![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 13 to 37 of 37. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 9:54:47
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dena's post-2 » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 4, 2003, at 23:01:17
Good Morning, Lou!
You asked me to clarify what I meant by Orthodox. I'm a relative novice at understanding Christian church history, so I may need to defer to Jonathan, who seems to be further down the road of understanding than me. However, to the best of my own understanding at this point, "Orthodox", in a Christian context, refers to the original Christian faith passed on from Jesus Christ to His Apostles, who passed it on to their disciples (or students), and so on and so on for centuries. After one thousand years of Christianity being One Church, there was the Great Schism between the churches of the East & the churches of the West (primarily Rome). (to understand the Great Schism, you will have to ask someone far more knowledgeable than me to explain it to you - I'm still learning about it myself.) Historically then, the churches of the west (under Rome) became known as Roman Catholic, while the churches of the East became known as Eastern Orthodox, or sometimes Orthodox, for short. In spite of the differences that account for the Great Schism, the two ancient branches of Christianity have much more in common than in division. As concerning purgatory, the Western Church (Roman Catholic) embraced the doctrine of purgatory after the Great Schism; Eastern Orthodoxy has never embraced it.
It's very difficult to put centuries of history into a "nutshell", as I'm attempting to do here. I suggest that you perhaps contact Jonathan if you have any other questions concerning Eastern Orthodoxy. I don't want to do the Church a disservice by explaining out of my relatively naive understanding.
I hope this helps somewhat.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
In reply to Lou's response to Jon and Dena's post » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 9:41:19
Whew! I feel like I've just been slapped around! I must say that this type of thinking, Lou, really bothers me. It seems that you're very intent on finding something to be offended about. I can assure you from my position that no offense was intended in any way whatsoever. Jonathan can speak for himself, but I detected no such malice or offense in reading his posts.
He simply stated the historical perspective of two branches of Christianity. These are recorded facts, accessible to anyone. Neither he nor I made any statement of opinion regarding any group of believers, or any faith. We all come from different religious backgrounds. We all have various beliefs. Some of these different beliefs are in direct opposition to the beliefs of others. Are we supposed to pretend otherwise? Are we supposed to remain mute about what we believe, or what our different faiths teach? For me to deny what I believe out of fear of possibly offending someone, would make me become unfaithful to what I believe. Stating what we believe, stating what our various churches hold as doctrine, is simply free speach. When others state what they believe & what their particular church hold to be true, I have the CHOICE to be offended or not. I can either read what they wrote & think, "How interesting. I've learned something about someone else." or I can think, "What do they mean by that? Are they attacking me? Are they putting me down?" I have read countless statements on this board which are in direct opposition to what I believe, & in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught in the Bible (my own standard of belief). I have read many statements which belittle, ridicule or otherwise insult Jesus, the One I follow. I chose to pray for those who insulted Him rather than to retaliate or take it personally. Can't the rest of you simply take what you want from what you read & "throw the rest away"? I think we all, as adults, know the difference between making a statement & attacking another person.
I spent my time in "exile" thinking about what I'd previously posted & how it might have been insensitive to the beliefs of others. I spent some time praying about it. I concluded that I must be faithful to what truths have been revealed to me through the Bible, the Church, & the Holy Spirit, but that I must relate to all others in love. As a fallible human being, this is easier said than done, but I trust that God will guide & teach me. Mistakes will be made by all of us from time to time. Tolerance for all beliefs must include tolerance toward those who are Christians. Perhaps when each of us feels the stirring of offense, that would be a great opportunity for us to practice one of the highest of all virtues: forgiveness.
If what Jonathan & I posted to each other re. purgatory is considered offensive & therefore must be censored, then this message board is not the place for me. What good is a message board like this is everyone must walk on egg shells to be sure to only say things which are universally acceptable?
We are all different. Our beliefs are all different. Why not learn from each other rather than looking for ways to be offended?
Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 12:11:15
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
The rule of this forum is that if the beliefe [puts down other beliefes], then it is not OK.
