Unique Anniversary Poem

[bleechers]

A song off my CD written for my wife... May 7, 2004 will be our 10th anniversary...

SOLA SCRIPTURA​

Who shall be my counselor?

Who shall be my guide?

The wisdom of the ages,

or just my worthless pride?



They say I need my needs met,

but there’s nothing new under the sun.

Give me Mary, Ruth, and Esther,

and Proverbs thirty-one.


Chorus:
And I love you, sola scriptura

I love you, sola fide

And I love you, sola scriptura

I love you, and there’s no better way

There’s no better way



They focus on the problem.

They focus on their minds.

Let’s focus on the Savior

and leave the garbage behind.



Maslow, Freud, and Rogers

Crabb and Dr. Jim D.

Keep your worldly wisdom,

give me Colossians Chapter three



And I love you, sola scriptura

I love you, sola fide

And I love you, sola scriptura

I love you, and there’s no better way

There’s no better way​

A love song written for my wife. Not much of a sacharine-sweet song you say? Well that's the point! I'm telling her that I love her according to the highest authority, the scripture. The Bible calls me to love her "like Christ loved the Church and gave himself for her". There's no better way, you see.

The so-called Christian Psychologists hold seminars, write books, offer radio programs ("You Focus on the Problems" etc.) and quote a bunch of non-believing witch-doctors to teach Christian men how to love their wives. God has already taught us how to do that in the Scriptures. They alone (Sola Scripture - the scriptures alone) should be our guide.

I love her by faith alone (Sola Fide) in the scriptures alone (Sola Scriptura).

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

I don't mean to pick on you or anything bleechers, but you seem to have a lot of built up aggression.
"The so-called Christian Psychologists"
People have a right to their beliefs, even if we disagree with them. I appologize for making assumptions after only reading 2 of your 81 posts, but I just wish we could all love and embrace each other instead of find the places that we disagree.

 

[bleechers]

I don't mean to pick on you or anything bleechers, but you seem to have a lot of built up aggression.
"The so-called Christian Psychologists"

Please, pick away

There's no such thing as "Christian Psychology" any more than there is such a thing as "Christian Islam." The two are wholly incompatible and contradictory.

You cannot improve on the Bible nor improve on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Psychology is not a science, it is a set of beliefs (founded by men who all hated Christianity).

It has been said that Psychology has been invented to change "the saving of sinful souls" into "the healing of sick minds." Study after study shows Psychologists to be no more effective (Psychotherapy to be precise) than witch doctors.

People have a right to their beliefs, even if we disagree with them.

Sure they do, but that does not mean that they have a right to say whatever they want in the name of Christ and then not have to answer for it.

If I believed that if I jumped off a building with just the right wind behind me that I could defy the law of gravity and fly... would you attempt to correct me or just defend my right to my belief?

I appologize for making assumptions after only reading 2 of your 81 posts, but I just wish we could all love and embrace each other instead of find the places that we disagree.

No need to apologize. I appreciate the opportunity to explain

You're actually quite polite!

Thanks for taking the time to express your concerns.

Unity is wonderful so long as unity is not placed above truth. "How can two walk together unless they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3); "What fellowship has light with darkness?" etc.

There are plenty of areas in which I can disagree with a bother (see "Holy rap" ) and still have fellowship. However, there are certain things that are crucial to fellowship. There are doctrines (oh that word!) that are the foundation of true love, true fellowship and brotherhood.

Please continue to "pick on" me if you feel led. I am really hard to offend. I realize that these boards are not the best place to express oneself (no tone, not enough room to fully explain something, etc.).

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

I'm curious which studies you've read that displayed christian psychology to be completely ineffective.

Psychology happens every day, whether it be with a professional or just a close friend.. it's the way people cope with pain, fear, happiness, joy.. just their emotions in general. Personally I feel it has it's place in the world.

What psychology truely is, is the study of the mind. Not the brain (just to be precise) but the mind. How it works, how it perceives things, why it reacts the way it does. I haven't ever seen anything in the Bible that fights against the idea of psychology (Christian or not).

I'm a Speech Communication major, and we study a lot of philosophers and concepts relating to psychology and I find many of the premises to be profound. Many of the christian philosphers did a lot of work relating to phsycology and some of their words and concepts I would even say could be inspired by God.

so after reading your post.. I'm confused to what you believe philosophy to be.

 

[bleechers]

Jung in as letter to Freud:

I imagine a far finer and more comprehensive task for [psychoanalysis] than alliance with an ethical fraternity. I think we must give it time to infiltrate into people from many centers, to revivify among intellectuals a feeling for symbol and myth, ever so gently to transform Christ back into the soothsaying god of the vine, which he was, and in this way absorb those ecstatic instinctual forces of Christianity for the one purpose of making the cult and the sacred myth what they once were - a drunken feast of joy where man regained the ethos and holiness of an animal.​

Psychology happens every day, whether it be with a professional or just a close friend.. it's the way people cope with pain, fear, happiness, joy.. just their emotions in general. Personally I feel it has it's place in the world.

