Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 926490

Shown: posts 47 to 71 of 83. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou's reply-mgndavd

Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:19:52

In reply to Lou's reply-mgndavd Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on December 28, 2009, at 17:27:07

>The question as to the innitiator here is would someone be unfaithful to God if they took medication.

Well, I would not see it like that, but what if the medication is an intoxicant (prohibited under the Eightfold Path in Buddhism)?

I can't for the life of me see why taking benzos for an anxiety condition is much different to taking opium for one, except from the crowd management angle.

 

Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. SLS

Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:23:50

In reply to Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 28, 2009, at 19:03:46

I can't imagine God prohibiting lithium.

Why not?

Lack of abuse potential?

So God doesn't mind us taking mind altering drugs as long as there is no abuse potential?
And if not that, what?

 

Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects.

Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:28:32

In reply to Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. SLS, posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:23:50

This reminds me of that wretched organic psychiatrist (whose name I forget) who said of Jesus that if modern psychiatry had got hold of him he would have gone back to carpentry.

 

Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects.

Posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:33:32

In reply to Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects., posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:28:32

"...Jesus Christ might simply have returned to his carpentry following the use of modern [psychiatric] treatments." - William Sargant

(but perhaps not Sargant's).

 

Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. Sigismund

Posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 7:01:11

In reply to Re: Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. SLS, posted by Sigismund on December 28, 2009, at 19:23:50

> I can't imagine God prohibiting lithium.
>
> Why not?
>
> Lack of abuse potential?

I don't know about God, but I think that because a drug has the potential of abuse is not sufficient reason to prohibit its use therapeutically. However, I think it is important to demonstrate that such a drug is efficacious in treating illness and to control its availability as is done with other prescription drugs. I guess it depends on how one uses an object that defines its appropriateness. Using a ram's horn to produce and effect is not in itself a sin. For example, one can blow through it and produce a noise that communicates meaning to others. However, one can also use it as a blunt instrument weapon to kill. I'm sure God knew this in advance of His allowing people to use it as a tool.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-schlhknoh SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 10:02:53

In reply to Unfaithfullness and Side Effects. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 28, 2009, at 19:03:46

> > If you look at the PDR and see that the drug could cause;
>
> Which drug?
>
> > A. hallucinations
> > B. Suicide thoughts
> > C. depression
> > D. mania
> > E. delusions
> > F. euphoria
> > G. other related mind-altering states
>
> These are some of the possible side effects that can occur with the use of many psychiatric and non-psychiatric drugs. They are undesirable, and often indicate that the offending drug be discontinued and replaced with another treatment. What you fail to mention is that these things usually occur in a minority of people. It happens more often that a psychiatric patient glean benefit from drug treatment without the occurrence of the side effects that you have listed here. With further refinement, medical science will produce treatments with greatly reduced liability of producing undesirable psychiatric side effects.
>
> Unfaithful? How do you know?
>
> Is it unfaithful to your god that one take lithium?
>
> If you could produce evidence as to the proscription by your god the use of lithium, I could then respond accordingly.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...is it unfaithful..(your God)...that one take Li?...]
This discussion involves the innitial question by another member as to if taking medicine is being {unfaithful} to God. The overiding aspect from my view is as to which God one is referring to and what is or is not a medicine. Since the original poster included that they were taking medicine for mental-health issues, the subject then became about mind-altering drugs.
The meaning of {unfaithful} from my perspective in regards to being unfaithful to the God that I give service and worship to, is about that that God is a {personal} God. In the book called Genesis the first people heard the voice of the God that created them. They had converstaion with that God. And they had a knowlege of good and evil.
Now the word faithful has meanings for this discussion as the member wanted to know if taking medicine is being faithful to God. Now the God that I give service and worship to has an agreement with the people that worship that God in the form of commandments and duty. There is also a relationship that that God wants to have with those. There is affection because that God is a person that has created man in the image of God. There is thinking and decisions to be made. There is life and death. There is a promise of life everafter and the conditions for such.
I would like to look at a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use that they consider to be from that God as truth. The verse is in the 26th chapter of the book called Isaiah, the 3erd verse that reads,
[...He will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Him, because he trusts in Him...]
You see, there is an agreement, a contract, a covenant that the Jews have with that God. It is about the mind. And if the mind is {stayed on Him}, one will be in perfect peace says the scripture.
Does your drug take your mind away from that God if you give service and worship to that God that I am referring to here. Is {faithfulness} in respect to this discussion now taking on more of a meaning?
Lou