To say the you do not believe in the doctrine of purgatory could be OK hear,IMO, but to say that the doctrine, lets say, of purgatory is [...not substantiated by scripture,] or a [...doctrinal error...] or anathemized, which is cursed, or declared to be evil (which is another definition of anathemized),or a myth, or to write anything that has the potential for others to believe that what they believe is false, is , IMO, against the rules of this board.
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 13:53:15
In reply to Re: To Lou anyone else who may feel offended... » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 12:11:15
> Dena,
> The rule of this forum is that if the beliefe [puts down other beliefes], then it is not OK.
> To say the you do not believe in the doctrine of purgatory could be OK hear,IMO, but to say that the doctrine, lets say, of purgatory is [...not substantiated by scripture,] or a [...doctrinal error...] or anathemized, which is cursed, or declared to be evil (which is another definition of anathemized),or a myth, or to write anything that has the potential for others to believe that what they believe is false, is , IMO, against the rules of this board.
> LouWith all due respect, Lou, perhaps you should be addressing Jonathan, who made the statements you just referred to. I merely found humor in his tongue-in-cheek approach to the differences in Eastern & Western Christian theology.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 16:32:56
In reply to Re: To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 13:53:15
Dena,
You wrote,[...perhaps you should be addressing Jonathan...I mearly found humor in his...].
Well, I did address the post to Jonathan and you and I identified what he wrote and what you wrote so that there could be a separation of what each of you wrote, so that no one could inferr that you wrote what Jonathan wrote, or that Jonathan wrote what you wrote, and I feel that the discussion involved the three of us, not just me and Jonathan so I addressed it to both so that each could respond.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 16:45:52
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...is seems that you are intent on finding something to be offended about...].
Well, if you are making a conclusion, then I would like for you to know that your conclusion,if you are making one that I am intent on finding something to be offended about, is a false conclusion because my intent in these discussions here is not because I want to find something to be offended about, and if you could cite a post that make it seem that way to you, then I could respond accordingly .
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 17:31:17
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...I detected no malice or offense in Jonathan's post...].
Are you saying that I am saying that Jonathan's post has malice or offense in it? If so, could you give me the passage that you think indicates that ? If there is one, then I could respond accordingly for the issue of its content deals with [putting down another's belief] by writing such statements as ,[..the orthodox church calls the doctrine of purgatory a {myth} and is a doctrinal error, and is anathematized by the church, and such...] which is [uncivil] by the written code here, because it is OK,IMO, to say that you do not believe in purgatory, but not OK ,IMO, to tell others that their biliefe in purgatory is incorrect, or has no doctrinal support. To make a conlusion that there is no doctrinal support is argumentative and I could, if asked, give a tremendous volume of doctrinal support for the doctrine of purgatory. Uncivil is not malicious, and {offense} is in the eye of the one considering something to be offensive or not, for some could consider the post's content offensive and others could not.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 17:45:33
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...niether he nor I made any statement of opinion regarding any group of belivers or faith...].
Are you saying that his referrence to purgatory being a [doctrinal error] is not a statement of opinion regarding those that consider purgatory doctrine to be {not} in error? If so, then could you clarify how that is [not] a statenent of opinion regarding other faiths since some Hindus believe that they can pray for the dead , some jews belive that they can pray for the dead, Roman Catholic people believe in purgatory and others believe in purgatory also? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 17:58:13
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...stateing ...our doctrine...is {free speech}....].
Well, are you saying that [all] speech is OK here? If so, could a person that belonged to a supremist group post here that their group is the [master race]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 18:08:47
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...when others state what they or their church believes to be true , I have the {choice} to be offended or not...].
Are you saying that since you have that choice that all others here also have that choice to be offended or not?
I can only speak for myself, and I do not have a choice when it comes to being offended or not. When someone offends me, I am offended. I can not just walk away and expect myself to be not offended.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 18:25:51
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...me and Jonathan wrote to each other that purgatory is offensive and must be censored...].
Whether offensive statements about purgatory could be posted has a parallel here.
A poster used ant-Semitic language in his/her post here. Dr. Bob wanted to excuse it on spacific grounds. But there was an outrage of protest here about the use of raciest language and Dr. Bob ruled that posts could be made using non-racist language and that if the poster needed to use that type of language that he/she could do it in another milliue, in that case, therapy.
