The Least Religious of American Medical Professions is Psychiatry
In a recent study by Farr Curlin, et al, published in Psychiatric Services (2007) 58: 1193-1198; titled "The Relationship Between Psychiatry and Religion Among U.S. Physicians," there is an interesting finding. [You can download the PDF file].
According to the authors, "Psychiatrists were less likely to attend religious services frequently, believe in God or the afterlife, or cope by looking to God."
There is something anti-religious about the field of Psychiatry. While it's true that it had it's roots in the anti-religious zeal of Freud, there is still something anti-religious about it as a discipline. I think I can guess why.
Psychiatrists know something most of the rest of us don't know that well. Experiencing this a little from when I was a counselor in the churches I served, I think professional psychiatrists know better than the rest of us that what people believe and how they behave are both based upon many factors that are out of their control. What are some of these factors? Brain matter. Genetics. Gender. Race. Social learning. Social development. Cultural influences. Family influences. Peer influences. Drugs (or the lack of drugs). Diet. Strokes. Sicknesses. There are many others, including financial status, geographical location, age, and birth order.
Psychiatrists know that the whole idea of a person holding to, and acting upon, a completely rational set of beliefs, is just not possible. There are so many other factors that heavily influence us all. Therefore, they also know better than the rest of us that the whole idea of a God who is supposed to judge people based upon what they believe, who subsequently condemns people forever based on how they act, is not a good God at all. In fact, it's abhorrent. And if there isn't a good God, there might as well be none at all.
Christian, you should really consider the evidence coming from the field of Psychiatry. It could change your minds.
42 comments:
Surveys suggest that clinical psychologists are also less religious than the general population (there's a special issue of the journal Psychotherapy, 1990, Vol 27(1), that has a few studies on this). However, general "therapists" and social workers (i.e., mental-health practitioners who aren't necessarily scientifically trained, like psychiatrists and clinical psychologists are) have more conventional religious beliefs.
It's also well-known that scientists, especially eminent ones, are fairly irreligious, and social scientists are the least religious of all scientists. This certainly suggests that it's something about the scientific study of behaviour that reduces religiousness. (Various articles have noted this trend for almost one hundred years.) Some have suggested a "scholarly distance from religion" hypothesis, suggesting that the closer one gets to religion as an object of empirical study, the less religious one is. Therefore, psychiatrists are the least religious of MDs, and psychologists are the least religious of scientists.
Speaking for myself, as a graduate student in psychology, the study of human behaviour (and statistics) showed me how easily we humans can be fooled by ourselves or others, which shifted me right away from religion. One shouldn't trust one's own experiences too much; the scientific method is much more reliable.
"For the “thought crime” of believing that life is purposeful, and designed rather than a random “accident”, the unseen hand simply dismisses them.
Now – I want you to consider carefully what such repression would have meant to the scientist who said this, in 1941:
“Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion…The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”
–SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION: A SYMPOSIUM, 1941.
It was Albert Einstein. The “silent hand” of Big Science would today give Albert Einstein the flick. He’d simply be written off as a “religious nut.” No question about it.
So - imagine explaining to Albert the “definition” of science and the “box” that it belongs in. The one that has no room for “intelligent design.” Try telling him that he “doesn’t understand” science.
This really should not be happening in America.
These hard-working men and women of science today simply do not deserve the shabby, shameful treatment they are receiving as part of Big Science’s new agenda. It is an agenda that has nothing to do with science.
It important that we all rise to defend them from unfair suppression and defend their right to freedom of academic inquiry, wherever the evidence may lead them." Expelled blog
Hi Dan,
Einstein's belief was like spinoza's. Kind of Deisty.
If that's what your endorsing, more power to you. But you're not are you?
You're pushing your agenda and misrepresenting him aren't you?
If you look hard enough you can find a quote from stephen hawking that YEC's are fond of mispresenting too.
And thats a nice way to frame a 'controversy' "Big Science", woooooooo.
Like "Big Pharma", and all the other "organizational" conspiracy theories.
Big science eradicated small pox. This was arguably one of the most important accomplishments of all time. And that same organization has a philosophy that challenging ideas is good, because it leads closer to the truth. Its called the scientific method. It's how we learn about things that we have no idea about. Its a way to turn an argument from ignorance into an argument from knowledge. Iterating through possibilities, hypotheses.
Where are your scientists that are learning more about god through the scientific method? Don't tell me about your Lawyers and engineers that are making scientific statements from the pulpit of the discovery institute. Where are the testable hypothesis? How are they adding value to our lives? Isn't Behe backpedaling these days? Not what you expect if Intelligent design is true, but is what you'd expect from a properly applied scientific method.
I think it is very telling that scientists do what they do independent of God. Gods not interested. If he was, there'd be a whole bunch of scientitst praising god for his help in their work.
You can thank science that your child is not likely to die from smallpox, even if you don't get him/her vaccinated.
oh, yea, just so you know, and to stoke the fire a little bit, I know that some people are thinking that some vaccination leads to autism. You should look into that and start railing against vaccinations too.
"If he was, there'd be a whole bunch of scientitst praising god for his help in their work."
There is:
ISCID
Origins.org
Discovery
Intelligent Design Network
Access Research Network
I know a little about mental illness and addiction.
When you start looking into what motivates people, puzzling and agonizing over thier behavior, why they do things, and try to learn something about it, you tend to get some insight.
And you realize that the principle of original sin and punishing people for eternity for things that they are born with and get worse as the "test of the problem of evil" beats them down doesn't work anywhere else in real life. Only in the bible is this silly principle considered valid.
We don't treat our kids that way, we try to rehabilitate the mentally ill, criminals, we try to give them a chance to get better.
God hides, has no part in making us better. IF we praise him for our healing we might as well damn him for our sickness, cause if he made everything, he made them both.
And skewed the odds against us by giving us brains that cannot reason properly "out of the box" and bodies that in some cases don't let them develop properly starting in the womb, and let other peoples freewill impede on the innocent effectively nullifying the freewill of the innocent.
He doesn't honor freewill as much as the christian thinks and we don't have as much freewill as most poeple think we do. Freewill is illusory. To a small degree its there, but to a large degree its not.
Thank you dan,
that helps to illustrate my point.
There's a lot of good work coming out of there? Adding value to society, helping to alleviate suffering? Helping to make life better for the disadvantaged? Helping to fight malaria, etc?
Lets make a list of important things in life and see which scientists are working on improving them and who isn't. I'll bet there not much of that important stuff going on over there. If there were we'd see them published in peer reviewed journals and their research making their way into applied science.
It was the religous that were against blood transfusions, vaccinations, the 'iron lung', invitro fertilization and some other (I should make an article out this) medical advancements.
You seem to be fond of Stinky Piles of Rhetoric.
Psychology is the science most threatened by the Christian world view.
Even discounting the popular Christian view of demon-possession (more popular with Jesus than with his followers), the Christian dogma of counter-causal free will attacks the very basis of scientific study of the mind.
Has Dan Marvin read the memo explaining that it is to be said in public that ID is not a religiously based science?
I guess Dan wants ID to lose every court case that ever happens in the US, as courts tend to think that science belongs in science classes, and religion belongs in religion classes (such as the religious education classes which are *compulsory* in the UK)
Oh Dan,
one more thing,
a suggestion to get your christian scientists to back up their hypothesis that homosexuality is a moral issue and not a biological issue, physiological issue.
