Psycho-Babble Faith Thread 958978

Shown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.

 

Antisemitism, Christian Doctrine and the Species

Posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 20:24:58

If I were a lawyer sitting in on the kind of theology that was current 40 years ago, I'd be inclined to take legal action for the whipping up of hatred.
You all know the story.
(This will be a challenge under the civility rules.)
The Jews, blessed with a special relationship with God were so bad for so long that God eventually sent His Son, whom the Jews then killed, at which point God extended his covenant to the whole world to have everlasting life, as long as they believed in Him.
(Complete failure. There's nothing civil about it. It's the best I can do.)

The manner in which certain ideas have unintended consequences is a particular interest of mine.
So I've been reading "The Crucified Jew. Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism" by Dan Cohn-Sherbok, which I came across cleaning up.

The theology mentioned was so obscure and arcane, things we know nothing of today, and the judgments so of their time, that I found myself wondering what sanity meant and whether history is a record of mass psychosis.

 

Re: Antisemitism, Christian Doctrine and the Species

Posted by gardenergirl on August 17, 2010, at 20:48:54

In reply to Antisemitism, Christian Doctrine and the Species, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 20:24:58

Sounds like some powerful stuff.

 

Re: supercessionism

Posted by hyperfocus on August 19, 2010, at 12:04:40

In reply to Antisemitism, Christian Doctrine and the Species, posted by sigismund on August 17, 2010, at 20:24:58

I don't know anything about societal antisemtism and discrimination, but theologically speaking, the idea that God broke his covenant with the Jews in favor of the new covenant of Christ is just one theory out of several.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercessionism

I just happened to read this because I was wondering about the same thing. The argument that makes the most sense to me is that Jesus and the New Testament are extensions to the 'old' covenant God made with the Jews. If you follow the Jewish faith then you will be saved. If you're a non-Jew and follow Christ you will also be saved.

In the New Testament several references are made to the 'old' law and Jesus being unwilling to break it. The water into wine story showed that even if he didn't feel like doing it, he still had to do what his mother asked of him, i.e. honor your mother and father. There are a lot of references like this where Jesus said directly or indirectly it wasn't his duty to replace the old law or old covenant.

 

Lou's request- hyperfocus

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2010, at 21:06:07

In reply to Re: supercessionism, posted by hyperfocus on August 19, 2010, at 12:04:40

Friends,
If you are considering being a discussant in thisthread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read what is in the following article. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understnding of my concerns here and of the issues presented by h-f here.
Lou
To read this paper;
A. bring up google
B. type in:
["Progressive" Psychiatry. Publisher J.F. Lehmann as promoter of Social Psychiatry under Fascism in Changes]

 

Re: Lou's request- Lou Pilder

Posted by sigismund on August 22, 2010, at 19:25:52

In reply to Lou's request- hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2010, at 21:06:07

This is very interesting Lou and I will have to give it careful consideration. I have to quibble though with the idea that he was reactionary (unless by reactionary we mean something else). His ideas sound very progressive. Anyone with a relative sent away from the family for the greater good on psychiatric advice will know how awful that form of progressiveness is.

 

Lou's request- sigismund

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2010, at 20:08:34

In reply to Re: Lou's request- Lou Pilder, posted by sigismund on August 22, 2010, at 19:25:52

> This is very interesting Lou and I will have to give it careful consideration. I have to quibble though with the idea that he was reactionary (unless by reactionary we mean something else). His ideas sound very progressive. Anyone with a relative sent away from the family for the greater good on psychiatric advice will know how awful that form of progressiveness is.

Sigismund,
Could you post more here in relation to what you posted as to wha the ideas are and the form of progressivness?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's request- Lou Pilder

Posted by sigismund on August 24, 2010, at 1:37:23

In reply to Lou's request- sigismund, posted by Lou Pilder on August 22, 2010, at 20:08:34

People use progressive to mean nice, or, in the American context, small l liberal.

I think of the Nazis and the Communists as being extremely progressive. Just what that means I'm not sure.....possibly only that they wished to change things and went about it.

