Psychology And The Bible

[strangersmind]

Jackie
you said something about the bible being silent or vague, can you give us an example?

You said not everyone who takes psychology become a counselor, can you tell us what are you planning on using the degree for?

You said you do find some psychology in line with the bible, can you give us an example?

[Jackie]

Jackie
you said something about the bible being silent or vague, can you give us an example?

I'll do my best. One good example that I'll briefly give is this. On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do. It talks extensively about making images of God (and consequently worshipping those images themselves or using them in worship) and that's bad. I'm not saying that Chris or I were right or wrong in this matter. I'm just saying that the Bible doesn't talk about it really, so that might be one of those areas where it's only sin if it violates our own conscience.

My general point with my comment on disagreements over matters where the Bible is silent or vague is that this is one reason why we have the forum here. It's so that we can discuss such things, and hopefully in a rational, respectful, and sophisticated way.

You said not everyone who takes psychology become a counselor, can you tell us what are you planning on using the degree for?

Good question. At the moment I can't say I'm completely certain which direction I want to take. I know I don't want to do counseling. Right now to help pay the bills, I work part time as an in-home ABA therapist. Essentially I go to the homes of my clients (my clients are children with varying degrees and types of special needs). I work with them on their speech/communication skills, social skills, challenging behaviors (such as hitting to get attention, running away from doing work tasks, going up to strangers indiscriminately, running away from caregivers in public, throwing items, kicking, hurting themselves, etc), reading literacy, matching skills, and basic life skills (such as potty training, teeth brushing, self-feeding). I also work on teaching the other family members how to implement these techniques when I'm not around.

I am also interested in psychological research, and perhaps working for a major hospital or university in that role. I have many areas of interest when it comes to research. These areas are including but not limited to: people with disabilities or special needs, Alzheimers/dementia, social relationships, developmental psychology, and many topics related to young college aged adults. The topic of my Masters' thesis involves the perceptions that young college students have about old people (adults over age 65).

You said you do find some psychology in line with the bible, can you give us an example?

I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.

[Jeanne]

Jackie, I've been doing some research of my own in some of those areas you mentioned and in almost every case, these conditions are caused by poor nutrition. For instance, nobody ever heard of Alzheimer's 40 years ago until 'health' professionals suddenly decided that cholesterol is 'bad' for you and started substituting vegetable oils for animal fats. The myelin in the brain (and around all the other nerves as well) is all made up of cholesterol! So, in essence, people have been starving their brains.

The road to recovery for these people lies in proper nutrition, not psychology. Dietary supplements are pretty much a necessity now with all the GMOs, and herbicides/pesticides that are being sprayed on crops and the soil is very much depleted in the nutrients it once contained. Commercial fertilisers don't contain ALL the necessary trace elements the body needs, either. In fact, they contain very few.

I know you've spent a lot of time and money on your education so far, but if you REALLY want to help the people you're talking about, maybe naturopathic medicine would be a better route.

[Laura]

Jeanne,
I know this is unrelated to psychology, but you mentioned cholesterol and Alzheimer's. I've done a little research on this myself. The body actually produces all the cholesterol it needs. Dietary cholesterol isn't necessary and does cause damage to the arteries, including in the brain. If you are interested, I've linked a couple videos below reviewing studies on the disease. Below each video is a tab that says "sources cited" if you want to take a closer look.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/alzheimers-and-atherosclerosis-of-the-brain/

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-to-prevent-alzheimers-with-diet/

[Jeanne]

Laura, I just took a quick look at those links and Michael Greger (author) is an M.D. Medical doctors and naturopathic physicians have entirely different philosophies when it comes to treating the human body. (I know Chris doesn't like the term 'human' but I don't know what else to call it right now.) Medical doctors only treat symptoms, not the causes of the symptoms, much like a psychologist/psychiatrist tries to treat spiritual problems through physical means. (And many times, some of THOSE can be treated with proper nutrition, too!)

If a medical doctor finds that the blood has too much cholesterol, his only concern is in lowering the cholesterol level in the blood, not in finding out why the body isn't processing it properly. That's why all they do is prescribe medications to mask the symptoms and do nothing to find the root cause of the symptoms. All they care about is money; and medical doctors who practice allopathic medicine make a whole lot more money when people are sick than when they are well. Doctors get kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies when they prescribe drugs. Ask yourself why Bayer (a pharmaceutical company) just recently bought out Monsanto, who is responsible for things like GMOs and glyphosate (Roundup). They actually WANT people to be sick so they can sell more of their products!

You should read Chris' book on The Cure For Cancer, as it goes into a lot of all this stuff. You might be surprised at how much trouble the medical community goes to to suppress the truth.

https://www.creationliberty.com/articles/cureforcancer.php

[Laura]

Jeanne,
Yes, he is a medical doctor. Did you watch the video? I agree with you about most medical doctors only treating symptoms and not finding the root cause, but I don't think that is the case here. The author of the video advocates using diet as treatment, not drugs. Doing so can improve or reverse most chronic diseases. It's good that you are skeptical though. I don't agree with using drugs either; as you stated, they only treat the symptoms and cover up the problem but do nothing to fix it. There is a lot of money to be made in keeping people sick and the pharmaceutical industry has so many under it's control - no disagreement there!

