Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 940243

Shown: posts 32 to 56 of 98. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's reply-knoarmul? SLS

Posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 13:32:27

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-wolbib, posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 11:02:06

> > Thank God for aspirin....
>
> ...and for psychiatric medicines. When the chosen medicine is a good match for the ailing individual, the mind is not altered in the direction of an unnatural state of being, but, rather, is moved away from the unhealthy influence of aberrant brain function by facilitating its normalization.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...the mind is not altered in the direction of an unatural state (if it is a good match)... to normalization...].
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post an answer to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
There is a warning mandated by the FDA to many chemicals called psychiatric drugs that states that one's mind could be changed to think of killing themselves.
If the persons taking one of those drugs were not thinking of killing themselves before taking the drug, then I think that the suicide ideation that could be induced by the drug is an altered state of that person's mind.
My questions are; (A). how could a chosen drug be determined to be or not to be a good match before it is chosen if the drug chosen has the potential to cause one to think of killing themselves?
Other questins to follow...
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-knoarmul? Lou PIlder

Posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 14:17:00

In reply to Lou's reply-knoarmul? SLS, posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 13:32:27

Hi Lou.

Untoward psychiatric side effects are not exclusive to psychiatric drugs. Prednisone is a leading example of how a drug critical to the healing of disease can produce psychosis and depression. There a risks along with the benefits. It is incumbent upon the treating physician to monitor for the evolution of these side effects and address them accordingly. There are at least two scenarios by which a patient being treated with an antidepressant can express suicidality as a treatment-emergent effect. A good physician recognizes this, and must monitor a patient closely early in treatment. It is unfortunate that there has been such a dearth of study of these phenomena, as it would prove instructive to ascertain their frequency. It is my impression that it occurs in a small minority of cases.

I will yield to you here.

I have discussed this issue with others several times in the past. It has many facets and requires some effort to address them all. At the moment, I am not interested in revisiting it. I recognize and appreciate your passions and intentions. However, I very much disagree with your conclusions. Unfortunately, there still remains a backlash against the use of psychiatric drugs, even though they save lives and reduce suffering when used intelligently. For now, my primary concern is that the drugs you would have taken away from me remain available, as they do afford me a reduction of pain and suffering.


- Scott

 

Lou's response-phazahkyu SLS

Posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 15:14:06

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-knoarmul? Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 14:17:00

> Hi Lou.
>
> Untoward psychiatric side effects are not exclusive to psychiatric drugs. Prednisone is a leading example of how a drug critical to the healing of disease can produce psychosis and depression. There a risks along with the benefits. It is incumbent upon the treating physician to monitor for the evolution of these side effects and address them accordingly. There are at least two scenarios by which a patient being treated with an antidepressant can express suicidality as a treatment-emergent effect. A good physician recognizes this, and must monitor a patient closely early in treatment. It is unfortunate that there has been such a dearth of study of these phenomena, as it would prove instructive to ascertain their frequency. It is my impression that it occurs in a small minority of cases.
>
> I will yield to you here.
>
> I have discussed this issue with others several times in the past. It has many facets and requires some effort to address them all. At the moment, I am not interested in revisiting it. I recognize and appreciate your passions and intentions. However, I very much disagree with your conclusions. Unfortunately, there still remains a backlash against the use of psychiatric drugs, even though they save lives and reduce suffering when used intelligently. For now, my primary concern is that the drugs you would have taken away from me remain available, as they do afford me a reduction of pain and suffering.
>
>
> - Scott

Friends,
It is written herte,[...It is incumbent upon the treating physician to monitor for the evolution of these side effects (suicide ideation)...]
I agree. However, the treating physician can not be with the person taking the drug all the time. I also know of cases where hospitalized people taking these drugs in question have killed themselves.
It is written here,[...I disagree with your conclusions...].
Friends, this thread is about what the bible in question here says or does not say in relation to if those taking mind-altering drugs will have their place in the Lake of Fire. I do not think that I have stated a conclusion in this thread and if one sees one by me, please post it here so that I can respond.
It is written here,[...drugs you would have taken away from me...]
I do not believe that in this thread I have posted to have those drugs in question taken away from anyone. The thread here is a faith thread about as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will be cast into the Lake of Fire by the God of the bible here in question. Could all of you that are reading this please understand that my passion here is to save lives and to help those that want to be free from mind-altering drugs by offering support and education to them from my perspective. I am not involved in any group to have psychotropic drugs taken off the market. I am not a member of any religious or other group having an agenda aginst psychotropic drugs.
Lou