I've not had an opportunity to read the article.
Some time ago I read Michael Burleigh's "Death and Deliverance: Euthanasia in Germany 1900-1945". Burleigh's books are interesting in that they are written from a conventional (Burkean) conservative perspective. The best histories I have read come from this angle and reflect how traditional political categories have changed over time. The loudest protestations about the moral deformities of recent politics have come from old fashioned conservatives feeling ethical disgust.

 

Re: social psychiatry Lou Pilder

Posted by hyperfocus on August 24, 2010, at 15:49:50

In reply to Lou's request- hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 21, 2010, at 21:06:07

I read the article and while I don't doubt that social psychiatric theories were co-opted by the Nazis to justify their genocidal plans (just like medical, economic, historical, etc. theories were co-opted) I can't say I agree with the article's premise that these ideas persist in modern psychiatry. For one thing, yes anti-psychotic drugs have a troubled history: they were poorly understood initially and did have deleterious effects on a lot of patients, they were (and still some are) used in psychiatric institutions more to physically subdue the psychotic patients than to actually treat them, they were over-prescribed, they do have heavy-duty and sometimes permanent side-effects. But these drugs have helped probably millions of people. I take small doses of an AP and have severely reduced functioning without it. The author's citing just his own work and Peter Breggin in describing the effects of APs is hardly convincing. Maybe early APs were too close to pharamacological lobotomies but this is not the situation today.

The article is not very convincing to me. It provides scant evidence that psychiatry and psychiatric medication are fulfilling a eugenics agenda, especially since patients confined to institutions come from all ethnicities. The proposed links between Lehmann and mainstream psychiatric practice are extremely tenuous. The author shows a poor understanding of the nature of psychiatric illness and practice - he seems willing to confine schizophrenia and other psychotic patients to a life without proper treatment, which is worse than what he is alleging. Psych drugs have a bad history and still need a great deal of research and development but they do help a great deal of people. I have been rather intimate with psychiatric practice for more than 12 years and I've never had any reason to suspect that it concealed an ulterior agenda other than trying to get me better.

However that said I don't know what this has to do with supercessionism or faith :). Could you explain more?

hf

> Friends,
> If you are considering being a discussant in thisthread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read what is in the following article. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understnding of my concerns here and of the issues presented by h-f here.
> Lou
> To read this paper;
> A. bring up google
> B. type in:
> ["Progressive" Psychiatry. Publisher J.F. Lehmann as promoter of Social Psychiatry under Fascism in Changes]

 

Lou's reply-chemlobo hyperfocus

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2010, at 17:10:07

In reply to Re: social psychiatry Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on August 24, 2010, at 15:49:50

> I read the article and while I don't doubt that social psychiatric theories were co-opted by the Nazis to justify their genocidal plans (just like medical, economic, historical, etc. theories were co-opted) I can't say I agree with the article's premise that these ideas persist in modern psychiatry. For one thing, yes anti-psychotic drugs have a troubled history: they were poorly understood initially and did have deleterious effects on a lot of patients, they were (and still some are) used in psychiatric institutions more to physically subdue the psychotic patients than to actually treat them, they were over-prescribed, they do have heavy-duty and sometimes permanent side-effects. But these drugs have helped probably millions of people. I take small doses of an AP and have severely reduced functioning without it. The author's citing just his own work and Peter Breggin in describing the effects of APs is hardly convincing. Maybe early APs were too close to pharamacological lobotomies but this is not the situation today.
>
> The article is not very convincing to me. It provides scant evidence that psychiatry and psychiatric medication are fulfilling a eugenics agenda, especially since patients confined to institutions come from all ethnicities. The proposed links between Lehmann and mainstream psychiatric practice are extremely tenuous. The author shows a poor understanding of the nature of psychiatric illness and practice - he seems willing to confine schizophrenia and other psychotic patients to a life without proper treatment, which is worse than what he is alleging. Psych drugs have a bad history and still need a great deal of research and development but they do help a great deal of people. I have been rather intimate with psychiatric practice for more than 12 years and I've never had any reason to suspect that it concealed an ulterior agenda other than trying to get me better.
>
> However that said I don't know what this has to do with supercessionism or faith :). Could you explain more?
>
> hf
>
> > Friends,
> > If you are considering being a discussant in thisthread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read what is in the following article. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understnding of my concerns here and of the issues presented by h-f here.
> > Lou
> > To read this paper;
> > A. bring up google
> > B. type in:
> > ["Progressive" Psychiatry. Publisher J.F. Lehmann as promoter of Social Psychiatry under Fascism in Changes]
>
Friends,
It is written here,[...pharmacological labotomies but this is not the situation today...]
The SSRI's are drugs used today as well ans other APs and ADs.
If you are considering being a discussant in thisthead or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read a few articles in relation to the claim put forth here as to after reading some of the articles you could have more infomaton to make your own determination concerning the claim here.
To read these articles,\:
A. pull up google
B;
type in:
[SSRI's, chemical lobotomy]
If you see an articl by Shane Ellison chemist, that could be one, and another that has in it's title, [K-list]. There are others
Now the stat that I have states that there are about 36,000 people each year that die from psychiatric drugs by one means or another. If that figure is just the deaths in the US, then interpolation could mean that millions of people will die going forward from these drugs by one means or another if the pace remains the same and I have not seen a challenge to those stats and if anyone has one could you please post such?
Lou
>