[Jeanne]

I am currently reading a book by a naturopathic physician. Here is what he has to say about Alzheimer's, but I left out part of what he said at the end of this section because he advocates a particular brand of supplements. (One of them, though, is an Omega-3 fatty acid supplement that I recently started taking.) The only reason that he can get away with recommending this particular brand, though, is because he has no financial interest in the company or the sale of its products.

ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

MD Cause: Unknown. According to Wikipedia: The most common type of dementia is Alzheimer's disease, which makes up 50% to 70% of cases. Other common types include vascular dementia (25%), Lewy body dementia (15%), and fronto-temporal dementia. Less common causes include normal pressure hydrocephalus, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease among others. More than one type of dementia may exist in the same person.

MD Rx: None. The only drugs that the MDs have at their disposal which help to manage the symptoms of Alzheimer's are acetylcholinesterase (ACE)-inhibitors.

ND Cause: Statin drugs, fat-free diets, salt free diets, chronic nutrient deficiencies, and the consistent consumption of pro-inflammatory foods. Did I mention cholesterol lowering Statin-Drugs?

Discussion: More than 5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease right now. It is projected that by the year 2050, that number could hit 16 Million! In the USA, 1 of every 3 senior citizens dies from Alzheimer's disease. Since the year 2000, deaths from Alzheimer's disease have increased 89%. This all happened on the MDs' watch. They are to blame. On the next page are two graphs. One is the incidence of Alzheimer's over the last 100 years and the other is the introduction and sales of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs from their inception in the early 80s until the present. Do you see any similarities?

Statin drugs lower circulating levels of cholesterol in the body. 90% of the part of the brain which is affected by Alzheimer's disease is made from cholesterol. 75% of the total brain is made from cholesterol. The vast majority of your central nervous system is made from cholesterol. Cholesterol is so important to the human body that your body makes it. It is reasonable to assume that when you drive cholesterol into the ditch with statin drugs, fat-free diets, and exercise your brain will dry up. The medical community even admits now in published research that one of the side effects of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs is dementia, but that multi-billion-dollar industry is not going to go down without a fight. So don't expect your MD two recommend that you stop your statin drugs anytime soon.

My Rx: In addition to the 90 Stop taking your Statin drugs immediately.

• Make sure that you salt your food so that it tastes good.
• Eat a diet high in cholesterol.

Glidden, Peter. Attempt A Cure With Wholistic Medicine: Dr. Glidden's Naturopathic Treatment Notebook For The Enlightened (pp. 108-109). Kindle Edition.

[creationliberty]

I sort of wish Jeanne had not split up this thread because it's getting too confusing now. I also want to point out these things to stay more on topic. I'm convicted to address this matter because now we're getting down to deception, and I'm going to have to remain firm due to that. To preface, there is a reason why I did not respond to Jackie's response, namely, after Jackie said the following, I had no more interest in responding to her:

Again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motives. I'll admit I was reluctant to say anything in the first place, as I knew you would jump straight onto the fact that I study psychology, and that would impede the effectiveness of an honest critique. Honestly, though, it didn't matter to me what word it was that you decided to focus on. I would've done the same thing. I've been criticized for doing the same thing in my personal life in my discussions with people. I've found people to be much more receptive to what I say if I don't nitpick words, especially if doing that would detract from the overall subject.

The main problem with her post was that it was denial of the truth. I pointed out to Jackie that the entire response that I gave to Leslie, who was doing wickedness (i.e. railing) even in his letter to me, had almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, Jackie made a huge issue out of one short sentence that I made to him. (And it should be noted that Kevin gave a great response to it, and he immediately saw the same thing I did.) The real reason Jackie did that was because she wanted to argue to justify HERSELF, not Leslie, and that was overtly obvious in the post, and as she pointed out, she suspected that would be the case, and as I'm pointing out, that's because she already knew in her heart what she was doing, but she won't confess it. If she's not going to confess the truth, I have no interest in conversation with her because it will be endless and waste a lot of time. (Btw, it should be noted that she was also speaking on Leslie's behalf, having never spoken with the man before, claiming that she knew what he meant, even though she couldn't have, which also revealed her true intentions, which was to justify herself; that is, her study of psychology.)
I wanted to add in that I explained to Jackie that the Bible does not teach us to "visualize" God or Jesus. However, witches and psychologists DO teach doing that, and I provided links in my first post, and I'll provide the link here (I know it's confusing, and that's why I wish the thread had not been split):
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993
Jackie is claiming the positive (i.e. "I can do X") without providing evidence of X. She instead wants us to provide "thou shalt not do X." If anyone wants to learn more about the subject in general, here's a teaching on it:
The Biblical Understanding of Prayer

The following needs some context, and I'll add the link here to the "God is with us" post Jackie was referring to: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992

On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying).

That's partially deceptive because what I was responding to was her claim, which I paraphrased as: "If the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY forbid a practice, then it's okay for us to do." Again, click on the links above, and I provided examples to Jackie to demonstrate that what she was claiming was not true, and Jackie NEVER confessed her error. She ignored it, which is exactly what she's doing here too. It's a pattern. It's obvious from her testimony here, she read it what I said, but she did not respond, and that's one of the reasons why I said I was expecting this type of outburst from her, like her accusations that I am appearing "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."