 

Lou's response-secndth

Posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 15:54:20

In reply to Lou's response-phazahkyu SLS, posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 15:14:06

> > Hi Lou.
> >
> > Untoward psychiatric side effects are not exclusive to psychiatric drugs. Prednisone is a leading example of how a drug critical to the healing of disease can produce psychosis and depression. There a risks along with the benefits. It is incumbent upon the treating physician to monitor for the evolution of these side effects and address them accordingly. There are at least two scenarios by which a patient being treated with an antidepressant can express suicidality as a treatment-emergent effect. A good physician recognizes this, and must monitor a patient closely early in treatment. It is unfortunate that there has been such a dearth of study of these phenomena, as it would prove instructive to ascertain their frequency. It is my impression that it occurs in a small minority of cases.
> >
> > I will yield to you here.
> >
> > I have discussed this issue with others several times in the past. It has many facets and requires some effort to address them all. At the moment, I am not interested in revisiting it. I recognize and appreciate your passions and intentions. However, I very much disagree with your conclusions. Unfortunately, there still remains a backlash against the use of psychiatric drugs, even though they save lives and reduce suffering when used intelligently. For now, my primary concern is that the drugs you would have taken away from me remain available, as they do afford me a reduction of pain and suffering.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Friends,
> It is written herte,[...It is incumbent upon the treating physician to monitor for the evolution of these side effects (suicide ideation)...]
> I agree. However, the treating physician can not be with the person taking the drug all the time. I also know of cases where hospitalized people taking these drugs in question have killed themselves.
> It is written here,[...I disagree with your conclusions...].
> Friends, this thread is about what the bible in question here says or does not say in relation to if those taking mind-altering drugs will have their place in the Lake of Fire. I do not think that I have stated a conclusion in this thread and if one sees one by me, please post it here so that I can respond.
> It is written here,[...drugs you would have taken away from me...]
> I do not believe that in this thread I have posted to have those drugs in question taken away from anyone. The thread here is a faith thread about as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will be cast into the Lake of Fire by the God of the bible here in question. Could all of you that are reading this please understand that my passion here is to save lives and to help those that want to be free from mind-altering drugs by offering support and education to them from my perspective. I am not involved in any group to have psychotropic drugs taken off the market. I am not a member of any religious or other group having an agenda aginst psychotropic drugs.
> Lou
>
Friends,
This thread is involved in discussion as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will or will not be cast into the Lake of Fire as in the bible in question here.
You may know of some of the popular teachings concerning the Lake of Fire and who is assigned or not to be cast into there.
One, (BF), has brought up here that there is a teaching concerning sorcerers in relation to mind-altering drugs that is mentioned in relation to the Lake of Fire in that bible. But my concern here is that it has been revealed to me that there is a way that one can be cast into the Lake of Fire and not be harmed. I would not want anyone to have the fate of being cast into a Lake of Fire and suffer that kind of harm.
You see, if you believe in that the bible in question here is true, then is not all of what is written in it true?
And as I stood at the edge of the Great Gulf I saw a great Fire with people being cast into it at the bottom of the gulf. And the Rider was there and He said to me, "He that overcomes will not be hurt by the second death."
My friends, I want for you as a people to not be hurt by the second death. I may not be able to tell you here how to escape that fate. But you could email me if you like.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's response-secndth Lou PIlder

Posted by Sigismund on April 3, 2010, at 16:34:39

In reply to Lou's response-secndth, posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 15:54:20

>I may not be able to tell you here how to escape that fate.

Why not?

 

Re: Lou's response-secndth Lou PIlder

Posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 18:17:53

In reply to Lou's response-secndth, posted by Lou PIlder on April 3, 2010, at 15:54:20

> This thread is involved in discussion as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will or will not be cast into the Lake of Fire as in the bible in question here.

I guess I missed your point. I am interested in knowing what data you are working with.

If you are to focus the discussion solely around the words of the bible and the interpretation thereof, I would be grateful if you would cite some of the verses in the bible that you feel demonstrate the validity of your thesis. I would also profit from being provided with a short list of some of the chemicals that God deems to be mind-altering, and the criteria by which one is to recognize them.