 

Lou's reply-ieghjeepharbhin

Posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2010, at 17:16:58

In reply to Lou's reply-chemlobo hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2010, at 17:10:07

> > I read the article and while I don't doubt that social psychiatric theories were co-opted by the Nazis to justify their genocidal plans (just like medical, economic, historical, etc. theories were co-opted) I can't say I agree with the article's premise that these ideas persist in modern psychiatry. For one thing, yes anti-psychotic drugs have a troubled history: they were poorly understood initially and did have deleterious effects on a lot of patients, they were (and still some are) used in psychiatric institutions more to physically subdue the psychotic patients than to actually treat them, they were over-prescribed, they do have heavy-duty and sometimes permanent side-effects. But these drugs have helped probably millions of people. I take small doses of an AP and have severely reduced functioning without it. The author's citing just his own work and Peter Breggin in describing the effects of APs is hardly convincing. Maybe early APs were too close to pharamacological lobotomies but this is not the situation today.
> >
> > The article is not very convincing to me. It provides scant evidence that psychiatry and psychiatric medication are fulfilling a eugenics agenda, especially since patients confined to institutions come from all ethnicities. The proposed links between Lehmann and mainstream psychiatric practice are extremely tenuous. The author shows a poor understanding of the nature of psychiatric illness and practice - he seems willing to confine schizophrenia and other psychotic patients to a life without proper treatment, which is worse than what he is alleging. Psych drugs have a bad history and still need a great deal of research and development but they do help a great deal of people. I have been rather intimate with psychiatric practice for more than 12 years and I've never had any reason to suspect that it concealed an ulterior agenda other than trying to get me better.
> >
> > However that said I don't know what this has to do with supercessionism or faith :). Could you explain more?
> >
> > hf
> >
> > > Friends,
> > > If you are considering being a discussant in thisthread or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read what is in the following article. If you could, then I think that you could have a better understnding of my concerns here and of the issues presented by h-f here.
> > > Lou
> > > To read this paper;
> > > A. bring up google
> > > B. type in:
> > > ["Progressive" Psychiatry. Publisher J.F. Lehmann as promoter of Social Psychiatry under Fascism in Changes]
> >
> Friends,
> It is written here,[...pharmacological labotomies but this is not the situation today...]
> The SSRI's are drugs used today as well ans other APs and ADs.
> If you are considering being a discussant in thisthead or parallel threads, I am requesting that you read a few articles in relation to the claim put forth here as to after reading some of the articles you could have more infomaton to make your own determination concerning the claim here.
> To read these articles,\:
> A. pull up google
> B;
> type in:
> [SSRI's, chemical lobotomy]
> If you see an articl by Shane Ellison chemist, that could be one, and another that has in it's title, [K-list]. There are others
> Now the stat that I have states that there are about 36,000 people each year that die from psychiatric drugs by one means or another. If that figure is just the deaths in the US, then interpolation could mean that millions of people will die going forward from these drugs by one means or another if the pace remains the same and I have not seen a challenge to those stats and if anyone has one could you please post such?
> Lou
> >
>
> Friends,
What you could read here as what I could post here could have the potential IMO to save your life.
Herer is an articl to further the discussion and if you could read it I think that you could have better understanding of the aspects of thisthread and parallel threads
Lou
To see the article.
A. pull up google
B: type in:
[Population control, and the U.N.! by Anton Chaitkin]
you could see the caps of ROCKEFELLER