If by Psychology you mean the observation of how people react to certain situations, then I can agree that there is some validity. The problem is when Psychology leaves the bounds of "observation" and enters the area of "explanation" or "resolution."

Since Psychology (all disciplines of Psychology were founded by unbelievers) rejects the biblical doctrine of man's fallen/sinful nature and rejects the necessity of the new birth, it is not only "not christian" it is "anti-Christian."

Problems can be observed, described, studied and discected, but they cannot be solved (in any meaningful, eternal way) without understanding the Bible and recognizing the need for the new birth and a reliance and trust in the Holy Spirit.

PSychology assumes man is good, that he only learns bad behavior (if it even recognizes the concepts of "good" and "bad"). It teaches that this behavior can be modified via self-effort. The method of this "modification" is in no way "scientific." If it were, there would not be so much controversy (contradiction) among Psychologists.

Like Evolution, Psychology is a religion. It is a set of beliefs based on anti-biblical foundations. Islam can "observe" that man has sinned and is in need of grace from God, but since it rejects Christ as the answer, its conclusions and directives are eternally worthless. The same is true of Psychology. Calling it "Christian" Psychology does not change anything any more than creating something called "Christian" Islam.

The church has no need for the theories of men (and wicked men at that). How can studying Freud or Jung or Rogers be superior to the work of the Holy Spirit through the study of the scriptures? God did not leave the church without answers for 1900 years until unbelievers came along to provide answers.

Any truly born-again, mature Christian is competant to counsel by the Word.

I haven't ever seen anything in the Bible that fights against the idea of psychology (Christian or not).

It's not the "studying" that contradicts the Bible, it's the "conclusions" that contradict the scripture. Man's problem is sin. Man's nature is evil. The answer for life's difficulties begins with a new heart and a new mind in Christ by the gospel. Psychology rejects all these and more.

Discontentment in life is not something to be "studied," it is a sin to be rejected, etc. Psychology rejects all biblical premises. I don't need to study the works of godless men, taught by godless men at godless institutions to be able to counsel.

God doesn't need Freud. The Holy Spirit doesn't need Jung.

I'm curious which studies you've read that displayed christian psychology to be completely ineffective.

Hard to put this is just one post But here are two quick quotes and a link to more articles... thanks for asking !!

From an article (among many) quoting US News and World Report (5/23):

"Yet with only few exceptions, scientists have failed, in study after study, to demonstrate the superiority of any major therapeutic school, a phenomenon psychologist Lester Luborsky and his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania compare with the dodo bird’s pronouncement in "Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland": "Everyone has won and all must have prizes."​

Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry and author as quoted in PsychoHeresy:

"It [Psychotherapy] is not merely a religion that pretends to be a science, it is actually a fake religion that seeks to destroy true religion."​

-->Psychology Articles<--​

​

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

well first I'll address the link you posted. psychoheresy-aware.com hehe, I'm sure thats a very non-biased sorce .

Like I said a lot of the great philosophers of our day have been unnamed psychologists as well. Like Kierkegaard for instance, he was a Christian and a very renowned philospher who came up with conclusions from researching and disecting the human mind.

You'll notice I haven't posted anything about claiming psychology to be a religion, because it depends on how loosely you use the term religion. I have a highly intellegent fellow poet and friend of mine claims that the medical field is a religion as well.. and can defend the idea better than I would be able to attack it. Probably with a lof of the same reasoning you can use for psychology being a religion.

And psychology isn't an absolute. When you study people and how their minds work there is no absolute because people aren't absolute. Thats an accepted fact within the real of psychology, and you know there are exceptions to any theory that you come up with. So you end up with theories that assess the majority, and some that assess the minority. Mostly you'll find that the theories that are described come with a disclaimer that set the scene with a particular culture (because culture has a large part in defining people -- very obvious observation is the value of human life is far different from America than is in the Middle East, or from Japan during the war period of kamakazi's. In the west we view it as highly unethical, where as there they view it with a great amount of honor and dignity).

I agree that God doesn't need Frued or Jung (in which I'm not highly studied up on for that matter), but he created them nonetheless to think the way they were going to think. The Holy Spirit, as you said, operated before they were here, and will operate just the same after... but It did the same way with all of our other scientific 'advancements'. I don't believe science was meant for absolutes, but rather for advancement, creativity, and bettering the value of human life. One could argue that it actually does that, but psychology joins hands with those same values. It's done for the bettering of people and the advancement of knowlege. I doubt God would want us to sit back and ignore the philosophies he gives us on bettering our life. Yes - the Bible does do this, but God speaks not only within the Bible but outside of it too. Look at the New Testement, God spoke through it although it wasn't biblical in the current age it was being lived out.

