[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

What i am saying is that there is no need to ridicule another person or kind of people just because you have a different opinion on life then they do.

Ahem:

The Bible is very clear. Only Everyone but Christians are sane. Christians else is crazy.

Your comments perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy and self-centered moral code that exists when Christ is not at the center of your life. Only True Christians™ are capable of avoiding hypocrisy, for everything we do is Right with God.

Glory!

[PleaseKYS]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

OK. I assume, then, that from now on you will refrain from calling us stupid just because we have a different opinion on life than you do - like you did in your previous post:



...I forgive you.

.
I am sorry I fraced it so it felt like i attacked you, but i just want to correct that i was merely trying to call the idea of ridiculing others for their religion stupid and not the people doing it. I am sure i could find very sensible people saying this. And again I am sorry for offending you in any way.

I am looking forwards to it, dear, as there are many contradictions in your statement.

We, Christians, have proof that Creator exists - it's on the very first pages of the Bible. If you reject the Bible as the Word of God (just because there's a lot of messy rules), then what's the basis for your belief in a Creator?

. I can try to answer this at a later time but right now I do not have time. (I barely have time to write this reply)

[PleaseKYS]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

Ahem:



Your comments perfectly illustrate the hypocrisy and self-centered moral code that exists when Christ is not at the center of your life. Only True Christians™ are capable of avoiding hypocrisy, for everything we do is Right with God.

Glory!

I apologize for that as it was very childish of me and i have no excuse for it. However that does not refute the fact that i feel there is no reason to ridicule others for their religion. This was merely an atempt to be humorous with a quote I did not agree with and not an attempt to ridicule the christians here. But again i apologize and lay flat as it was not nice of me.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

Hello Miss Please!


I have been reading your contributions with much interest. There are some aspects of your complex belief system that I find unclear and I would love to hear an explanation.

As i once read "Religion is like a few fingers pointing at the moon. But people focus too much about the fingers and not the moon."

This is a very interesting statement for a couple of reasons. First, it makes an assumption that all religions have a common core. I assume that within the modern discourse of spirituality, that common core would be "existence of supernatural being or beings" - which is a definition of religion that goes back to E.B. Tylor and reduces religion to a belief system, disregarding its social, economic, and political aspects. It is a bit simplistic if you ask me, especially if you extend the definition of religions to systems in which presence of supernatural beings is superfluous, such as certain varieties of Buddhism.


The second assumption made in this statement is that the common core is, ultimately, clearly visible, despite being clouded by the finger-pointing. This metaphor compares the supposed common core to the Moon, which is a clearly visible object, rather than, for example, to Lambda Coronae Borealis, which has a magnitude of 5 and is therefore barely visible with the naked eye.


These are two very strong assumptions, and if you want me to be convinced, I need to see some data that supports them.

What i am saying is that there is no need to ridicule another person or kind of people just because you have a different opinion on life then they do. I would not go as far as to say all religious people are wrong, but that we do not know if any are right.

That is a fair point.

This is why i think it is important to be sceptic to religion as i believe a lot of the rules are kind of just messy, confusing and nonsence. I do believe there is a god or creator,

And this is where you lost me. You are jumping to conclusions without explaining how you got there. If we cannot know if any religion is right; if I agree with you that there are internal contradictions in each religion; how do we get from that sound agnosticism to "I believe in a creator"?

What i mean by that is that I don't believe there is no hard proof that any religious text is correct

But, these contradictory religious texts are the sole evidence we have for the existence of a Creator!


While I understand this lovely Baptist community - they have a sacred text, they believe this is the Word of God, and that makes their faith strong and evidence-based - I have trouble understanding your faith, and what is the basis for it.

I do await your response, as I am struggling with my own faith and I just cannot seem to be able to force myself to believe not just in a bunch of old texts, but in the idea of God in general - especially, I have trouble believing in a God that is actually benevolent and not utterly sadistic.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

I see what you are trying to tell me, but i feel this would also go for any other religion as there is really no proof for any religion other than some really old book which lets be honest might have been written by someone as a joke. Don't misunderstand me i don't see christianity as wrong, but i also don't see Islam as wrong. What I think is that there is no need to make fun of or behave badly thorwards someone who has a different mindset than you. I can see how you think you are right and I am not saying you aren't but you also have to put yourself in others shoes. I personally used to be a lutherian christian, but i did not think it was right. I have felt I was not really for what christianity promoted. In which i mean the anti-honosexual agenda and other things I won't bother listing. What i believe is that instead of pushing religion and instead of witchhunting other religions we should try to be more considerate to eachother and focus on what is best for mankind as a whole instead of just a group of people. I hope I answered to what what you were saying in a grammatically and sensible way. I also hope I did not offend you in any way through this text. Let's try to have a civil debate.Also! If you spot any spelling mistakes or grammar mistakes on my part please point them out as I am still learning English (I am from Norway).

