Posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2003, at 13:45:55
In reply to Re: I am not Jesus « Eddie Sylvano, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2003, at 13:23:33
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:01:18]
> Eddie,
> You wrote,[...your presentation of this argument isn't very effective...].
> As to whether his presentation is effective or not, would not some time have to pass in order to assess the presentation's effectivness? There may ,possibly, be readers here that do not contribute in posting that could have been influenced by titleiestguy's presentation to make an informed decision on whether to persue the road of psychopharmacology or seek a spiritual road. Dr. Bob has written here that people can express their spiritual experiances here, [...for if it worked for him, it has the potential to work for others...].
> Perhaps what he wrote was like a seed planted in someone's heart that will later grow and produce wonderfull fruit in that person. But a seed has to fall on good ground and be watered and nourished in order to grow. It is my deep conviction that it does not matter how the seed was sown, be it by being blown by the wind, planted carefully, deposited by a bird,or dumped by a garbage truck; for the type of ground the seed fell on will determine if it will grow.
> Lou
>----
[Posted by Eddie Sylvano on February 14, 2003, at 11:15:34]
> > Perhaps what he wrote was like a seed planted in someone's heart that will later grow and produce wonderfull fruit in that person.
> -----------------
>
> Well, I can't argue that. It's entirely possible that his words will affect someone as you've indicated. I merely posit that his message would have been *more* effective if it didn't have such an alienating, abrasive tone. My claim is based on the presumption that people don't recieve harsh criticism well.----
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:28:54
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030214/msgs/200366.html]
> Bittersweet,
> You wrote,[...there is no concrete evidence of a God in heaven...]
> In titleistguy's posts, he is writing that [he] knows that there is a God in heaven for he wrote of being delivered from death by his own hand and without God he would have committed suicide. Now he has evidence that there is a God in heaven,[to him].It is spiritual evidence, not physical. He has shared his beliefe that there is a God and [...it worked for him...]. His message here is what he experianced and it is a [testimonial] to the existance of God, not a [concrete proof]. For one to believe in a God in heaven, one would have to have some evidence. Some people just accept the written documents of their religion, like the bible or the Koran or such, as the evidence of a creator. Some people have to see someone raised from the dead to believe that there is a God in heaven. And there are those in between. Some people do take other people's word as to the existance of a creator. Some become belivers while in adverse situations, like on the battlefield, or on their deathbed or durring a personal crisis of some sort. Some become belivers while they are enjoying prosparity and good health. They reason that they are being blessed by God to have such wonderfull circumstances in their life and give the credit to God. Some become belivers while imprisoned. But the overiding point that I am trying to make here is that the evidence is [spiritual],not [...concrete...].
> Lou----
[Posted by fachad on February 14, 2003, at 11:34:31
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030208/msgs/140834.html]
> WWJD? Probably Try Casting out Demons, but...
>
> ...I don't think there have been any randomized controlled trials showing the efficacy of Casting out of Demons for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.
>
> Besides, even if there were, I'm sure my insurance would not cover it.
>
> Plus, in today's world, the ASPCA would never stand for it because of the danger to nearby pigs or other animals.
>
> For an anecdotal account of an open trial of this procedure to treat a patient with refractory schizophrenia, take out your Bible and read Mark Chapter 5, verses 1 thru 13.
>
> *ASPCA Comment: We are truly appalled to report that about two thousand pigs WERE ACTUALLY HARMED in the production of this Bible story.
>----
[Posted by linkadge on February 14, 2003, at 11:44:23
In reply to Re: I am not Jesus and I don't want to suffer » Eddie Sylvano, posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:01:18]
>
> We are not Jesus and will never be.
>
> 1. If you are to quit Psychotropic
> meds then you should quit everything
> else. That means never take another
> asprin or tylenol again. These aleviate
> pain. If you ever get diabeties, don't
> take insulin. The insulin may quell
> the mental symptoms of diabeties. This
> is not relying on God
>
> 2. When you're old and dying and in extreme
> pain, never agree to take any morphene,
> nor i.v. nor any other thing. This is not
> relying on God
>
> 3. You must not eat any processed foods. These
> contain chemicals and vitamins that are in
> unnatural quantities. Niacin for instance
> in unnatural levels works on the Benzo sites
> in the brain, this might give you a slight
> calming effect. We must avoid this. This is
> not relying on God
>
> 4. You must not consume any caffiene.
> This enhances dopamine release and
> we must not tamper with our mood. That
> is for God to do. No Caffiene. No
> chocolate for the rest of your life.
> These might actually improve your
> motivation. This is not relying on God
>
>
> 5. We must not breath in any toxic fumes.
> Vanadium in Gasoline can provoke mania
> in certain indeviduals. This manic high
> might be enjoyable. So no breathing
> in of any quantity of exhaust. This is
> not relying on God
>
> 6. You must never take any supplement weather
> natural or not. For instance fish oil caps
> contain the amount of fish oil of about
> 30 cans of tuna. If god wanted us to have
> this much omega 3, he would have put it
> in a smaller quantity of fish. Doubting Gods
> planning is going against him.
>
> 7. Never take St. John's Wort. Even though
> this is one of Gods gifts to man. We must
> never consume it. IT appears to aleviate
> depression like SSRI's by raising serotonin.
> It also apears no not be in the least bit
> addicting. If we were to consume one of
> these plants that god has given us - it
> might improve our mood. This is not showing
> our trust in god.