And all psychologists (secular and Christian) don't believe that man is inheritly good. In fact that is a minority belief within the field of psychology. It's the same to say that all scientists believe in evolution, or that all christians believe in creationism, or to claim the theory of quantum physics is immoral while it's just an idea thats out there that has neither been proven nor proven to be wrong (just incomplete)

I think it's easily admited that psychology is a very subjective science because it doesn't give us the concrete feeling of other sciences that develop "truths" about physical things. The mind isn't something thats physical nor easily understood but psychology attempts to make as much sense of it as possible (Has man ever understood women? Oh, but by God we try <-- case and point!)

For info on
Kierkegaard - http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/articles/12580.htm

I'm going to vegas for the weekend so don't think I've left the thread.. I'll be back on Monday or Tuesday to fallow up.. interesting topic going. -- anybody else reading, feel free to jump in

 

[bleechers]

Has man ever understood women?

Well, I must give you this point... most assuredly!

think it's easily admited that psychology is a very subjective science

Then it isn't a "science" then is it? Science isn't "subjective" at all. The very definition of science contradicts the notion that something can be both "science" and "subjective." Even if based on evidence (of any sort) if it cannot be shown to be an absolute, observable fact, then it is religion, not science.

Colossians 2:8a
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit

And all psychologists (secular and Christian) don't believe that man is inheritly good.

They don't necessarily have to to be wrong. If they, in any way, reject either God's assessment of man or God's answers for man, then their conclusions and assumptions are essentially worthless. They may not believe that man in "inherently good," but Psychology does not start with the truth that man is "inherently evil" and incapable of being "good" (as God defines it).

but he created them nonetheless to think the way they were going to think...

But this is never God's assessment of man. Man is wicked, depraved and has a darkened mind and a corrupt heart. God created men to be saved. He has no use for the theories of a darkened mind.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.


Again and again, Christ contrasts "light" with "darkness." The Bible contrasts those in the Kingdom of Light and those who are "the children of wrath" in "the Kingdom of darkness." Scientific advancement is merely a discovering of physical (or biological) laws that pre-existed. These "laws" in no way have any bearing on the state of one's soul. Penicillin may prolong a life, but it in no way answers any spiritual questions (see also aviation or any other scientific discovery).

And there aren't 10 different "Schools of Physics" that contradict one another. Scientific facts do not set people free, truth sets people free. Jesus said "Sanctify them by thy truth, thy Word is truth." and quoted "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Would you suggest that the Church could not adequately counsel and that the Comforter sent by Christ was unable to succor His children until a bunch of anti-Christians came along 1900 years later?

And psychology isn't an absolute. When you study people and how their minds work there is no absolute because people aren't absolute.

It's not an absolute because it is not a science. It must make assumptions and since the assumptions start outside the Bible, they are therefore fallacious.

In spiritual terms, people are "absolute." We are absolutely lost. Our hearts are absolutely wicked and deceitful. Without acknowledging that, any counseling is useless.

Mostly you'll find that the theories that are described come with a disclaimer that set the scene with a particular culture

The gospel recognizes no "culture." Man is man. He is corrupt. We are all "of one blood" and we are all "the sons of Adam." Culture is just the various outplays of how non-essential things came to dominate the patterns of isolated groups of lost people. The answer for a Tibetan monk is the same as for an LA prostitute. The answer to life's difficulties is Christ and a "seeking things above" and not " seeking things below." Those are universal and absolute truths.

you posted. psychoheresy-aware.com hehe, I'm sure thats a very non-biased sorce

Well, you should read their credentials. The Bobgans are well educated and I believe Mr. Bobgan was head of the Education department at The University of Colorado. Thomas Szasz is a doctor of Psychiatry. Their material is well researched and heavily footnoted.

Don't let the web site domain name cause you to dismiss them until you've read their research. Even the US News article (are they biased?) notes that studies repeatedly show the long-term worthlessness of Psychoanalysis.

Like I said, if Psychology were limited to "observation" and "common behavior" definitions, then it might have some legitimacy. Unfortuanately, it makes claims to the cause of man's problems and the solutions to those problems that deny basic biblical truth.

The mind isn't something thats physical nor easily understood but psychology attempts to make as much sense of it as possible

EXACTLY! So why don't we just trust the one who created the mind to tell us what it is, how it can be regenerated, how it can grow and how it can be both "sound" and "holy."

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

"God has given us... a sound mind" in Christ.

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

Then it isn't a "science" then is it? Science isn't "subjective" at all. The very definition of science contradicts the notion that something can be both "science" and "subjective." Even if based on evidence (of any sort) if it cannot be shown to be an absolute, observable fact, then it is religion, not science.

Ok, I have to disagree on this point. Science doesn't necisarily mean FACTS, science means discovery. Dictionary.com defines science as such:

sci·ence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s ns)
n.