Thanks.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-farmah SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 11:01:25

In reply to Re: Lou's response-secndth Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 18:17:53

> > This thread is involved in discussion as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will or will not be cast into the Lake of Fire as in the bible in question here.
>
> I guess I missed your point. I am interested in knowing what data you are working with.
>
> If you are to focus the discussion solely around the words of the bible and the interpretation thereof, I would be grateful if you would cite some of the verses in the bible that you feel demonstrate the validity of your thesis. I would also profit from being provided with a short list of some of the chemicals that God deems to be mind-altering, and the criteria by which one is to recognize them.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
You wrote.[...I am interested...if you would cite...].
The subject here is if the bible in question here prescribes that those that use, provide, ect mind-altering chemicals will be cast into the Lake of Fire. There has been a citation of Rev 21:8 where BF posts a link to an exposition of that chapter that does say that {sorcerers} are those involved some way in drug-induced conditions.
The word in that bible, {sorcerer} is translated from a Greek word, [...pharmakeia, pharmakeus...]. We get the word {pharmacy} and {pharmaceuticals} from that Greek word. The discussion here is if these passages are about or not the use of mind-altering drugs that could be a part of {sorcery} that the bible here prescribes that those that practice such are cast into the Lake of fire according to verses in the book called revelation and other books also.
That bible writes about what happens to the sorcerers in Rev 21:8 and in other passages such as Rev 22:14-15 among other verses in other books.
The concern here by me is to offer support and education to save lives. And to offer what has been revealed to me about the scriptures in question concerning the fate of those that use mind-altering chemicals, also called medicines here. And if you could ask other questions, I could have the opportunity to respondd accordingly.
Lou


 

Re: Lou's reply-farmah Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 11:24:39

In reply to Lou's reply-farmah SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 11:01:25

Do you accept the New Testament as gospel?


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply-farmah

Posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 11:29:25

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-farmah Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 11:24:39

> Do you accept the New Testament as gospel?

Sorry. Never mind.

That question is not particularly productive on this forum.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply-farmah

Posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 12:13:45

In reply to Lou's reply-farmah SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 11:01:25

> The concern here by me is to offer support and education to save lives.

Ok. That is my concern as well.

> And if you could ask other questions, I could have the opportunity to respondd accordingly.

You can first try answering the ones I have already asked. If you are intent on dissuading people from taking life-saving medicines, it would be helpful if you were to respond to the following:

"I would be grateful if you would cite some of the verses in the bible that you feel demonstrate the validity of your thesis. I would also profit from being provided with a short list of some of the chemicals that God deems to be mind-altering, and the criteria by which one is to recognize them"


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 15:05:43

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-farmah, posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 12:13:45

> > The concern here by me is to offer support and education to save lives.
>
> Ok. That is my concern as well.
>
> > And if you could ask other questions, I could have the opportunity to respondd accordingly.
>
> You can first try answering the ones I have already asked. If you are intent on dissuading people from taking life-saving medicines, it would be helpful if you were to respond to the following:
>
> "I would be grateful if you would cite some of the verses in the bible that you feel demonstrate the validity of your thesis. I would also profit from being provided with a short list of some of the chemicals that God deems to be mind-altering, and the criteria by which one is to recognize them"
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...dissuading people...]
This thread is involving as to if the bible in question here consigns those that take or supply mind-altering drugs to the Lake of Fire. This involves many bible verses and in particular thhose concerning sorcery.
People who are interested in this from my perspective, or from your or other's perspective, can make their own determination as to if or if not they consider whatever is posted here by any member in regards to their decisions. It is not my intention to dissuade one from taking mind-altering drugs, but to offer support and education to thiose in order for them to make their own decisions. Some people believe that the bible in question here is the Truth and The Word of God. Others in this discussion may not accept that.
As to your questions, I could not post some answers to them in this forum, for they would come from a Jewish perspective where Mr. Hsiung has posted to me a threat to expell me from this community if I was to post that foundation of my faith which I believe.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 15:52:19

In reply to Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 15:05:43

You don't need to provide commentary on the words found in the bible that you think support your contentions. You only need to cite them as I have done previously as per your request. If you would like to suggest to others that the bible consigns people who take Prozac to a fiery hell, don't you think you should support your contentions with the proof you say is contained in the words of the bible by simply producing them? If not, that's ok.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm Lou Pilder

Posted by Sigismund on April 4, 2010, at 16:04:00

In reply to Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 15:05:43

Do you think science then is sorcery, Lou?

