won a National Book Award. Many participants had 'breakthroughs,' like Henry Hampton, who was stuck in his efforts to produce a documentary on civil rights. At a friend's urging, he went into est 'with absolute "disbelief"' and 'came out with a new energy' that resulted in Eyes on the Prize, his Emmy-winning PBS series."
-Dan Wakefield, "Erhard's Life After Est," Common Boundary, March, 1994, retrieved Apr 30, 2019, [wernererhard.com/boundary.html]

Erhard made up a public "apology" to his first wife and family, which, as we have already seen, is a lie; a facade created to develop a brand/image of himself that would be profitable. You will notice that all life coaches follow the exact same example, making themselves out to appear sinless in the eyes of the public, and that they have overcome all their obstacles and are brilliantly successful.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1 John 1:9-10

Tony Mayo, veteran life coach and published author in the coaching industry, commented:
"Werner Erhard founded est in 1971 and 'The Training' became a major cultural phenomenon of the 1970s, with hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic graduates around the world, including leading academics, for example Harvard Business School's Michael Jensen and MIT's Warren Bennis, and many celebrities such as John Denver, Valerie Harper, Ted Dansen, and Raul Julia. Tiger Woods' [professional golf player] first and most important coach, father Earl Woods, credits est with preparing him for the task. In 1991 some employees of est, including Werner's brother and sister, bought the rights to much of the material and formed Landmark Education Corporation. Werner left the public eye while continuing to train executive coaches, Landmark Education employees, and ministers."
-Tony Mayo, "Biography of Werner Erhard, the Source of Executive Coaching," tonymayo.com, retrieved May 1, 2019, [tonymayo.com/biography-of-werner-erhard-the-source-of-executive-coaching]

There are two points of interest I want to highlight about this quote; the first being that, after praising Erhard, Mayo goes on to promote and praise the works of Sigmund Freud, which, at this point, should be no surprise because we know the foundation of coaching is psychology, and the foundation of psychology is Freud. (The historical trail is this: WITCHCRAFT → HYPNOSIS → FREUDIAN PSYCHOLOGY → SCIENTOLOGY → WERNER ERHARD → LIFE COACHING) The second key note is that Landmark went on to train ministers (i.e. clergy from various religions), and though it is very difficult to find these ministers, that is, the names of those who trained directly under Erhard's organization, it actually does not matter who they are because Erhard's philosophy is taught by so many organizations and training centers, it would be almost impossible to track them all.

In most cases, "life coaching" is just motivational speaking; the same type of motivational speaking that comes out of the Erhard-type cults. What many "preachers" today are doing is simply motivational speaking, and sometimes they will sprinkle on a few Bible verses to provide enough deception to lead people to believe that it is "Biblical teaching."

Often, people are deceived into thinking that these "Christian" life coaches are offering Biblical solutions for problems in their lives, but in reality, they are providing secular, worldly philosophy and tacking on a few Bible verses here or there to make you think it is the wisdom of God. In most cases, "life coaching" is just motivational speaking, which is what Erhard specialized in doing, and what many people may not realize is that this is exactly what many preachers are doing in church buildings today; they are not teaching so much as giving speeches with motivational speaking techniques because many of those same ministers have trained in psychology in their seminary courses.

Do not be deceived; if you approach a life coach and tell them this, they will absolutely deny it, but the evidence of their doctrine will show us the truth. Remember in the last chapter, we learned that Jesus told His disciples that they were to beware of the doctrine of such wicked men, and that discernment of the doctrine is how we could tell the sheep from the goats:

Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees... Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
-Matthew 16:6-12

As I did more research into "Christian" life coaching, I found countless examples of heretical doctrine, and I made this video to demonstrate the point so you can hear it for yourself:

In the video, there are a few patterns you might notice among "Christian" life coaches. The first is that they tend to highly esteem themselves, that is, they lift themselves up and put a high value on themselves, often talking about all their worldly accomplishments, and they do this because they need to impress you, otherwise, you will not pay for their coaching.

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
-Philippians 2:3

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
-2 Timothy 3:1-2

Rather than coming to the foot of the cross in the humility of repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing), they love themselves, lift themselves up on a prideful pedestal for all to see, and then teach others to do the same. They boast of their worldly accomplishments because they need people to respect their person so they can get more clients.

And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
-1 Timothy 6:8-10

Another pattern is that they often quote from worldly sources, ungodly men and women who hate the Christian God of the Bible, or from those who are false converts that have nothing to do with the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, in the first part of the video, Scott Nary quotes from Walt Disney about "following dreams," and then immediately tries to connect that to Jesus telling us to "take up your cross:"
"I think it was Walt Disney that said that, 'Dreams become true when you actually go and pursue them, and have the courage to pursue them', but the pursuit has to be daily. It's not every now and then. It's a daily pursuit. Again, Jesus told us in the word, he says, 'If you want to be my disciple... if you want to be my disciplined one, you have to deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me."
-Scott Nary, "Motivatin Yourself to Peak Performance," Jennifer LeClaire Ministries, June 26, 2018, retrieved May 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/JPz1hQL3T1c]

This is a sick and twisted perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ because "taking up the cross" does not mean "following your dreams." When Jesus picked up His cross, He was mocked, ridiculed, spit on, and beaten in order to save the souls of the few who would repent and believe on Him; He sacrificed Himself for the sake of others, that they would hear the truth about salvation from sin, God's Wrath, and eternal damnation.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. [i.e. division, as explained in Luke 12:51] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
-Matthew 10:34-39
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Christ's doctrine was not that we should "follow our dreams," but rather, we should follow His commandments. He did not teach us that we were supposed to seek riches and to become top-level business executives.