Now it is my opinion that your post could also be in that catagory. The idea here is to not post anything that could have the potential to put down others and to be sensitive to other's feelings. There are others here that regard purgatory as part of their cherished beliefes and could get the idea that you are not being sensitive to their feelings in posting that purgatory is a myth or doctrinal error, etc., etc.
So ,IIMO, in general, that type of post could be posted elseware so as to not arrouse the potential for others to feel put down. I feel that personal communication does not shelter uncivilness here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 19:07:56
In reply to Lou's reply to Dena's post-6K » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 18:25:51
Dena,
You wrote that [...me and Jonathan wrote to each other that purgatory is offensive and must be censored...].
I wrote that [...others here could regard purgatory as part of their cherished beliefs and could get the idea that you are not sensitive to their beliefs by writing..xxx....]. The note that I would like to make is that although you were haveing a conversation with Jonathan, and did not object to what was written by him, it was he that wrote [...{doctrinal error},myth, etc., etc.,...]in regards to the doctrine of purgatory. However, you are also writing that this should be allowed to be posted here on , at least, the grounds of free speech and that it is your belief, and it could appear that you , as well as Jonathan, are attempting to ligitamize what Jonathan wrote here as to that.
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
In reply to Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b » Lou Pilder, posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 19:07:56
Lou, I don't believe it's possible for me to communicate with you when you require a detailed explanation of whatever it is I post. You've basically made a mountain out of a molehill.
In answer to one of your many questions, yes, each person has the ability to choose to take offense or to let things go. Otherwise we cause ourselves to be victims of everyone else. It grieved me deeply to read of derogatory comments made about Jesus Christ, but I chose to not take personal offense from the comments. I would wish the same of you. Especially when no offense was intended.
I don't know what your goal is with this thread. Are you trying to provoke me into writing something that would get me blocked again? Are you trying to get me to say something negative about others' beliefs regarding purgatory? (for the record, I was raised in a Protestant church that taught against purgatory. I'm now embracing the historic roots of Christianity, & I'm learning about many things I previously didn't believe in, such as purgatory. I'm exploring this particular doctrine with an open mind, & have yet to come to any particular conclusion.)
I would like for Dr. Bob to intervene at this point, for him to read the previous postings & determine for himself whether or not what Jonathan & I wrote is worthy of blocking.
I see no point in you and I belaboring this issue between ourselves.
Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 5, 2003, at 22:12:23
In reply to Re: Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b, posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
Dena,
You asked,[...are you trying to... get me to write somethimg ...that will get me blocked?...]
No, for I do not agree with the admin. here about blocking posters. I have suggested alternatives to expulsion here.
In this situation, the following is how I would suggest it be handled:
I would have an {encounter board} that posters in dispute would be remanded to. They would stay there and not post untill a resolution transpiered , or a penalty, other than expulsion would be assesed to one or both. Here is an example, using us.
Lou: Dena, I feel sad that you think that it is Ok for Jon to post that purgatory is a doctrinal error.
Dena: Well Lou, that is what my church teaches.
Lou: If your church taught that homosexuals are an abomination to God and are going to hell unless they change, would you post that here?
Dena: No, Lou, I would not. You know Lou, I see what you mean. We should not post things that put down others, even if our church teaches it.
Lou: Let us reason together, we are on a mental health board and we have to limit our speech to be sensitive to the belifes of others.
Dena: OK, you have convinced me.
Now at this point the posters would be returned to the board.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 11:37:09
In reply to Re: Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b, posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
Dena ,
You wrote,[...don't believe it is possible to communicate with you ...require a detailed explanation...made a mountain out of a molehill...].
Well, when I read things that could have different inferrences by different people, I am moved to inquire about which inferrance is the one that the poster would want to be seen. That way, I can have a better understanding of what the poster wants others to see in their post(s).
As far as me [...making a mountian out of a molehill...], some people might give more, or less, importance to someone's post, but I happen to consider the entire thread involving myself, Jon and you to be of great importance here, for it could establish a precedent in relation to the following:
A). Would it be permissible here to write that other's beliefes, such as the belife in the doctrine of purgatory, is an [...incorrect doctrine...myth...etc....]?