If you understood what I'm trying to tell you, you wouldn't pretend - even to yourself - that two diametrically opposing claims could both be true.

I apologize for that as it was very childish of me and i have no excuse for it.

No you don't. But we understand the reason. Only Christ can inject the kind of moral sense that allows one to know the right thing to say for the right circumstance. This is why True Christians™ are always right and always so morally upstanding. This is precisely why we are a beacon of Light in an otherwise Dark world!

[PleaseKYS]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

This is a very interesting statement for a couple of reasons. First, it makes an assumption that all religions have a common core. I assume that within the modern discourse of spirituality, that common core would be "existence of supernatural being or beings" - which is a definition of religion that goes back to E.B. Tylor and reduces religion to a belief system, disregarding its social, economic, and political aspects. It is a bit simplistic if you ask me, especially if you extend the definition of religions to systems in which presence of supernatural beings is superfluous, such as certain varieties of Buddhism.

I agree that it has a few flaws, but it was the first quote i could remember at the top of my head. I also agree that it disregards all the aspects named above. And I guess it is not a perfect idea. I however think that all religions come from roughly the same idea. A creator that created earth or the universe is waiting in the afterlife or has something in the afterlife you strive to come to. The creator part is not neceserally for buddhism. This is by no means a perfect idea and there are for sure flaws and contradictions, but this is the idea i have got right now and i am open to better ideas or additions to that idea.

The second assumption made in this statement is that the common core is, ultimately, clearly visible, despite being clouded by the finger-pointing. This metaphor compares the supposed common core to the Moon, which is a clearly visible object, rather than, for example, to Lambda Coronae Borealis, which has a magnitude of 5 and is therefore barely visible with the naked eye.

Yea i understand this, but as mentioned above it was the first quote i could come with. I also believe the idea is more a clouded moon of sorts, but i guess the star you are talking about would be a good replacement, however I would say few people know of this star (I had to google it). I believe a more wellknown obscured object would be a better replacement. Still! It was a good argument.

And this is where you lost me. You are jumping to conclusions without explaining how you got there. If we cannot know if any religion is right; if I agree with you that there are internal contradictions in each religion; how do we get from that sound agnosticism to "I believe in a creator"?

Yes i know it was a bit confusing. What I meant to say is not that I disagree with the existence of a god, but that I disagree with some of the rules, and ideals that these big religions have. This got a bit messy when i wrote it though.

But, these contradictory religious texts are the sole evidence we have for the existence of a Creator!

Yea what i meant here is that there is no concrete proof that a single text is correct and that some of them might be a little "fleshed out" if you get what i mean.

While I understand this lovely Baptist community - they have a sacred text, they believe this is the Word of God, and that makes their faith strong and evidence-based - I have trouble understanding your faith, and what is the basis for it.

I do await your response, as I am struggling with my own faith and I just cannot seem to be able to force myself to believe not just in a bunch of old texts, but in the idea of God in general - especially, I have trouble believing in a God that is actually benevolent and not utterly sadistic.

My idea of a creator or a god is that there has to be one, but that they are not neceserally watching over us or that they are immortal. For all we know the creators might have died long before us or that they died creating our universe. Imagine a super-advanced race capable of creating life created our universe in the last moments of theirs. If you have time here is a skit on youtube that kind of explains the last part i guess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N5l...=RD3N5lgUgAQ-g

Hope i answered your questions. Looking forward to hearing from you.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

I agree that it has a few flaws, but it was the first quote i could remember at the top of my head. I also agree that it disregards all the aspects named above. And I guess it is not a perfect idea. I however think that all religions come from roughly the same idea.

That is true only if you think about sorts of questions that religions answer - but not the answers themselves. True, all religions try to answer questions which are unanswerable by other means - nowadays, it is mostly reduced to "what does it all mean?" and "where do we go when we die?", in the past religions also served to answer the question "how did all of this start?".


The interesting part about the last question is that now we know that despite the great variation of answers given by past and present religions to this last question, all of these answers have something in common: they all turned out to be wrong.


It does make you think, maybe the other answers given by religions are also wrong. Yes, that includes the idea of a creator.

A creator that created earth or the universe is waiting in the afterlife or has something in the afterlife you strive to come to. The creator part is not neceserally for buddhism.

Exactly. So even on this aspect religions cannot agree with one another, which makes the possibility of the existence of a creator even weaker.