 

Impaired minds and impaired spirituality. Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 10:38:11

In reply to Lou's reply-schlhknoh SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 10:02:53

> [...He will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Him, because he trusts in Him...]

I see. Unfortunately, the more severe mental illnesses impair an affected individual's capacity to understand and act upon such ideations. My ability to focus my mind on matters spiritual varies with the changing severity of my depression. I propose that the successful pharmacological treatment of an individual with depression will allow him to commune more closely with God and therefore enable him to better seek peace.

Gotta go for now...


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-wksvthephlesch SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 16:14:59

In reply to Impaired minds and impaired spirituality. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 10:38:11

> > [...He will keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Him, because he trusts in Him...]
>
> I see. Unfortunately, the more severe mental illnesses impair an affected individual's capacity to understand and act upon such ideations. My ability to focus my mind on matters spiritual varies with the changing severity of my depression. I propose that the successful pharmacological treatment of an individual with depression will allow him to commune more closely with God and therefore enable him to better seek peace.
>
> Gotta go for now...
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...the more severe mental illnesses impair an affected individual's capacity to understand and act upon such ideations...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?
B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?
C. Could you post here an example of a mental illness that is not in the catagory of a {more severe} mental illnes?
D. Are you stating the above statement by you as a fact or an opinion?
E. If it is being stated as a fact, could you cite here a link to an article from an accepted source that collaborates that it is a fact?
F. Are you aquainted with any scripture that the Jews use as truth to them, that substantiates what you wrote here? If so, could you post here the citation of the book and chapter and verse?
G. In,[...He will keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Him because he trusts in Him...], do you know of any scripture(s) that state reasons that cause people to not be able to keep their mind on Him?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-wksvthephlesch

Posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2009, at 16:32:17

In reply to Lou's reply-wksvthephlesch SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 16:14:59

This is it....when is it an illness and when is it not?
(I don't think anxiety is an illness, for example....well, not the kind of anxiety I was feeling.)
Or maybe you could say that not all illnesses are best treated with medicine.

>A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?
>B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?
>C. Could you post here an example of a mental illness that is not in the catagory of a {more severe} mental illnes?

 

A Necessary Revision?

Posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 17:11:29

In reply to Lou's reply-wksvthephlesch SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 16:14:59

> > Unfortunately, the more severe mental illnesses impair...

> A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?

Revision:

Unfortunately, the more severe presentations of mental illness impair...

>B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?

Cyclothymia -> Bipolar Disorder


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-phaieghmuss SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 20:18:22

In reply to A Necessary Revision?, posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 17:11:29

> > > Unfortunately, the more severe mental illnesses impair...
>
> > A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?
>
> Revision:
>
> Unfortunately, the more severe presentations of mental illness impair...
>
> >B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?
>
> Cyclothymia -> Bipolar Disorder
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
You wrote,[...Bipolar Disorder..]
Here is a link that gives famous people that had or has Bipolar Disorder. Let's see what we know about them in relation to some of your statements here...
Loi
http://www.mental-health-today.com/bp/famous_people.htm

 

Who's depression is it, anyway? Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on December 29, 2009, at 21:19:55

In reply to Lou's reply-phaieghmuss SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 29, 2009, at 20:18:22

> > > > Unfortunately, the more severe mental illnesses impair...
> >
> > > A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?
> >
> > Revision:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the more severe presentations of mental illness impair...
> >
> > >B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?
> >
> > Cyclothymia -> Bipolar Disorder
> >
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > Scott,
> You wrote,[...Bipolar Disorder..]
> Here is a link that gives famous people that had or has Bipolar Disorder. Let's see what we know about them in relation to some of your statements here...
> Loi
> http://www.mental-health-today.com/bp/famous_people.htm