B). Would it be permissible here to claim that whatever anyone wrote, even if it is breach of the rules, could be sheltered by the poster claimimg that its intent was to be humorous?
C). Would it be permissible here to write what could be determined as a breach of the rules here to be shelterd from any discipline by claiming that the post was protected because it was a conversation between another poster?
D). Others not mentioned.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 11:59:21
In reply to Re: Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b, posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
Dena,
You wrote,[...each person has the ability to choose to take offense or let things go...].
If you are making an absolute statement that [each] is equivalant to [evry], then you are saying that every person has that choice. Now if that is what you are writing, then are you saying that evry person here also can make other choices and that no one has a [compulsion] to do anything?
I knew a person that horded. Her house had just a path to the parts of the house needed to live. All the rest of the house had things piled up to the cieling. She had not thrown anything away for many years. We tried to help her, for her husband had tried , and she said when asked to clear out the house,"I do not have the choice to throw this all out. If I do, my mother will die."
I knew another person that continually wrote into the local paper that the government was opressing the citizens and denying them their liberty. He formulated a group to make the government listen to his grievences. Night and day he passed out liturature , formed marches, met with civic leaders, got elected to office, was harrassed and ridiculed by his peers. He was willing to die than to accept what he considered injustice. His peers told him to just accept it for peace's sake. He said that he had no choice.He was asked why he could not choose to let it go. He answerd them and said, "Give me liberty or give me death."
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 12:41:03
In reply to To Lou anyone else who may feel offended..., posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 10:35:12
Dena,
You wrote,[...are we supposed to remain mute...about what our faith teaches?...].
Well, I would not say that [mute] would be what anyone wants here, for this is a public forum open to all. But,IMO, if what our faith teaches conflicts with good mental health, then those teachings are asked here to be stated someware else if the teaching is against established mental health principles, for the mental health of the participants here,IMO, is considerd to be a higher priority than the principle of freedom of speech or to tell of your faiths doctrines or to say that the doctrines that others believe are [...in error...].
Then , if someone's purpose here is to use this board for their own purpose, such as to sell products or to proselytise, then that would not be permissible here as the rules so state.
Now I believe that it is not good mental health for this board to require any poster to have a higher standard of performance imposed upon them because I believe that descrimination is not a good practice to improve the mental health of its participants. In fact, I consider descrimination to have the potential to have an adverse effect on some people, myself being one of them. So if there is a rule here , I believe that all should be required to abide by it. If one person is allowed to not be required to abide by a rule here and another person is required to abide by the rule, then the one person that is required to abide by the rule is having a higher standard of performance imposed upon him/her than the one that does not have to abide by the rule.
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 13:48:32
In reply to Lou's reply to Dena's post-7K » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 11:37:09
Lou,
I'm gong to attempt to reply to all three of your lastest postings to me, in an attempt to keep this simple. Speaking for myself alone, I find it overwhelming when you send multiple replies to my posts. Sending one at a time is more comprehensive to me.
You wrote in your first (of the latest three) posts: "I happen to consider the entire thread involving myself, Jon and you to be of great importance here, for it could establish a precedent in relation to the following:
A). Would it be permissible here to write that other's beliefes, such as the belife in the doctrine of purgatory, is an [...incorrect doctrine...myth...etc....]?
B). Would it be permissible here to claim that whatever anyone wrote, even if it is breach of the rules, could be sheltered by the poster claimimg that its intent was to be humorous?
C). Would it be permissible here to write what could be determined as a breach of the rules here to be shelterd from any discipline by claiming that the post was protected because it was a conversation between another poster?"I understand your concern better now. Thank you for elaborating. Perhaps these questions should be directed to Dr. Bob.
You wrote in your second (of the latest three) post: "You wrote,[...each person has the ability to choose to take offense or let things go...].
