Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm


has any1 read this/is familiar with this. i think its a nice article pointing out some of the shortcomings of christianity as a whole. interesting and humourous to read too.

DO read till the end. it can seem daunting but its worth it. the step by step mentioning of the way in which god is responsible for his creation's acts is nice too. seeing as wordtwisting normally leads real debaters off topic.

Statement: Were FeceMan a secular humanist and in perfect control over the debate, he too could best Jesus in a theoretical debate.

Admission: FeceMan has not and will not read the articles on the basis that he believes them to be little more than typical apologetics issues repeatedly brought up by ignorant believers.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Were FeceMan a secular humanist and in perfect control over the debate, he too could best Jesus in a theoretical debate.

Admission: FeceMan has not and will not read the articles on the basis that he believes them to be little more than typical apologetics issues repeatedly brought up by ignorant believers.

ahan, ahan. {get it out of your system, itll help with the rehab}

Typing Jesus up to be a moron does not make Jesus a moron.

but it isnt jesus who is a moron is it. its the confines of the idology set up by chritianity that make him "that".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but it isnt jesus who is a moron is it. its the confines of the idology set up by chritianity that make him "that".
Statement: The confines of the ideology that He created.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The confines of the ideology that He created.

untrue. the confines of the ideology selectively created/manipulated/editted by the saints/relgious figues/church, of his later beleivers. i do not think christ as a person could have been 1/100th as bad as his followers.

consider this. with limited resources/knowledge of the time. newton put pur his laws of motion. with the best of scientific intentions and curiosity o the time.

6oo years later, some of his adherant denounce quantum mechanics and reletivity because in some cases they null newton's laws of motions. do we discredit newton on the account of their ignorance??? . i dont htink so. they should know better, he did not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

6oo years later, some of his adherant denounce quantum mechanics and reletivity because in some cases they null newton's laws of motions.

you are 250-300 years off, especially bad considering how accessible those data are on Wikipedia

i was referring to the future to make a point. i am well aware of when he was alive and came up with his theory, also. when the quantum and reletavistic theoris and their extrapulant theories were created.

very well, it is I who have missed the point

hehe. gotcha

...Jesus gives Socrates big punches.

Socrates out-beards Jesus.

This uses very inaccurate arguments on Jesus behalf. For example "Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin."

The original sin was actually going against Gods rules, nothing to do with the fruit or sex. The actual act of rebellion was the sin.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
This uses very inaccurate arguments on Jesus behalf. For example "Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. After they ate, the learned of sexual love. That was the original sin."

The original sin was actually going against Gods rules, nothing to do with the fruit or sex. The actual act of rebellion was the sin.

Although in classic terms when one speaks of "original sin" there has been a tradition of equating it with sex, especially with the history of sex and the way it was viewed and treated within Christian organisations.

Of course literally it was the act of disobedience, but like all things people read into it and interpret. Thus the history of equating the original sin with sexual sin.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Although in classic terms when one speaks of "original sin" there has been a tradition of equating it with sex, especially with the history of sex and the way it was viewed and treated within Christian organisations.

Of course literally it was the act of disobedience, but like all things people read into it and interpret. Thus the history of equating the original sin with sexual sin.
Statement: That would be an idiotic, obviously false interpretation.

Declaration: The writer of this "Socrates versus Jesus" rubbish has failed.

This is more like one man's preception of Socrates versus his perception
of Jesus.

With evident bias it's easy to have the veiw you like beat the veiw you do not understand.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: That would be an idiotic, obviously false interpretation.

Declaration: The writer of this "Socrates versus Jesus" rubbish has failed.

statement: the article's popularity has sky rocketted

decleration: feceman's decleration is untrue

simply because you{who is the member of a minority} choose to interpret the bible without taking the literal meaning does not mean the vast majority of christians do. or agree with your point of view.

one interpretation is not better than the other when no context exists which can judge the word of the bible with any number of different kinds of believers.

Feceman did take the literal meaning. The sex interpretation is not even plausible at all. It is very idiotic.

is that why the bible preaches sexual modesty. praches that chidlbirth is a curse on a woman{who is not PURE for like 22 weaks after it or sumthing if im remebering correctly}. is the christian practice{well more PREACHING} of celibacy baseless? why is fornication a sin? why is it a sin to LUST? etc etc

No it isn't. Sexual morality is very healthy, childbirth is not considered a curse, teaching celibacy isn't baseless, but it isn't commanded, it is merely an option, fornication is not always a sin, and lust is dangerous because it pollutes the mind and soul.

They are unclean for 7 days after giving birth according to the Mosaic law. Which is very understandable given the times. There is a lot of blood in childbirth.

Interjection:

Originally posted by Nellinator
No it isn't. Sexual morality is very healthy, childbirth is not considered a curse, teaching celibacy isn't baseless, but it isn't commanded, it is merely an option, fornication is not always a sin, and lust is dangerous because it pollutes the mind and soul.