1. • The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
   • Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
   • Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science

Nowhere in the definition does it mention that it proves absolutes, but rather quite the opposite.. it says it's a theoretical explination of phenomena. Theories are not truths, but explinations that make sense to us. The same way we had the theory that the Earth was flat, untill that theory was disproven. Psychology does the same thing, it comes up with theories for why people act the way they do. Why people in one culture view life differently from another culture. And in fact, through my study of psychology I have seen a very large percent of percent of them comming to conclusions that the Bible alludes to and refers to itself, but it's simply disected and tested through psychology.

They don't necessarily have to to be wrong. If they, in any way, reject either God's assessment of man or God's answers for man, then their conclusions and assumptions are essentially worthless. They may not believe that man in "inherently good," but Psychology does not start with the truth that man is "inherently evil" and incapable of being "good" (as God defines it).

Actually some do. Let me see if I can do some name dropping for you..

William Golding

Friedrich Nietzsche

Jacques Ellul

Voltaire

Durant

Adams



Those are just a few that share the man is inherently evil. It's a failry accepted concept among philosophers so it's not a point that is attempted to be made all that often.

And there aren't 10 different "Schools of Physics" that contradict one another. Scientific facts do not set people free, truth sets people free. Jesus said "Sanctify them by thy truth, thy Word is truth." and quoted "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

Well there are different ideas on quantum physics.. there are different theories on the begining of Earth (all scientists don't accept creationism nor the big bang).

It's not an absolute because it is not a science. It must make assumptions and since the assumptions start outside the Bible, they are therefore fallacious.

In spiritual terms, people are "absolute." We are absolutely lost. Our hearts are absolutely wicked and deceitful. Without acknowledging that, any counseling is useless.

I won't repeat myself on the absolute and validity psychology has in science since I just made that point . But I think you have generalized all psychology and assumed it to be everything you disagree with.



I'll atempt not to change subjects, but I do possess a slighly differing view of salvation than the majority of westernized Christians. I don't believe everyone's hearts are absolutely wicked before believing in Christ, but I do believe without Christ peoples hearts would be absolutely wicked. (and I know thats vague, but I don't want to get too off track).

The gospel recognizes no "culture." Man is man. He is corrupt. We are all "of one blood" and we are all "the sons of Adam." Culture is just the various outplays of how non-essential things came to dominate the patterns of isolated groups of lost people. The answer for a Tibetan monk is the same as for an LA prostitute. The answer to life's difficulties is Christ and a "seeking things above" and not " seeking things below." Those are universal and absolute truths.

There is a similarity in all men. We are all of the same nature, and are connected to the root of Noah, but to discount culture I think is a terrible mistake. We can agree that the Bible is absolute, however it is still left to man's interpretation. If you were to give a child a Bible in Western Africa, and another a Bible in America and leave them to learn it as they grow up, the two would have many discrepencies on what different scriptures meant. Life dictates how we perceive things. To each individual "perception is reality, and image is everything."

Unfortuanately, it makes claims to the cause of man's problems and the solutions to those problems that deny basic biblical truth.

again you are generalizing all of psychology, when in fact many times secular and christian psychologists AGREE with basic biblical truth.



Now I'm not a professional psychologist by any means, but I have done a lot of psycholgy and counceling. And I use many biblical ideas to attempt to break the strongholds and crutches of peoples lives. Pride is the root to all evil, and the majority of the time we are lulled into the unconsiousness of other peoples needs here in the west because things are so comfortable. Many times I have advised people to help co-workers, neighbors, family, by doing the chores that they dislike the most for those people that they would typically complain to, or force [the chore] upon. And that usually comes from a psycho-analysis as best as I can prepare one.



I'm not sure why you have this idea that psychology fights the bible. As if there were a spectrum where psychology was on one end, and the bible and truth on the other and they contridict each other. Some psychologist disagree with the concepts of the bible, and most agree (and not the bible soley; most major religions agree on many principles of man).

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

this is a refresh for bleechers -- are you still out there?

 

[bleechers]

there are different theories on the begining of Earth (all scientists don't accept creationism nor the big bang).

Exactly... that's why "evolution" should be called "religion" and not "science". Creationist use science to show "evidence" of creation and a young earth, but we know that in the end, it is a matter of faith and not science (the same should be said of evolution).

Aesop has a lovely fable about those who only observe the shadows of truth, yet they determine the shadows to be truth. When one comes to them with the reality of what they think they see, they call him mad and prefer to stay in their darkness. Psychology (as I admitted before) may "observe" certain patterns or results, but in denying the only source of absolute truth to sift those "observations" it renders itself useless for all intents and puposes.

In light of the Bible and its truth, we do not need the "therapies" from the shadows of Psychology.

Actually some do. Let me see if I can do some name dropping for you..