If you are making an absolute statement that [each] is equivalant to [evry], then you are saying that every person has that choice. Now if that is what you are writing, then are you saying that evry person here also can make other choices and that no one has a [compulsion] to do anything?"Yes, I stand on my belief that every person has a choice. Each human being has the gift of free will. The people you mentioned who were suffering from compulsions no longer under their control, made poor choices back in their histories that enslaved them to their compulsions. I speak from experience here; I was enslaved to bulimia for 21 years. I made choices earlier in my life to believe lies that led to the bulimia. While I was enslaved by bulimia, I didn't FEEL as if I had any choices - but the earlier choices I'd made had consequences, among them becoming enslaved to bulimia. I became free from the compulsion of bulimia when God showed me the lies I had been believing & He graciously replaced those lies with His perspective of truth. Then I had free will again (i.e., the choice) to continue to believe the lies I was more "comfortable" with, or to accept the truth He revealed to me. I chose the truth, & I became free from the compulsion.
But back to my original point, regarding offense, offenses come our way every day in small and large ways. I have the choice, we all have the choice, to "take on the offense", or to surrender it. If you say you don't like the way I write, or that my opinions sound ridiculous, I can "own" what you said about me & take it personally, or I can choose to let it go. If someone says something in an offhand way that seems to be insulting to me, I can either choose to presume they didn't mean to offend me, or I can choose to "court offensiveness". I used to "court rejection", meaning I was so used to being rejected in my past, that I transferred or superimposed that rejection onto whatever anyone else said to me. No matter what they said, or what they intended, I could "find" rejection. For me, a healing came when I realized deep in my heart that God loved & accepted me, & that rejection from others, real or imagined, couldn't touch me.
In your third (of the latest three) post, you wrote: "So if there is a rule here , I believe that all should be required to abide by it. If one person is allowed to not be required to abide by a rule here and another person is required to abide by the rule, then the one person that is required to abide by the rule is having a higher standard of performance imposed upon him/her than the one that does not have to abide by the rule."
I agree - we must all be held accountable by the rule(s) of this board in order to participate on this board. Again, I suggest that this should be taken to Dr. Bob to decide if Jonathan &/or I violated the rule(s).
Please, if you can, could you respond to this post with just one post of your own, so that I can communicate with less confusion. Thank you.
Shalom, Denea
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 14:03:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dena's post-7K, posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 13:48:32
Dena,
You wrote,[...people that were compelled made poor choices back in their lives that enslaved them to their compulsions...].
In one of my examples, I was referring to the lady that horded. Could you offer me some insight to clarify what possible {poor choice} that women could have made in her past that could have caused her hording? If you could, then I could better respond to your post.
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 14:07:44
In reply to Lou's reply to Dena's post-10K » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 14:03:36
> Dena,
> You wrote,[...people that were compelled made poor choices back in their lives that enslaved them to their compulsions...].
> In one of my examples, I was referring to the lady that horded. Could you offer me some insight to clarify what possible {poor choice} that women could have made in her past that could have caused her hording? If you could, then I could better respond to your post.
> Lou
Lou,Ahhh, there's the million-dollar question! I lack the insight into that particular woman's compulsion. Isn't this why we go to professionals & pay them big bucks to help us to explore the roots of our problems? If I knew such answers, I would be God. In fact, I do believe that only God holds the keys to unlock the roots of our problems. Sometimes He uses others (such as the professionals, and others whom He chooses) to assist in getting to the roots.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 14:11:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dena's post-10K » Lou Pilder, posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 14:07:44
Dinah,
Could there be,in your opinion, a neurobiological origin for someone to have OCD without environmental influances?
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 15:08:06
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dena's post-11K » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 14:11:41
> Dinah,
> Could there be,in your opinion, a neurobiological origin for someone to have OCD without environmental influances?
> LouLou, I'm confused. Are you addressing me (Dena) or Dinah? Were you talking to Dinah about OCD, or are you asking my opinion about this? I'm hoping it's the former, because I don't know much about OCD myself. I'm being treated for depression, which I've suffered from for most of my life.
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 15:18:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dena's post-11K » Lou Pilder, posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 15:08:06
Dena,
It was Dena , not Dinah.
You wrote,[...I don't know much about OCD...].
You also wrote that you have recovered from bulimia after many years. Is bulimia a form of OCD?
Lou
Posted by Dena on March 6, 2003, at 16:07:41
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Dena's post-11K » Dena, posted by Lou Pilder on March 6, 2003, at 15:18:15
Lou,
You know, I'm not sure if I ever heard that bulimia is a form of OCD. Funny, I saw over 20 different mental health specialists (psychaitrists, psychologists, LCSW's, etc.) & spent 30 days each in five different in-patient treatment centers, & no one ever referred to me as having OCD. You've given me something to ponder...