Labour not to be rich: cease from thine own wisdom.
-Proverbs 23:4

Do not misunderstand, there is no sin in having wealth or have a high-ranking job, but these people are doing it for the prestige and pleasures of this life. These so-called "Christian" life coaches are teaching that people should follow the dreams in their heart, and trust that those are their "calling from God," but they are fools.

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
-Proverbs 28:26

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
who can know it?
-Jeremiah 17:9

Also in the video, so-called "Christian" life coach Lynne Lee taught:
"Emerson said—I love Emerson. I used to read him even before I was a Christian—such wisdom. He said, 'Our chief want is someone who will inspire us to be what we know we could be."
-Lynne Lee, "What makes Christian life coaching so Powerful?" Webinars 777, Jan 8, 2016, retrieved May 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/uLrhkd5omeg]

Emerson had been a pastor at one time, and departed because he thought communion should not be practiced, and he said:
"This mode of celebrating Christ is no longer suitable to me. That is reason enough why I should abandon it."
(See PBS, "People & Ideas: Ralph Waldo Emerson" retrieved May 2, 2019, [pbs.org/godinamerica/people/ralph-waldo-emerson.html])

The reason he said this was because he was more concerned with how he personally felt and thought than what the Lord God says in His Word. Lynne Lee continues to tell us that he was foundational to her inspiration to be a life coach:
"When I think about my life, if I hadn't come across people like that [Emerson], I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing now. [life coaching]"
-Lynne Lee, "What makes Christian life coaching so Powerful?" Webinars 777, Jan 8, 2016, retrieved May 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/uLrhkd5omeg]

As PBS states in their biography of Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"Ralph Waldo Emerson was a writer, thinker and philosopher who became the leading proponent of Transcendentalism, a movement that imbued the austere [strict] New England Unitarian tradition with elements of mysticism."
(See PBS, "People & Ideas: Ralph Waldo Emerson" retrieved May 2, 2019, [pbs.org/godinamerica/people/ralph-waldo-emerson.html])

Emerson rejected the Godhead (i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three separate entities and one God at the same time), just like the Unitarians reject the Godhead. Transcendentalism is defined by Encyclopaedia Britannica as follows:
"Transcendentalism [is a] 19th-century movement of writers and philosophers in New England who were loosely bound together by adherence to an idealistic system of thought based on a belief in the essential unity of all creation, the innate [inborn, natural] goodness of humanity, and the supremacy of insight over logic and experience for the revelation of the deepest truths."
-Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Transcendentalism," retrieved May 8, 2019, [britannica.com/event/Transcendentalism-American-movement]

One's own logic and experience cannot justify itself as knowledge, and I address this fallacy in a lot more detail in the teaching, "Everything You Need to Know About Atheism," namely that the Lord God is a foundational requirement to justify logic, experience, reason, the senses, knowledge, mathematics, etc. Emerson believed that deeper insights into his own reasoning processes was the path to "truth," which is a lie, and he believed that everyone is good inside, which is also a lie and directly contradicts Scripture.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Romans 3:10-12

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Psalm 14:2-3

As I said earlier, the "inward goodness" false doctrine is very commonly preached today, especially in life coaching, and it is a lie. In the video, so-called "Christian" life coach Kai (no last name provided) teaches the same thing:
"The being that God created is a beautiful child of God, and that's what we're going to do. We're just going to peel back the layers and get back to that person. Let's get back to the real you. That's the real you. Not that other stuff; that other stuff is bunk. [nonsense] The real you is that person, that beautiful, beautiful soul... The worst person you can imagine—Hitler, right? Take whoever you think is the worst person, right? That person is still, underneath all that evil, a child of God."
-Kai, "Christian Coach | Christian Life Coach | Personal Coach | Spiritual Coach," Salvation Coach, Apr 16, 2018, retrieved May 8, 2019, [https://youtu.be/b1ivKFtVVwE]

The world believes they are inwardly good, which is why so many people get angry when you rebuke their sin. False preachers, deceptive psychologists, and heretical life coaches all try to bring out the "inner goodness" of their disciples, even though it's a lie. I have had countless discussions with people who think they are "good people," but if they do not come to repentance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for His goodness, then they cannot be saved.

And therefore it [faith] was imputed to him [Abraham] for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
-Romans 4:22-25

It is the wicked men of this world who try to make the outside look good, while inwardly, they are full of corruption.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
-Matthew 23:27

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

If a man is inwardly good at his core, then he has no need for a savior, which is how so many people overlook the doctrine of repentance, thinking that they know it, when they don't have any understanding. People often ignore the doctrine on repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) because they think they are good inside and have done no wrong; they think they have no need for righteousness to be imputed to them because they feel like they are mostly good in all their words and actions.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
-Romans 3:20

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
-James 2:23

Richard Eley of the American Association of Christian Counselors, and Sandra Dopf-Lee, life coach who specializes in divorces (to transition people through the process of divorce, not help them heal their marriages), make the claim that God "coached" Jesus:
"SANDRA: And we see Jesus being coached by God.
RICHARD: That's right; how important that is..."
-Sandra Dopf-Lee & Richard Eley, "LibertyU Introduction to Life Coaching Christian Coaching Scriptural and Spiritual Foundations," Philosophy: Video Lectures, Aug 12, 2017, retrieved June 19, 2019, [https://youtu.be/cUi6lO_lLBA]

The reason I cut off the quote is because Eley continues on to say how important life coaching is, but neither Dopf-Lee nor Eley quote Scripture and give an example of where exactly God "coached" Jesus.

coach (v): to give instruction or advice to
(See 'coach', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

I challenge anyone to go into the New Testament books of the Gospels (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and find a place where God "coached" Jesus. They made that up from pure imagination because they know it sounds good on the outside. God did not need to coach Jesus because Jesus is God; He is one God and three separate persons at the same time (a doctrine which very few Christians teach properly), and Jesus, being divine, was not in need of wisdom and instruction, and such a statement coming out of the mouth of these frauds not only demonstrates their heresy, but also that they don't know the Christian God of the Bible.
(Read "God in Three Persons vs The Trinity" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last... I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
-Revelation 22:13-16

The Lord God says He is the Alpha and Omega, and then Jesus speaking shortly after also says He is the Alpha and Omega. That's because God and Christ are two separate persons and one God at the same time.