>
>
> Here is your problem. You are still under the
> impression that God wants us to suffer. Why would
> god create us to suffer? The only reason God
> died on the Cross is that we might be forgiven.
> Jesus did it, so that we would not have to.
> He had to do it without relief, that was gods plan for Jesus not us.
>
>
> I've been where you've been. Belieive me when
> I tell you that Jesus and SSRI's **CAN COEXIST**
>
>
> You are also under the impression that a psychotropic drug somehow takes away someones
> need for god. We all need god to the same
> extent. The only difference between us here
> is that some are suffering and other are not.
>
>
> GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES.
>
>
> Linkadge
>
>----
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:46:06
In reply to Re: I am not Jesus and I don't want to suffer » lou pilder, posted by Eddie Sylvano on February 14, 2003, at 11:15:34]
> ES,
> You wrote,[...perhaps his message would have been more effective if it did not have such an abrasive tone...].
> Perhaps, but the, perhaps [not]. I personally saw the posts by titiestguy as comming from someone that saw that there was a bridge that was colllaped around a great bend in the road and was comming back up the road to wave his arms to let others know of the impending disaster that he percieved to be ahead. I am one that appreciated his [tone], whether it be abrasive or not. I percieved his [tone] as somone that did not have time to [stand on ceremony]. I percieved his posts as comming from someone that was urgent and deperate to write what he wrote, without regards to ceremony, for it appeared to me that he thought that [ time was of the essence].
> Lou----
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:54:59
In reply to THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER, posted by linkadge on February 14, 2003, at 11:44:23]
> Linkadge,
> You wrote,[...we are not jesus and will never be...].
> Could you clarify what you used to base that conclusion on? If you could, then I could respond to your post accordingly.
> Lou----
[Posted by Bittersweet on February 14, 2003, at 12:06:07
In reply to Re: My FINAL post. » Bittersweet, posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:28:54]
> > Bittersweet,
> > You wrote,[...there is no concrete evidence of a God in heaven...]
> > In titleistguy's posts, he is writing that [he] knows that there is a God in heaven for he wrote of being delivered from death by his own hand and without God he would have committed suicide. Now he has evidence that there is a God in heaven,[to him].It is spiritual evidence, not physical. He has shared his beliefe that there is a God and [...it worked for him...]. His message here is what he experianced and it is a [testimonial] to the existance of God, not a [concrete proof]. For one to believe in a God in heaven, one would have to have some evidence. Some people just accept the written documents of their religion, like the bible or the Koran or such, as the evidence of a creator. Some people have to see someone raised from the dead to believe that there is a God in heaven. And there are those in between. Some people do take other people's word as to the existance of a creator. Some become belivers while in adverse situations, like on the battlefield, or on their deathbed or durring a personal crisis of some sort. Some become belivers while they are enjoying prosparity and good health. They reason that they are being blessed by God to have such wonderfull circumstances in their life and give the credit to God. Some become belivers while imprisoned. But the overiding point that I am trying to make here is that the evidence is [spiritual],not [...concrete...].
> > Lou
>
> Lou, you sound like a reasonable guy, if only you would remove the stick...----
[Posted by Eddie Sylvano on February 14, 2003, at 12:06:41
In reply to Re: I am not Jesus and I don't want to suffer » Eddie Sylvano, posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 11:46:06]
> I percieved his posts as comming from someone that was urgent and deperate to write what he wrote, without regards to ceremony, for it appeared to me that he thought that [ time was of the essence].
> ----------------
>
> I think that perhaps the divide between our viewpoints here is one of subjectivity. If the poster had been imploring us all to lose weight, with the same intensity and urgency displayed here, would you consider such an approach better than a more reserved, inclusive one? Because of your particular viewpoint, I would argue that you give spiritual messages special creedence, treating them as exceptional cases, and judged by a different standard than other areas of discussion. A neutral audience judges the tone and intention of the speaker before buying the arguement. While it may be true that I'm morbidly obese, and losing weight is in my best interest, I wouldn't be inclined to listen to someone who suddenly shouted at me, in an incredulous and condescending tone, that I should do so, despite the urgency of my situation. Such a tone instantly puts the listener into a defensive posture, and the speaker is seen as hostile and disingenuous.
>
>----
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 12:10:46
In reply to Re: My FINAL post. » lou pilder, posted by Bittersweet on February 14, 2003, at 12:06:07]
> Bittersweet,
> You wrote,[....if only you would remove the {stick}].
> Could you clarify what the {stick} is in your post? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> Lou----
[Posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 12:15:20
In reply to Re: I am not Jesus and I don't want to suffer » lou pilder, posted by Eddie Sylvano on February 14, 2003, at 12:06:41]
> ES,
> I believe that this discussion as to the merits or demerits of the poster's style in writing could be better appreciated on the social board.
> Lou----
[Posted by Bittersweet on February 14, 2003, at 12:23:55
In reply to Re: My FINAL post. » Bittersweet, posted by lou pilder on February 14, 2003, at 12:10:46]
> > Bittersweet,
> > You wrote,[....if only you would remove the {stick}].
> > Could you clarify what the {stick} is in your post? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> > Lou
>
> * * * * *
>
> ROTFLMFAO... I thought that was pretty clear - oh well...hehe
>
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:200423
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20021227/msgs/200432.html