They are unclean for 7 days after giving birth according to the Mosaic law. Which is very understandable given the times. There is a lot of blood in childbirth.

lol. i think you forgot what i was referring to. i was merely finding support in these facts about sexual lust being the original sin in christianity as most christians believe. and you practically proved every point{maybe u had it at the back of your head that i was trying to degrade these practices in the post. lol, your so defensive}

as for thosepoints. sexual morality is taboo with well established harmful psychological/physical side affects. chidlbirth is considered a curse{by curse i mean a punishment} ill try and remeber the place and verse and get back on it. teaching celibacy is pointless/psychologically harmful, and many would interpret it as commanded. fornication is MOSTLY a sin{most would argue ALWAYS a sin}

in reality withholding sexual urges before marriages{fear punishmet/guilt/control etc} are very psychologically harmful. i can not even begin to elaborate on this fact. there shud be NO place where fornication shoudl be portrayed as bad.

lust is merely an emotion, it isnt a poison, at times it can be detrimental at times it can be good{specially SEXUAL LUST as is often referred to}. if you bottle it up and try to FORCIBLY control it, the consequnces will ALWAYS be far worse than negetive things lust can bring{other than perhaps rape which is dependant on other emotions as much as lust}.

well that can be debated upon, in many places its more than seven. and no, seven days is not any MAGICAL perfect time period to get rid of the physical affects of chidbirth. also, the bible is for people till the end of time according to your belief. is god's expression so lacking that he cud not sumhow add guidance to the people of today who have healthcare facilities and the same problems dont hold??? why shud women be unclean after child birth even for 7 days{arguably its more but i wont say until i can quote exactly}

interjection: {directed towards feceman of course}

It is not taboo. It is healthy. I'd love to see you support promiscuity as healthy with credible scientific sources because I've never seen it. Also, there is strong evidence that celibacy until marriage is healthy physically and also contributes to a lasting marriage and sexual satisfaction in the relationship.

Childbirth in itself was never considered punishment. I believe you may be referring to the fact that pains in childbirth are punishment for women. That would be Biblically supported, but children are a considered a blessing otherwise and it is encouraged. Rarely is fornication argued to always be a sin. Very few consider sex inside marriage to be a sin.

Yes, it should and it is not psychologically harmful.

One saved by Jesus does not need to forcibly control lust.

And it actually is seven days for the birth of a male child and fourteen for the birth of a female child. And it isn't a magical number, it is a safe number for cleanliness reasons. Second that isn't applicable anymore because of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law possibly in part because health care was advanced enough at that time to handle it.

"It is not taboo. It is healthy. I'd love to see you support promiscuity as healthy with credible scientific sources because I've never seen it. Also, there is strong evidence that celibacy until marriage is healthy physically and also contributes to a lasting marriage and sexual satisfaction in the relationship."

untrue untrue and untrue. it is taboo without any logical justification. it is detrimental because it limits curiosity and pleasureable acitivities to a standard which does no good but illogically forcing one to refrain which DOES do a lot of harm. promiscuity is healthy because in the absence of a lasting love interest{refering to the greater part of the world} you do not need to commit and can still have sexua;l intercourse{a healthy activity helping both physically and psychologically TREMENDOUSLY}. promiscuity also helps in variety, excitement and mental satisfaction when one has not decided to commit.

there is NO evidence{psuedo christian supprted HYPOTHESIS dont count, nor does taking things out of context} that celibacy untill marriage is healthy. quite the contrary, it supresses the main sexual urge, leading to internal conflict, frustration, mental imbalances and BOTTLING UP. person does not get to release these and it has several severely harmful affects on the psyche{puberty starts in the early teens and people generally do not get married till after 20 atleast. furthermore, the biochemicals which are released during sex and stabilise a person/form lasting reletionship with the partner{skin to skin touch releases biochemicals which help greatly in forming BONDS with your mate} are not released and you are that much likely to not be bonded mentally with a mate when you make the choice of marriage.
another thing, your forgetting the problems being sexually incompatible with your mater can have.

also, sexual urges isnt like electricity which can be turned on and off at the flick of a switch called marriage and many sexual problems arise to the inexpirienced in marriage. which can often lead to divorce.

"Childbirth in itself was never considered punishment. I believe you may be referring to the fact that pains in childbirth are punishment for women. That would be Biblically supported, but children are a considered a blessing otherwise and it is encouraged. Rarely is fornication argued to always be a sin. Very few consider sex inside marriage to be a sin."

yes i am referring to the pain. it is evidence for the sex=original sin hypothesis. not to mention show the cruelty and non sensical sadism of a christian god. fornication as ive explained is MOSTLY a sin. and that is wrong logically.

"Yes, it should and it is not psychologically harmful."

it is MOST DEFINATELY psychologically harmful, and no it shud not. HONESTLY for sum1 who claims to know the subject, you seem to nitpick and read what you want to. your willing to null all research/facts known to us today about the shortcomings of supressing sexual desire.


"One saved by Jesus does not need to forcibly control lust."

lol. do you have lust? do most christians have lust? if you say no you are delusional. if you say yes, then you and most other christians have not been saved by jesus.

"And it actually is seven days for the birth of a male child and fourteen for the birth of a female child. And it isn't a magical number, it is a safe number for cleanliness reasons. Second that isn't applicable anymore because of the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law possibly in part because health care was advanced enough at that time to handle it."

i dont remember exactly but yea, the difference seems ok. other than the fact that the time difference is COMPLETELY based on taboos and is illogical{theres no real difference between male and female birth. certainly nuthing warranting a greater period of impurity. }. there is ZERO evidence to support that 7 days is a period in which an unsterilised delivering mother is purged clean of the diseases often associated with open birth blood and the blood emission that follows.{the blood emission doesnt necessarily continue for 7 days. nor is there a difference of 7 seven days between the apparent impurity of a maleand female child. thats just the bias of the ignorant founders talking}

also, do elaborate more fully on your version of the mosaic law, i believe i missed that on kmc.