That's why Jesus was never "coached" by God. There was no need for it because Christ is omniscient (all-knowing) just as God is omniscient, because they are one God, and Paul is speaking of Jesus Christ in the following verse:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
-Colossians 1:16-17

In the video, Eley has three other "Christian" life coaches in the room, and he poses the question about what makes "Christian" life coaching unique. Of course, they give the generic answer "Christ" that one would typically expect from churchgoers, but not before they tell everyone that it's about being better at your job (i.e. making more money), and they further go on to point out that it's actually basic "success coaching" (which originally came from Scientology and sadist Werner Erhard in combination with psychologists such as Carl Rogers who practiced witchcraft to justify his sin) with Scripture added on top, meaning that the Word of God is NOT the foundation of what they are doing.

If it wasn't bad enough that these women are dragging Christ's name through the psychological mud, Eley goes on to claim that life coaching was started in the book of Genesis:
"Who energized the whole concept of coaching? You know, it goes all the way back to Genesis when God walked into the Garden and was asking questions of Adam and Eve. 'Well, who said that?' or 'Where are you?' And, you know, some pretty pertinant questions from our Father, who asked those questions."
-Richard Eley, "LibertyU Introduction to Life Coaching Christian Coaching Scriptural and Spiritual Foundations," Philosophy: Video Lectures, Aug 12, 2017, retrieved June 19, 2019, [https://youtu.be/cUi6lO_lLBA]

Eley has a profound ignorance of God's Word to say such a thing because those questions were not "coaching." Those were questions designed for a confession from Adam and Eve because they had sinned against Him, but most importantly, it was not God who first started asking questions; it was the Devil who first started asking questions:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
-Genesis 3:1

If questions are evidence of coaching, as Eley has taught, then we can confidently say that life coaching was started by the Devil.

Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
-1 Corinthians 10:21

So-called "Christian" life coach Lance Wallnau of Prayer Pharmacy makes a mockery of God's prophets. Before I quote Wallnau's false doctrine, I want to point out that when I looked up their website, not only did I find the typical shopping mall of books and DVDs of which this man makes a lot of money when he does his seminary training weekends, but also that the donation page for their organization listed the recipient as "Eric the Prince," which I found to be very strange.
Wallnau equates God's prophet Samuel to that of a modern day psychic of witchcraft:
"The reason why Saul was looking for the prophet is because he lost all of the donkeys for the farm, which meant his means for economic survival was in jeopardy, so he was going to what he considered to be the prophet, or today would be like a psychic,"
-Lance Wallnau, "Christian LifeCoach - How to Find Your Purpose | Favor & Influence Combined," Prayer Pharmacy, Sept 22, 2011, retrieved May 9, 2019, [https://youtu.be/C2y0nyDhySo]

Psychics and mediums practice divination, which is an abomination in the sight of God, meaning that He hates those things:

And they caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire, and used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
-2 Kings 17:17

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
-Galatians 5:19-21

The Holy Spirit of God did not work through Daniel because he was "like a psychic." The problem is that Wallnau puts equal value on the prophets and witches because he's involved in a new-age universal version of church-ianity that wants to include paganism and witchcraft so it expands his subscribers and clients to as many groups as possible.

And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:3

Wallnau then goes on to say that Saul had a destiny to be king, and that Samuel knew that Saul was a king. In short, he's trying to motivate his audience to seek out their "destiny." Wallnau leaves the Lord God out of the situation, calls these "natural" abilities, ignores the fact that Saul was a terrible king, also ignores that God had warned the Hebrews in 1 Samuel 8 that they should not desire a king in the first place, and that doing so meant that they rejected God as their Lord.

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
-1 Samuel 8:7

Wallnau also makes up a bunch of stuff about Daniel, claiming that he had the ability to "dissolve doubts" and "understand enigmas:"
"He [Daniel] was able to leverage that acumen and that talent into an ability to merge it with the supernatural capacity... In his case, he had the ability dissolve doubts, interpret dreams, solve riddles, and understand enigmas [mysteries or puzzles]. Now, that may not mean much to anyone out there, except that you talk about four things you need to do in the economy. It's, you know, you have to dissolve the doubts of people who are dealing with anxiety, you have to figure out trends, you have to solve enigmas that don't make any sense, and you have to anticipate the future."
-Lance Wallnau, "Christian LifeCoach - How to Find Your Purpose | Favor & Influence Combined," Prayer Pharmacy, Sept 22, 2011, retrieved May 9, 2019, [https://youtu.be/C2y0nyDhySo]

First, you'll notice that Wallnau credited everything to Daniel. He can talk about "spiritual" things or mention God all he wants, but the fact is that he's trying to get people to think that Daniel did these things of his own power and will.

When Daniel went before King Nebuchadnezzar, he did not come to him and immediately tell him the dream and interpretation. Daniel went home and prayed to the Lord God, and He revealed the truth of the matter to Daniel that night; thus, it was not "Daniel's leverage" nor "Daniel's talent" that did anything.