Silly rationalist--Christian "scientists" (not scientists who happen to be Christian) don't test hypotheses. They posit God, then use that assumed premise to conclude whatever they like. They then publish websites, books, pamphlets, anything that doesn't require peer review prior to publication. Why? Because they know that, if you challenge their assumption of God, their whole house of cards fall apart.
Assuming God proves nothing. Given a single false premise, one can prove anything.
I enjoy scientific discovery even though I don't always concur with the conclusions drawn. As a former nonbeliever, science used to be one of my gods - albeit one that kept me in a bit of a state of flux weighing between the hazardous byproducts of our innovations versus the wonders of discovery. I hardly ever used to notice that while we are learning more about the human brain via scientific, pscyhiatric investigation and medical advances, in recent years, there has been a 40% fold increase in the detection of bipolar disease and a 400% increase in the diagnosis of ADHD in our childhood population alone. While it is tempting to be distracted and impressed by the successes in the studies of psychiatry and science as a sole source of healing, it is estimated that by 2020, the second leading cause of disability worldwide(second to heart disease), will be clinical depression. While some of these statistics may simply bear witness to an increased ability of scrutinizing, diagnosing and studying one another, as a beleiver, I know that God's love personally healed my ability to become more caring and loving.
If the lack of religion amongst professionals practicing in the field of psychiatry is being touted as an affirmation of its efficiency in disproving a good god, given the trend towards an increase in mental illness, perhaps we need to question, (as we are prone to doing with God), the efficacy of this field as a viable influence in erasing God rather than blindly embracing and accepting it as an impressive and influential factor in our lives.
I believe that the existance of a good God can set people free and lead them more towards (what would be referred to in psychiatry) as a self actualized person.
At any rate, one can simply chose to dismiss and not believe without any justification or supportive evidence at all. Thanks - MMM
First, the fact that unbelief is more abundant in the social sciences than in the natural sciences has little to do with a honest and objective search for truth. The usual climate in academia goes further than paying due respect to science: it implicitly conditions people to believe in science as the best guide to truth in any area. It would be interesting to investigate that psychologically. I wonder how many psychologists are aware of the influences on their own current beliefs in that area, and if so, whether they think that those beliefs are more warranted than those of others, despite the fact that many of those influences are also out of their control.
Second, no sensible person would expect God to judge people based upon what they believe, with the meaning of `belief' that you are using—especially not completely independently of the influences such a person has been subject to. This means that I cannot believe (taking into account outside influences on my beliefs, in case you view me as simply psychologically incapable of believing it) that you (as a former pastor even!) really think that the picture you sketch of the Christian view of salvation is not a caricature—at least I cannot believe it while thinking of you as a sensible person.
Peter, thanks for your comments.
First, the fact that unbelief is more abundant in the social sciences than in the natural sciences has little to do with a honest and objective search for truth.
I consider it evidence, strong evidence, yes.
The usual climate in academia goes further than paying due respect to science: it implicitly conditions people to believe in science as the best guide to truth in any area.
And what is your alternative? Psychics? Intuition? Numinous experiences? History itself has a somewhat scientific basis, for the historian looks for the best explanation given the facts.
It would be interesting to investigate that psychologically. I wonder how many psychologists are aware of the influences on their own current beliefs in that area, and if so, whether they think that those beliefs are more warranted than those of others, despite the fact that many of those influences are also out of their control.
Most of our beliefs are out of our personal control. This can be demonstrated easily. For you to argue otherwise you'd have to say that yours are not, and that's the point. These professionals already know this, so it's nothing new to them and produces within them a sort of agnosticism about religious beliefs, something Christians totally ignore. You have to explain away the evidence. They admit it.
Second, no sensible person would expect God to judge people based upon what they believe, with the meaning of `belief' that you are using—especially not completely independently of the influences such a person has been subject to.
Really? You believe you have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, do you not? This is one of your beliefs. I argue that such a belief as this is dependent to an overwhelming extent on when are where you were born. Can you dispute that this is the case for most Christians, or its implications?
Peter Bruin says:
The usual climate in academia goes further than paying due respect to science: it implicitly conditions people to believe in science as the best guide to truth in any area.
If, by "truth", you mean something like "as accurate a picture of how things are in the world as we can make", then I don't think science has any competitors, in or out of academia. And I don't say that because of my conditioning: I say that because the track record of science, while not perfect, is a damn sight better than the track record of religion, or "common sense", or fairy tales, in explaining how things work.
Now, if by "truth", you mean something like "rules for how we should behave", then while science can give us insights about our needs, it cannot decide for us how we should best govern ourselves, because we cannot quantify "good" for everyone- we're too damned smart and cantankerous for that. That's why politics and religion are so contentious: there are no easy answers to the question of how we should behave.
John, you write: "Psychiatrists know that the whole idea of a person holding to, and acting upon, a completely rational set of beliefs, is just not possible."
That seems to be the reason to place one's faith in God, not the opposite.
Justin, you wrote:
Speaking for myself, as a graduate student in psychology, the study of human behaviour (and statistics) showed me how easily we humans can be fooled by ourselves or others, which shifted me right away from religion. One shouldn't trust one's own experiences too much; the scientific method is much more reliable.
EXACTLY. Yes, run from religion, but don't let religion chase you from God.
Byran said...That seems to be the reason to place one's faith in God, not the opposite.
But the evidence from psychiatry is against this. You have to explain away the evidence in order to believe, that's all. And since many of our beliefs are out of our control, we should base what we believe upon the evidence as much as humanly possible.
And what is your alternative? Psychics? Intuition? Numinous experiences? History itself has a somewhat scientific basis, for the historian looks for the best explanation given the facts.
I have no problem with science being the arbiter of truth in areas where it is applicable. In other words, information obtained by non-scientific methods such as the ones you mention are useless in science, by any accepted definition of science. However, as Zilch recognises in the reply following yours, there are plenty of areas where the scientific method is not applicable, such as ethics, religion and politics. This is simply because understanding how the world works does not tell us anything about how we should behave, why the world exists in the first place, and how public life is organised best.
The mainstream view in academia seems to be that the answers to such questions are a matter of private opinion and social conventions. And the reason this view has become mainstream, in my view, is that for an academic the easiest approach is to call the questions ultimately meaningless because (1) science has revealed nothing about them, and (2) therefore people who do believe in answers don't have a leg to stand on when discussing their views with others. (Of course there are people who try to find an objective secular basis for ethics, politics, etc., but I don't see why they should be in any better position than people who search for answers from a religious point of view.)
Really? You believe you have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, do you not? This is one of your beliefs. I argue that such a belief as this is dependent to an overwhelming extent on when are where you were born. Can you dispute that this is the case for most Christians, or its implications?
I don't dispute the correlation between environment and religious beliefs (or between biological dispositions and religious beliefs, for that matter), but I do dispute its implications. As a Christian, I see no other way to salvation than the grace of God, and how he distributes this grace is up to him. In particular, the fact that it appears to be necessary for me to follow Christ does not mean that somebody who, through no fault of his own, has different beliefs about God is hopelessly lost. In other words, as I tried to say in my previous reply, salvation is not a mechanistic process triggered by some kind of "faith in justification through faith", as you paint it, and what God has revealed about it is not in the first place a set of propositional truths. (Incidentally, precisely because I believe in grace, I am not convinced by reasoning designed to persuade me that my beliefs are simply determined by my upbringing and that, if they were actually true, I would be able to convince any given reasonable person of them.)