Are you actually telling a Christian what Christian's think?

He can do that. Unlike us Leon is constantly "In teh zone", so he's cool enough to be The Authority.

im telling a christianity adherant and a follower of one BRANCH of the very vast and vague christianity, what the bible says. im not preaching verses to him{if you didnt get that } but making a case for sex being the original sin, as a plausible theory, to him, who does not believe this version of events. unlike the greater christian community worldwide.

and please, dont be so ridiculed, most christians here have sumwhat conflicting views. you obviously have nt spent enough time on this forum.{although your name sounds remotely familiar}.

forgive me for asking but why is that you are asking me this? it doesnt have anything to do with the debate at hand. and you said that you were agnostic. the motivation cant possibly be vindictive could it{hint hint}. rest assured, the reputation of superman has no bearing on thisdebate so CHILL.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
im telling a christianity adherant and a follower of one BRANCH of the very vast and vague christianity, what the bible says. im not preaching verses to him{if you didnt get that } but making a case for sex being the original sin, as a plausible theory, to him, who does not believe this version of events. unlike the greater christian community worldwide.

and please, dont be so ridiculed, most christians here have sumwhat conflicting views. you obviously have nt spent enough time on this forum.{although your name sounds remotely familiar}.

forgive me for asking but why is that you are asking me this? it doesnt have anything to do with the debate at hand. and you said that you were agnostic. the motivation cant possibly be vindictive could it{hint hint}. rest assured, the reputation of superman has no bearing on thisdebate so CHILL. You, a NON-CHRISTIAN is telling a CHRISTIAN what CHRISTIAN'S think. and you're doing it with your sucky ass grammar again... "christianity adherant" "dont be so ridiculed"

Are you really so dense as to not see how large that makes your ego seem to be?

And what the hell does Superman have to do with this?

You can't tell people what it is that they think.

Function: Executing program talkcolloquial.exe...
Function: Program talkcolloquial.exe executed. Initiating.

Leon, I'm going to be as kind as possible and say the following:

You're being a retard.

The belief that the "Original Sin" is sexual immorality is not supported biblically in the least, and anyone who believes that is an idiot.

Hmm. "United as one flesh" doesn't mean playing Twister and eating shish-kebobs, now does it? No, in fact, it means sex.

But hold on a sec, let's pretend that you might be right. I'm glancing over Genesis 3 right now...no mention of sex; there's something about eating a piece of fruit and blame-passing, and there's something about a snake...but no sex. In fact, Adam doesn't have sex with Eve until Genesis 4.

"Aha!" you cry, thinking that you've caught me. "Adam didn't have sex with Eve prior to the Fall; therefore, sex is a product of the Fall! It is a sin!"

*Rubs his temples.*

When Adam talks about a "mother and a father," what do you think that he and Eve are going to adopt children?

*Sighs.*

Now, onto your next bit.

Huh. There's nothing in there about giving birth to children being a curse...except the part about the PAIN in childbirth being increased. That's not making childbirth a curse.

Oh, and as for why the Christian sexual ethic is good: In a world where the Christian sexual ethic was practiced perfectly, there would be no STDs, no unwanted pregnancies, and fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS.

I'd like to see a single study showing that promiscuity had some kind of health benefit.

(It reminds me of those experiments done with kids and some kind of candy or treat--the kid is told that he can have a treat immediately upon being seated in the room, and he is told that he can wait and have two treats. Guess who turns out better, in the long run? The kids who wait.

Hmm...the ability to delay gratification might have some kind of analogue here...a sexy analogue...but it's just not coming to me.)

Anyway, stop talking out of your ass because it's really annoying.

""""""Function: Executing program talkcolloquial.exe...
Function: Program talkcolloquial.exe executed. Initiating.

Leon, I'm going to be as kind as possible and say the following:

You're being a retard.

The belief that the "Original Sin" is sexual immorality is not supported biblically in the least, and anyone who believes that is an idiot.

Hmm. "United as one flesh" doesn't mean playing Twister and eating shish-kebobs, now does it? No, in fact, it means sex."""""""

your not paying attention. i didnt claim that is DOES mean sex. i merely claimed that the MAJORITY of christians who DO believe it to mean sex, DO have a large amount of evidence to support that claim. they also have a VALID interpretation, at least as valid as yours. im in no way, in favour of any ideology preaching against sex as a whole, and i think yours is a better point of VIEW as opposed to those who believe sex was the original sin. im not supporting them, im merely saying that christianity/bible have a lot of contradictory things, you take some to heart and interpret it one way, but the MAJORITY interprets it another and they have sound biblical evidence to back them up TOO.



"""""But hold on a sec, let's pretend that you might be right. I'm glancing over Genesis 3 right now...no mention of sex; there's something about eating a piece of fruit and blame-passing, and there's something about a snake...but no sex. In fact, Adam doesn't have sex with Eve until Genesis 4.