It should be mentioned that, even though Wallnau equates the prophets of God to psychics, it was the very psychics which Nebuchadnezzar was slaying at the time because they were all fake:

Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him; Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation.
-Daniel 2:24

Furthermore, before Daniel even began to explain the dream and interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar, he first made sure that the king understood that he (i.e. Daniel) was not responsible for knowing the dream and interpretation, that it was not by any ability of his own, but that it was the Living God only who had revealed the matter:

Daniel answered in the presence of the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these... But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart.
-Daniel 2:27-30

Despite all the gross perversion of Scripture and doctrine coming out of Wallnau's mouth, he proceeds to take the holy power of God and bring it down to a trivial matter of "the economy." In other words, Wallnau is a con man trying to create for-profit prophets, rather than teaching that which is edifying unto the souls of the hearers.

Wallnau's teaching is called "How to Find Your Purpose," and as I mentioned in the last chapter on "Christian" psychology, this is a common narrative because it's very profitable.

purpose (n): the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used
(See 'purpose', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Those in this world who are not born again in Christ have a dilemma they have to face. When they begin to reflect on their life, this world, and everyone around them, no matter who it is, as long as they are willing to be reasonable, they will all come to the same conclusion that Solomon came to:

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
-Ecclesiastes 1:1-11

All is vanity, and thus, what is the point of this life? What good does it do to struggle to obtain the pleasures of this world? When my life has neared its end, what good has come of it? All things of this world deteriorate over time, and all things in this world are eventually forgotten and lost, so what is the point of all our labor?

This is why when one reasons these things out according to the truth, increasing in wisdom, their joy does not increase. Wisdom increases one's own sorrow.

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
-Ecclesiastes 1:18

Therefore, those who realize this begin to desperately seek a purpose so that all they do will not be vain. After all, if everything is in vain, then what is the point of living at all? Few among those who realize this become born again in the Lord Jesus Christ, but most turn away from the grief and godly sorrow of repentance in order to feel good, to drown out their sorrow, and thus, people start looking to life coaches, which is why there are so many of them today, why they are in high demand, and why they make so much money.

The "Christian" life coaches are not teaching the doctrines of Christ; they are teaching only that which makes people feel better, and leads them into worldly possessions. Most often, they have the same philosophy of most churchgoers and pastors, which is that they believe anyone who speaks the name of Jesus is automatically a born again Christian, which is not what Scripture teaches.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? [i.e. "Lord, Lord, we coached so many people in your name!"] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

Leavened churchgoers are flocking to life coaching now that most church buildings are accepting them, without any discernment whatsoever to the dangerous psychology philosophies that come with it. The so-called "Christian" life coaching is yet another example of wolves who lead people into destruction, and the Lord Jesus Christ told us that many would follow after them.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
-2 Peter 2:1-3

In short, "Christian" life coaching is simply a twig from a branch off the evil tree of the manipulation and mind-control techniques of Scientology, mixed together with new-age psychology and business ethics. It's what psychology looks like in the mirror. Like psychology, it's mostly unregulated, it's anti-Biblical, and it's dangerous; therefore I warn Christians to flee from it.
 

I had been wanting to write about this subject for years, but when a former friend of mine named Sean turned down into the road of psychological "Christian" counseling, I figured it was time to get started working on this book. Sean is a pastor who went through a standard seminary college, which left him with a lot of corrupt doctrine, but it got ten times worse when he started attending college again to get his masters in "Christian" counseling.

Sean and I had a falling out because I started looking at his social media accounts one day, and his posts were in serious Scriptural error. I posted Scripture that rebuked and corrected his false doctrine, and his only response was to delete the posts; not just my rebuke, but the entire post he made, and he offered no corrections or repentance of his wrong teaching, trying to cover up his embarrassment to save face.

Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.
-Proverbs 15:10

I departed from him because I knew from my experience with Sean that he was a man who loved preeminence (i.e. respect of his person and honor of his rank) and the paycheck he was getting from the church building where he was a "music pastor." (i.e. a position that does not exist in the New Testament) For the next few years, I kept searching online to see if I could find teachings he had done so I could search out his doctrine more clearly, and about a year before publishing this book, I finally found some of his teachings that had been uploaded to YouTube.

My suspicions were correct, and the longer he was involved in getting his masters in "Christian" counseling, the more corrupt his doctrine became. Please do not misunderstand; Sean was not a Christian who fell prey into the psychological trap, but rather, Sean was never born again in Christ, and that is why he has followed after the voice of strangers.

And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
-John 10:4-5

But Sean cannot understand this because it requires the Spirit of God for understanding.

This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
-John 10:6

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:14

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles [the basics] of the oracles [prophets] of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:12-14

While listening to one of his teachings, Sean told the congregation in the church building that while he was researching the topic of his supposedly "Biblical" teaching, he found an article, but failed to say what the article was, who wrote it, or where he found it. I thought that to be rather strange, since I document every quote in every audio, video, or written teaching I have given. So I took the quote and did a basic internet search, and sure enough, I found it easily: It was from Psychology Today, but Sean did not want those churchgoers to know that he was quoting from a secular psychology paper.
(See Sean Rose, "The Power of Accusation," RFC NAZ, July 1, 2018, retrieved July 3, 2019, [https://youtu.be/-OC8yiTApns?t=1874]; See also Carrie Barron, "False Accusations, Scapegoats, and the Power of Words," Feb 17, 2014, retrieved July 3, 2019, [psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-creativity-cure/201402/false-accusations-scapegoats-and-the-power-words])

Like many other so-called "Christian" pastors, he thought he was presenting real wisdom to the people by going to mankind for their so-called wisdom, instead of relying on God's Word:

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
-1 Corinthians 2:4-5

I spent a lot of time with our church and on our forum going over a few of his teachings, and we were quickly able to see his ignorance of Scripture, his lack of understanding of doctrine, and how corrupted he was by secular teachings. All the while, deceiving everyone by telling them that the Holy Spirit would use his teachings to the benefit of his listening audience. It would take far too long for me to go over all of it in this book, but the more Sean gives teachings, the more they are now in tune with modern-day psychology, and that makes sense for all the reasons presented in previous chapters.