Yea i understand this, but as mentioned above it was the first quote i could come with. I also believe the idea is more a clouded moon of sorts, but i guess the star you are talking about would be a good replacement, however I would say few people know of this star (I had to google it). I believe a more wellknown obscured object would be a better replacement. Still! It was a good argument.

The point that I was trying to make is exactly that the supposed "common core" of religions is unknown/obscure/barely visible.


I guess the metaphor I'd use would be more something like "all religions point to the giant elephant in the sky." Since there is no giant elephant in the sky, that means religions point to something that does not exist - and that explains the vast differences between religions.

Yes i know it was a bit confusing. What I meant to say is not that I disagree with the existence of a god, but that I disagree with some of the rules, and ideals that these big religions have.

The problem is that religious texts are the only proof that Creator does exist. If you reject the rules and ideas of world religions, then you have no proof for the existence of a Creator - as science has shown that world changes without divine intervention.

My idea of a creator or a god is that there has to be one,

Why?

but that they are not neceserally watching over us or that they are immortal. For all we know the creators might have died long before us or that they died creating our universe. Imagine a super-advanced race capable of creating life created our universe in the last moments of theirs. If you have time here is a skit on youtube that kind of explains the last part i guess.

That was a weird video. It leaves me with a question, why do you think that world required a creator?


And if the world required a creator, then who created the creator?


And who created the creator of the creator?


Et cetera, et cetera.


It's like that old story about an anthropologist who asks a tribe about their belief about Earth. According to the tribe, the Earth rests atop a turtle. "That turtle, what is it standing on?" Asks the anthropologist. "It's simple - the turtle rests on another turtle." "And that second turtle, what is it standing upon?" "Don't you understand it? It's turtles all the way down!"


In other words - religious thinking does not explain where the first creator comes from.

[PleaseKYS]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

That is true only if you think about sorts of questions that religions answer - but not the answers themselves. True, all religions try to answer questions which are unanswerable by other means - nowadays, it is mostly reduced to "what does it all mean?" and "where do we go when we die?", in the past religions also served to answer the question "how did all of this start?".


The interesting part about the last question is that now we know that despite the great variation of answers given by past and present religions to this last question, all of these answers have something in common: they all turned out to be wrong.


It does make you think, maybe the other answers given by religions are also wrong. Yes, that includes the idea of a creator.

You have a good point and I have to be honest here and say I am not sure if I can reply to that point, but I will see later if I come up with something.

Exactly. So even on this aspect religions cannot agree with one another, which makes the possibility of the existence of a creator even weaker.

I see how you think that and i guess i kind of agree.

The point that I was trying to make is exactly that the supposed "common core" of religions is unknown/obscure/barely visible.


I guess the metaphor I'd use would be more something like "all religions point to the giant elephant in the sky." Since there is no giant elephant in the sky, that means religions point to something that does not exist - and that explains the vast differences between religions.

Yea that is a good point, but i think the part where you saying they point to something noneexistent is kinda interesting. This would take into the fact that there is nothing there, which we do not know. I think a better metaphor might be "all religions point to the giant clouded area in the sky." since we do not know wether or not something is there.

The problem is that religious texts are the only proof that Creator does exist. If you reject the rules and ideas of world religions, then you have no proof for the existence of a Creator - as science has shown that world changes without divine intervention.

Yes i guess that is kind of correct, however i believe that mabye the creators died before earth's creation? That way there would be no way for them to interact.

Why?

That was a weird video. It leaves me with a question, why do you think that world required a creator?

I belive so because life is complicated. Not only that but the whole universe is. There might be an offchance that all of existence happened out of pure luck, but i think it would be more likely some other being designed it this way.

And if the world required a creator, then who created the creator?


And who created the creator of the creator?


Et cetera, et cetera.

In other words - religious thinking does not explain where the first creator comes from.

This is also a good argument against a creator. But this is something we simply can't answer. It is like thinking how did the universe get created? The big bang? Well how did the big bang appear? It is something we might never get the answer to. Mabye there never has been a begining to the line of creators? Who knows?
Looking forward to hearing from you.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

Yea that is a good point, but i think the part where you saying they point to something noneexistent is kinda interesting. This would take into the fact that there is nothing there, which we do not know. I think a better metaphor might be "all religions point to the giant clouded area in the sky." since we do not know wether or not something is there.

Now, that is getting closer to a solid agnostic position. Even better would be "religions point to something, but it is unclear whether they are pointing to something that actually exists or not, as we have no actual evidence of anything being pointed at".

Yes i guess that is kind of correct, however i believe that mabye the creators died before earth's creation? That way there would be no way for them to interact.