Well, "inherently evil" as God defines it. Nietzsche certainly wouldn't hold up there. Are you referring to Jay Adams? He holds my position. Read his book "Competent to Counsel".

again you are generalizing all of psychology, when in fact many times secular and christian psychologists AGREE with basic biblical truth.

Is not where they agree that I have difficulty, it's where they disagree! Catholiciam "agrees" with Evangelicalism on some points, but differs on certain absolutes that render it false.

Remember, rat poison is 99% nutrituous.

Pride is the root to all evil

Absolutely! "Self" is the enemy, yet so-called "Christian Psychology" is built upon the "Self-Esteem" altar. Can you imagine Christ teaching "self" esteem? As for dictionaries, Webster equates "self-esteem" with "self-conceit" in previous editions.

There is a similarity in all men. We are all of the same nature, and are connected to the root of Noah, but to discount culture I think is a terrible mistake. We can agree that the Bible is absolute, however it is still left to man's interpretation.

If the Bible is "absolute" then man's interpretation cannot trump that. It is not "left to man's interpretation." If that were true then Christianity is essentially meaningless. Muslims claim the Bible, Mormons, Moonies and other cults claim the Bible.

It is "truth" that sets men free. The Bible is "truth." God promised that if any man truly seeks truth, he shall find it and it shall make him free.

When man rejects the truths obvious in his conscience and in nature (common to all men), God allows them to walk in darkness. If they seek God, they will find Him and find truth. This is a repeated Bible absolute (both the finding and the falling away).

2 Peter 1
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If you were to give a child a Bible in Western Africa, and another a Bible in America and leave them to learn it as they grow up, the two would have many discrepencies on what different scriptures meant. Life dictates how we perceive things. To each individual "perception is reality, and image is everything."

Simply put, this is just not true. I have met born-again believers from around the world. I have more in common with them (spiritually and doctrinally) than I have with my unsaved co-workers and/or Catholic family.

There is only one gospel. It is the great uniter and the great divider. It supercedes culture (see Cornelius in Acts 10).

Even if some obscure scriptures are understood differently, that does not negate the fact that there can only be one true interpretation (the interpetation meant by God as He breathed the Word of Truth).

Even in this case, I find far more "discpepacies" among my fellow Americans than I do with my born-again, blood-washed brothers from all over the world.

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

I've always been very interested in peoples cultures, and so I seek out conversations about them when meeting people from other countries. Four years ago I was volunteering with an English as a second language program at a highly international populated college. At any rate I met people from all over the world with all sorts of different perceptions of God. Some where Christian, some where Muslim, there were some from all different religions, but even inside our Christian doctrine I saw many perceptions of God very different from ours. Some of them swayed towards the saved by works side, some of them focused more of the reverence of God than the relationship.. some of them believed as the traditional conservative christian stance as well.


But I don't know if you and I will come to a closer understanding between both of us on THIS issue because I see there are many deeper issues that affect our perception that don't allow us that privlage. I still disagree with your point that our interpretation of the bible is not subject to flaw. On the face of it you can see how many denominations we have in our religion that disagree with one another. Baptist constantly badger and disagree with Catholics.... and lutherans.... and methodist.. and, hehe, ok I'm just joking, but we wouldn't have sooooo many denominations if not for man's interpretation of truth. To continue the point if we look back on history Slavery was justified by Christians in those times by the Bible. Not only did they take scriptures to make them feel comfortable with it, they used scriptures to tell people that they were SUPPOSED to have slaves and were in the wrong by opposing it. Now of days our westernized philosophy on God is that we should have this loving, caring, "personal-relationship" with God. And I'm not criticizing it with qutoation marks because it's something i believe it, however I do acknowlege that a century ago the culture was not telling people that Jesus was outside knocking on the door to their hearts so they could let him in.. as if he were a lost puppy or something. And speaking of a century ago, if we were to go back in time to those people and profess our current beliefs with them it would be so in contrast to theirs that we would be tried as a heretic and quite possibly burned at the steak. Lastly I see my interpretation of scripture to be influenced by my own life. If I compare my current beliefs to those I had 6 years ago (still in the same relationship with Christ) they are starkly different views. I expect that in another 10 years my views will not be the same as they are today (and if they are I would believe it would show a lack of growth spiritually).


And I don't think we can say that people such as the anti-baptist in Luthers time were so completely wrong and misguided by what they heard from God because they were willing to die for their beliefs as martyrs. Regardless if I accept those beliefs or not I find them to have much more relevance, or credibility rather because if fire and tribulations are the tests of truth then theirs were carried out untill the end.


My personal view on the issue (brace yourself bleechers because I know you come at it differently) is that there are definate absolute truths. There is an absolute line as defined as fishing wire that seperates light and darkness. However I believe that we are imperfect humans that don't have the capacity to understand where that line is between everything. I think our human nature forces us to struggle through it and do our best to make an understanding of where that absolute truth lies. I believe thats what [almost] all of us are striving for in this life, whether that be Christian or any people from another religion. The bible gives us a very good compas to where all those lines fall, and can direct us in many aspects to how we should live.. but only God has the definate tresure map.