It is still my hope that Sean would hear the message of repentance and be saved, both he and his family, but with psychologists and so-called "Christian" counselors whispering doctrines of devils in his ears, he will not hear. I can also somewhat understand where he is coming from because, at one point in my life, I also would not have heard the truth because God had not yet prepared my prideful heart to repentance.

When I was a teenager, that is, a churchgoer before I came to repentance and faith in Christ, I was curious about how people thought and acted. I did not speak much, and because of that, I sat in silence and watched other people, listening to their words and actions while analyzing them as much as I could. Therefore, it should be no surprise that, early in my life, I had an interest in psychology (under the assumption of what I thought it was), and even took a basic psychology course in my first year of college, but little did I know that psychology did not have much to do with the real reasons for why people acted and spoke the way they did because, as I found out through study over the years after I was born again in Christ, psychology rejects acknowledgment of sin.

If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1 John 1:10

At first, I believed the way most everyone else does, that psychology is the study of behavior, but in reality, it is the brainstorming of excuses for peoples' behavior without the involvement of God and the sin of mankind. If it really was a study of behavior, they would not draw so many conclusions on such an overt absence of evidence because conclusions without evidence is just subjective bias and personal opinion.

I remember that whenever I would really dig into something and focus real hard on it, trying to organize and complete everything, I would commonly be called "OCD," which as we covered earlier is "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder." I always took it as a bad thing because, after all, it has the word 'disorder' in it, and so I thought I was an oddball among the "normal" people, but after many years in thought on the matter, it occurred to me that I was just concentrating on what I was doing and working hard at it (as Scripture instructs us to do), looking for perfection in my work, so why was that considered a "disorder?"

And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
-Colossians 3:23

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
-Ecclesiastes 9:10

Obsessive comes from the word 'obsess' and compulsive comes from the word 'compel':

obsess (v): to think about something unceasingly or persistently
compel (v): to force or drive, especially to a course of action
(See 'obsess' & 'compel', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

To think about something constantly and having a drive to do something about those thoughts would mean that every profitable business owner is "obsessive compulsive." It would mean that every emergency medical service member is "obsessive compulsive." It would mean that every mother is "obsessive compulsive." It would also mean that every born again Christian, having our thoughts unceasingly focused on Christ, and driven to serve Him, is "obsessive compulsive," and therefore, it would mean that every single person we rely on in our society for protection, care, needs, and understanding has a "disorder," and just simple reasoning tells us that is a lie.

Rather, the accusation of OCD gives lazy men and women an excuse to accuse others of being "ill," so they can create a new standard of what is "normal." That is, they want "normal" to mean sitting around doing nothing, having no ambition, and accomplishing little, so they have an excuse to say that they could not do what everyone else around them is doing, and those lazy people gather together and lick each other's wounds rather than tossing off the excuses and doing what is right over what is convenient.
(Read "The Christian Work Ethic" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Sin in general (not just cowardice and laziness) is the reason for the entire facade of psychology, and there is not a single person on this planet who needs "psychological treatment." Certainly, there are people who have damage to their nervous system (i.e. brain, spinal cord, etc), and need special care, but there is no one who is mentally ill; in reality, they need the Lord Jesus Christ to heal them, but they reject Him.

For this people's heart is waxed gross [coarse, dense, impure, and foolish], 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 13:15

It is the Lord Jesus Christ that can heal the spirits, the minds and hearts, of mankind, but sadly the world turns to the devilish philosophies of psychology for their help, although psychologists can never offer the help they need. Mankind is willfully ignorant that the Bible has all the answers we need for "mental problems."

For example, whether it is in so-called "Christian" psychology or "Christian" counseling or "Christian" life coaching, many people say they are struggling with depression. The word 'depression' generally means to "to lower," but in terms of the mind and heart, it means "sadness" or "gloom."

depress (v): to make sad, gloomy, lower in spirits; to put in a lower position
(See 'depress', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

The world is on an endless quest to "cure depression," and via psychiatry, they are turning to sorcery (i.e. drugs) to accomplish that goal. However, what they are completely ignorant of is that depression is not a disease, but rather, depression itself is part of the cure.

The world tries to avoid depression. They do not want to be brought low. The world seems to hate tears. The world runs from sadness, and they do that by filling their minds with television, movies, music, sex, parties, amusement parks, food, alcohol, comedy clubs, games, drugs, and even to church buildings; anything they can find to have what the Bible calls 'mirth'.

mirth (n): social merriment; hilarity; high excitement of pleasurable feelings in company; noisy gayety; jollity
(See 'mirth', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 10, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Many church buildings today are being restructured around mirth. They bring in professional musicians and shows and entertainment of all sorts in order to help bring in that joy and peace they keep preaching about, but it never seems to work, and that is because they do not understand that the Word of God tells us that the fools turn to mirth.

It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart. Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth. It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.
-Ecclesiastes 7:2-6

mourning (n): the act of sorrowing or expressing grief; lamentation; sorrow
(See 'mourning', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 10, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

In context, the house of mourning would be the house of those who grieved over the loss of loved ones, and whereas some would go into the house of feasting to celebrate, attempting to avoid the grief and drown out the pain, those who are wise go to the house of mourning and give in to the grief, opening themselves to their sorrow.

Solomon, who wrote Ecclesiastes, is saying that sorrow and grief is the end of all men, that this world is filled with sorrow all of our lives, and ends terribly. Those who are still alive look upon the dead and reflect on these things, knowing that their time is coming as well.

Those who use distractions and entertainment to avoid the grief and sorrow are no different than the crackling of thorns under a pot, meaning that thorns and thistles are thrown into a fire and crackle for a moment, and then disappear as if they never existed. This is vanity, that is, pointless and meaningless in every way. However, for those who turn in to that grief and sorrow, in that they cry out in their pain, their heart is made better.