Peter Bruin says:
However, as Zilch recognises in the reply following yours, there are plenty of areas where the scientific method is not applicable, such as ethics, religion and politics. This is simply because understanding how the world works does not tell us anything about how we should behave, why the world exists in the first place, and how public life is organised best.
That's not quite what I said, Peter. What I said was this: while science can give us insights about our needs, it cannot decide for us how we should best govern ourselves. Those parts of ethics, religion, and politics that make claims about how the world is, not how it should be, are of course in the purview of science.
Why the world exists in the first place is a nonsensical question, because "why" implies a meaner, and all the evidence shows that = meaners such as ourselves must evolve. Perhaps you mean "how" the world came to exist: and there I would say that whatever answers we can find will be from science, not fairy tales.
The mainstream view in academia seems to be that the answers to such questions are a matter of private opinion and social conventions.
And what are religion and politics other that "social conventions"?
And the reason this view has become mainstream, in my view, is that for an academic the easiest approach is to call the questions ultimately meaningless because (1) science has revealed nothing about them, and (2) therefore people who do believe in answers don't have a leg to stand on when discussing their views with others.
Hmmm. I don't know exactly what you mean by "ultimately meaningless", but nobody I know, academics included, would say that the question of how we should behave is meaningless. On the other hand, I don't personally know any psychopaths. I suspect you mean by "ultimate" something like "grounded in irrefutable principles". If that's so, I'll cheerfully agree- conflict is built into our ad hoc combination of individual agents with highly organized societies. Since we can't or won't go the way ants and bees do, by abolishing individualism, there will always be conflict between the desires of the person and the needs of the society, and there are no absolute rights or wrongs.
What's interesting is that psychiatrists have the highest rate of depression amongst physicians and also an abnormally high suicide rate...Maybe if they got a little more religious, they could do something about those numbers :)
Zilch,
That's not quite what I said, Peter. What I said was this: while science can give us insights about our needs, it cannot decide for us how we should best govern ourselves. Those parts of ethics, religion, and politics that make claims about how the world is, not how it should be, are of course in the purview of science.
But I didn't claim you said that the scientific method didn't apply to ethics (etc.); I only claimed that you recognised the fact that science doesn't tell us how to live (etc.)
Why the world exists in the first place is a nonsensical question, because "why" implies a meaner, and all the evidence shows that = meaners such as ourselves must evolve. Perhaps you mean "how" the world came to exist: and there I would say that whatever answers we can find will be from science, not fairy tales.
That is precisely the mentality I see everywhere in the academic world; I did mean "why", keeping open the possibility that meaning can be given to phenomena in the world from the outside. Science excludes meaning beforehand, and therefore one can only say that science can not distinguish meaning from meaninglessness, not that it can show the absence of meaning.
And what are religion and politics other that "social conventions"?
To science, nothing; but science doesn't cover everything, and doesn't tell us whether God exists or whether some ways to organise the state are better than others. Of course, such questions are in fact meaningless to science.
Hmmm. I don't know exactly what you mean by "ultimately meaningless", but nobody I know, academics included, would say that the question of how we should behave is meaningless. On the other hand, I don't personally know any psychopaths. I suspect you mean by "ultimate" something like "grounded in irrefutable principles".
By "ultimately meaningless" questions I mean questions about non-scientific concepts, and which only make sense if these concepts are (ultimately) reducible to scientific concepts. For example, someone with a scientistic mentality will reduce the question "is it good for X to do Y in situation Z?" to something like "is doing Y in situation Z in the interest of X's continuing existence, reproductive fitness, etc.?". So for those people, the questions I was referring to do have meaning, but not ultimately, i.e. this meaning is in the end completely dependent on the processes studied by science (which cannot assign any meaning or meaninglessness). To be a little more precise, although I am of the opinion that those people view certain questions as ultimately meaningless, they actually prefer to say that the questions do have meaning, but that the word "meaning" is not used according in a "common sense" sense.
Apparently these psychiatrists do not understand that God is good by virtue of His station.
Let me offer my own two cents on this topic. I am a psychiatrist, as some here know from previous posts, but I hope it is understood that the question of why psychiatrists are less religious is ultimately an empirical one. If we want to know for sure, we need to ask them. (I haven’t yet read the original article, so I don’t know if this is addressed.) I’m happy to speculate, of course – one of my favorite hobbies! – but I can speak with real authority only for myself, and as a educated observer of the field.
I suspect there are about three main reasons why, ideologically, shrinks are less religious, and these issues are related:
(1) As a psychiatrist, especially when you do psychotherapy, you are often privy to some of the more innermost thoughts and feelings of your patients. They tell you things they tell no one else and never have. It is hard not to be impressed with how much more like you they are then unlike you. In other words, their essential “humanness” comes through – human life in all its messy, ambiguous, moral complexity. Its hard to assess people as basically sinful or self-willed or not "God centered" or whatever. The world, and human beings, are just not that damn simple. Fundamentalist teaching about human psychology, such as it is, begins in this light to seem not just quaint, but positively medieval. It attempts to jam-fit human beings in all their subtlety into a Procrustean doctrinal, absolutist bed.
It is a truism in the field that you cannot do this work well unless you understand yourself well, and when you understand yourself well and have made your peace with your own imperfections you will be more able to tolerate, and hopefully approach with understanding, the imperfections of others. The rigidity that characterizes fundamentalism seems to many practicioners to be incompatible with basic human empathy. Touting “Jesus first” as the ultimate answer to life seems not only singularly ineffective but also a misplaced value: why is doctrinal assent more important than, e.g., how you treat your family, or trying to understand others rather than convert them?
(2) We often see firsthand the psychological effects of conservative religious belief. I cannot, of course, assert that all religious fundamentalists are psychologically maladaptive, but I will gently suggest that it is easy to be impressed with the destructive power of this faith system– i.e., its powerful negative effects on self-esteem, its lack of healthy and effective ways to manage difficult emotions, etc. One can only be taught one is a worm for so long before it starts to have an impact. Since Christianity teaches that just having certain feelings is sin, the upshot is usually that many feel powerful incentive to deny those feelings altogether. I have had more than one person tell me through clenched teeth and white knuckles that no, they are *not* angry, they do not *get* angry, they have given that over to God. (Now cut the psychobabble and start helping me!) And the same goes for emotions such as grief. But that tactic simply does not work, and I will assert this strongly: this is an utterly ineffective means of metabolizing human pain. We are just not built that way. We have to feel what we feel, and deal with it, whether we consider it "sin" or not.
Part of this, I believe, is the result of what Christians believe about happiness. While no one I have ever heard actually promises, explicitly, Christians will be happy, there is most certainly an implicit teaching that Christians will have a “peace that passes understanding” and that, since their house is built on a rock, they will weather the storms of life with prayer and Bible study and church support. I do not believe these things are problematic in and of themselves – rallying community support is generally a good thing. But when it leads to arrested processing of grief via denial and moralizationand other defenses, they wind up in my office, insisting to the heavens above they are not depressed nor grieving -- they just cant stop crying, cant sleep, and have lost 20 pounds.