"Aha!" you cry, thinking that you've caught me. "Adam didn't have sex with Eve prior to the Fall; therefore, sex is a product of the Fall! It is a sin!"

*Rubs his temples.*

When Adam talks about a "mother and a father," what do you think that he and Eve are going to adopt children?""""""""

errrm, okkkkk. so adam eating the fruit had nothing to do with LUST????
now, before we mindlessly set onto the lust vs coitus debate. tell me, why did the snake use EVE to entice adam to eat the fruit?????? answer: it was SEXUAL lust/desire which enticed adam to eath the fruit in the garden of eden and fall. this supports that celibate/pain of birth being a curse/retribution point of view.

"""""""""""""""*Sighs.*

Now, onto your next bit.

Huh. There's nothing in there about giving birth to children being a curse...except the part about the PAIN in childbirth being increased. That's not making childbirth a curse.""""""""""""""""""""""'

i WAS referring to the pain, havent you been reading? WHY is the pain ob chidbirth a curse/retribution? its wrong to put women through that since they have done nothing to deserve it. you have to admit, theres sumthing seriously wrong with this.

"""""""""""""Oh, and as for why the Christian sexual ethic is good: In a world where the Christian sexual ethic was practiced perfectly, there would be no STDs, no unwanted pregnancies, and fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS."""""""""""""""""""""'

over 70% of aids transmitted in africa is inside wedlock. please do not let catholic propaganda cloud your eyes. this was from studies done by the world health organisation with backing from the u.n. and compleyte involvement. it is also their official standing on the issue. the catholic church's firm stance on birth control{the reason why most donated birth control products are burnt in african countries } is one of the leading reasons why std's are spreading like wildfire in africa. go to africa and ask a normal person why theuyr wudnt use birth control to protect themselves from aids.

the answer, the catholic church has made it popular in the continent that latex condoms have small HOLES in them not seen by the naked eye. through these the aids virus can easily pass and hence even the best quality latex condoms give NO protection{but DO incur the wrath of god for their usage} against stds. the world health organisation took this claim to the test. verdict: latex has no such hole and the molecular structure does NOT let any aids/stds virus's or pathogens pass through. yet most africans{even educated} continue to believe it.

""""""""""I'd like to see a single study showing that promiscuity had some kind of health benefit."""""""""""""""

there are more than one. there are many case studies. and perhaps your not aware of the rather large psychodynamin school of psychologie's position and theories about child sexuality/internal conflicts/i.d/ phobias etc that arise from supression of sexual urges.

the SUPRESSION of urges {which more often than not can be sated by promiscuity for a single/young person} can lead to many severely negetive affects on the psyche, even if they dont lead to full out pathological disorders.

"""""""""""(It reminds me of those experiments done with kids and some kind of candy or treat--the kid is told that he can have a treat immediately upon being seated in the room, and he is told that he can wait and have two treats. Guess who turns out better, in the long run? The kids who wait.

Hmm...the ability to delay gratification might have some kind of analogue here...a sexy analogue...but it's just not coming to me.)"""""""""

one example? and your referring to candies here. not an instinct. furthermore, im sure the authors of any respectable psychological study would NEVER label the outcome of gratifying vs non gratofying as one turning out to be BETTER than the other. its a reductionist experiment with a sever lack of ecological validity. making wild generalisations is the FIRST thing you should be wary of in psychology{or so all the lecturers ive had have told me+all books ive read warn about}

and while were being cautious here, this isnt simply a problem of premature ejaculation where delayed gratification has advantages. its the game of self blame/repression/twisting a natural positive instinct for the greater part of the formulative years of puberty.


"""""Anyway, stop talking out of your ass because it's really annoying. """""""


lol, are you perhaps frustrated by the fact that you couldnt answer in a few phrases with your traditional style of detachment and self elation based in mockery???

im not talking out of my ass. you refuse to see any truth in the matters you are stubborn about. and you have ignored a lot of the other points i made.

I think its a classic case of selecting and molding the statements to fit into the authors personal belief.

Nevertheless interesting and thought provoking.

Leon you are quite frankly being ridiculous.

The idea of "promiscuity is good" doesn't make sense any way you frame it because humans are unique. Their reasons and motives for sex with many partners vary wildly. I have known a girl who I cared about. She used sex to get at the drugs she was addicted to and to fill a void in her self-esteem. The sex was proof she was good-looking and that guys liked her.

Is this "good" in your view?

As with parenting, too much restraint and too much allowance can vary from any two kids just like reasoning for promiscuous sex can vary from any two people. Because the human mind is a very complex thing we still don't fully understand, and the soul is something we will never fully understand, there is no formula for X amount of allowance and X amount of discipline will produce a good result.

Holding out on sex could be negative; it defies basic human instinct. But overly indulging in sex is pointless Hedonist, equivalent to eating long passed your fill of food. It serves no rational purpose other than to satisfy your own longings which would generally induce more selfish behavior.

Also


Are you actively saying most Christians believe Original Sin is sex?