If the hypothetical creator died before the Earth's creation, that means that Earth was not created but formed following the natural laws of physics, and you cannot credit a creator with any form of life on Earth.


Don't get me wrong - I see your point - that was basically the idea popular among the American Founding Fathers, many of whom were deists, that is they believed God started it all and then left or died - so basically, any worship of God is a waste of time because nobody is there.


Nonetheless, I personally don't see a point of believing in a sky daddy that died - the whole point of believing in God is to worship Him on this earth in hopes of achieving eternal life after death.

I belive so because life is complicated. Not only that but the whole universe is. There might be an offchance that all of existence happened out of pure luck, but i think it would be more likely some other being designed it this way.

You really think someone actually designed things like terrible genetic diseases? That actually someone designed the whole scheme of life as "eat or be eaten"?


Don't you think that if someone designed life, that it would be... nicer? Without children dying of cancer? Without individual organism survival depending on the ability to kill and eat smaller organisms and to escape the hungry mouths of larger ones?


Given that the design of life is cruel, random, and quite stupid, really, do you think that the designer of life was cruel or stupid?


Because if we were intelligently designed, our bodies would not start breaking down as soon as we reach 30 years of age, and we would not have so many problems related to our bipedalism!

This is also a good argument against a creator. But this is something we simply can't answer. It is like thinking how did the universe get created? The big bang? Well how did the big bang appear? It is something we might never get the answer to. Mabye there never has been a begining to the line of creators? Who knows?

Since these answers are by definition unanswerable, why bother having an opinion in the first place? It's like if you were trying to have an opinion about the taste of Andean huatia without ever eating food prepared this way.


And yet here you are, having opinions on the existence of a creator.

Huatia.

[Didymus Much]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

...Well how did the big bang appear? It is something we might never get the answer to...

But we MIGHT. And we're getting closer every day (because we're trying).


If you think infinite turtles is a concept that deserves equal time (or anything but mockery, derision, scorn, and contempt) just because "oh, it can't be disproven", then please kill your self. The rest of us on this planet would be better off without you.

[handmaiden]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

It's like that old story about an anthropologist who asks a tribe about their belief about Earth. According to the tribe, the Earth rests atop a turtle. "That turtle, what is it standing on?" Asks the anthropologist. "It's simple - the turtle rests on another turtle." "And that second turtle, what is it standing upon?" "Don't you understand it? It's turtles all the way down!"

A charming story, indeed, Miss de Barriga*, if quaintly mistaken. Turtles! Oh, my! Just like those cute, little pebble looking things with feet that one buys at the pet store for children who can't be trusted with a hamster. . . And then they die anyway.

It's a shame that the anthropolgist who visited that tribe wasn't a missionary. Now those poor savages are in hell which is "all the way down" with nary a turtle in sight.

In other words - religious thinking does not explain where the first creator comes from.

You are quite right, my dear. Religious "thinking" explains nothing of value. God's Holy Word-- pronounced by Him to bring the world into being, and revealed by Him to scribes of His choosing-- explains everything one needs to know. No thinking is necessary.

As charming as the turtle story is, it is sad to think of those simple people, living with such a childish delusion, then dying and waking up in an agonizing pit of napalm.

People really must give up this endless thinking and evaluating and searching for truth. As the Apostle Paul noted in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles in the 33rd verse of the 17th chapter**:

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

What Paul is explaining to unbelievers is that any one of them sincerely interested in finding God, must-- by necessity-- bow down and worship Jesus, as He is God. We actually have Jesus's word for it, and He was killed for simply stating who He really was, so you know that He was committed to His message.

Indeed, referring back to the original subject of this thread, according to another Christian writer, (other than Paul, that is) only a madman would claim to be God if He couldn't back it up by being morally perfect, perform observable miracles and come back from the dead.

And we know that Jesus ticked all those boxes because God told us so in the Bible. Just as Paul told us that Jesus struck him blind and spoke to him, and that any vague notions about God in people's minds is just the Holy Spirit leading that person to Jesus, who is Himself, God and the Holy Spirit.

If that all seems a bit confusing and convoluted, it's because one is straining to work it through with religious thinking, instead of accepting it on faith, unlike all that nonsense with stacks of turtles.


* Is it Miss Barriga, or Miss de? I am afraid I cannot countenance addressing you as, "Ms." Between the use of that dubious honorific and your continued pursuit of higher education, I am afraid that you will never land a husband, my dear girl.