(3) In the process of learning about oneself, it is mightily impressive just how much of what we think about the world exists because of our own emotional needs. This doesn’t mean, of course, that we cant also be rational, but it does mean that in order to tell the difference you have to know what your own needs are in the first place. And thats hard. If you know that you tend to overreact to authority because of your relationships with your authoritarian parents, you may still have good reasons to be pissed at your boss, but you will know you need to pay more attention than you would have otherwise to determine if its you or if its reasonable. And, I submit, much of conservative Christian dogma exists to meet needs. Hell, for example. I am constantly appalled at how eagerly and cavalierly many Christians defend and try to justify the idea that nonbelievers are tortured forever. But I am convinced that hell, as a doctrine, exists to serve psychological needs – the need to feel special, and different, for example. It serves self-esteem – “*Im* not going to hell, Im elect.” Its also an incredibly aggressive doctrine, which is an essay in itself.
In sum, what conservative Christianity adds to mental health is an implicit teaching that someone in right relationship with God will be, if not happy, then at least tranquil, peaceful, centered, whatever. Conversely, it follows that one whos emotions are unruly, are in sin, and in need of the ministrations Christianity offers. Someone once said to me, in the midst of some of the worst pain and upheaval I’ve ever experienced, “There is only one answer – Jesus.” Suffice it to say that less empathic words have never been spoken to me. So, if we have any special insight, it is, I submit, that psychiatrists see that these ideas are empirically false. Fundamentalist Christianity does not produce happier people or people better able to cope, it just saddles them with additional handicaps and defenses that must be ground down before the real work can begin. Fundamentalism more often than not commandeers the conscience, making one ready to support dogma over human needs -- witness the way Abraham is considered a knight of faith by his willingness to kill his son at God's command. Fundamentalism stablizes self-esteem, by teaching how special one is, but at a terrible cost -- an intense rigidity that disallows growth, real human empathy, and a flexibile capacity to learn from life and meets its challenges with creativity and humor and honest human "we're-in-this-together" compassion. It is, as Nietzsche noted years ago, unhealthy.
Richard
Richard,
It truly is amazing how demonstrably false you are about Christians. It may be difficult for someone that deals with emotions as a career, such as yourself, but bear with me for my explanation.
"Christianity adds to mental health is an implicit teaching that someone in right relationship with God will be, if not happy, then at least tranquil, peaceful, centered, whatever."
Now I gave this example at this blog before but it pertains to you also. We are not to get comfortable with life, it's about salvation. an example:
"Two men are seated in a plane. The first is given a parachute and told to put is on as it would improve his flight. He's a little skeptical at first because he can't see how wearing a parachute in a plane could possibly improve the flight. After a time he decides to experiment and see if the claim is true. As he puts it on he notices the weight of it upon his shoulders and he finds that he has difficulty in sitting upright. However, he consoles himself with the fact that he was told the parachute would improve the flight. So, he decides to give the thing a little time. As he waits he notices that some of the other passengers are laughing at him, because he's wearing a parachute in a plane. He begins to feel somewhat humiliated. As they begin to point and laugh at him and he can stand it no longer, he slinks in his seat, unstraps the parachute, and throws it to the floor. Disillusionment and bitterness fill his heart, because, as far as he was concerned, he was told an outright lie.
The second man is given a parachute, but listen to what he's told. He's told to put it on because at any moment he'd be jumping 25,000 feet out of the plane. He gratefully puts the parachute on; he doesn't notice the weight of it upon his shoulders, nor that he can't sit upright. His mind is consumed with the thought of what would happen to him if he jumped without that parachute.
Let's analyze the motive and the result of each passenger's experience. The first man's motive for putting the parachute on was solely to improve his flight. The result of his experience was that he was humiliated by the passengers; he was disillusioned and somewhat embittered against those who gave him the parachute. As far as he's concerned it'll be a long time before anyone gets one of those things on his back again. The second man put the parachute on solely to escape the jump to come, and because of his knowledge of what would happen to him without it, he has a deep-rooted joy and peace in his heart knowing that he's saved from sure death. This knowledge gives him the ability to withstand the mockery of the other passengers. His attitude towards those who gave him the parachute is one of heart-felt gratitude.
Now listen to what the modern gospel says. It says, "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. He'll give you love, joy, peace, fulfillment, and lasting happiness." In other words, "Jesus will improve your flight." So the sinner responds, and in an experimental fashion, puts on the Savior to see if the claims are true. And what does he get? The promised temptation, tribulation, and persecution. The other passengers mock him. So what does he do? He takes off the Lord Jesus Christ, he's offended for the word's sake (Mark 4:17), he's disillusioned and somewhat embittered, and quite rightly so. He was promised peace, joy, love, fulfillment, and lasting happiness, and all he got were trials and humiliation. His bitterness is directed toward those who gave him the so-called "good news". His latter end becomes worse than the first: another inoculated and bitter backslider."(Hell's Best Kept Secret)
"Christianity does not produce happier people or people better able to cope," True
"Conversely, it follows that one whos emotions are unruly, are in sin, and in need of the ministrations Christianity offers." False. Jesus was the most unruly of his times, one of the reasons why they hung Him on a cross. It isn't about emotions at all, it is about salvation. The entire reason to become a Christian is to glorify God and be saved from a deserved penalty.
"Fundamentalism stabilizes self-esteem by teaching how special one is" False. We understand how wicked and sinful we are when we look at those Commandments (sin is transgression of God's Commandments) and are fearful as to our, again deserved, fate.
Richard, if you were caught drinking and driving would you expect to go to jail? Well if you break God's Law (Ten Commandments) then you shall be punished and sent to God's jail (hell). It is about accountability, not feelings and emotions.
“There is only one answer – Jesus.” is, in deed, empathetic words that can be uttered to you, although a diminutive explanation, that person truly wants you saved and wants you to avoid the fate of the proud and unsaved.
We must repent (turn away from sining) and Trust Jesus with our entire life for Him to rule and rein it. Then God will grant you with being saved and give you a new heart (born again), you will have eternal life and join God in heaven.
Dan
Dan -
What Richard is talking about is not an abstracted notion of Christianity but rather the very tender, very real people who have come through his door.
My experience is that no matter what Christians do in the real world, no matter how much pain they may experience (or cause) there is always a line of reasoning that says, "Well that isn't real Christianity." Real Christianity doesn't (you can fill in the blank here: cause people to feel guilty all the time; lead to depression and despair; inspire young men to slash gays with broken bottles; get missionaries to trick children with fake miracles; cause wars, etc., etc. etc.) Please look at the log in your eye. There is a tremendous hubris in this perspective, because the speaker must position himself as a member of the elite group of those who know and practice REAL christianity, in contrast to the millions of other Christians who somehow have managed to get it wrong over the centuries.
As a wise Hindu once told me, a path can only take you where it leads. Perhaps it is time to stop blaming people like Richard's clients and listen to them a little.
Brian Riley said:
EXACTLY. Yes, run from religion, but don't let religion chase you from God.
Well, I think the distinction that some people make between "religion" and "God" is one of semantics rather than substance. When I was a fiery young Christian apologist, we would say that other belief systems were "religion" but our belief system was about "relationship". ("Religion is humanity trying to reach God; Christianity is God trying to reach humanity.") It was a false way, in my opinion, of making our version of Christianity seem unique. But forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth--perhaps you could clarify the difference between religion and God for me.
Psychology taught me we shouldn't trust our personal experiences because they are often misleading. We seek out information that confirms our previously-held beliefs and ignore information that contradicts them. We see coincidences as the acts of God, because we've noticed when prayer works and missed when it doesn't. We often have little or no insight into why we believe what we do and why we act how we do. Those who study psychology know this well.
In short, the only evidence that God exists is testimonial, and testimonies are highly unreliable.