Why didn't I think of that?

 

Lou's reply-hamroutawrning SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 20:53:20

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-phoudtnovjudsm Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 15:52:19

> You don't need to provide commentary on the words found in the bible that you think support your contentions. You only need to cite them as I have done previously as per your request. If you would like to suggest to others that the bible consigns people who take Prozac to a fiery hell, don't you think you should support your contentions with the proof you say is contained in the words of the bible by simply producing them? If not, that's ok.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...need to cite them...]
Let us look at Galatians 5 verses 19-21.
One of the things in the list is {witchcraft}. Sorcery is a subset of witchcraft.
Now let us look at Revelation 9, verse 21. Since they did not repent, then go to rev 21:8 and rev 22 verse 15.
But those are only a small part of verses of the whole aspect of mind-altering drugs that the bible talks about.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-hamroutawrning Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on April 4, 2010, at 21:07:36

In reply to Lou's reply-hamroutawrning SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 20:53:20

> > You don't need to provide commentary on the words found in the bible that you think support your contentions. You only need to cite them as I have done previously as per your request. If you would like to suggest to others that the bible consigns people who take Prozac to a fiery hell, don't you think you should support your contentions with the proof you say is contained in the words of the bible by simply producing them? If not, that's ok.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...need to cite them...]
> Let us look at Galatians 5 verses 19-21.
> One of the things in the list is {witchcraft}. Sorcery is a subset of witchcraft.
> Now let us look at Revelation 9, verse 21. Since they did not repent, then go to rev 21:8 and rev 22 verse 15.
> But those are only a small part of verses of the whole aspect of mind-altering drugs that the bible talks about.
> Lou


Thank you.

To start with, we will need a definition of the word "sorcery" and whether or not the synthesis of medicines qualifies as being such.

The following are the words to the three citations you provided. I do not see anything that equates sorcery with the practice of medicine. Do you?

"Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God"

"nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts."

"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood."


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-bokovlieph

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 21:13:28

In reply to Lou's reply-hamroutawrning SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 20:53:20

> > You don't need to provide commentary on the words found in the bible that you think support your contentions. You only need to cite them as I have done previously as per your request. If you would like to suggest to others that the bible consigns people who take Prozac to a fiery hell, don't you think you should support your contentions with the proof you say is contained in the words of the bible by simply producing them? If not, that's ok.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...need to cite them...]
> Let us look at Galatians 5 verses 19-21.
> One of the things in the list is {witchcraft}. Sorcery is a subset of witchcraft.
> Now let us look at Revelation 9, verse 21. Since they did not repent, then go to rev 21:8 and rev 22 verse 15.
> But those are only a small part of verses of the whole aspect of mind-altering drugs that the bible talks about.
> Lou

Scott,
Noe let us look at rev 20, verse 15.
Here we have those that are cast into the Lake of Fire. But how is one's name to be put into the Book of Life? But more important in this discussion IMO is rev 3:5. Here it tells of how one's name can stay in the Book of Life.
And if we look at Matt 7 verses 21-23, we find that there is another aspect of this.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-bokovlieph

Posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 7:35:45

In reply to Lou's reply-bokovlieph, posted by Lou Pilder on April 4, 2010, at 21:13:28

Here are the words to the three verses you cited. They do not appear to support your thesis. There is no mention of sorcery, and one cannot infer a definition thereof from within the text. Additionally, we find no reference to "mind-altering chemicals" or the practice of medicine. I do not see that you have demonstrated any support to your contentions. At this juncture, you have not provided any evidence that the practice of psychiatry is sorcery and that the synthesis and application of psychiatric drugs is proscribed in the bible.


- Scott

-----------------------------------------------------


"and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

" He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."

"Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"

 

Lou's reply-thmidovgd SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2010, at 8:27:04

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-bokovlieph, posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 7:35:45

> Here are the words to the three verses you cited. They do not appear to support your thesis. There is no mention of sorcery, and one cannot infer a definition thereof from within the text. Additionally, we find no reference to "mind-altering chemicals" or the practice of medicine. I do not see that you have demonstrated any support to your contentions. At this juncture, you have not provided any evidence that the practice of psychiatry is sorcery and that the synthesis and application of psychiatric drugs is proscribed in the bible.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "and if any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
>
> " He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels."
>
> "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'"

Scott,
You wrote,[...there is no mention of sorcery...no mention of mind-altering chemicals...].
In order for this topic to be understood, all of what the bible says could clarify about mind-altering drugs and what or/and who are the sorcerers and such.
But the thread here is about what the bible says, not what I think it says or even if it is about if I believe it or not.
To understand more about sorcerers, the word in that bible is pharmakia in the Greek. The book that the word is in was written in the ancient time many many centuries ago. At that time, there were no drug stores or the AMA or such. Drugs were made usually from plants. The sorcerers used the drugs from the plants for mind-altering purposes, or to poison, not to heal.
The verses were cited by me because of a connection with the Book of Life and other verses which I can not cite here due to that they could involve posting the Jewish perspective, the foundation of Judaism, and there is a post here by Mr. Hsiung threatening me with expulsion from this community if I was to post that foundation as revealed to me that I believe.
If you would like to understand more about the word sorcerer, there is Strong's, Theyer's and other lexicons that could give you more infomation. But the overiding aspect of this discussion I have not even opened up to yet, for it involves the God of the bible in question here as to the mind, and the Book of Life, and what that God says about the use of mind-altering drugs in relation to God's will and the Lake of Fire.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-thmidovgd Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 9:53:41

In reply to Lou's reply-thmidovgd SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2010, at 8:27:04

> In order for this topic to be understood, all of what the bible says could clarify about mind-altering drugs and what or/and who are the sorcerers and such.

Isn't presuming the meaning of the bible in its entirety a matter of interpretation?

> But the thread here is about what the bible says, not what I think it says or even if it is about if I believe it or not.

It seems to me that your conclusions rely almost entirely on your own personal interpretations of the words contained in the bible.

So far, my own interpretations of the verses you have cited is that it is an acceptable practice to use Prozac to treat depressive disorders. So, I guess we have a difference of opinion based upon our individual interpretations of the bible rather than a contradiction of ascertainable facts.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-rev SLS

Posted by Lou PIlder on April 5, 2010, at 14:57:03

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-thmidovgd Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 9:53:41

> > In order for this topic to be understood, all of what the bible says could clarify about mind-altering drugs and what or/and who are the sorcerers and such.
>
> Isn't presuming the meaning of the bible in its entirety a matter of interpretation?
>
> > But the thread here is about what the bible says, not what I think it says or even if it is about if I believe it or not.
>
> It seems to me that your conclusions rely almost entirely on your own personal interpretations of the words contained in the bible.
>
> So far, my own interpretations of the verses you have cited is that it is an acceptable practice to use Prozac to treat depressive disorders. So, I guess we have a difference of opinion based upon our individual interpretations of the bible rather than a contradiction of ascertainable facts.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...the meaning of the bible in its entirety a matter of interpretation?...your conclusions...personal interpretations...].
There are many interpretations of the meaning of the entirety of the bible. Those interpretations are IMO not the same as a revelation of the meaning.
When I write about aspects of the bible, it is that what I write has been revealed to me.
I do not think that I have posted any conclusions here, but have just posted citations to verses. Those that read those verses could see them and make their own determination as to what they mean. But they say what they say. I do not believe that I have posted what has been revealed to me about those citations here yet. Nor can I, for Mr. Hsiung has posted a threat to expell me from this community if I was to post what has been revealed to me about them, which could cause me to post the Jewish perspective, the foundation of Judaism, which has been revealed to me that I believe.
And this brings up something that had happened to me last year. A minister of a popular denomination contacted me as he had an episode and was diagnoed as BP. He was given the popular drug combination and our discusssion was about if taking mind-altering drugs was in the will of God as he thought. We both agreed that it depended upon if his mind would be open or not to satanic forces as a result of taking mind-altering drugs and/or if the drugs became before his God. This is another aspect of this thread's topic that I have not posted about yet which is part of the entirety of the bible. He died suddenly the day before we were to meet to conclude our discussion.
Lou

 

Lou's response-intc SLS

Posted by Lou PIlder on April 5, 2010, at 15:36:54

In reply to Re: Lou's response-secndth Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on April 3, 2010, at 18:17:53