 

[Crystal_Dawn]

Hey bleechers,
Let me ask you a question? Do you think that a new Christian that has been a drug addict, an alcoholic, a prostitute, an abused child or spouse, or any other highly damaging entity should be left to counsel him or herself in the word? If so, how many of those types do you think would slip back in the world unnoticed by Christians? If not, then surely, you understand the purpose and goals of people like James Dobson. Have you read his books and listened to his broadcasts. He isn't out to analyze our minds. He takes the influences of the world and our upbringing and then shows us how to utilize the promises of God to overcome the detrimental effects of events in our lives. He keeps the focus solely on God. That is the difference between what the world considers psychology, aka behavioral science, and what Christian psychology is supposed to be all about. Granted, there are those that claim to be Christians psychologists and do not maintain this standard, but you can't stereotype them all for it.

One more thing....

Think about the woman that was caught commiting adultery and the townspeople brought her to Jesus. He kept drawing in the dirt while the people accused her. What do you think Jesus was writing in the dirt? I think he was listing the other people's sins and then he spoke and said that anyone that was there that had not sinned should be the first to cast a stone. What happend? They all walked away and left the woman with Jesus. What did Jesus just do? He used psychology......

 

[bleechers]

Let me ask you a question? Do you think that a new Christian that has been a drug addict, an alcoholic, a prostitute, an abused child or spouse, or any other highly damaging entity should be left to counsel him or herself in the word?

No. What these people need are Christians competent to counsel. My contention is that those comeptent to counsel are those versed in the scripture who have walked with the Lord, not someone who sat for eight years at the feet of heathen studying the writings of anti-Christians like Jung, Freud, Rogers, and Maslow.

Did Paul dwell on his former life? Did he visit with his "inner child"? Did he look for "repressed memories"? Did he explore his relationship with his parents? Does God want a prostitute to dwell on why she became a prostitute or to dwell on her new life in Christ and her life to come?

Did Paul have a "self-esteem" problem because he referred to himself as "less than the least of all the saints" and "the chief of sinners"? What do you think Paul would say to you if you tried to pump up his self-esteem?

Self is the enemy of the Christian, yet the focus of Psychology.

If not, then surely, you understand the purpose and goals of people like James Dobson. Have you read his books and listened to his broadcasts

Used to extensively read, listen to, and support JD, until I started to grow in the faith and realized that he offered doctrines not only not taught in the Bible, but doctrines that thoroughly opposed the truths of scripture.

I didn't say he wasn't a Christian, just an untaught one. That is exactly what his ministry says. When he invites gospel-denyers on his show as "experts", his minsitry states "Dr. Dobson is not a theologian or a Bible teacher [etc.]". How can one be "the world's foremost expert on the family" and claim to not be a theologian? The family is God's creation.

He takes the influences of the world and our upbringing and then shows us how to utilize the promises of God to overcome the detrimental effects of events in our lives.

This is exactly the wrong approach. The Christian should seek to understand God's future, not dwell on the past ("all things are become new"; "leaving those things which are behind, press on towards the high calling of God in Christ Jesus").

He keeps the focus solely on God. That is the difference between what the world considers psychology, aka behavioral science, and what Christian psychology is supposed to be all about

All schools of Psychology are not science and are not based on scripture at all. The founders are all horrible gospel-haters. Psychology is a religion. It is a belief system. It teaches anti-biblical basics.

If the focus is "solely on God" then what else does one need to counsel in addition to the Bible? It is thoroughly sufficient for all of our spiritual needs. What did the church do for 1900 years before Freud? Did Joseph need a clinic because he came from a dysfunctional family?

Name a "problem" in which the answer is not found in the Word of God? The Holy Spirit through the Word is our comforter. We don't need licensed medicine men who've earned degrees studying the theories of godless men.

Name a school of Psychology that is not based on the writings and teachings of a non-believer? Is there such a thing as "Christian Hinduism" by which we take the writings of the Vadas and "Christianize" them to help people? Of course not. The Bible is sufficient to counsel and was sufficient for 1900 years before Freud came along to contradict it.

I think he was listing the other people's sins and then he spoke and said that anyone that was there that had not sinned should be the first to cast a stone. What happend? They all walked away and left the woman with Jesus. What did Jesus just do? He used psychology......

Two problems:

A. You "think". We don't make biblical doctrines on what we "think".

B. If he did list all their sins then the last thing you can say is that he used "Psychology". Dobson calls alcoholism and other sins "diseases". Psychology was created by men to "replace the saving of sinful souls with the healing of sick minds."

Anyway, read my first posts. Psychology has co-opted observations that anyone can make and called them "Psychology." You will note that I have no problem with observing patterns and cause-effect relationships. Psychology fails when it tries to either find the root cause (sin) or a path to healing (Christ alone through the gospel and the scriptures alone).