Dan-
Thank you for your thoughts, and I appreciate your consideration of my post. I agree with Valerie (thank you, Valerie, for your backing me up here) that my post was mainly intended to be about the lives of the individuals who we in mental health come in contact with, and how their belief system affects them, but you are taking issue with my understanding of Christian doctrine itself. Since the teachings of a system are relevant to the psychology of the believer, I argue, let me rememdy this and explain myself better.
In short, youre trying to say I make instrumental use of Christianity and then complain when it doesnt work. That, you say, is missing the point. Its not about getting return on investment. Becoming a Christian is not taught to be about getting peace, joy, happiness, et cetera. I completely agree.
I think "generic Christiainty", a la CS Lewis, would in fact say something like this: Our goal, as creatures, is to be in right relationship with God. Thats what it was like, before the Fall. Complete, unconditional, automatic self-surrender, making God the center of the self. Such is state is more or less defintionally the highest ecstasty a creature can know, because it is the relationship he is made for.
To be fallen means precisely to have put the self ahead of God. It is self-idolatry, or as Lewis calls it, self will. Since voluntary self-surrender just is joy, virtually by definition, it follows that self-will just is misery, unhappiness. This is just another way of saying that one cannot have "true", lasting happiness without being in proper alignment with God, according to Christianity.
I dont think this is an especially controversial picture. So yes, first of all, there most certainly is a connection between human well being and ones relationship without God besides just having a parachute.
But one of the paradoxes of this system is that ones motives must be pure in order for it to "work." Indeed, to think in terms of it "working" in the first place, Lewis would say, is to already miss the boat. One must will God, *for God's sake alone* - i.e., our of sheer love and desire for God. Of course, we cant do that unaided, Christianity teaches. Thats where Grace comes in. To try to will God selfishly -- i.e., to get something out of it, like peace or happiness -- is not going to "work", not because God refuses it, but because it is impossible, on this view. It is saying, in essence, one can empty the self, selfishly. It is contradiction.
(Incidentally, I think it is convoluted little paradoxes like these that reinforce the system by inducing further feelings of helplessness in the believer. This was half my original point; these belief systems have damaging psychological sequelae. Here, the upshot is that one cannot empty the will by an act of will, yet this is precisely what Christianity demands. The propective believer obviously cannot succeed at this. So he feels helpless. So he needs to be rescued. QED)
You are not asking yourself why the Law supposedly exists in the first place. It is not, in Christian teaching, about arbitrary "accountability," for its own sake. It is about repairing a disrupted relationship. And why? -- because its right and good to do so. And if we do, we will enjoy bliss. Not that that is the motive. But it most certainly taught to be the outcome.
What you propose -- joy based on having a parachute -- is really, if you think about it, about as selfish a motive as you could ask for, dont you think? You are not "glorifying God" because you love him, you are glorifying God because you're scared sh**less not to. Indeed, what you picture is more akin to the "fire insurance" many Christians, including myself when I was one, were taught to be wary of.
You are also, by the way, incorrect in stating that fundamentalism isnt about feeling special. You're right it doesnt come out and say "You're special". Its more subtle than that; again, I'm talking about the psychological effects of belief, not necessarily the beliefs themselves. After it trounces on your self esteem by teaching you what an pathetic self-asbsorbed pervert you are, it offers you undeserved rescue. Something like the Stockholm syndrome then happens here, becoming attached to (and defensive of) the one who abused you. Christians wind up staking their narcissism, rather weirdly, on that very self-flagellation. You understand the "Truth": that you are wicked and sinful and in need of saving. And you have been saved, separating you from the wicked and sinful who have not been saved. Fundamentalism teaches, implicitly, that its believers understand basic reality in a way no one else does. It supports their self esteem at the expense of damning the world.
So, I think I do understand what it teaches. What I would hope for you, Dan, is to examine your motives and be honest with yourself. Are you believing out of fear? If so, fear of what? Of hell? Of the possibility that there is nothing else out there? If your motives are misplaced, dont you want to know that? Honesty about motivations is the heart of self understanding, and of freedom. It will make you a better person, whether you remain a Christian or not.
Richard
Richard: "You are not asking yourself why the Law supposedly exists in the first place. It is not, in Christian teaching, about arbitrary "accountability," for its own sake. It is about repairing a disrupted relationship."
I believe you are missing the point of the Law, friend. Let me explain it fully for anyone to understand.
Romans 3:19 "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God."
1 Timothy 1:9-10 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;"
Romans 7:7-8 "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead."
The law was made as a mirror for us. In the same way, we don’t realize what a bad state we are in until we look into the "mirror" of the Ten Commandments.
Richard: "You are not "glorifying God" because you love him, you are glorifying God because you're scared sh**less not to."
Again yes, that is Biblical while you are a proverbial 'child' learning about God.
Proverbs 9:10 "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding."
Hebrews 10:31 "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
The Bible describes hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24) Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)
That should make all of us have fear, like a child fears a spanking if they run out in the street after the parent told them not to.(milk) When the child grows up then the child understand the perfect love and doesn't fear the spankings but honors and respects the parent.(meat).
1 Corinthians 3:2 "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."
Hebrews 5:11-13 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
A proud unrepentant man, such as yourself Richard, needs the milk of hell and damnation and lake of fire talk. After you grow up understanding the Lord and you are 'born again' you don't fear the punishment anymore because it isn't for you, it's for the sinners. Do you fear going to jail for a DUI when you sit at home drinking a glass of water? Of course not that is absurd, but if you were drinking scotch all day and then get behind the wheel then yes be afraid be very afraid. It is wise to face you heavenly Father in fear when you have broken His law. When you Repent ( turn away from sin, turn away from breaking His laws) and Trust and Faith in Jesus that he washed you clean and took your punishment for you, then you are forgiven and no longer need be afraid of Him but you respect and love Him for teaching you and you chose not to live to break His laws out of honor and respect, not fear anymore.
Richard: "Indeed, what you picture is more akin to the "fire insurance" many Christians, including myself when I was one, were taught to be wary of."
That is perfectly fine at first but you, as most, never grow up and STOP sinning like they should. They want to keep fornicating or lying or whatever their sin is at the time and start to resent the "ol man" and thinks he is too hard because He will not let them do as they want. They are spoiled brats. It is Biblical and as you said "teaching you what an pathetic self-absorbed pervert (brat) you are, it offers you undeserved rescue.(out of love)"
No where near what you are alluding to as Stockholm syndrome. Now if you get to heaven after being saved and God STILL PUNISHES you and tortures you by burning you in a lake of fire then I suppose that would happen. Hear on earth though, God is justified to use such tactics to ensure your salvation. Remember Job in the Bible? If he is being tortured in heaven that would be an unjust god but I assure you that just isn't the case.
Richard: "Honesty about motivations is the heart of self understanding, and of freedom." I am motivated by the gratefulness that Jesus saved me from my deserved fate. I also bleed for the lost such as yourself, you are a like a little child playing in a burning house and I just want to grab you from that fire. I love you Richard and others. I love you enough to confront you. It takes far more love to confront to just ignore the situation. Perfect love is a constant confronter. Please, I am begging you Richard to just understand what I have said. Use pascal's wager if you must, get the milk at first so you can enjoy the meat like me, at this point of my 39 years on this earth I am enjoying God's love and it is difficult to explain it to the lost. God is not some tyrant, he loves you enough to save you if you let Him. Don't be like that child that keeps wanting to run out in the middle of the street (sin), It is time to grow up and enjoy the gifts that the Lord wants to give you.(meat)
The difference is experience with God (me) vs non experience (you and atheists).