As far as I'm aware, Catholicism has been the dominating sect of Christianity for centuries now and the Holy Church's defines Original Sin as

"397 Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.278 All subsequent sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his goodness."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm#III

Some might indeed minconstrude original sin to relate to sexual intercourse insofar that everyone is supposedly born with sin. Thus the idea they are born with sin is a direct result of their parents having sex. But this is not the case as stated by the one true Church (for the majority of Christians you claim to be speaking about) and it's not supported under any Scripture I've read.

shin, what im saying refers to ONE variable and one variable alone. if you bring in novel situation where the variable in question has the opposite effect it generally does then that isnt a valid argument. im not saying sex as way of validating personal complexes is good any more than im saying psychological counsel is the way out for EACH AND EVERY mentally suffering person. but due to that alone, would you forsake the greater part of the mentally out of therapy knowing that unless sum unseen variables interfer{very unlikely} theyd be better off with the therapy than without it???? same goes for the other arguments.

as for the original sin, id beg to differ, WHAT was the motivation behind original sin? WHAT made the original sin possible? both things go to eve. she was seduced by the snake but that didnt mean she wasnt a willing participant. the RESULT was going against god. similar to the way killing another human is wrong in relegion. now that is because god supposedly made a LAW against it, and that is surpassed when man kills another man without reason. but do you think that the ACT of killing isnt a sin in itself reguardless of the fact that god didnt alow it? {ofcourse it gets more confusing as the allowance of the act by god and the percieved nature of the act as seein as almost synoymous by most christians who do not believe in the discrepancies between god's law and the world} . the thing about women's birth pains being a punishment for it is evidence enough of such a philosophy's existance which blames the women for the transgression and shudnt be denied. nor can one deny the treatment and outlook christianity has had{and continues to have} on the position of women in history.

Except I've seen nor read anything to suggest sexual promiscuity is a good thing.

It depends on the person. EVERY person is a variable. So making a generalization is pretty dumb.



No one will deny the masculine tilt in the Church through history.

But I know many women who are faithful Catholics and are just fine with the way it is. They don't feel demeaned or lessened. So I'm fine with it too.

Originally posted by Shin_Nikkolas
Except I've seen nor read anything to suggest sexual promiscuity is a good thing.

It depends on the person. EVERY person is a variable. So making a generalization is pretty dumb.



No one will deny the masculine tilt in the Church through history.

But I know many women who are faithful Catholics and are just fine with the way it is. They don't feel demeaned or lessened. So I'm fine with it too.

never read anything? well you havent read a lot of psychological literature then have you. or medical literature for that part. the rather significant{understatement} psychodynamic school of thought has some very important theories and valid studies on the subject. i mean you cant MISS IT if you study psychology.


and for the second part, untrue. in this phenomenon the SURROUNDINGS of a person are the variable. in all healthy surroundings a period of promiscuity is generally good and practical. sex is most DEFINATELY good. and supression is most DEFINATELY bad. this also holds true for most bad surroundings, but a few novel ones can affect you in ways where the things ATTACHED to promiscuity or teen sex are negetive. reguardless, dont blame THOSE TWO FOR IT, blame the negetive variables attached.

and the amount of women your talking about in genuinity are a minority. most who claim as such are brainwashed. and greater still and the supressed guilty majority.

Oh no. Are you gonna go Freudian on me and tell me my reppressed sexual desires are the absolute fault for everything in my life?

Clarify what you mean by psych literature. There are MANY schools of thought in the field of the mind. Jungian? Neuro? I never was much for the brain psych. The idea love, faith, etc.. all come from chemicals in teh brain and nothing more is just so lame.



Present me one source of these "valid studies" promoting sexual promiscuity as a good thing.


Sounds like waffle to me.



While I do tend to believe in Nature over Nurture, ithat is a faulty. A person is the variable because the person's inherent nature can make them as much as their surroundings. People with near perfect lives can feel worse than people in squalor because the former has several imbalances in their body and so no matter what their surroundings, they won't feel any better.



Again, a person's own body and mind is more a factor than their environment.

This is pure Hedonism. Sexual pleasure for its own reward is empty. It offers nothing to the body or mind. In fact, it is SHALLOW people who engage in such activity. The purpose of sex is to procreate and if not for that then it's for a deeper connection between two people.

Also repressing any desire, NOT a need, is bad how? To IGNORE sexual desire is bad. To keep a leash on it is beneficial as it's beneficial to understand, but not over-indulge, in any desire.



Believe me pal, women don't care what you think.

And come to think of it, neither do I.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9341709&highlight=Islam+userid%3A46345#post9341709


I don't care if my God doexn't exist. If my religion and faith is false. As long as I'm not turned into the bitter, despicable ball of ignorance and hate you are, I'm happy.

And I thank my faith for not turning me into something as retched as you.

Promiscuity is unhealthy according to everything I've ever seen in medical or psychological literature. Aside from STIs there is an increased chance of cervical cancer for women, promiscuous men apparently have an increased chance of giving sexual partners cervical cancer , . Also, I've never met or counseled a sexual addict who abstained from actual sex...
Castellsague, X.; Ghaffari, A.; Daniel, R. W.; Bosch, F. X.; Munoz, N.; Shah, K. V. Prevalence of penile human papillomarivus DNA in husbands of women with and without cervical neoplasia: A study in Spain and Colombia. Journal of Infectious Diseases 176 (2) : 353-361 1997
Agarwal, Shyman S.; Sehgal, Ashok; Sardana, Sarita; Kumar, Anil; Luthra, Usha K. Role of male behavior in cervical carcinogenesis among women with one lifetime sexual partner. Cancer (Philadelphia) 72 (5) : 1666-1669 1993

Here's a quote from the abstract for Infidelity Treatment Patterns: A Practice-based Evidence Approach from the American Journal of Family Therapy; Jul2007, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p327-341, 15p.
" Infidelity is a common presenting problem in couples therapy and can be challenging for therapists to treat."