I want everyone to understand that Jackie's pride should be VERY apparent to everyone by now. To the simple, it might appear Jackie is being very reasonable, but that's because she's learned a lot of public relations (i.e. propaganda) techniques from her college, and she's not going to like that I'm saying that, but I don't believe anyone has pointed out that she is doing the exact same thing that many other people who have come here have done when they give so-called "apologies" that feign repentance. Watch this:

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of being exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish. I'm sure you were insulted by that, and I'm sorry (because I wasn't trying to do that). Not my intention, nor what I was trying to say.

Folks, let's try an exercise to help understand this better. Let's suppose you were walking down the side walk carrying a hot drink, you lost a bit of your foot, bumped into a woman, and spilled the hot drink down the front of her dress. With that in mind, I want you to say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry!"
That comes out fairly naturally, doesn't it? If it did for you, that's because you actually felt sorrow and remorse for what you had done, even if it was an accident. You were taking responsibility for what you had done.

Now think about doing the same thing again, losing your footing, spilling your hot drink all over the front of her dress, and now say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry it seemed like I had poured my drink all over you, that wasn't my intention."
If you followed the exercise and said that outloud, you probably felt a bit awkward saying it the second way. The reason for that is because it is not really an apology by which a person would have regret for what happened, but rather, it diverts away personal responsibility. Remember how many teachings I've done in which I talk about people who love to talk about their "good intentions," and how the road to hell is paved with them? That's because "good intentions" are irrelevant in the face of facts because facts prove HIDDEN evil intentions.

In short, readers not exercised in discernment might take Jackie's words here to be humble, but they are far from it because all she really said here was, "I'm sorry you feel that way," which is ironic in a sense because that's EXACTLY what you would expect to hear from a psychologist.

What's even more ironic is that Jackie started out this whole thing by telling me: "Chris, I am going to be upfront with you here and get to my point," and yet, I still believe she's not really being straight-forward with me, and is hiding behind public relations techniques. Some upfrontness would be a good start.

Hmm... I'm looking at the time, and I have an appointment I need to keep. I don't have the time to address all the things Jackie wrote. I hope that at least helps some of you see some of the core problems, and if those of you in our church want to discuss those things of what she wrote in more detail on Thursday night over Skype, we certainly can, and it'll be a lot easier over the call for me to demonstrate those subtle details so we can see the deception and contradiction in the things she wrote.

As a final quick note, I've long been curious how many people (2000 year ago) said that Jesus looked to be "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."

[Jackie]

Jackie, I've been doing some research of my own in some of those areas you mentioned and in almost every case, these conditions are caused by poor nutrition. For instance, nobody ever heard of Alzheimer's 40 years ago until 'health' professionals suddenly decided that cholesterol is 'bad' for you and started substituting vegetable oils for animal fats. The myelin in the brain (and around all the other nerves as well) is all made up of cholesterol! So, in essence, people have been starving their brains.

The road to recovery for these people lies in proper nutrition, not psychology. Dietary supplements are pretty much a necessity now with all the GMOs, and herbicides/pesticides that are being sprayed on crops and the soil is very much depleted in the nutrients it once contained. Commercial fertilisers don't contain ALL the necessary trace elements the body needs, either. In fact, they contain very few.

I know you've spent a lot of time and money on your education so far, but if you REALLY want to help the people you're talking about, maybe naturopathic medicine would be a better route.

I'm not going to disagree with you that naturopathic medicine might be a good direction to head for me in terms of research . While I don't believe diet fixes everything or causes everything, it certainly is a major key factor.

I'm always skeptical when someone says something like "No one heard of

• before such and such time." First because I think there is so much that we don't know about some conditions that it is quite ludicrous to point it to one cause. Second, medical diagnostics were not always what they are today. Many conditions have been around for a quite a while but no one knew enough about them to really define them until long after the first recorded cases. Tuberculosis is one. Nevertheless, I am willing to entertain the idea that Alzheimer's hasn't been around that long and am willing to read the research you've found on this if you'd be willing to share.

I'm also a bit skeptical when blanket statements such as "This one thing will cure everyone who has this condition." If not even Tylenol or Ibuprofen work for everyone, why should we reasonably think that anything else (even the natural stuff) will? Especially in a very complex disease like Alzheimer's. However, again, I'm willing to investigate this matter further in the future.

Not to mention, the clients I work for are children, and they do not have Alzheimer's. They have varying types of special needs and disorders. Some of them are genetic defects. Forgive me if I am very skeptical about diet being able to fix the damaged DNA. Sure, I'll concede that a proper diet could possibly alleviate some of the symptoms. But there are many factors that make a proper, organic diet unavailable to most people (never mind the big risk that it might not work anyway. There is always that risk no matter what therapeutic route you go). Some of these kids have severe eating issues anyway, so getting them to eat anything at all (even food that virtually no kid says no to, like chips) is a struggle. The answer is not always black and white.

[Jackie]

I sort of wish Jeanne had not split up this thread because it's getting too confusing now. I also want to point out these things to stay more on topic. I'm convicted to address this matter because now we're getting down to deception, and I'm going to have to remain firm due to that. To preface, there is a reason why I did not respond to Jackie's response, namely, after Jackie said the following, I had no more interest in responding to her:

Again, you're making incorrect assumptions about my motives. I'll admit I was reluctant to say anything in the first place, as I knew you would jump straight onto the fact that I study psychology, and that would impede the effectiveness of an honest critique. Honestly, though, it didn't matter to me what word it was that you decided to focus on. I would've done the same thing. I've been criticized for doing the same thing in my personal life in my discussions with people. I've found people to be much more receptive to what I say if I don't nitpick words, especially if doing that would detract from the overall subject.