A mother tells a child not to touch that hot Iron and the kid listens and 'believes' his Mom. As soon as the Mom leaves the room the child touches the Hot Iron and gets burned. He just went from a 'belief' the Iron was hot to an 'experience' that the Iron 'is' hot with 100% assurance. No one can come and tell him otherwise because his experience tells him different. He is 100% certain the Iron is hot and he has the burn to prove it.
Well I have felt the Hot Iron of God's hand on me and cannot be persuaded otherwise because I have an experience that removed ALL doubt, I am 100% certain there is a God and he loves you very much.
For Him +†+,
Dan
Manifesting Mini Me (MMM)said
"I believe that the existance of a good God can set people free and lead them more towards (what would be referred to in psychiatry) as a self actualized person."
Lorena responds
In my experience, depression runs rampant in churches, where people are forced to adhere to an impossible-to-follow moral code. And if devotees can't adhere, they have to fake it.
I know several Christian women who are clinically depressed and on medication. I also know a few manic depressives who hang around churches hoping that God will heal them.
But what I've observed is that these bipolar and/or depressed women are heavily weighted by their belief that they should be happy and have more faith in Jesus.
So instead of "Jesus" being helpful, the church and its portrayal of god are the catalysts of these women's misfortune.
The fact that scientists in the mental health field tend to be atheists doesn't surprise me. These professionals must abhor religion, since it makes the patients sick and it closes doors to any recovery.
Hi Lorena!
I think it is wise to observe the "fruits" of any organization, whether it be religious or secular. It is not uncommon for some in authority to practice ways that seek to replicate/clone itself for the purpose of self empowerment. That is antithesis to the gospel message which nurtures diversity, promotes freedom and seeks to share authority based on being trustworthy to not use power abusively. Scripture encourages one to think for themselves and to not be impressed by the position of the one delivering a message. I think that is good advice for anyone whether they attend church or not.
It sounds as though you have friends for whom church attendance has not been a good fit for them. A lot of people are indoctrinated into obedience but never taught to discern which influence/authority to be obedient towards. We are not always taught how to sort out or discern (or "cherry pick" as some may call it). By faith, I've come to recognize the difference between prideful authority and faithful authority. Prideful authority seeks to replicate and clone itself, often in insensitive and oppressive ways and often in ways that appear "right". Those that cannot conform are rejected. having said, that I can still learn valuable and good lessons from bad teachers.
If I am fearful of being rejected, humiliated, criticized or condemned, I am more likely to be spiritually starved and seek to conform to the prevailing standards for acceptance, even if they are not a good fit for me. In this environment, I cannot bring to light those fears that keep me in a destructive lifestyle. I need a safe place to open up for that. (By safe, I mean compassionate and merciful, not tolerant - I don't know if you've ever stopped to consider but tolerance requires a sense of superiority over those we are "tolerating").
Y'shua spoke somewhat harshly to those who were engaged in religious hypocrisy, their claims of being representatives of God had a very insidious but condemning effect on those in their community who were labeled outcasts. (Personally, I consider one's inability to be cloned a good indication that they are harboring some great spiritual potential) - Having said that, I would be a liar if I said God didn't love even the religious hypocrites, but I think it is difficult for one to repent and love God in return if one experiences success in climbing the ladder of self empowerment and arrogance.
At any rate, that's enough for now - take care!
"Scripture encourages one to think for themselves and to not be impressed by the position of the one delivering a message."
First of all, REALLY? That's the first time I hear of that, even though I read the Bible countless times. Enlighten me. Where is there a verse that "encourages people to think for themselves."
In fact, I am even shocked to be hearing that from a Christian. Since even when I debate them all they say is that I must obey, I must submit, I must follow, I shouldn't question God.
Second, if Christianity does encourage free thought, it isn't working. No, in church the choir says amen to a number of disgraces. Sometimes they quietly bitch with their friends about this and that, but in public, everybody supports the pastor and the church.
Heavens! You should have been there every time I dared to disagree with a Bible study leader or a point in a sermon. You must know Christians that I've never seen because your picture is highly THEORETICAL: it sounds like the "saints" already went to heaven to achieve perfection. Boy, the ones I know are human and highly imperfect.
It sounds as though you have friends for whom church attendance has not been a good fit for them.
You know, friend, before I left Christianity I tried a wide array of churches, and at all them I made friends. My fundy Christian husband has an ongoing joke about how long it takes me to find someone I know where ever I go.
My friends were pastors' wives, musicians, PhDs, computer professionals, janitors, nurses, housewives, and just about anybody. Because I am Latin American who expresses my friendliness always. And I did hang out at English Canadian churches for about 18 years.
The point of that is not to brag about my popularity. It is to appraise you on the kinds of friends I had who are depressed or otherwise unhappy in church.
You, obviously, are not a woman. A woman in the church is a third-class citizen. These poor souls are not going to confide in you either, because they know what you are going to say:
(1)The Lord will make a way
(2)There is joy in the Lord
(3)His ways are higher than our ways
(4)Trust the Lord, be submissive to your husband, and he will come around
(5)You must pray with faith. The Lord won't answer your prayer is you don't have enough faith
6)Ad nauseum
During my last days as a Christian, I actually went to a depression seminar in church, and many of the high-profile, pretty-on-Sundays, rich-and-poor ladies were there. They asked questions about medication, told their stories, and even cried. DO NOT TELL ME that I only know a few mal-adjusted people. These people are real and are sitting on your pews.
And they are more than church attendees. They are hard-core followers who try to be faithful to their God. But the burden is too heavy and unrealistic. When they get tired, the church authorities just give them a pad on the back and tell them to tough it out. Like the gospel song says, "Lord do not remove the mountain, give me the strength to climb it."
Being a Christian woman is a horrible thing, sir. Because not only do you have to obey, you also have to pretend that you are loving it.
END OF RANT
Hey, thanks Lorena - (BTW, I'm not a man, but that's okay if you thought I was)I appreciate your insights because I do not have a heavy background in church attendance. I have had about a year's worth of coming into contact with people who practice life as Southern Baptist Fundamentalists. Before I met them, I had an inbred contempt for Jerry Falwell and I didn't even realize that he himself was a Southern Baptist Fundamentalist! Needless to say, I feel your friends' pain, but I would be a liar if I said God didn't love even them. I felt the pressure to obey from them - thare was a very strong admonition towards obedience. That wasn't a good fit for me because I needed to be set free from compulsive compliance. I would be a liar if I said God didn't love them but for now, I just have to respect that He loves them and confess my lack of faith in that area.
Nonetheless, I have a fondness for some of those people and once I'm completely healed of the emotional/mental trama, I do hope to re-engage with them again.
You mentioned a depression clinic at the church you used to attend - It sounds as though it was a good place where people could connect in authentic and genuine ways. I think if one reveals ones warts to another and find mutual mercy and acceptance there, then there's not a whole lot else that can separate that kind of friendship.
I'll try and find the scripture that encourages people to decide for themselves, okay? okay! Good talking to you, Lorena! (I don't commit scripture to memory - I know that is a bit of a stigma for some involved in religous activities, but I think it is better to apply it in everyday life).