Though the grieving heart is made better, there are still wounds that have not fully healed because the general problem of sorrow and death in this world has not been resolved. This means that, though a grieving person will be made better, their grief will return. That is why I said that the grief and sorrow is only part of the cure because grief and sorrow itself is not enough.

As I stated in previous chapters, this grief and sorrow of that which we have done wrong is what the Bible calls 'repentance':

repentance (v): sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.
(See 'repentance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 19, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

There are many who struggle with depression that have had grief and sorrow, but they have not had godly sorrow. There is a very important distinction between those two concepts. The sorrow of the world is that which done man-to-man, meaning that you might be grieved of wrongdoing against your parents or siblings, and though it is not wrong to feel ashamed for wrongdoing against others, in the end, that sorrow will still lead to death and destruction; however, aiming that sorrow towards the Lord God is called "godly sorrow," and it gives us repentance to salvation, that their spirits would have the blood of Christ applied to their souls, being born again and cleansed, healing those inward spiritual wounds completely.

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-10

Repentance alone is not what leads men to Christ, but specifically repentance towards God leads them to Christ, and that is the will of God for ALL mankind.

And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
-Acts 20:20-21

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
-2 Peter 3:9

There will not be a soul on this earth that will be saved without that repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of sin, nor will anyone be truly healed without it. It is only those repentant, contrite hearts, that is, the soul who is broken, brought low, and humbled before the Lord God, who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for their salvation, that will be saved and healed.

But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6

The Scripture continues in James to describe the humble of heart, those who are afflicted (i.e. grieved and pained), who mourn and weep, who seek not the pleasures of laughter and joy to avoid affliction and repentance, but embrace it; they shall be lifted up by God Himself, being humbled before Him.

Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
-James 4:8-10

The salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ through His grace is the only way to heal the hearts of men. There is no other way.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
-John 14:6

God will NOT save the prideful of heart; those who are born again must be humbled through repentance, and that doctrine is missing from most church buildings, pastors, and churchgoers today. They foolishly believe that anyone who simply speaks the name of Jesus (or says one of those "repeat after me" sinner's prayers) is going to heaven because they do not understand the doctrine of Scripture.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
-Romans 10:12-13

They believe the word 'call' is like unto the way we typically use the word today, as in to call out the name of a friend or call someone on the phone, but this is not the sense in which this is used. The word 'call' is used in the sense of crying out with a loud voice, when a man bawls, which means to weep and wail in tears of one who is brought low in the grief and godly sorrow of repentance, as a child who has done wrong would come crying to his father in shame of his wrong.

call (v): to pray to or worship; to utter a loud voice; to bawl
bawl (v): to weep, to wail; to cry loud, as a child from pain or vexation
(See 'call' & 'bawl', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 10, 2019 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This doctrine is not just a New Testament doctrine, it is the theme presented throughout the entire Bible since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
-Genesis 4:26

The cure for depression is the Lord Jesus Christ and the regeneration of His Holy Spirit, and then once a man is born again and becomes a child of God, he is given promises to relieve his doubt and anxiety.

anxiety (n): distress or uneasiness of mind caused by fear of danger or misfortune
(See 'anxiety', Random House Dictionary, 2019, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Mankind has plenty to fear, and many logical reasons to be distressed, but with the promises of the Living God, who cannot lie, there is no reason to fear.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
-Titus 1:2

The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.
-Proverbs 29:25

The man who repents and believes on the Lord Jesus Christ has the Almighty Living God on his side, and he can safely trust in Him for all things. Being called according to God's purpose, and by loving Him, a man can trust that all things that happen in his life, even if they seem bad, will work together for good.

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
-Romans 8:28

We are but dust and ashes, unworthy of the least of God's wonderful mercies, but in His great lovingkindness, He has promised His born again children that He will never leave them:

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.
-Hebrews 13:5-6

Be careful [nervous for the unknown] for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication [humble and earnest prayer in worship] with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
-Philippians 4:6-7

So many churchgoers are false converts that seek after men to provide all their counsel, and they ignore the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate Counselor:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
-Isaiah 9:6

The world has a lot to worry about, but what do the children of God have to worry about?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
-Matthew 6:31-33

When the Lord Jesus Christ is our friend, and the Holy God is our Father, who is greater than He that we would need to fear?

These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation [affliction, distress, vexation]: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
-John 16:33

These are the very answers the world, along with all the psychologists, life coaches, psychiatrists, and counselors are looking for, but again, the VERY important point that needs to be stressed is that without grief and sorrow aimed towards God, they cannot have these promises. This is why, so often, there is a lot of feigned love, feigned joy, and feigned peace in church buildings, because they profess they know God, but in works they deny him.

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
-Titus 1:16

They give lip service to Christ, but they actually hate His doctrine.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
-Matthew 15:8
(Read "False Converts vs Eternal Security" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The world wants forgiveness, joy, peace, happiness, and all the blessings of God, but in the pride of their hearts, they hate the thought of having Him as a Father that would rebuke, correct, and chasten them. They do not want to be humbled to repentance, and so instead, they turn to psychologists who tell them to express how they feel and just accept how they feel, but they will never solve the problem because in order to solve spiritual problems, we must be born again, which means that our souls must be regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
-John 3:7

The "Christian" psychologists and "Christian" counselors and "Christian" life coaches present the blessings and promises of God to false converts (i.e. those who claim to be brethren, but are not), thinking His promises will solve their problems, but these promises are not meant for them. Worse still, they present these promises to everyone who listens, even if they do not claim to be Christians; the promises I have quoted from Scripture do NOT apply to the world, which is why they continue to have so many problems with depression and anxiety.