 

Re: Lou's reply-chemlobo Lou Pilder

Posted by hyperfocus on August 25, 2010, at 1:37:11

In reply to Lou's reply-chemlobo hyperfocus, posted by Lou Pilder on August 24, 2010, at 17:10:07

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane161.htm

"Antidepressants strive to increase the levels of a coping molecule known as serotonin in the brain. It supposedly helps us find happiness when its covered in an avalanche of nastiness. But, its never been proven. Still, the drugs attempt to boost serotonin by selectively stopping the reuptake among brain cells. This is where the whole SSRI acronym came from selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Its a slick name, but a stupid idea. Nothing is selective in the body"

"Psychiatrists prescribe antipsychotic meds such as Zyprexa and Seroquel, for anything from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, psychotic depression, autism or anything else they can think of, even pervasive developmental disorder, which is perfect for boosting sales because it targets children who suffer from irritability, aggression, and agitation. Its a shame cause these drugs are good for nothing but sedating irate elephants, not curing psychiatric disease."

"While people can suffer miserably from emotional or mental duress that can hinder their lifestyle, the pseudo-science of psychiatry has yet to solve any of these problems, and in fact only contributes to poor health as seen by the wide array of side effects."

Shane Ellison might be a chemist but it's pretty clear he has a very superficial undestanding of psychiatric illness and psychiatric medication. Mental illness does not "hinder" anybody, it completely shuts down a person's mental functioning to the point where the most basic and primal instinct - self-preservation - is overriden. The idea that happiness can be found in a pill and that antipsychotics are merely heavy-duty tranquilisers is the same drivel that any layman with his own agenda would spout. Ellison is basically in the same camp as Lehmann - he refuses to allow that psychiatric diseases are just as real as cancer or HIV and posits that psychiatric treatment is some kind of sham - pursuing some other agenda. Is this your view also Lou? Do you believe that all the folks on PB can just snap-out of it, pull up on their bootstraps or think positively?

The points I'm making Lou are:
1)Psychaiatry is devoted to treating a real and very serious illness. Without treatment, sufferers of major depression, psychosis, bipolar, anxiety...are reduced to shells of human beings and and a great many will take their own life. Lifestyle changes and counseling can help some but many they cannot. For these people, drugs are a major component of treatment. I'd think spending all this time on PB would have shown you that.

2)Psychiatric treatment is very immature, but it is getting better. The superfical descriptions of what psych drugs are provided by Ellison and Lehmann are incredibly shallow and completely wrong. Ellison's dire warnings can be cut out and applied to drugs which treat pretty much any major chronic disease. If you can, find me a drug for cancer or HIV which don't have at least as many side-effects and warnings as Ellison condemns psych drugs for.

3)Let's assume that your figure of deaths "from psychiatirc medicine" is true. Then how many hundreds of thousands of people all over the world will die if no psychiatric treatment were available? I know I would be in that figure.

4) I still don't know what this has to do with supercessionism and faith :) Could you clarify ?

hf

 

Re: Lou's reply-chemlobo

Posted by sigismund on August 25, 2010, at 2:03:47

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-chemlobo Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on August 25, 2010, at 1:37:11

It's wonderful to know we have a free ranging discussion.

Let me therefore quote John Gray on humans and God

>What could be more natural for a species that has exterminated its animal kin than to look into a mirror and find that it is not alone?

 

Re: apology to Lou

Posted by hyperfocus on August 25, 2010, at 2:45:12

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-chemlobo Lou Pilder, posted by hyperfocus on August 25, 2010, at 1:37:11

Sorry if I came across too harsh on my previous post Lou - late-night yuckinness and fatigue to blame. I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things and express your own views.
I was thinking about this site - http://biopsychiatry.org which advocates a "chemical utopia" where humans would spend their days in a permanent drug-induced state of euphoria. Such a world would be a very scary place because it would be an utterly selfish world. At any rate I don't believe that God intended for man to find ecstasy in drugs. Our happiest moments a.re when we solve problems for the betterment of all


This is the end of the 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.