P.S. Lorena, may I ask you a couple questions? How did you get the impression that I attend church? And also, how did you get the idea that I would call people with depression and bipolar "mal-adjusted"?? I love people who travel through mental illness and I know you're not aware of this but I don't call them maladjusted so I'm not sure where that term came from. I don't attend church at the time, but I'm hoping to explore that option in the near future.
I'll get back to you with some scripture numbers - take care! MMM
Hi Lorena! Although I find the message of spiritual freedom a foundational and repeated message in nearly all of the New Testament (when scripture encourages my obedience to God, I am complying to a free spirit, not a legalistic, manmade system). Faith is a practice, not a matter of immediate and complete compliance. Faith is a practice of becoming empowered by graciousness.
I believe the letter to the Galatians is a great book of describing what I said in a previous comment. It describes a situation whereby people were using their religious authority to place manmade laws and conditions in order to gain followers for themselves. Paul is admonishing those who fell under their manipulation to remain free of their influence and to remain in the spirit of God's love rather than complying to legalistic requirements to gratify a demanding and impersonal system. Also, in the letter to the Corinthians, Paul encourages believers to be people of conscience and not to lose freedom by practicing ways that will hurt others' consciences. Grace allows for a variety of levels of faithfulness.
Here are some of the scriptures that I use to keep inspired by the spirit and to not get caught up or overly influenced by worldly heirarchy (which seeks self empowerment rather than using loving inspiration to serve and set others free - pridefulness is easy to practice, but doesn't keep me free of ulterior motives and promotes pretense rather than honesty about weaknesses - when I am inspired by God's spirit, I no longer incite the law) - Galatians 4:8-10,Galatians 5:1 (actually, the entire letter to the Galatians is a great inspiration to maintain freedom and resist falling under the infuence of pride); I Corinthians 29-33 (people are encouraged to weigh carefully the words of prophets and consider the words in conjunction with their usefulness to edify others - this requires exercising mindfulness, not blind or compulsive obedience).I Corinthians 15-16; I Corinthians 8:1-13 (using our freedom to edify rather than corrupt another's conscience).
When I was not a believer, I didn't understand freedom - I would get caught up in dysfunctional alliances that kept me indebted and cooperating in a worldly system of distress.
I hated dogma and yet, I would become offended and complain because God Himself is not dogmatic. I couldn't box Him up and possess Him, so I tried erasing that which I couldn't control or manipulate. I wanted love, but I had been involved in corrupting and stigmatizing the search and the souce of it.
At any rate, the best to you Lorena!
Manifesting Mini Me (MMM),
Where did I get the idea that you go to church? Well, you are speaking in its defense, and you talk like one of them (a text analysis of your rhetoric reveals that you are a churchy).
Now, if you don't go to church, then, don't defend it, because truly, you don't know what's like.
Looking back at your posts and answers to other posters, I can definitely see that perhaps you are not a church goer, because you come across as extremely theoretical. Your language is vague and it is difficult to see what your point is or if you have any at all.
But even if you don't go to church and even if you are defending the bible only and not the church organization, I must tell you that the deeds of the church are a direct result of biblical teachings.
The church is what the Bible teachings look like when put into practice. You can never separate those two.
As for why I thought you called my friends mal-adjusted, you said, "church attendance has not been a good fit for them"
People who don't fit are mal-adjusted. There is were the "idea" came from.
In response to your second post Sorry--but I am allergic to the Bible. I read it constantly for 20 years. But I did read the post.
It is interesting that you are using Paul, the promoter of submission, humility, and surrendering of one's pride.
Yes, Paul mentions freedom a lot--but he also says that we are to be slaves to Jesus.
You said:
"I Corinthians 29-33 (people are encouraged to weigh carefully the words of prophets and consider the words in conjunction with their usefulness to edify others - this requires exercising mindfulness, not blind or compulsive obedience)."
That one complements the other verse in Romans 12, Taking every thought captive to Jesus (or something like that).
In Pauline theology, you are supposed, like the Bereans, to study and critique teachings, to see if they are TRUE; that is, to see if the teaching fits what you think of as true.
The freedom preached by Paul, then, is cultist, because you are only testing for adherence to your belief system.
To put it in contemporary terms, you will listen to a sermon and examine it to see if the Trinity is supported, the deity of Jesus is affirmed, or the rapture is promoted.
However, if the preacher wants to discuss the divine inspiration of the scriptures, and presents evidence that the writings are fictional, that will be rejected. Your freedom ends there.
Free thinking and religion are contradictory terms.
But, since you like to study, I'd like to recommend two books:
- A History of God, Karen Armstrong
- Who wrote the bible, Richard Friedman.
I also encourage you to read the VERY CHRISTIAN books by Philip Yancey, where the inefficacy of biblical teaching as applied to psychology is throughly exposed.
I particularly recommend Where is God when It Hurs and How I Survived the Church, though all his book are good.
Hi Lorena! At this point, all I can say is thank you for sharing your heartfelt definition of who I am. I had no idea, honestly!
I am continually grateful for the saving works of Y'shua so that I can discern and embrace His definition of myself rather than the projections of those who do not even seek to understand or get acquainted with me. Whenever I converse thusly, I am forever indebted and imbued with gratefulness that God is God and people no longer are my gods.
At any rate, it's been interesting conversing with you Lorena - the best to you in all your life endeavors!
Dan-
Well, at some point the whole endeavor of defending one vision of a belief system I do not accept as against another vision of a belief system I do not accept begins to feel rather silly. Sort of like arguing which Bigfoot theory is the more sophisticated.
Anyway, the larger point is that since Christianity is, as far as Im concerned, false, then there simply is no metaphysical fact to the matter as to which version of Christian teaching is "correct." There is no God for it to be in the mind of. There is the Christianity as believed and understood by this group, and another one by that group, etc. They share a family resemblance, but are obviously not identical. Many Christians out there would regard what you promote as simplistic, I think; you don’t seem to go the half step beyond a given quoted verse to ask what it actually implies, to get the bigger picture. Well, thats theology, not evangelism, I suppose, which I assume is your point.
But Im not going to step into the infighting among Christians as to whose right because, from where I sit, none of you are. I am comfortable that what I used to believe, defend, and practice was a reasonably mainstream version of fundamentalist Christianity and that I got the central motifs correct. You are, of course, welcome to disagree, but I wont lose sleep over that.
Interestingly, I think our disagreements here point to one of the larger psychological matters I have alluded to: that, since there are so many ways to construe Christian teaching, so many different aspects of it to emphasize and rationalize as the "correct" one, it becomes something of a doctrinal Rorschach. Your vision of Christianity emphasizes guilt and fear of condemnation. I find that interesting. You obviously feel an overwhelming relief at believing you are forgiven. Im certainly glad your belief system works for you, but I would hope that someday you would come to focus on the love you believe is in the nature of God, rather that just his judgment.
For my part, I have come to no longer see my imperfections as cosmic blasphemies. I used to – like you – but I found that terribly destructive, and I think I found a better way. I have foibles, like everyone. It seems odd and rather dramatic to me, now, to think of these things as somehow worthy of eternal torture. I think this is perhaps the difference between us. Even Lewis noted somewhere that Christianity has nothing to say to the man who is not convinced of his sin. Well, I’m delighted to say, I’m not! And life could not be more beautiful.