** Not only was there a great deal going on in those days, Paul was also a prolific writer.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

A charming story, indeed, Miss de Barriga*,

Mrs., actually, Miss Handmaiden, and in a few short years it will hopefully be Dr. Although I must admit that, sometimes, conducting my ethnographic fieldwork feels more like herding cats than doing science.

It's a shame that the anthropolgist who visited that tribe wasn't a missionary. Now those poor savages are in hell which is "all the way down" with nary a turtle in sight.

That is certainly true within the Christian ontological paradigm.

You are quite right, my dear. Religious "thinking" explains nothing of value. God's Holy Word-- pronounced by Him to bring the world into being, and revealed by Him to scribes of His choosing-- explains everything one needs to know. No thinking is necessary.

And that is the beauty of Christian ontology. No doubts, no questions, no assertions that have no evidence whatsoever.

People really must give up this endless thinking and evaluating and searching for truth. As the Apostle Paul noted in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles in the 33rd verse of the 17th chapter**:

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To The Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

What Paul is explaining to unbelievers is that any one of them sincerely interested in finding God, must-- by necessity-- bow down and worship Jesus, as He is God. We actually have Jesus's word for it, and He was killed for simply stating who He really was, so you know that He was committed to His message.

I was always fascinated with this passage, Miss Handmaiden. From a non-Christian perspective, that could be seen as an example of incredible religious tolerance. Yet Paul, thinking within Christian paradigm, immediately renounces that as an act of superstition and ignorance.

[handmaiden]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

But we MIGHT. And we're getting closer every day (because we're trying).


If you think infinite turtles is a concept that deserves equal time (or anything but mockery, derision, scorn, and contempt) just because "oh, it can't be disproven", then please kill your self. The rest of us on this planet would be better off without you.

Now, now, Mr. Much! Must I peel the carrot at you?* If you want to defend and even encourage your death-style, please continue to do so indirectly. Advising people to committ self-murder is not something we like to see here at Landover Baptist Church.


Are you having a bad day? Is the world flinging too much sub-standard grammar your way? You know if you accept Jesus you won't have to vent your frustrations by telling people to kill themselves.


Instead, you can warn them once about going to hell and then enjoy the contented feeling of knowing that they will fry forever because they didn't agree with you. It's like this => , but the TV is a cloud ledge from which you can watch people writhing in agony.


* Peeling the carrot is when someone points their index finger at you and makes a sliding motion along the extended finger with the index finger of the other hand. The words, "tsk, tsk" often accompany this motion.

[handmaiden]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

Mrs., actually, Miss Handmaiden, and in a few short years it will hopefully be Dr. Although I must admit that, sometimes, conducting my ethnographic fieldwork feels more like herding cats than doing science.

You have a husband, child? How wonderful! Why are you still in school?

And you should be occupied with herding children, not cats. Cats are demonic in nature, but if you beat them, someone will report you.

Children, on the other hand, while also demonic in nature, are not as clever as cats, and you can beat them to alter their behavior. Moreover, unlike cats, children cannot hunt for their own food. Thus, being dependant on you, they are not likely to go yowling to the neighbors.

And that is the beauty of Christian ontology. No doubts, no questions, no assertions that have no evidence whatsoever.

We HAVE evidence, my dear. It's called the Bible. So much learning and you overlook the obvious.

I was always fascinated with this passage, Miss Handmaiden. From a non-Christian perspective, that could be seen as an example of incredible religious tolerance. Yet Paul, thinking within Christian paradigm, immediately renounces that as an act of superstition and ignorance.

There are those who view Paul's perspective as arrogant and co-optive (whatever that means). As a kindly soul (unless you push me) I prefer to think of Paul encouraging those "pre-Christians" to put the name of the correct God to their amorphous concept of deity.

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: What the Bible says about psychology, psychiatry, madness, and insanity

You have a husband, child? How wonderful! Why are you still in school?

Some days I ask that question myself, Miss Handmaiden. When I'm done, I will be able to apply for a teaching job which will allow me to gain barely enough to stay above poverty line - for the first decade or so after earning my Ph.D. I will be making less money that a janitor at the same university.

All academics have a masochistic side, I suppose.

And you should be occupied with herding children, not cats. Cats are demonic in nature, but if you beat them, someone will report you.

That is a good point. I will keep that in mind if I ever consider to actually literally herd cats.


In the meantime I'll just keep conducting my ethnographic fieldwork in Freehold.

We HAVE evidence, my dear. It's called the Bible. So much learning and you overlook the obvious.

Yes, Ma'am. This is indeed what I meant. Within Christian ontology, the Bible is the evidence. However, someone who proclaims to not be Christian, such as Miss Please, has no evidence to support her claims about the existence of God.


I apologize for the confusion, Miss Handmaiden.