The main problem with her post was that it was denial of the truth. I pointed out to Jackie that the entire response that I gave to Leslie, who was doing wickedness (i.e. railing) even in his letter to me, had almost nothing to do with the topic of this thread. However, Jackie made a huge issue out of one short sentence that I made to him. (And it should be noted that Kevin gave a great response to it, and he immediately saw the same thing I did.) The real reason Jackie did that was because she wanted to argue to justify HERSELF, not Leslie, and that was overtly obvious in the post, and as she pointed out, she suspected that would be the case, and as I'm pointing out, that's because she already knew in her heart what she was doing, but she won't confess it. If she's not going to confess the truth, I have no interest in conversation with her because it will be endless and waste a lot of time. (Btw, it should be noted that she was also speaking on Leslie's behalf, having never spoken with the man before, claiming that she knew what he meant, even though she couldn't have, which also revealed her true intentions, which was to justify herself; that is, her study of psychology.)

I'm not going to confess to a lie. I realize though that nothing I say will convince you of the truth of the matter. But in all honesty, had I wanted to justify my field in that instance, I wouldn't have tried to defend a theory that I don't even agree with. That would be ridiculous and hypocritical of me. Again, perhaps I should have said nothing, because it is quite clear that in this instance, you can only see what you want to see in me. And it is causing you to make false allegations against me without knowing me or knowing the facts.

I wanted to add in that I explained to Jackie that the Bible does not teach us to "visualize" God or Jesus. However, witches and psychologists DO teach doing that, and I provided links in my first post, and I'll provide the link here (I know it's confusing, and that's why I wish the thread had not been split):
http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6993#msg6993
Jackie is claiming the positive (i.e. "I can do X") without providing evidence of X. She instead wants us to provide "thou shalt not do X." If anyone wants to learn more about the subject in general, here's a teaching on it:
The Biblical Understanding of Prayer

 I fully admit that I might be wrong in what I do by having an image of God in my mind on occasion when I pray. I would like to know the difference between doing that and doing what Dee does, which is talking to God as if He's right there with her. She may not be imagining a visual of God, no. But she did say, and I quote "and the idea came to me, "why don't i just 'talk to God' as if He is right next to me..." Yet, I was rebuked by you for also speaking to Him as if He was right next to me. . "Furthermore, in the imagination, you are conjuring up the image of God OUTWARDLY. That's not where the Bible says that God resides in those who are born again.
What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
-1Co 6:19
Therefore, God is closer than you are visualizing, and we ought to follow what he has instructed us to do in His Spirit, rather than what we feel like doing because witchcraft is based on feelings rather than truth.
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
-John 4:24"

I'd like some clarification on why that was. Maybe it's just the hang up about me sometimes literally imagining God is right there with a visual? Maybe I am misunderstanding what Dee said. Or maybe since you know Dee and you don't know me, you're more apt to correct me.

The following needs some context, and I'll add the link here to the "God is with us" post Jackie was referring to: http://www.creationliberty.com/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg6992#msg6992

On Dee Babbitt's thread "God is with us", Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying).

That's partially deceptive because what I was responding to was her claim, which I paraphrased as: "If the Bible does not SPECIFICALLY forbid a practice, then it's okay for us to do." Again, click on the links above, and I provided examples to Jackie to demonstrate that what she was claiming was not true, and Jackie NEVER confessed her error. She ignored it, which is exactly what she's doing here too. It's a pattern. It's obvious from her testimony here, she read it what I said, but she did not respond, and that's one of the reasons why I said I was expecting this type of outburst from her, like her accusations that I am appearing "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."

I fully admit that in that God is With Us post, yes I was ignoring your response. It wasn't the right thing to do, and I'm sorry. No, this is not me agreeing with your response in that thread. I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though. I wish you didn't think that, but I'll grant that you're exceedingly used to apostasy and false converts (or at least people being offended and leaving in a huff). Perhaps you even expect it as a default out of everyone you encounter here.

 apparent to everyone by now. To the simple, it might appear Jackie is being very reasonable, but that's because she's learned a lot of public relations (i.e. propaganda) techniques from her college, and she's not going to like that I'm saying that, but I don't believe anyone has pointed out that she is doing the exact same thing that many other people who have come here have done when they give so-called "apologies" that feign repentance. Watch this:

I'm sorry if it seemed like I was accusing you of being exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish. I'm sure you were insulted by that, and I'm sorry (because I wasn't trying to do that). Not my intention, nor what I was trying to say.

Folks, let's try an exercise to help understand this better. Let's suppose you were walking down the side walk carrying a hot drink, you lost a bit of your foot, bumped into a woman, and spilled the hot drink down the front of her dress. With that in mind, I want you to say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry!"
That comes out fairly naturally, doesn't it? If it did for you, that's because you actually felt sorrow and remorse for what you had done, even if it was an accident. You were taking responsibility for what you had done.

Now think about doing the same thing again, losing your footing, spilling your hot drink all over the front of her dress, and now say the following outloud:
"I'm so sorry it seemed like I had poured my drink all over you, that wasn't my intention."
If you followed the exercise and said that outloud, you probably felt a bit awkward saying it the second way. The reason for that is because it is not really an apology by which a person would have regret for what happened, but rather, it diverts away personal responsibility.