I look forward to reading your thesis and a synopsis of why this list becomes relevant to the question posed in the first post along this thread. It might be interesting for you to consider in your reply whether or not all cases of mental illness manifest equally in degree and disability.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-wadizamead? Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2009, at 10:41:49

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wksvthephlesch, posted by Sigismund on December 29, 2009, at 16:32:17

> This is it....when is it an illness and when is it not?
> (I don't think anxiety is an illness, for example....well, not the kind of anxiety I was feeling.)
> Or maybe you could say that not all illnesses are best treated with medicine.
>
> >A. What are the criteria that designates a {more severe} mental illness from just a mental illness?
> >B. Could you post here an example of a {more severe} mental illness?
> >C. Could you post here an example of a mental illness that is not in the catagory of a {more severe} mental illnes?

Sigusmund,
You wrote,[...not all illnesses are best treated with medicine...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are the criteria that you use to determine if something is an illness or not an illness?
B. What are the criteria that you use to determine if something is or is not a medicine?
C. What are then the illnesses that you think are best treated with what you define as a medicine? Which then are not best treated with what you define as a medicine?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-wadizamead? Lou Pilder

Posted by Sigismund on December 30, 2009, at 18:06:52

In reply to Lou's reply-wadizamead? Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2009, at 10:41:49

Lou, I don't know about criteria but I shall try to say something sensible.

Since we can accept that the best treatment for some conditions is benign neglect or some non-medicinal treatment, there is no need for me to say what an illness is. Let's take fear. The solution for fear is mastery if possible. If the fear is so disabling that mastery is impossible, then medication is indicated. Since our desires are endless, it is of no significance that we do not feel the way we wish to feel.

B is the easiest. Medicines come from plants (among other things) which are part of creation. So do some drugs. So we refine the plants and then ban them. This borders on sacrilege.

That' all that I can sensibly say at this moment. I saw "Avatar" last night. It brought to mind the genocides of North and South America and Australia. Then I read in today's paper about a book called "You Need More Money - Discovering God's Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life", by Brian Houston, which might be good for a dip into our culture.

 

Lou's reply-Plants R Us Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2009, at 20:52:07

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wadizamead? Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on December 30, 2009, at 18:06:52

> Lou, I don't know about criteria but I shall try to say something sensible.
>
> Since we can accept that the best treatment for some conditions is benign neglect or some non-medicinal treatment, there is no need for me to say what an illness is. Let's take fear. The solution for fear is mastery if possible. If the fear is so disabling that mastery is impossible, then medication is indicated. Since our desires are endless, it is of no significance that we do not feel the way we wish to feel.
>
> B is the easiest. Medicines come from plants (among other things) which are part of creation. So do some drugs. So we refine the plants and then ban them. This borders on sacrilege.
>
> That' all that I can sensibly say at this moment. I saw "Avatar" last night. It brought to mind the genocides of North and South America and Australia. Then I read in today's paper about a book called "You Need More Money - Discovering God's Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life", by Brian Houston, which might be good for a dip into our culture.

Sigusmund,
You wrote,[...medicines come from plants (among other things).
What
A. are the other things?
B. could a drug that is a chemical and not from a plant then be classified as?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-Plants R Us

Posted by Sigismund on December 30, 2009, at 21:31:39

In reply to Lou's reply-Plants R Us Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on December 30, 2009, at 20:52:07

The ones that aren't from plants or animals or minerals are cooked up in a lab, I guess, and yes, those would be drugs.

 

We are stardust.

Posted by SLS on December 31, 2009, at 1:33:49

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Plants R Us, posted by Sigismund on December 30, 2009, at 21:31:39

> The ones that aren't from plants or animals or minerals are cooked up in a lab, I guess, and yes, those would be drugs.

The beauty of the System is that every single molecule that we have synthesized in the lab has come from plants, animals, or minerals. It is a conundrum to place boundaries and make distinctions between what we label as being natural and what is not.