Or you could look at Recovering from an Extramarital Relationship from a Non-Systemic Approach.. American Journal of Psychotherapy; 2007, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p181-190, 10p.

Apparently health and psychological literature show disadvantages to promiscuity. And I found that with minimal effort. Not once did I see one supporting it.

already did. psychodynamic school of thought. its one of the major ones,like humanism, behaviourism, cognitive, sociol etc. and jungian comes under psychodynamics. and when did i say that theres nuthing more to love than biochemicals{although they play a huge part} or infact when did FREUD ever say it{or his followers}, he was expressedly against it.





well keep believing that then. i never said it was an expressedly good thing in itself. i just said that there was nuthing BAD about it as the bible professes{which is most definately illogical and disproven}. if a person is confined to only sex inside marriage and not the ability to have sex before, or with people without having emotional attachements, and ends up supressing sexual urges or frustration due to it{which a lot of people do in this world practically} than it is BAD. and the bible promotes that my friend.





theirein lies the problem. a person is a template, with certain tendencies of exploitation given enough stimulus in that direction from outside. there is no such thing as person's INHERENT NATURE which is so unique in itself to warrant such conclusion. man's nature{as u describe it} is a result of socialisation and the enviornment around them for the greater part. and imbalances in the body predominantly result from stimulii from outside the body.





completely and utterly untrue. if that were the case you wudnt see child soldiers fighting in africa or mas genocide in africa/bosnia/south america etc. people are not born good or evil, they are made by their enviornment for the greater part.



utter bull. ur simply quoting the bible which is empty in such claims. your judgement means nuthing to people with broader minds. sexual pleasure in its own is PLEASURE, which harms no1 and is good for both sexes psychologically and biochemically. it helps motivate and satisfy you. and it releases biochemicals which help in being happy and having a positive outlook on life. nuthing shallow about it. the purpose of sex is so much more than procreation, otherwise such a thing as an orgasm wudnt exist! its a very backward take on sex im afraid to say.



untrue, medically, sex is officially good for you. and it is encouraged as much as possible unless it becomes unnaturally obsessive and the body can not keep up with it and stops becoming pleasureable{nymphomania etc } and that liek when u do it even when u dont desire it and over 8 times a day consistanly.





ur right, brainwashed ones dont. as for the second part, im glad.



silly rabbit. that wasnt directed towards you. it was directed towards a girl who glorified arranged marriages, death by stoning for adultery/fornication, thought masturbation was terrible and followed the rather repressive faith of islm where women hardly have rights. think before you speak because it certainly wasnt me who looked ignorant there.



baaah, whatever makes you happy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Promiscuity is unhealthy according to everything I've ever seen in medical or psychological literature. Aside from STIs there is an increased chance of cervical cancer for women, promiscuous men apparently have an increased chance of giving sexual partners cervical cancer , . Also, I've never met or counseled a sexual addict who abstained from actual sex...
Castellsague, X.; Ghaffari, A.; Daniel, R. W.; Bosch, F. X.; Munoz, N.; Shah, K. V. Prevalence of penile human papillomarivus DNA in husbands of women with and without cervical neoplasia: A study in Spain and Colombia. Journal of Infectious Diseases 176 (2) : 353-361 1997
Agarwal, Shyman S.; Sehgal, Ashok; Sardana, Sarita; Kumar, Anil; Luthra, Usha K. Role of male behavior in cervical carcinogenesis among women with one lifetime sexual partner. Cancer (Philadelphia) 72 (5) : 1666-1669 1993

Here's a quote from the abstract for Infidelity Treatment Patterns: A Practice-based Evidence Approach from the American Journal of Family Therapy; Jul2007, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p327-341, 15p.
" Infidelity is a common presenting problem in couples therapy and can be challenging for therapists to treat."

Or you could look at Recovering from an Extramarital Relationship from a Non-Systemic Approach.. American Journal of Psychotherapy; 2007, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p181-190, 10p.

Apparently health and psychological literature show disadvantages to promiscuity. And I found that with minimal effort. Not once did I see one supporting it.

you IDIOT. i wasnt referring to CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i was referring to fornication not ADULTERY. as in having sex without marrying sum1. cheating is a bad things normally pointing towards problems n whatnot on top of hurting ur partner. open ended sex is NOT. when ur not with sum1. and the sources you claim are certainly more obscure than DSM T-R.

promiscuity is not good or bad in itself{and i cant believe you brought that cervical cancer stuff up. there is ZERO emperical or scientific evidence or reasoning suggesting it. sti's are present even in marriage and being safe in sex is a different issue than having multiple pertners} but labelling it as bad is ignorant.

practically a lot of people are not looking for relationships and just hooking up is much easier to achieve. now the fact that its EASIER makes it beneficial, because it is a valid and probable way of releasing sexual tensions and achieving the physical and emotional benefits of sex.

personally id never sleep around. and comitted relationships trump the no emotional attachement one night stands by a long shot. but to judge them and call them BAD is a whole different and completely ignorant thing. again, look at the history of psychodynamics and psychoanalysis. I.D. vs EGO. and repressed i.d instincts turning into phobias and disorders etc. the PRIMARY i.d. instint outside self preservation and perhaps acquisition of food and water is sex. please dont give a biased view of psychology by preferntially quoting form obscure pieces of literature.