You don't need to read 8 years worth of heathen theology to be able to guide people to the latter.

Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

you make a lot of good points bleachers. I already stated my position of recognizing we're going to see different persepctives. But me and a friend of mine were in a conversation via email and she mentioned how she thinks we have gone too far in seperating the physical realm and the spiritual realm. It's come with science and discovery... through the age of modernism we have believed more in the system, rather than devine power. This just reminds me of your conversation because I begin to think that you might be more of a charismatic. And I don't mean to put you in a little catigorical box, but I'm allowing my imagination to create a personality for you .

My friend was stating that we have become too focused on a personal relationship with God as my buddy rather than seperating ourselves by our beliefs and subculture. Not that we have to be weird, unapprochable, or even preachy to people, but that we need to take more faith in divinity instead of circumstance... more faith in God's salvation than our theories... more faith in God than men.

And I think she makes some very good points, and I haven't come down to accepting the process as my beliefs.. not yet atleast, but I do give them a lot of merit.

 

[bleechers]

Thanks, QtheP. I appreciate the thoughts, but obviously the idea that we can be "too focused on a personal relationship with God" is bit worrisome to me. I'm not exactly what that means or all that it entails.

For the record, I like your candor and your willingness to discuss without being snippy. I hope I have been as codial as you.

This just reminds me of your conversation because I begin to think that you might be more of a charismatic. And I don't mean to put you in a little catigorical box, but I'm allowing my imagination to create a personality for you .

If you only knew how comical this is to me! I am certainly not a "charismatic." In fact, I 'm rather "anti-charismatic" to a degree. I can display my very boisterous Italian-American personality at times, but theologically I'm anything but "charismatic"!

I'm not proposing some mystical, magical divine intervention in counseling. Rather, I believe that the Word of God is sobering and direct. Its truths (the understanding of our origins and our place in Christ) will lead to a sound mind.

The Bible is the grounding source that puts events (personal or global) into perspective. Unlike the charismatic model, I believe that the "understanding" and "healing" may take time as we grow and come to understand "precept upon precept". The peace comes in knowing that I might not yet understand things, but either I will through study of the Word or I will in eternity.

The charismatics generally look for quick solutions through personal "faith" efforts. My counseling method is based on creating a biblical foundation for our thoughts by using the Bible as our prism. Results may take time, do involve faith, but are assured for the student who looks for peace in Christ.

Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

Well I don't see how you can put a drop of faith in a bucket without hoping to fill the whole thing. What I'm saying is, if you believe that God can fix somebodies mental problems, or chemical imbalances, or deep rooted issues, then why don't you believe he could correct them instantly with prayer, as they did in the NT.

And I've had charasmatic friends at different times in my life, and as uncomfortable as their services seemed to me sometimes, it was amazing that their faith did produce miracles and healings in their churches. You don't see those much at all in the more conservative churches.

and what she meant about the personal relationship -- is just that it's a phrase we've coined here in the 21st century in order to take God's reverence to that of a brother or best friend. That we have lost the "fear of God" that we read and sometimes speak about, but don't quite feel. It's like we've personalized him too much like ourselves rather than having a relationship with a diety.

I'm as highly guilty of that if anyone. I see God as a close of budy that we can tease the irony of things when walking down the street.... not take my hat off and shut my eyes tight everytime I pray.

 

[bleechers]

Well I don't see how you can put a drop of faith in a bucket without hoping to fill the whole thing. What I'm saying is, if you believe that God can fix somebodies mental problems, or chemical imbalances, or deep rooted issues, then why don't you believe he could correct them instantly with prayer, as they did in the NT.

Oh, I certainly believe He can. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But often he brings us along like the disciples who grew in understanding over time. Peter had his experience in Acts 10 and his rebuke by Paul in Galatians 2. Peter lays out the pattern of "adding" to faith "temperance", "brotherly love" etc. in sequence.

And I've had charasmatic friends at different times in my life, and as uncomfortable as their services seemed to me sometimes, it was amazing that their faith did produce miracles and healings in their churches. You don't see those much at all in the more conservative churches.

I was baptized in the Assemblies of God and have worked with the AoG on reaching Catholics with the gospel. But, in my experience, I saw more chaos than growth and the "great faith" people were rollercoasters of emotion. The same ones declaring in tongues their great faith were, a week later, weeping at the altar because of either sin and/or a lack of faith. I realize that is anecdotal, but so is yours.

That we have lost the "fear of God" that we read and sometimes speak about, but don't quite feel. It's like we've personalized him too much like ourselves rather than having a relationship with a diety.

That I agree with.

I'm as highly guilty of that if anyone. I see God as a close of budy that we can tease the irony of things when walking down the street.... not take my hat off and shut my eyes tight everytime I pray.

I agree that God is not as revered or feared as He should be. We all need to revisit our concept of God.