As I see it, there is nothing that we can make that does not rely upon the hand of God. It is the mind of man that determines how His creation is to be consumed. Thus, we use nature to heal as we can also use it to harm. The manufacture of medications to be used in the practice of physicians is man's attempt to heal using the resources that God has provided. It then becomes a matter of faith to decide upon what the Mind of God has chosen for us.


- Scott

 

Lou's response-aydngrawrng SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2010, at 4:20:20

In reply to We are stardust., posted by SLS on December 31, 2009, at 1:33:49

> > The ones that aren't from plants or animals or minerals are cooked up in a lab, I guess, and yes, those would be drugs.
>
> The beauty of the System is that every single molecule that we have synthesized in the lab has come from plants, animals, or minerals. It is a conundrum to place boundaries and make distinctions between what we label as being natural and what is not.
>
> As I see it, there is nothing that we can make that does not rely upon the hand of God. It is the mind of man that determines how His creation is to be consumed. Thus, we use nature to heal as we can also use it to harm. The manufacture of medications to be used in the practice of physicians is man's attempt to heal using the resources that God has provided. It then becomes a matter of faith to decide upon what the Mind of God has chosen for us.
>
>
> - Scott

Friends,
It is written here,[...It then becomes a matter of faith to decide upon what the Mind of God has chosen for us...].
The original question was about if taking medicines for mental health reasons was being unfaithful to God. This brought up the question as to {which God}, and what constituted a medicine.
So again, the statement in question here would depend upon which God is in question, and what is or is not a medicine.
Now the God that is represented in the scriptures that the Jews use could offer what the mind of that God reveals as to the questions at hand here according to what is written in those scriptures. There was the question as to if or if not those taking mind-altering drugs would be cast into the Lake of Fire or not according to those scriptures. The mind of that God is revaled in a way in those scriptures as it is written in the book called Isaiah in the 55th chapter the 8th verse,[...For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways...].
Lou

 

Re: Lou's response-aydngrawrng

Posted by Sigismund on January 8, 2010, at 23:29:32

In reply to Lou's response-aydngrawrng SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on January 8, 2010, at 4:20:20

Lou, do you think it makes sense to say that Isaiah is fundamental to western civilisation?

There was some reading on TV over Christmas that got me going on my hobbyhorse.

I was deeply ambivalent about the reading of course (as I am about western civilisation), believing (like Gandhi) that it would be a very good thing.

OTOH, I remember listening to the chorus found here and it was like a lovely forest with wonderful layers, which I am unable to describe better here unfortunately, except to say I found it strangely moving.

But I hope you like it Lou. Happy Hannukah? Is that what you say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU6TzPvxrh8

Stick around for the chorus near the end.

 

Correction!

Posted by Sigismund on January 8, 2010, at 23:54:19

In reply to Re: Lou's response-aydngrawrng, posted by Sigismund on January 8, 2010, at 23:29:32

That was a bit ratty, I think. This is better. Much more liquid. Sounds distorted, perhaps it's my crappy computer speakers? I am so deeply ambivalent about all this.

perhaps this helps
>n the summer of 1741 Handel, at the peak of his musical prowess but depressed and in debt, began setting Charles Jennens' Biblical libretto to music at his usual breakneck speed. In just 24 days, Messiah was complete (August 22 - September 14). Like many of Handel's compositions, it borrows liberally from earlier works, both his own and those of others. Tradition has it that Handel wrote the piece while staying as a guest at Jennens' country house (Gopsall Hall) in Leicestershire, England, although no evidence exists to confirm this.[2] It is thought that the work was completed inside a garden temple, the ruins of which have been preserved and can be visited.[3]

>It was premiered during the following season, in the spring of 1742, as part of a series of charity concerts in Neal's Music Hall on Fishamble Street near Dublin's Temple Bar district. Right up to the day of the premiere, Messiah was troubled by production difficulties and last-minute rearrangements of the score, and the Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Jonathan Swift, placed some pressure on the premiere and had it cancelled entirely for a period. He demanded that it be retitled A Sacred Oratorio and that revenue from the concert be promised to local hospitals for the mentally ill.