No, you're talking about people with shallower minds who need to drown themselves in the material to try and feel good.

Who need to overly indulge in DESIRE to feel good.

That is a pointless, Hedonist existence.

NO desire should be fed passed necessity.



Ah, relativism.

Such a broad-minded philosophy that it's utterly inapliable to understanding or founding an orderly society.

And I'm sorry but yes, Nature is more important than Nurture. Genes and the physical construct of the body are at least equal to surroundings to determining how a person acts.

It's not a HUGE difference but the body's inherent nature is slightly more important than environment.



Source.



You were the one babbling earlier about child soldiers. They aren't good or evil. It's just what they know.

This woman can make up her own mind and knows what she wants. Insulting her and her faith, which is my point, is just ignorant.

Insult a person. Not their faith.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you IDIOT. i wasnt referring to CHEATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i was referring to fornication not ADULTERY. as in having sex without marrying sum1. cheating is a bad things normally pointing towards problems n whatnot on top of hurting ur partner. open ended sex is NOT. when ur not with sum1. and the sources you claim are certainly more obscure than DSM T-R.

promiscuity is not good or bad in itself{and i cant believe you brought that cervical cancer stuff up. there is ZERO emperical or scientific evidence or reasoning suggesting it. sti's are present even in marriage and being safe in sex is a different issue than having multiple pertners} but labelling it as bad is ignorant.

practically a lot of people are not looking for relationships and just hooking up is much easier to achieve. now the fact that its EASIER makes it beneficial, because it is a valid and probable way of releasing sexual tensions and achieving the physical and emotional benefits of sex.

personally id never sleep around. and comitted relationships trump the no emotional attachement one night stands by a long shot. but to judge them and call them BAD is a whole different and completely ignorant thing. again, look at the history of psychodynamics and psychoanalysis. I.D. vs EGO. and repressed i.d instincts turning into phobias and disorders etc. the PRIMARY i.d. instint outside self preservation and perhaps acquisition of food and water is sex. please dont give a biased view of psychology by preferntially quoting form obscure pieces of literature. Really? No scientific evidence? I just proved otherwise. Those both provide evidence. It is an excepted fact. Furthermore, you have sources for nothing, everything you say is baseless and has even less science on its side. Also, not all of those were about cheating, nor were the studies focused primarily on the relationship side. Even furthermore, none of those are obscure literature. The Journal of Infectious Diseases definitely isn't. Neither are the Journal of American Psychotherapy or the American Journal of Family Therapy. So once you have used a credible source I will consider what you say, until then you only appear to be running your mouth on this subject.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Really? No scientific evidence? I just proved otherwise. Those both provide evidence. It is an excepted fact. Furthermore, you have sources for nothing, everything you say is baseless and has even less science on its side. Also, not all of those were about cheating, nor were the studies focused primarily on the relationship side. Even furthermore, none of those are obscure literature. The Journal of Infectious Diseases definitely isn't. Neither are the Journal of American Psychotherapy or the American Journal of Family Therapy. So once you have used a credible source I will consider what you say, until then you only appear to be running your mouth on this subject.


seeing as you can not understand the word psychodynamic, i.d., ego and phobias and disorders as a result of supressing i.d. instincts, im not going to continue this baseless discussion of one sided denial any longer. you are unable to accept sentences formulated on these basics. u didnt prove anything but selectively state extracts from obscure sources. either way the diagnostic and statictical manual 4- tr trumps any such sources you have. obviously u know nuthing about asessing cases or evaluating arguments. otherwise you wudnt be so vehemently and illogically denying known facts. but it really is pointless since you and shin{both bible supporters} are really the only ones talking.

you seem to have missed anythign and everything psychology seems to have found out about instincts and sexuality. in the last 2 centuries.

i cud make the same argument to prove that blacks are inferior to whites{i.e. the opposition fails to understand that they are talking about shallower minds who need to drown themselves in material to try and feal good} its a biased statement with no evidence. a LOT of desires should be fed past necessity, that is what makes life worht living and makes you feal ALIVE{by the way, love is also a desire if you hadnt noticed. try imposing your rationale onto it and see what becomes of the world} im not saying desire ALONE shud be your entire existance, but it definately is a strong part and shud be.





simply because you say so and cant make a genuine rebuttal as such? nonsense. nature has been disproven to be more important than nurture. im sorry you have a midieval mindset on the subject. many a times people will flatout deny their most basic natural needs{like you for instance denying sex for the most part} and even commit suicide against the most basic of basic, i.e. self preservation. psychology and sociology are mostly against u here.




the recommended amount of sex by general doctors and health professional for an average man/woman is atleast 4 times a week. i gave many reason for its advantages before, the fact that it majorly protects against prostate cancer is another one. go ask a doctor for heaven's sake.