Interestingly, in the scenario you gave there are times when people who feel bad for spilling their drink on someone will say "I'm sorry that this happened. I didn't mean to spill my drink on you!". I'm sorry you were hurt by what I said. I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing. That would be the difference between admitting that spilling the drink was an accident and lying that you spilled the drink on purpose to make the other person feel better (or even be more willing to forgive you or something strange like that). If I had spilled the drink on purpose, I'd either 1. not say sorry out of pride, or 2. eventually admit what I did and apologize in humility. But again, I realize you wouldn't know that for certain, as you don't know me.

Remember how many teachings I've done in which I talk about people who love to talk about their "good intentions," and how the road to hell is paved with them? That's because "good intentions" are irrelevant in the face of facts because facts prove HIDDEN evil intentions.

I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell (either as a false convert or as a misguided genuine convert) with good intentions.

 

In short, readers not exercised in discernment might take Jackie's words here to be humble, but they are far from it because all she really said here was, "I'm sorry you feel that way," which is ironic in a sense because that's EXACTLY what you would expect to hear from a psychologist.

Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing (which in this case, you think it is intentionally calling you arrogant, childish, etc.). Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here? Let's not kid ourselves. You believe that psychology and anything remotely related is evil and is of the enemy. Therefore anyone who studies it or is in that field MUST be always a liar, doing the devil's work, puffed up in pride, etc. If I'm wrong in this, please correct me.

What's even more ironic is that Jackie started out this whole thing by telling me: "Chris, I am going to be upfront with you here and get to my point," and yet, I still believe she's not really being straight-forward with me, and is hiding behind public relations techniques. Some upfrontness would be a good start.

And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to. Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar. For clarification, I don't care if you take my word or not. I'm not going to sit and pretend I have all the answers and that what I say is always good and beneficial. But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded "hidden intentions".

Hmm... I'm looking at the time, and I have an appointment I need to keep. I don't have the time to address all the things Jackie wrote. I hope that at least helps some of you see some of the core problems, and if those of you in our church want to discuss those things of what she wrote in more detail on Thursday night over Skype, we certainly can, and it'll be a lot easier over the call for me to demonstrate those subtle details so we can see the deception and contradiction in the things she wrote.

And now I know that my time here has been wasted. From this quote and the first paragraph and the fact that you refuse to address me directly here, I can see quite clearly that you want to continue with your straw man argument. Furthermore, you're opening discussions about what I've said without me being present to discuss what I've said as well. This could be a good way to dissect the errors of what I said without my influence, or it could be a way to manipulate the thinking of others. I really hope that manipulation of people's thoughts is not your intention and that won't be the case. I am not saying or even trying to say that this is what you're doing. I just think it is wise to be a bit skeptical of someone who is presenting a case against someone and that person's words while also trying to not engage with that person and possibly trying to keep that person away from the discussion of the case. However, I also know that I'm not in your church and it is perfectly reasonable to discuss topics started by others who are not present, even when it is possible to have that discussion in a situation where they would be.
I know I can't expect you to address me on this again, since you've already said you have no interest in doing that.

As a final quick note, I've long been curious how many people (2000 year ago) said that Jesus looked to be "exceedingly arrogant, lazy, prideful, and childish."

Jesus has more wisdom than you or I or anyone else ever will. He is perfect and is actually able to read people's hearts (accurately, 100% of the time). You and I both know that Jesus was called all kinds of horrible names falsely. I'm not saying that you, Chris, never are in the same position. I believe you are. I'm sure you still realize that you're not infallible.

[strangersmind]

I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.

So in other words what you are trying to say is, I have no idea and need time to make something work?

You made it sound in your first reply that you were not taking it to be a counselor and yet your job right now is being a counselor.

You said "Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do" have you ever read the 10 commandments?
You should read the old testament so e time.

[strangersmind]

As a side note visualize an image is same as making one by hand just in your heart. For more on that you should read the new testament

[Jackie]

I would answer that for you, but I already said it is not my intention to answer that in this thread. In a few weeks' time perhaps I'll be ready to answer. At the moment I don't have the time nor energy to discuss it on a deep level as some important deadlines regarding my master's thesis are swiftly coming. I'm also moving to a new place, and I'm taking on two new cases at work. I also want to reread Chris' book on psychology first and give it the time it deserves.

So in other words what you are trying to say is, I have no idea and need time to make something work?

You made it sound in your first reply that you were not taking it to be a counselor and yet your job right now is being a counselor.

You said "Chris and I had a sort of disagreement on whether or not it is okay to visualize that God is right there, and to have an image of God accompany that (when we are praying). Chris made the argument that this is what witches do, and he had some Bible verses that could be possibly back his point up on that. On the other hand, the Bible does not really state anywhere that this is not okay to do" have you ever read the 10 commandments?
You should read the old testament so e time.

What I am admitting to is yes I do have my doubts about the field of psychology and how biblical it is. I want to sort them out first. Beyond that, I know that when I put my reasons why I think some of it is biblically justified, I will essentially be put on trial here and will need to defend them. That is not something I have time nor lots of energy (physical and emotional) to devote deeply to right now.

Are you saying my job as an ABA therapist is like counseling? If so then you have little understanding of either. Just because the word therapist is present does not mean they are the same thing. Just like a physical therapist is not the same as a therapist in the psychological sense.

