I didn't say that your misinterpretation was deliberate, but it was there.
I used the word deliberate, I said that I deliberately chose a mainstream mental health based link.
You implied it when you proposed as the cause of these misdiagnoses this:
This is me again quoting myself from post no 40 - "What I am saying is there is a shortage of science in the realm of mental health, and if there was not then these clear numbers of errors would not exist.
You are entirely correct that the article I linked to is not saying that,"
Not a hint of me misrepresenting there...surely? I said I am saying it....
"These numbers are huge, they are error rates, and they exist because there is a significant lack of science applicable to "mental health" compared to all other medical problems."
There is. I am not implying at all...just plain stating it, here is the support for my point.
"Mental disorders are largely clinical diagnoses that seldom have specific objective findings that can be detected through laboratory testing, physical examination or imaging. As such, history taking, behavioural observation and data gathering from collateral sources (eg, family members, teachers) are essential to the diagnosis. Despite the importance of effective data gathering and synthesis, time pressures, competing priorities and various cognitive biases can interfere with this process.4,6 Validated psychological tests and symptom reporting scales can help with the data gathering process, but these can lead to inaccurate diagnostic impressions if they are interpreted without sufficient context or not followed with an appropriate diagnostic interview.7 8 Finally, evolving (and in some cases, expanding) diagnostic criteria for mental disorders have prompted concerns that clinicians could inadvertently pathologise normal experiences.9 10 " link -
Diagnostic error in mental health: a review - PMC
"DSM-5. The IOM report notes that psychiatric diagnoses rely on patient reports and clinician observations, rather than on objective biological tests....
The IOM report makes a strong case for devoting more attention to this crucial issue. “Improving the diagnostic process is not only possible but also represents a moral, professional, and public health imperative.”1" link -
5 Mental Health Diagnostic Challenges: Update on “To Err Is Human” | Psychiatric Times
If the rates of misdiagnoses is due to inadequate science, then that would mean that even the mental health specialists are misdiagnosing people at high rates.
Yes...links above.
By the way, as is clear from my previous posts in this thread, if we are talking about science in my opinion, that is the brain and it is called "neurology". If you are using the word "psyche" that means "mind", and it does not exsist by any truly scientific definition. Hence my belief that if we are talking about "minds", we are already short on science. I am not implying this, again just outright stating it, as my perspective.
I do not dismiss everything that is not science, I believe Jesus is alive, and conducted every unscientific miracle the Bible depicts, the many others it refers to but does not include, and can and does do things now, in 2025, which science will never, ever cotton on to. I just think it does matter which is which.
I have argued none of this. You are inferring things that are incorrect.
Now you are saying you did not argue this...
"and that it is downright "toxic" to believe that Jesus can help those who suffer." That is what I am saying you did.
In the OP -
"
Carl Emerson said:
At the same time, believers have access to the redemption of the soul through the Cross, including healing and deliverance - but not many seem to access this because the modern theology has moved on from these 'archaic beliefs'."
Your post 56 -
"
Carl Emerson said:
Personally I think a big part of the problem is that Churches have lost touch with the healing grace available through the Cross and abdicated responsibility for the flock to 'professional services'.
Elders are not seen as the 'go to' source of healing prayer because of poor or little biblical teaching.
Your response to him is "
Most of what you’ve written in this thread is nothing more than toxic, over-spiritualized nonsense"
I am under the impression that
Carl Emerson would like to see more people recieve Jesus' love, grace and healing from conditions we in the modern world call "mental health problems", and that he is not ashamed to share his own beliefs about what happened to him, as a testimony to Jesus helping with such things. I am also under the impression that you believe what he is doing is
toxic, over-spiritualized nonsense.
I am sorry if I have misunderstood, however, that the best I can do to explain what I thought you meant.