Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 926490

Shown: posts 56 to 80 of 83. Go back in thread:

 

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

 

Re: :Lou's reply-whatzdait?

Posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 18:23:07

In reply to :Lou's reply-whatzdait? Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 17:52:26

The 'it' refers (in very poor English, I now see) to the God who might not approve of our medicines. [Now I feel like TS Eliot 'I do not know much about gods' (monomania again)] Is that the same God who made us feel so special because he sent his own son whom we revere, and because we do and they do not, our rights over them are increased? [So, OK, I know and I think agree with your views on Replacement theology (if that is what it is).]

In particular with respect to whole slabs of land on which we both live, which brings us to the God of the Conquistadors and the God of the puritans, who is I guess, the God of Handel's 'Messiah'.

You recently had a president, Lou, whose reading (or something) was such that he referred to the invasion of Iraq and War on Terror as a 'crusade', before he was warned off by his advisers.

What's the price of a life in Iraq? $100,000 if you're lucky enough to get it, I read yesterday. American Exceptionalism and all the rest.

HG Wells was asked around the 30s what would have to happen to all those coloured peoples and he said something along the lines of "It sounds harsh, but they will have to go". People don't say that any more, having seen it it action. Like Darwin, he sees Tasmania happening...he didn't like it, but since he'd just come from Brazil with slavery and punishment, he accepted it as progress, I think it is fair to say.

Now that I reflect on it, I *can* think of a genocide done by a power without a Christian heritage....the Armenians.

 

Re: :Lou's reply-whatzdait?

Posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 18:25:04

In reply to Re: :Lou's reply-whatzdait?, posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 18:23:07

I misspoke.

>Like Darwin, he sees Tasmania happening.

Like Darwin who saw the Tasmanian genocide happening.

 

:Lou's reply-beegahl Sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 18:42:20

In reply to Re: :Lou's reply-whatzdait?, posted by Sigismund on January 9, 2010, at 18:25:04

> I misspoke.
>
> >Like Darwin, he sees Tasmania happening.
>
> Like Darwin who saw the Tasmanian genocide happening.

Sig,
What is the significance of Darwin, if it is Charles Darwin?
Lou

 

Re: :Lou's reply-beegahl

Posted by Sigismund on January 10, 2010, at 22:53:47

In reply to :Lou's reply-beegahl Sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2010, at 18:42:20

He accepted it.

 

JN8:12 / 2COR4:6

Posted by Sigismund on January 20, 2010, at 17:12:35

In reply to Re: :Lou's reply-beegahl, posted by Sigismund on January 10, 2010, at 22:53:47

The codes above, referring to...

>"I am the Light of the World. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

>"For God who said 'Let light shine out of darkness', made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

have been stamped on arms made by Trijicon, and used in Iraq.

Interesting.

 

Lou's request-ptuewpstan?

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 28, 2010, at 21:28:24

In reply to Lou's reply-tustn? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 21, 2009, at 10:04:12

> > > B. If another states that they know a truth because they believe that the scriptures that the Jews use are truth, how would you catagorize that person in relation to your claim in relation to that they think that they know a truth, and you write that the truth is xxxxxxxxx?
> > > Lou
> >
> > I have succinctly expressed my views. Let us now come to know yours. Then, perhaps, we can determine for ourselves whether or not further discourse on this matter is desirable.
> >
> > Who or what do you deem to be the ultimate authority on what is Truth?
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...my views...yours....authority on what is truth?...further discorse desirable?...].
> The thread is about a member that has a concern as to if taking medications for mental issues is being unfaithful to God. That brought up as to which God the member was refewring to and what was considered to be a medication.
> This generated your responses as to that in your view there is xxxx One and that the truth is yyyyyyyyy. You now ask for my view concerning the authority for truth and also ask if further discorse is desirable.
> I am unsure as to if I can continue here in this thread. There have been rules made to me by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies that threaten me with expulsion from this commuinity if I was to post what my views are here concerning your request to me.
> Mr. Hsiung also allows statements that could lead a Jew to feel put down/accused to stand without a notation that those statements are uncivil. This leads to the potential IMO for others to think that there are two standards here which could lead to me being a victim of anti-Semitic violence. Mr. Hsiung has allowed ancient stereotypes defaming Jews to remain unsanctioned as being uncivil and just a few members here have emailed me with their concern that they do not want to be considerd to be condoning the administration's actions. There are numerous requests to the administartion that are outstanding from me that have the potential IMO to show indifference to the Jew's concerns of those statements of that nature being allowed to stand.
> Lou
>
> Friends,
The above post concerns the concept of two standards in a community. If you are considering posting in this thread, or parallel threads, I am requesting that you email me if you like to discuss what criteria could or could not constitute two standards in a community.
Lou
>
>

 

Re: Lou's reply-whichgd2?

Posted by manic666 on May 25, 2010, at 12:48:19

In reply to Lou's reply-whichgd2? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on December 22, 2009, at 7:31:30

they say the biggest thing to start a war//is religion// hear is a small sample of how they start???????????????

 

Re: please be supportive manic666

Posted by Dr. Bob on May 25, 2010, at 15:44:02

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-whichgd2?, posted by manic666 on May 25, 2010, at 12:48:19

> they say the biggest thing to start a war//is religion

Please be supportive of religious faith here.

But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.

More information about posting policies is in the FAQ:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce

Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: please be supportive

Posted by manic666 on May 26, 2010, at 4:02:58

In reply to Re: please be supportive manic666, posted by Dr. Bob on May 25, 2010, at 15:44:02

i opologize, having no religious beleives i should have kept quiet//but it seems the subject always provokes underlying agression//and i am quoting that religion is the cause of wars// plus oil of course // im sorry an will butt out


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.