And yes I have read the 10 Commandments. Currently I am reading the Bible cover to cover. I am in Second Samuel. And yes it is the KJB.

As a side note visualize an image is same as making one by hand just in your heart. For more on that you should read the new testament

The biblical basis for this is what exactly? I am not contesting your point. I would genuinely like to know. It is not really helpful to just tell me to read the New Testament. I believe you are probably talking about Matthew 5 where Jesus talks about committing adultery in the heart. Granted. The same application could be made in my case. Perhaps it is at the least hypocritical of me to rebuke those who have images of Jesus in their house and use that in any way during prayer. Is that why you guys are inferring I am guilty of idolatry? Perhaps you are right. Thankfully I do not always do this in prayer so it should not be hard to correct.

[anvilhauler]

I'm not going to disagree with you that naturopathic medicine might be a good direction to head for me in terms of research . While I don't believe diet fixes everything or causes everything, it certainly is a major key factor.

I'm always skeptical when someone says something like "No one heard of

• before such and such time." First because I think there is so much that we don't know about some conditions that it is quite ludicrous to point it to one cause. Second, medical diagnostics were not always what they are today. Many conditions have been around for a quite a while but no one knew enough about them to really define them until long after the first recorded cases. Tuberculosis is one. Nevertheless, I am willing to entertain the idea that Alzheimer's hasn't been around that long and am willing to read the research you've found on this if you'd be willing to share.

I'm also a bit skeptical when blanket statements such as "This one thing will cure everyone who has this condition." If not even Tylenol or Ibuprofen work for everyone, why should we reasonably think that anything else (even the natural stuff) will? Especially in a very complex disease like Alzheimer's. However, again, I'm willing to investigate this matter further in the future.

I agree with Jackie on this.  For about the last 19.5 centuries even since Christ there has been no such thing as a "cholesterol test" and if people were Godly and wanted to keep in excellent health they just had to eat healthily and not be gluttonous.  As Jackie pointed out, many medical conditions were not at all understood and if a person has a genetic problem they can try to maintain good health by eating correctly but it certainly isn't going to cure it.

With every generation we are also going to see more and more ailments coming along.  For every generation of man there are between 100 and 300 transcriptional errors in DNA and so long as the person survives after birth they might barely or not at all notice the alterations and then again they might have a terrible and not well understood medical ailment.

Rare Diseases Organization
https://rarediseases.org/for-patients-and-families/information-resources/rare-disease-information/

One thing I forgot to comment about and was in a video via a link that Jeanne sent me was that the claim was made that obesity was caused by a lack of essential nutrients and minerals.  That is completely wrong and no mention was made of gluttony being the cause.  All of those carbon atoms making up a part of the fats came from somewhere and I can safely comment that it was only via the food that those people were putting in to their mouths.  I'm sure God didn't miraculously make those fat molecules appear on their waistlines making them to appear as gluttons.  God can make atoms and molecules appear when required such as the gold coin in the mouth of a fish and feeding thousands of people bread and fish, but surely not fat that then makes an innocent person to appear as a sinner.  That that statement appeared in the video "rang alarm bells" for me as I knew I couldn't trust anything they were going to say after that.

On the Alzheimers Disease side of things I often work in the Alzheimers lab in keeping their analysis machines working.  All of the work they are doing is related to the metabolim of arginine (an amino acid) as the metabolim of arginine in the Alzheimers brain is quite different than in a non-diseased brain.  I wouldn't be so quick to point accuse at foods such as food oils as people have been eating roasted peanuts and cashew nuts etc for a very long time.  Our department isn't trying to formulate chemicals to deal with disease like that, they are just trying to understand the cause.  There are many theories and many people all around the world trying to understand what is happening. 

I'm always cautious of "snake oil" sales people.  (Colloquial terms always in inverted commas).

[strangersmind]

Jackie I am sorry for my last post. What you read is my outline. I was not finished with it and hit send when I was trying to correct and edit it. Well last 2 post. I cannot get on website it keeps saying timed out. So got long time I been trying to fix it. I finally had to Google the website and go straight to forum.
I am in a 3rd world country and a lot of websites I cannot go like kjb store  and so on. One of the benefits of living among people who are equally yoked with dictatorship. So please just forget about what I ask. There is no point for us to start over in this conversation.

Please forgive me of my mistake.

[Jackie]

Jackie I am sorry for my last post. What you read is my outline. I was not finished with it and hit send when I was trying to correct and edit it. Well last 2 post. I cannot get on website it keeps saying timed out. So got long time I been trying to fix it. I finally had to Google the website and go straight to forum.
I am in a 3rd world country and a lot of websites I cannot go like kjb store  and so on. One of the benefits of living among people who are equally yoked with dictatorship. So please just forget about what I ask. There is no point for us to start over in this conversation.

Please forgive me of my mistake.

I am not sure you have got anything to be sorry for. It does not sound like you did anything wrong. I am sure the censorship in your country must be really frustrating. All is well.

[Jeanne]

Kevin, I think you might have missed part of what this particular lecturer was saying about obesity. Yes, gluttony is a part of it, but many of the additives in processed foods (like high fructose corn syrup) actually MAKE people more hungry, so they overeat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the artificial sweetener aspartame does pretty much the same thing; it makes people want to eat more.