And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
-Galatians 2:4

Mankind is inwardly corrupt, so to cover it, they tend to paint an outward appearance of goodness. Rather than cleaning out the inside first, that the outside would also be clean, they clean only the outside, and then profess to everyone that they are inwardly good.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
-Matthew 23:25-26

It is impossible for men to be good in and of themselves.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
-Romans 3:10

Righteousness must be imputed into us by Christ.

He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences [sin], and was raised again for our justification [pardoning of sin unto salvation].
-Romans 4:20-25

There is no "unconscious mind" or "subconscious mind" which causes us to sin, which is what many "Christian" psychologists today claim; nor are there "mental disorders" that cause us to sin. There is no excuse for our sin. The fact is that we are corrupt inwardly until the Lord Jesus Christ brings His Holy Spirit to us and cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-1 John 1:8-10

A man might confess his sin, but not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and a man might believe on the Lord Jesus Christ but not confess his sin. These both will end up in eternal damnation, but those who truly confess and believe do so with a heart of repentance, knowing both his broken state and his fallen condition, and pleads for the mercy of the only one who can save him; this is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
-Mark 1:14-15

I have intentionally repeated this message multiple times in this book, and that is because this doctrine is more important than anything this world. However, it should be obvious that this doctrine has no place in psychology, and that if what I say here is true, then psychology cannot find a place to coexist in the truth, which is why you will not hear this message from psychologists.

If you hear this same message from an actively practicing psychologist, flee. Run far and fast from that man or woman because a child of God cannot walk in the light while living in darkness; they should be reproving evil, not fellowshipping with it.

For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light: (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;) Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
-Ephesians 5:8-11

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

At one time in my life, I had thought to become a marriage counselor, which would have required that I go through the various psychological training courses to achieve. Today, I thank God that he kept me out of that arena because not only would I have learned doctrine that opposed Scripture, but even if I had taught what was right, I would never have been successful in such a career.

One of the major things that people need to understand is that psychology has the same basic fallacy as insurance. In most cases, insurance companies do not like to promote things that keep us healthy and safe because if they do, and you start doing things that keep you healthy and safe, then you no longer need insurance; the same applies to a psychologist, meaning that if a psychologist helps you to solve all your problems, then you do not need a psychologist, and therefore, it is not in their best interest to actually help you because they would lose clients.

Of course, some readers may object because they believe that there are many psychologists who really want to help people, and that may be true, but my point is that they are not financially motivated to do so. Why is it, do you think, that psychologists do not have patients pay them once they have been cured, rather than hourly? If psychologists are so confident in their profession, why do they not elect to be paid on commission, meaning that once the problem is solved, they get paid?

Of course, a psychologist might want to argue that a person needs to come back and keep working on the issues with the psychologist and at home on their own, just like you might do when seeing a chiropractor. However, the difference is that what a chiropractor does is tangible, meaning that it can be proven by demonstration and evidence, but psychologists have no evidence to support their craft, and technically, if you are not crazy, they cannot make money.

I have a book I wrote on marriage, and it lays out the basic principles that God has taught us in His Word about marriage. There are no psychological aspects to it, and people can read the book on our website for free. If I were to start charging people for marriage counseling, I would hardly ever make money, and one of the major reasons is because if couples started following Biblical principles, it would heal their marriages, which means I would not have very many clients who would stick around long enough for me to turn a profit.
(Read The Biblical Understanding of Weddings & Marriage here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Some readers may disagree with me, but often, it is because they do not understand the core problem, namely, that most people are not looking to fix their marriages. Hear me out. Most people really do not go to a psychologist or counselor because they want to fix a problem; they might say that outwardly, but in reality, on the inside, they just want to feel better, and that is exactly what psychologists and counselors are trained to do: Make your client feel better instead of fixing the problem, and then they will keep coming back to feel better.

The truth of Scripture concerning the problems of the mind (i.e. the spirit) does not make people feel better about themselves. As we have already seen in this book, the Bible calls men to be humbled, to sorrow, to grief, and to point those things towards the Lord Jesus Christ, and cry out to Him for their help, but that is not a message that people want to hear because they have itching ears like a dog, and are yearning for those ears to be scratched.

Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
-2 Timothy 4:2-4

People generally do not want to hear the truth because the truth would cause them pain. People pay for relief from pain; for pleasure and entertainment. For example, the movie industry is filled with sin, but movie theatres rake in billions every year in the U.S. alone with eager citizens willing to fork out money to have their itching ears scratched by fictional stories (i.e. fables).

Very few of those people would ever be willing to read a book like this because (aside from the fact that it takes a lot of patience) the truth is too grievous for them. The help that Christ offers, to convert and heal them, is not what they really want because they want to remain in their sin and still feel good about themselves, and that is exactly what psychology is offering to them, but sadly, they are ignorant that psychology is nothing but very elaborate false advertising which can offer them no help.

In the end, most people choose to remain willingly ignorant that the Lord God created this world, He judged mankind through a worldwide flood, He gave mankind His law, He sent His own Son to die for us, and now we are waiting for His Son to return and judge the world for the final time, and when He does return, every knee WILL bow and every tongue WILL confess Him.

For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
-Romans 14:11

In the end, every man and woman on this earth, throughout the past six thousand years of history, will be held accountable and judged for everything they have ever said, thought, or done, and no psychologist will be able to save them. There is a day, coming soon, in which the Lord God is going to resurrect all of the dead, everyone who has ever lived, and while those in Christ will be safe, those who do not have Christ will face fire and destruction:

And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
-1 John 5:11-12

I want to share with readers some of the events of God's wrath coming to this world because I know that this is not taught much in church buildings. In context, the Lord Jesus Christ has come back and taken His elect with Him, but everyone else who has ever lived will remain on the earth, and after a span of 30 minutes, the most horrible things you could imagine will pour down onto the children of disobedience.