As an aside: I suggested earlier that Christianity supports the self-esteem of its adherents by teaching them they are special. You protested this, but I think you make my point for me when you tell me I am a child, proud, a brat, etc. See ? That is exactly what I meant! I am a “child”. You are mature, presumedly. You “get it”. I don’t. Yes, yes, I know you will say you’re actually humble because your salvation is undeserved, but that’s a pretty thin cover for some pretty thick condescension, my friend. Your chosen language is a giveaway. Being a Christian makes you feel good about yourself. That’s okay – it’s supposed to. Just be honest and admit it to yourself!
It looks like this thread is fading. I wish you well, and Im sure we’ll cross paths again.
Richard
That is perfectly fine at first but you, as most, never grow up and STOP sinning like they should.
Dan Marvin, ladies and gentlemen, the Man Without Sin.
I want to sincerely thank you, Dan. When I and others here rail against the evil extremists of Christianity, often some poor shmoe comes up and says "That's a strawman! No one really believes Young Earth Creationism! No one preaches hellfire and damnation to scare people into believing! No one really argues like that anymore!" Thankfully, I can always introduce them to your writings here, which has not yet failed to quell that argument. You serve as an excellent example as to why Debunking Christianity is socially relevant.
Playing catch up, forgive me.
Lorena and Manifesting Mini Me aka (MMM),
I thought I would just add something to your conversation about woman. Men have free will on earth to do as they please but just in Gods defense I have a little input. We are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.
"Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands." However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Traits from man and woman equal make up "image of God"
What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.
How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?
You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.
"The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"
Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.
"God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"
In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Resource: godandscience.org/
Amen
Richard and Shygetz,
Richard: "Even Lewis noted somewhere that Christianity has nothing to say to the man who is not convinced of his sin. Well, I’m delighted to say, I’m not! And life could not be more beautiful."
Shygetz: "No one preaches hellfire and damnation to scare people into believing! No one really argues like that anymore!" Thankfully, I can always introduce them to your writings here, which has not yet failed to quell that argument. You serve as an excellent example as to why Debunking Christianity is socially relevant."
Until the day God's wrath is upon you on that day of Judgment, Richard. Christianity isn't here to make the ride more comfortable it's here to save you from the deserved punishment for breaking the Law.
That is the purpose of the Law. We can see the work of God's Law illustrated in civil law. Watch what often happens on a freeway when there is no visible sign of the law. See how motorists exceed the speed limit. It would seem that each speeder says to himself that the law has forgotten to patrol this part of the freeway. He is transgressing the law by only fifteen miles and hour- and besides, he isn't the only one doing it.
Notice, however, what happens when the law enters the fast lane with red lights flashing. The speeder's heart misses a beat. He is no longer secure in the fact that other motorists are also speeding. He knows that he is personally guilty, and he could be the one the officer pulls over. Suddenly, his "mere" fifteen-MPH transgression doesn't seem such a small thing after all. It seems abound.
Now look at the freeway of sin. The whole world naturally goes with the flow. Who hasn't had a lustful thought at one time or another? Who in today's society doesn't tell the occasional "white" lie? Who hasn't taken something that belongs to someone else, even if it's a "white-collar" crime? They know they are doing wrong, but their security lies in the fact that so many others are just as guilty, if not more so. It seems that God has forgotten all about sin and the Ten Commandments. He "has said in his heart,'God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see'"(Psalm 10:11).
Now watch the Law enter with red lights flashing. The sinner's heart is stopped. He places his hand on his mouth. He examines the speedometer of his conscience. Suddenly, it shows him the measure of his guilt in a new light-the light of the Law. His sense of security in the fact that there are multitudes doing the same thing becomes irrelevant because every man will give an account of himself to God. Sin not only becomes personal, it seems to "abound." The law shows him that his mere lust becomes adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); his white lies become false witness; his own way becomes rebellion and a violation for the First Commandment; his hatred becomes murder in God's sight (1 John 3:15); his "sticky fingers" make him a thief. "Moreover the Law entered that the offense might abound." Without introduction of the Law, sin is neither personal, nor is it a threat: "For without the Law sin is dead (the sense of it's inactive and a lifeless thing)" (Romans 7:8) (wotm)
I am so glad to no longer be part of the world you represent, Dan; everytime I read them, it takes me back to a place that was horrible and horrifying for me. While much of my experience of community life, etc., in the church had many positive aspects, this bizarre way of speaking and presenting "doctrinal truth" was damaging then, and to me, finally, laughable now. Between preachers and teachers who spoke as you speak, the preponderence of terrible material like the "Chick Tracts" (for those not familiar these are still readily available on their website, more truly horrible material) and regular reading of end times books and viewing of related movies, no wonder we suffered from nightmares!
Freeway of sin, all sins being equalized, etc. etc. Your tone and style of your arguments date back 40 years or more. Can you truly believe your arguments are in any way persuasive?
If there was a God of love to be known, he was well buried beneath all this 'teaching.'
Recent Empirical Studies Prove Religious Believers have less depression, mental illness lower Divorce rate, ect.
J. Gartner, D.B. Allen, The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3090
Quote:
"The Reviews identified 10 areas of clinical staus in whihc research has demonstrated benefits of religious commitment: (1) Depression, (2) Suicide, (3) Delinquency, (4) Mortality, (5) Alchohol use (6) Drug use, (7) Well-being, (8) Divorce and martital satisfaction, (9) Physical Health Status, and (10) Mental health outcome studies....The authors underscored the need for additional longitudinal studies featuring health outcomes. Although there were few, such studies tended to show mental health benefit. Similarly, in the case of teh few longevity or mortality outcome studies, the benefit was in favor of those who attended chruch...at least 70% of the time, increased religious commitment was associated with improved coping and protection from problems."
[The authors conducted a literature search of over 2000 publications to glean the current state of empirical study data in areas of Spirituality and health]
2) Shrinks assume religious experience Normative.
Dr. Jorge W.F. Amaro, Ph.D., Head psychology dept. Sao Paulo
[ http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html]
a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul
"A non spiritualized person is a sick person, even if she doesn't show any symptom described by traditional medicine. The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding."
b. psychotheraputic discipline re-evalutes Frued's criticism of religion
Quote:
Amaro--
"Nowadays there are many who do not agree with the notion that religious behavior a priori implies a neurotic state to be decoded and eliminated by analysis (exorcism). That reductionism based on the first works by Freud is currently under review. The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence. Among the several authors that subscribe to this position are Odilon de Mello Franco (12), .... W. R. Bion (2), one of the most notable contemporary psychoanalysts, ..."
[sources sited by Amaro BION, W. R. Atenção e interpretação (Attention and interpretation). Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1973.
MELLO FRANCO, O. de. Religious experience and psychoanalysis: from man-as-god to man-with-god. Int. J. of Psychoanalysis (1998) 79,]
c) This relationship is so strong it led to the creation of a whole discipline in psychology; transactionalism
Neilson on Maslow
Quote:
"One outgrowth of Maslow's work is what has become known as Transpersonal Psychology, in which the focus is on the spiritual well-being of individuals, and values are advocated steadfastly. Transpersonal psychologists seek to blend Eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) or Western (Christian, Jewish or Moslem) mysticism with a form of modern psychology. Frequently, the transpersonal psychologist rejects psychology's adoption of various scientific methods used in the natural sciences."
"The influence of the transpersonal movement remains small, but there is evidence that it is growing. I suspect that most psychologists would agree with Maslow that much of psychology -- including the psychology of religion -- needs an improved theoretical foundation."
Stargazer I'm glad you are not being emotional and basiing your view on those isholy old subjective nonsenory feelings.
Post a Comment