I have only been taking some of these supplements for a couple of weeks now, but I can say that I no longer have the sugar cravings I had before, or the urge to snack all day. I can't tell yet whether I have actually lost any weight or not because my scale is broken and replacing the batteries didn't help.

[anvilhauler]

Kevin, I think you might have missed part of what this particular lecturer was saying about obesity. Yes, gluttony is a part of it, but many of the additives in processed foods (like high fructose corn syrup) actually MAKE people more hungry, so they overeat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the artificial sweetener aspartame does pretty much the same thing; it makes people want to eat more.

I have only been taking some of these supplements for a couple of weeks now, but I can say that I no longer have the sugar cravings I had before, or the urge to snack all day. I can't tell yet whether I have actually lost any weight or not because my scale is broken and replacing the batteries didn't help.

Hi Jeanne

I'll have to go back and have another look and listen to the wording in the video, but it struck me as being quite incorrect at the time.

Yes, sweet food does make people more hungry because we naturally do crave for sweet food and also because after eating too much sweet food our insulin production causes our blood sugar to fall below the level that it would normally be if we had eaten nothing at all and then that low blood sugar level triggers the feeling of hunger.  Sadly people give in to that feeling of hunger and then go and eat something else.  That scenario isn't a modern thing though as someone could easily do this by eating grapes and oranges etc and then a short while later feeling ravenous and snacking on a side of lamb.

Yes, aspartame does make people want to eat more.  What looked like it might have been promising as a zero calorie product still causes insulin secretion as a result of the sweet sensation in the mouth but alas no digestable food reaches the stomach and that secreted insulin drops the person's blood sugar level and then they eat more than they normally would had they not drunk the artificial sweetener.

On the diet side of things I see lots of products in the supermarket and I wonder who actually buys those, but of course people do otherwise they wouldn't be manufactured and they wouldn't be on the shelf.  I buy chocolate occassionally and about ten years ago I had a drink of carbonated drink.  The best way to avoid sugar craving is to not eat sweet food but it is important to also limit starch foods like potatoes, peas, bread and rice etc. 

For anyone wanting to lose weight it is often best not to step on the scales but rather to go by looseness of clothing and looking in the mirror.  Because our body weight can vary so much from day to day that often puts people off and they think their reduced calorie intake isn't working and so they give up.  Reduced calorie intake works 100% of the time.

The Bible basically tells us not to eat too much.

[Timothy]

I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though.

You just admitted that you ignored him in your pride and then turned around in the next sentence and lied by saying that you didn't do it. You won't turn out to be a very good psychologist if you can't even lie convincingly. If you can't catch your own lie you won't catch another's. You basically said, "I shouldn't have ignored you in my pride, but I didn't ignore you in my pride."

I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing.

You did it twice. This isn't just some mistake you made. You just admitted to calling him those things ('unintentionally' at least), then turned around in the next sentence and said you didn't do what you just said you did and that you won't admit to what you just admitted to. I'm not impressed with your college education. The very least they could have taught you is to lie better than that. I mean, if you're going to lie that badly you might as well be honest about it lol. There is literally no excuse for that.

It's not a lack of intelligence that you lied so blatantly. It's because of the pride in your heart. You're so blind in your pride that you didn't even catch that you didn't make any sense there. That can only be explained as a spiritual problem you have.

In your initial post on this matter you claimed that Chris could be 'perceived' as being prideful, arrogant, childish, foolish, and trying to make someone look like an idiot. When I read Chris' response to Leslie about ego in the email, I didn't perceive those things in Chris for saying that at all. So, naturally, I didn't have a problem with it.

But, conveniently, the one person here who says there is some Biblical justification for psychology had a problem with a comment about a psychology term that Freud made up...conveniently. That puzzle isn't hard to put together, and I'm not even a psychologist. It's a 4 piece puzzle at best lol. If you weren't trying to justify something, you wouldn't have said anything. And don't give me that garbage that you only said something because of the way Chris' response could be 'perceived' as prideful and arrogant. If you didn't think in your heart that he was, you wouldn't have said anything about that either. And because you did think that (and in your heart, accuse him of those things) you said something. You're just too afraid to be up front about it and take a stance so you hide behind 'intentions' to avoid responsibility.

I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell...

I'm not convinced you do examine yourself. If you did, then you aught to be terribly ashamed for what you said above. It's very concerning to me that you aren't ashamed. You're lack of taking responsibility for your words shows me a lack of repentance and that shouldn't be taken lightly.

Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing...

But you did lie. See the above. If you truly examine yourself, it'll be pretty easy to see.

Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here?

No one needs you to lie. We're trying to tell you to stop it!

And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to.

When you finally admit to something we'll believe you when you try to say your being straight. But when you can't even lie convincingly, common sense says "We don't believe you!"

Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar.

We've dealt with other people that hide behind "intentions" and it didn't have anything to do with psychology. It's the filthy rag you call a heart we're trying to deal with. Repentance is what you need, not a change of topic.

But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded 'hidden intentions'.

You've been heard and addressed. When are you going to repent?

[Jackie]

I still should have given you the courtesy of responding instead of allowing my pride to get in the way. Ignoring something out of pride is not what I'm doing here, though.