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

Well the charismatics I speak highly of and highly respect aren't the ones whose emotions are so fragile that can be swept up with the wind or broken from a short fall like thin glass. And those people have seen and some been a part of miracles that are often read of only about Christians overseas.

I believe God is as versitile as he made us. I don't think the conservative baptists are wrong for not praying and expecting miracles as once was taught by Pauls words "I don't come by mere persuasive words, but with the power of the holy spirit..." And I don't think the charismatics are wrong when they seem to do whatever they can to get attention in services as if their faith is based off of their outgoingness. And I don't think it's wrong for the Catholics to grip so tightly the perseverence of traidition. I think all of them have their place in honoring God.

Just like a father who has a son. Father loves his profession as an accountant, but when he finds his son is better with creativity the father is versitile enough to be honored by the good work his son does with stories and poetry.

I was performing tonight and made a statement I'm sure you are to disagree with, but I was talking to people about being offended by peoples words and thoughts when they perform poetry.. and I told them that truth comes with a perspective. Everyone's perspective of truth and what it is, is different. And so to think that YOU have truth on lock down and everyone else is wrong is completely peposterous. And I don't think God expects us to enter heaven with full knowlege.. but only to do the best we can with what knowlege we did attain.

I know it's a very post modern reasoning and thought, but there's nothing wrong with that. Just two different views comming from two different people.

 

[bleechers]

And I don't think God expects us to enter heaven with full knowlege

True. I agree. But there are basics that must be believed if we expect to enter heaven at all. A Hindu's "experience of truth" does not make it truth at all. Truth is truth. God clearly laid out one way to heaven. Jesus is the truth and He said that He is "the way, the truth and the light. No man comes to the Father but by me."

He also said "the truth shall set you free." Not "the truth as you perceive it."

Baptists, for the record, do believe in miracles. We pray for miracles, but we also know that God can and does work His will through sickness and other temporal problems .

The problem with Catholicism is that their "traditions" contradict and condemn the gospel. As you know, one of the primary pillars of philosophy is that two mutually exclusive ideas cannot both be true. Something cannot be a "round square". RC "Sacred Tradition" and the Evangelical gospel cannot both be true. "Sacred Tradition" condemns the gospel of the free grace of God with anathema. How can one gospel which condemns and contradicts another gospel both be true?

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.​

There can't be two gospels. There is only one and Rome condemns it as false.

Jesus told the Pharisees "You make the Word of God of none effect by your tradition." He didn't say, "Well, the Pharisees have their traditions. Let us all respect their concept of truth."

The epistles were almost entirely written to correct error. Paul severely rebuked Peter in Galatians 2. He condemns the Judaizers and those who present "another Jesus" and "another gospel." Jude calls false teachers "evil" and "wicked." These are not the words of men who "respect other concepts of truth."

Different gifts? Yes. Different truth? Never.

 

[Quixotic the Pedestrian]

I agree that there is an absolute truth of devinity and good/evil. However I don't believe we as finite human beings will ever be able to grasp it, even at the most simple level. We will always attempt to, and we will always have people who believe they have it figured out, but my stance is that we are all searching for truth and understanding -- both christians and not. Thats why we continue to study the word of god. Our beliefs change so to say we have a good grasp on things doesn't really match up.


And my arguement goes to the very core of salvation. I know this may sound 'out there' to you, but I sincerely hope the mutual respect we've quickly established in short will go longer than expected. But I believe with you that Jesus is our salvation (of cource, thats what makes me a christian and all) -- but my difference in mainstream christian belief is that when Jesus died he died for all men --- those who believe in him, and those who don't. I won't go into my diatribe of research on the subject (though when making such statements in the past it always comes up the same way).


But to tie it back to the point I was making please put your 1,000's of logic leading questions aside for a moment and read something i wrote in the past and will post here for you (I don't want you to miss the good stuff ).

One of my professors used to always say:

"Perception is reality, and image is everything."



Your perception, the things you see, touch, taste, feel, hear, and think is reality.. but only reality for you. It's the world that YOU live in, but not the world every one else lives in. Because they have been affected by the things that THEY have seen, touched, tasted, felt, heard and thought. Because the images they've experienced is the only thing that they can judge the world on. We all base our images of the world by the things we've already come in contact with. The only way we are able to identify objects, people, and feelings is by contrasting them with something or someone we've already seen or met. And so everyone is going to have different perceptions of the world, of people, of religion, of God.



[font=&quot]And all that is OK. Being open minded to other people is a good thing in my book. But we have to step back and realize that our opinions and feelings aren't shared by everyone else. They are OUR own reality, and nothing more. We can’t judge other people by it because they have not had the same experiences as us, and so cannot be judged on our scale. Only a Deity can do that. It's the most personal thing that we are trapped by.. because as closed or open minded as we are, it always keeps us from ever being truly objective. [/font]