> > This thread is involved in discussion as to if those that use mind-altering drugs will or will not be cast into the Lake of Fire as in the bible in question here.
>
> I guess I missed your point. I am interested in knowing what data you are working with.
>
> If you are to focus the discussion solely around the words of the bible and the interpretation thereof, I would be grateful if you would cite some of the verses in the bible that you feel demonstrate the validity of your thesis. I would also profit from being provided with a short list of some of the chemicals that God deems to be mind-altering, and the criteria by which one is to recognize them.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
you wrote,[...provide a short list and the criteria...]
And in another place here,[..if they are taken intellegently...]. Were the people named in this video unintelllegent?
Lou
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWr1GK7w1uE

 

Re: Lou's response-intc Lou PIlder

Posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 16:39:40

In reply to Lou's response-intc SLS, posted by Lou PIlder on April 5, 2010, at 15:36:54

> And in another place here,[..if they are taken intellegently...].

My words were: "when used intelligently."

Don't do that anymore.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-listovdrugs SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2010, at 19:32:18

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-thmidovgd Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 9:53:41

> > In order for this topic to be understood, all of what the bible says could clarify about mind-altering drugs and what or/and who are the sorcerers and such.
>
> Isn't presuming the meaning of the bible in its entirety a matter of interpretation?
>
> > But the thread here is about what the bible says, not what I think it says or even if it is about if I believe it or not.
>
> It seems to me that your conclusions rely almost entirely on your own personal interpretations of the words contained in the bible.
>
> So far, my own interpretations of the verses you have cited is that it is an acceptable practice to use Prozac to treat depressive disorders. So, I guess we have a difference of opinion based upon our individual interpretations of the bible rather than a contradiction of ascertainable facts.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...your own ..interpretations of biblical words...]
The interpretation of {sorcerer} is not mine, for it is comming from a Greek word, {pharmakia} which the lexicons state to be drugs, where the word pharmacy comes from.
Sorcerers are defined in lexicons and bible commentaries as those that use mind-altering drugs to poison or control people. Another source is a book by W.E. Wise that defines the word sorcery as such and there is the citation here by BF.
Now the sorcerer has many plants and other substances from insects and snakes to use to cut up and combine to be mind-altering. I also know of the use of by-products from smelting. Here is a list of a few
Jimson weed
mistletoe berries
poison hemlock
rhododendeon
pointsettia leaves
poison mushrooms
hemp
opium
alcohol as fermented in drink
insect and snake poisons
Now the sorcerer could poison another so that the other would die. But the sorcerer found that by giving the person small amounts of the substance without killing the person, then the person's mind could be controlled. The chemicals in the substance beacame mind-altering to deminish or blunt the person's thinking and make them easily controlled. What they may have not known is how those plant chemicals worked to poison. They are neuro-toxins, similar in action to neuroleptic drugs. They then were used as insecticides and rat poison.
Now we are discussing as to if the bible says that it is or is not God's will that people take mind-altering drugs. And there are verses that tell of the fate of sorcerers. Now if there are numerous lexicons that state that the Greek word pharmakia means drugs, and sorcerers are those that use drugs to poison or alter the mind of someone, then I think that this is useful infomation to the person here that believes that the bible is the Word of God and wants to do God's will and not have their name blotted out of the Book of Life. But there is much more to this.
Lou

 

Lou's reply- SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2010, at 21:22:27

In reply to Re: Lou's response-intc Lou PIlder, posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 16:39:40

> > And in another place here,[..if they are taken intellegently...].
>
> My words were: "when used intelligently."
>
> Don't do that anymore.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote,[...do not do {that} anymore...].
I do not use quotes here because I write from my memory which is not always perfect and have poor hand-eye contact. I am a lousy pool-player. I really can not do better. So what I see is not always what I can write. I am trying to understand what any difference could be in {when taken} an {when used}. To me, they convey the same thing. But if you could post here what the difference could be, then I could understand and have a discussion about it to bring out your point.
Lou

 

Re:

Posted by SLS on April 5, 2010, at 22:14:06

In reply to Lou's reply- SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on April 5, 2010, at 21:22:27

> Scott,
you wrote,[...provide a short list and the criteria...]
And in another place here,[..if they are taken intellegently...]. Were the people named in this video unintelllegent?

> I do not use quotes here because I write from my memory which is not always perfect

You have demonstrated along this thread the ability to retrieve text from previous posts.


- Scott


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.