There will be burning and destruction, with entire continents being split apart:

And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power. And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads. And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man. And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them. And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions. And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle. And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
-Revelation 9:2-10

Locusts with the faces of men and the tails of scorpions will sting and feed on the flesh of men, and the men will not die; they will wish for death, but death will not come, and that is just for five months. The wrath of God goes on much longer than that, and this is just one of the seven parts of it. In that day, do you think men will cry out for their psychologist to help them?

This is the truth about sin, that by sin comes death and destruction. There is no "mental disorder" because there is no excuse for men.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
-Romans 1:19-22

God has made His law manifest in all men, showing evidence by their own consciences, in which they are ashamed and embarrassed by their actions; even if they lack knowledge of the written law of God. By their consciences, they know good and evil, and that conscience bears witness of His truth.

For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
-Romans 2:14-16

This means that mankind may hate what is written in Revelation, and they may try and judge God, thinking that His punishment is without merit, but they only think that to excuse themselves of the desperately wicked thoughts in their hearts. All the while, they mock God's prophets and preachers, who, out of love, warn them of wrath that is coming for them, and as the Bible says, on that day, God will judge all the secret things men hold in their hearts, and none will escape.

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
-2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

The Lord God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to save us from all of that, but that free gift of His grace is only given to those who come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and believe on the cleansing blood of Christ to heal them. No psychologist, no psychiatrist, no counselor, no life coach can help you; there is only one person you can turn to for help, and that is Christ.

Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him.
-1 Thessalonians 5:5-10

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

This is why I end with the doctrine of repentance (i.e. godly sorrow) and remission (i.e. forgiveness/pardoning) of sins, which is what Christ commanded us to teach all men, and that you cannot have forgiveness without repentance.

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved [became necessary for, or responsibility of] Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:46-47

That precious doctrine of repentance is so vital, but false pastors and "Christian" counselors have no understanding of the gospel, even though they claim to have knowledge. So many of them hate the Biblical concept of repentance. If it was not so sad, it would be fascinating that men like Sean, who I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, condemn the shame and grief behind repentance.

Sean spends a half hour convincing a church building to never feel ashamed of anything, and in essence, that they were all good people who had no reason to be guilty and were deserving of all good things:
"We believe we aren't really worthy of love or anything good. Come on! I know that this is not just my story! And I'm tired of it! Like I said before, we will adopt a shame-based identity, whereby we will believe—we will be absolutely convinced—that at the base level, there is something wrong with us, that we are inherently flawed."
-Sean Rose, "The Power of Accusation," RFC NAZ, July 1, 2018, retrieved July 3, 2019, [https://youtu.be/-OC8yiTApns?t=2845]

Of course, he is putting on a very dramatic show while he is saying all this because he does not speak that way normally. Sean is not saying this in confirmation of truth, but rather, that he is "tired" of that doctrine; namely, that men are ashamed when they have done wrong, which leads them to repentance. Those people who feel ashamed of their sin, Sean is tired of them, and they bother him:
"What really bothers me about what I see is that a lot of these Christian people [i.e. churchgoers] is that they feel really, really badly about themselves."
-Sean Rose, "The Power of Accusation," RFC NAZ, July 1, 2018, retrieved July 3, 2019, [https://youtu.be/-OC8yiTApns?t=1520]

If they feel bad about themselves, it may be for a very good reason; that God is bringing them low. Even Paul said that, when he was among the brethren, he was base.

base (adj): low in place, mean, vile, worthless, low in value or estimation
(See 'base', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 3, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
-2 Corinthians 10:1

That is called having a foundation of repentance in our hearts, which is how we are made perfect through Jesus Christ:

Therefore leaving the principles [basics] of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
-Hebrews 6:1

As we have already covered in previous chapters, God gives shame unto men, that they would repent and believe on His name.

Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
-Psalm 83:16

The lowly, the base, the despised—those who think so little of themselves—the Bible calls them "poor in spirit." Jesus said it is those people, who are brought low in repentance and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
-Matthew 5:3-5

Those who will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven bother Sean; they make him tired, and his psychological mentors are attempting to "fix" the very cure for their sin. These people reject the very children of God in their willful blindness.

But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
-Matthew 15:13-14

I have already covered many Scriptures in this book which testify against the so-called "Christian" counselors and psychologists, and the only thing I have left to say on that matter is to those who are lowly, ashamed, and repentant: If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are welcome with us in Christ's church, and we will never get tired of receiving you.

When we receive those who are meek and humble, we receive the sheep, and thereby, we receive Christ. It is the arrogance of pastors and churchgoers who, in the pridefulness of their hearts, think they have done all these good things for Jesus, but in reality, they were false converts because they rejected the sheep, and thereby, they rejected Christ:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
-Matthew 25:31-46

It is my hope for all readers that not only will you and your family be saved from the grief and suffering caused by the lies of the Devil's philosophy of psychology, but that, if you have not come to repentance, your soul would be saved, and that you would join us as brethren with Christ to live forever together with Him in peace.

Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
-Acts 3:19

To know for sure the way to everlasting life, to understand repentance and faith versus false converts that put on a show of religion, I will end with Christ's parable. The Pharisee is a religious leader (i.e. pastor, priest, deacon, elder, reverend, etc), who is considered by the community to be a morally upright man of God, but the publican is a tax collector, who the public despises and sees as a menace to society.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. [That's grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing; the repentant and contrite spirit.] I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
-Luke 18:9-14

justify (v): to pardon and clear from guilt
(See 'justify', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 21, 2019, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Ask yourself about the Pharisee versus the Publican:
Which man gains eternal life?
Which man goes to everlasting fire?

Is Repentance Part of Salvation?
Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell

Thank you for taking your valuable time to read this book.
If the information was helpful to you, please share it with others.

🔍