I heard somewhere that Handel conducted it for nearly 20 years and gave the money from the performances to St Thomas's Children's Hospital, but I may have it wrong. Better than the Chairman of Goldman Sachs saying that he was doing God's work, at any rate.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaAw_c1A6lw

 

Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 8:44:08

In reply to Correction!, posted by Sigismund on January 8, 2010, at 23:54:19

> That was a bit ratty, I think. This is better. Much more liquid. Sounds distorted, perhaps it's my crappy computer speakers? I am so deeply ambivalent about all this.
>
> perhaps this helps
> >n the summer of 1741 Handel, at the peak of his musical prowess but depressed and in debt, began setting Charles Jennens' Biblical libretto to music at his usual breakneck speed. In just 24 days, Messiah was complete (August 22 - September 14). Like many of Handel's compositions, it borrows liberally from earlier works, both his own and those of others. Tradition has it that Handel wrote the piece while staying as a guest at Jennens' country house (Gopsall Hall) in Leicestershire, England, although no evidence exists to confirm this.[2] It is thought that the work was completed inside a garden temple, the ruins of which have been preserved and can be visited.[3]
>
> >It was premiered during the following season, in the spring of 1742, as part of a series of charity concerts in Neal's Music Hall on Fishamble Street near Dublin's Temple Bar district. Right up to the day of the premiere, Messiah was troubled by production difficulties and last-minute rearrangements of the score, and the Dean of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Jonathan Swift, placed some pressure on the premiere and had it cancelled entirely for a period. He demanded that it be retitled A Sacred Oratorio and that revenue from the concert be promised to local hospitals for the mentally ill.
>
> I heard somewhere that Handel conducted it for nearly 20 years and gave the money from the performances to St Thomas's Children's Hospital, but I may have it wrong. Better than the Chairman of Goldman Sachs saying that he was doing God's work, at any rate.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaAw_c1A6lw
>
Sigismund,
You wrote,[...I am ...ambivalent about this...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanating to mean here. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. What are you fluctuating between?
B. What, if anything, in this thread has caused you to be ambivalent?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed Lou Pilder

Posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 13:35:21

In reply to Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 8:44:08

I read a couple of books recently, Lou, that crystallised the way I felt. They were "Black Mass" and "The Politics of Hysteria". The first is about the effect of Christian ideas and doctrine and the way our habits of thought are framed by this inheritance. The second is about the encounter of the non-Western world with modernity. I can't get it out of my head that I live in a country, as do you, that has suffered genocide at the hands of my, (though not necessarily your) ancestors, plus the fact that the Europeans annexed more than 80% of the world, saying they were doing it a favour. Then Germany wants into the club, big fight, Russian Empire adopts communism, Germany wants to refight the war to establish a ghastly parody of colonialism with a demonology derived at least partly from Christianity (genocide again), and then some peace until the mid 60s. There are plenty of good things as well, I know.

 

Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed

Posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 13:37:45

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed Lou Pilder, posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 13:35:21

>then some peace until the mid 60s.

Forgot about Korea

 

Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed

Posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 14:56:00

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed, posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 13:37:45

You mean, why am I talking about this when the thread is about whether taking meds means that one is unfaithful to God?

Apart from me being a monomaniac, the only other conceivable reason is that it is the same God.

 

:Lou's reply-whatzdait? Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 17:52:26

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wychgdwhtmed, posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 14:56:00

> You mean, why am I talking about this when the thread is about whether taking meds means that one is unfaithful to God?
>
> Apart from me being a monomaniac, the only other conceivable reason is that it is the same God.

Sigismund,
You wrote,[...a monomaniac...it is the same God...]
I am unsure as to what you are wanting ot mean here. If you could post answers to the folowing, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
A. what is the excession concentration on, in relation to you writing that you are a {monomaniac}?
B. In,[...{it} is the same God...], what is the {it}?
Lou


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.