You just admitted that you ignored him in your pride and then turned around in the next sentence and lied by saying that you didn't do it. You won't turn out to be a very good psychologist if you can't even lie convincingly. If you can't catch your own lie you won't catch another's. You basically said, "I shouldn't have ignored you in my pride, but I didn't ignore you in my pride."

I was addressing two different scenarios. I was admitting that I ignored him on the God is With Us topic. Chris is accusing me of ignoring something falsely on a different topic. That, I am not admitting to as I've not done what he has accused me of. I guess I didn't make that clear.

I didn't mean to call you those things. I will not admit to calling you those things, though, since that's not what I was doing.

You did it twice. This isn't just some mistake you made. You just admitted to calling him those things ('unintentionally' at least), then turned around in the next sentence and said you didn't do what you just said you did and that you won't admit to what you just admitted to. I'm not impressed with your college education. The very least they could have taught you is to lie better than that. I mean, if you're going to lie that badly you might as well be honest about it lol. There is literally no excuse for that.

I admitted to calling him those things unintentionally, yes. I'm not admitting to calling him those things intentionally (because I didn't), which is what you would probably like to happen. You can call me a liar, sure. God knows the truth. I was not calling him out as arrogant or childish or any of those things. I said that when he did what I was critiquing him on, he comes across as such.

It's not a lack of intelligence that you lied so blatantly. It's because of the pride in your heart. You're so blind in your pride that you didn't even catch that you didn't make any sense there. That can only be explained as a spiritual problem you have.

It's clear that you will only see me as a liar in this instance. I will again assert that I have not lied. What you are seeing is maybe something you are reading into, falsely.

In your initial post on this matter you claimed that Chris could be 'perceived' as being prideful, arrogant, childish, foolish, and trying to make someone look like an idiot. When I read Chris' response to Leslie about ego in the email, I didn't perceive those things in Chris for saying that at all. So, naturally, I didn't have a problem with it.

You didn't see it, fine. That doesn't make it untrue. Again, I will tell you as I told him. I've been criticized and told that when I take small minute details of a person's argument to me and correct them on it (when what they said has little to do with the overall topic), I've been told it comes across as arrogant and childish. It doesn't matter if I'm right, or if correcting them in that matter is for their ultimate edification. It can still come across as that way.

But, conveniently, the one person here who says there is some Biblical justification for psychology had a problem with a comment about a psychology term that Freud made up...conveniently. That puzzle isn't hard to put together, and I'm not even a psychologist. It's a 4 piece puzzle at best lol. If you weren't trying to justify something, you wouldn't have said anything. And don't give me that garbage that you only said something because of the way Chris' response could be 'perceived' as prideful and arrogant. If you didn't think in your heart that he was, you wouldn't have said anything about that either. And because you did think that (and in your heart, accuse him of those things) you said something. You're just too afraid to be up front about it and take a stance so you hide behind 'intentions' to avoid responsibility.

As I said to Chris before, I knew there would be hang ups about what I had to say because of the association the word "ego" has with psychology. Again, I was not trying to justify that term at all. I don't agree with the concept of ego at all. Just because I know how to differentiate between the definition that Freud gives and the definition most people use, doesn't mean I'm defending the concept.

I take your teachings on this to heart. I am examining myself to make sure I'm not one of those ones paving the road to hell...

I'm not convinced you do examine yourself. If you did, then you aught to be terribly ashamed for what you said above. It's very concerning to me that you aren't ashamed. You're lack of taking responsibility for your words shows me a lack of repentance and that shouldn't be taken lightly.

I'm not here to convince you that I do examine myself. You don't know me at all, though, so you really can't be sure. God knows.

However, I'm not taking responsibility for something I did not say.  Why should I be ashamed for something I didn't do?

Again, I'm not going to lie and admit that I did something I did not do nor had any intention of doing...

But you did lie. See the above. If you truly examine yourself, it'll be pretty easy to see.

Except I didn't. You misunderstood what I said. Or read into something, I don't know.

Do you need me to lie, so that I can be the enemy here?

No one needs you to lie. We're trying to tell you to stop it!

And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to.

When you finally admit to something we'll believe you when you try to say your being straight. But when you can't even lie convincingly, common sense says "We don't believe you!"

Well, the issue here is misunderstanding what I actually said and trying to make it as though I said something I haven't. That's why I said "And you will never believe that I'm being straight up with you unless I say exactly what you want me or need me to."

Perhaps next time I try to critique you, I will need to make sure that what I do it on has nothing to do with psychology or anything else that you and I disagree on. Otherwise I won't be heard and will be called a liar.

We've dealt with other people that hide behind "intentions" and it didn't have anything to do with psychology. It's the filthy rag you call a heart we're trying to deal with. Repentance is what you need, not a change of topic.

Absolutely. Everyone has a filthy heart and is in need of repentance. Me too. My point is that it's frustrating when people don't stick to the topic at hand because they think they know what's really going on (and they're wrong). You guys have had a lot of opposition, and some of it has been paved with good intentions. I get that.

But I do expect to at least be heard and addressed on what I said, not on some straw man argument or unfounded 'hidden intentions'.

You've been heard and addressed. When are you going to repent?

But was I really? Or was the main focus on setting up a straw man argument against me (claiming that I really just made that post to argue in favor of psychology, and that my real intention is to insult Chris and be in support of railers like Leslie)?

I will not repent of the things that you guys claim I'm doing that I'm not. I do repent that I've caused so much strife and grief by my original post (and subsequent ones).