In light of this new insight, let's see if I can address your original question: "Could there be,in your opinion, a neurobiological origin for someone to have OCD without environmental influances?"
I'm glad you're specifically asking for my opinion, because I'm certainly no expert. In my own belief system, the human being is a whole: there aren't definitive boundaries between the mind, the soul & the body. They're all interconnected, influencing each other in ways we have barely begun to understand in science.
But I do believe that we can inherit tendencies from our family line. You may have noticed that conditions such as alcoholism, or depression, seem to "run" down the family tree. I've been taught that such things are, in part, biochemical, and, in part, spiritual (as in the many references in scripture to the "sins of the fathers" being passed down through future generations). As far as which caused which (biochemical vs. spiritual), who knows? But my suspicion, my own opinion, is that the spiritual (i.e., sins of the fathers), had an effect upon the biochemical. It's further my opinion that one of the "treatments" for such conditions is to break the curses off the family tree, a generational healing if you will. My own family is undergoing a process of searching through our two different family trees (mine & my husband's), to discover any "inherited sins" or conditions that appear to be curses. We'll then attend a Eucharist service that will be dedicated to cleansing our histories so that any spiritually-inherited tendencies of sin will be broken off from us, and from future generations. I've discovered the following "curses" in my own family tree: alcoholism, depression, gluttony, anti-semitism, & murder (an ancestor in the early 1800's attacked native Americans)to name a few. My husband & I will be confessing & repenting on behalf of our ancestors, repenting for our own sins as a result of our spiritual inheritance, & asking for God's mercy in severing the generational curses.But then, I still believe (still my own opinion, here) that we will have the responsibility of keeping guard in those areas which were previously a problem. I don't want to take the mercy of God for granted & behave irresponsibly (for instance, even though I've been completely healed of bulimia - it just doesn't even occur to me anymore - I take care to choose to eat wisely, taking care of my body's needs rather than eating in a gluttonous way).
Back to your question, I also believe that we are greatly affected by our environments. I don't know anyone who had a truly "good" childhood. Meaning, I don't know anyone who got absolutely everything they needed (unconditional love, complete acceptance, encouragement, understanding, someone always "being there", never being disappointed or deprived in any way, etc.) Many people sufferred incredible abuse by their parents or others. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we all get handed a raw deal, one way or another. But we've got to play the hand we're dealt. My belief system helps me here... I believe that God is sovereign, that He sees the big picture (while my own vision/understanding is so limited). I believe that He loves me & has a pefect plan for my life that extends into eternity. I believe that he's given me the life I need in order to learn lessons that will transform me into the person who can best live out the life He's planned for me. I believe that even what appears to be bad, from my perspective, can be worked out by God to be for my good. I believe that even suffering can be used to transform my life into something good. I believe that I prpobablly won't know how this all works out for my good until I meet God on the other side of this life. That's what my faith is about - believing that God is good & that I can trust Him, regardless of what comes my way. That's the essence of my faith - trusting in God's good nature, despite the seeming "evidences" to the contrary. Trusting in Him even when He doesn't make sense to my limited understanding.
So, in my opinion, yes, I believe that our problems (including OCD)can be biochemical/neurobiological in nature, even before we are influenced by our environments. But I believe, again, in my own opinion, that God provides a way of having victory over both our inherited tendancies & our environments, so that we don't have to settle for being a victim of either.
Hope this was clear...
Shalom, Dena
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 7, 2003, at 4:37:23
In reply to Re: Lou's (note) reply to Dena's post-6K-b, posted by Dena on March 5, 2003, at 21:39:57
> I don't know what your goal is with this thread. Are you trying to provoke me into writing something that would get me blocked again?
Please do be careful not to write something that might get you blocked again, such as:
> You've basically made a mountain out of a molehill.
> I would like for Dr. Bob to intervene at this point, for him to read the previous postings & determine for himself whether or not what Jonathan & I wrote is worthy of blocking.
Thanks, discussion about blocking should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration; otherwise, it may be deleted.
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.