obviously youve never seen people suffer and suffocate because of rrelegion. you also do not understand anything about manipulation and brainwashing. perhaps if you were to see other places in the world youd think differently before proposing such things. people kill thiir own daughters newborn, in the name of relegion/culture and PERSONAL CHOICE. not to mention rape/murder etc. do not deal with such things so trivially if u do not know the facts.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
seeing as you can not understand the word psychodynamic, i.d., ego and phobias and disorders as a result of supressing i.d. instincts, im not going to continue this baseless discussion of one sided denial any longer. you are unable to accept sentences formulated on these basics. u didnt prove anything but selectively state extracts from obscure sources. either way the diagnostic and statictical manual 4- tr trumps any such sources you have. obviously u know nuthing about asessing cases or evaluating arguments. otherwise you wudnt be so vehemently and illogically denying known facts. but it really is pointless since you and shin{both bible supporters} are really the only ones talking.

you seem to have missed anythign and everything psychology seems to have found out about instincts and sexuality. in the last 2 centuries. Or I do, and you have made no sense of what they actually mean or how it applies to the situation. The fact is that your premise is false. Abstinence from sex is not necessarily suppression of anything. It depends on the justification you have for your actions and choices. It is called self-control and there are many benefits, both social and medical to abstinence. Furthermore, the DSM does not trump my sources. First-off, the DSM is not primary literature, it is secondary literature. Mine are primary literature. That is, original research that help determine revisions of the DSM. Second the DSM is a general diagnosing aid that can be helpful, but is not in all cases wholly accurate and there is much debate over it. And I must reiterate that my sources are not obscure in the least. They are some the biggest journals in the field of psychology and are well respected by psychologists.

The funny thing is that you haven't even sourced the DSM anyways. If you want to trump my sources with the DSM you first have to quote and source the DSM.

All in all, your post is a mockery of scholarship and the research and science going into psychology. I'm now convinced that you don't have access to credible sources and therefore cannot use science in your favour in this argument.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but it isnt jesus who is a moron is it. its the confines of the idology set up by chritianity that make him "that". True.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Or I do, and you have made no sense of what they actually mean or how it applies to the situation. The fact is that your premise is false. Abstinence from sex is not necessarily suppression of anything. It depends on the justification you have for your actions and choices. It is called self-control and there are many benefits, both social and medical to abstinence. Furthermore, the DSM does not trump my sources. First-off, the DSM is not primary literature, it is secondary literature. Mine are primary literature. That is, original research that help determine revisions of the DSM. Second the DSM is a general diagnosing aid that can be helpful, but is not in all cases wholly accurate and there is much debate over it. And I must reiterate that my sources are not obscure in the least. They are some the biggest journals in the field of psychology and are well respected by psychologists.

The funny thing is that you haven't even sourced the DSM anyways. If you want to trump my sources with the DSM you first have to quote and source the DSM.

All in all, your post is a mockery of scholarship and the research and science going into psychology. I'm now convinced that you don't have access to credible sources and therefore cannot use science in your favour in this argument.

lmao. dsm-tr is THE primary literature when DIAGNOSING mental disorders. you shud also know that NO single claimed primary literature holds a candle to it because the dsm has the axial approach to diagnosing which no anecdotal literature has. what you quested were SELECTED extracts of people supporting ONE SCHOOL of psychology. again i can see by your not mentioning the points about psychodynamic school of thought as evidence for you not acknoledgeing or countering the views on sex of one of the most major schools of psychological thought there is{the others i mentioned}. the psychological approaches pf people like jung and freud{among many many respected others} are IN the psychodynamic school of thought as are all psychoanalytical approaches and the psychosexual stages of human development, plus the concepts of I.D. EGO AND SUPEREGO in the formulation of a human conciousness. i cant REFERENCE THEM any more than i can REFERENCE cognitive psychology, social psychology, humanistic psychology, or medical/somatoform psychology. they are HUGE fields with no single book referencing to them specifically.

and if anecdotal literature alone is enough for reference, out of context and uncritiqued, here goes.

freud. case study of little hans.

boy develops phobia of horses as a result of seeing a horse falling. he also develops an unusual interest in his widdler and interest in toliet functions and sleeping in bed with his mother. the phobia worsens. parents call freud. who converses with father through letter and comes to talk with boy. boy seems to be afraid of threat of castration by mother due to earlier threat by her. shows hostility to newborn sister.
has sexual dreams. starts developing hostility towards father.

freud comes to the conclusion that is is due to repressed sexual longing for the mother and made up threat of motherleaving him. this has turned into the basis for the phobia and symtom substitution would take place if the basic internal conflict between i.d and ego isnt dealt wiht. advises parents to be more understaindign broadminded and less threatening. thye point was to make hans go through a journey of self discovry anf not unhealthily supress his desires{the boy according to freud is unusually lucky as mostly in society such taboo subjects are supressed by guilt etc from relegious/social forces and his parents were understanding and non judemental and took away the guilt}

hans gets over it and this is reconfirmed when at the age of 19 he contacts freud again and has no remnants of the phobia.

this is a very very summarised and rather innacurate version of a very long case study. im sure it beign a classic case n all, that a great psychologict like urself wud know about it, either way, read up and see if it isnt any more CREDIBLE than ur sources, and do think, is such anecdotal evidence alone above the dsm and enough to base a whole wide practical perspective on.

peace brudda.

No the DSM is not. The DSM suffers from major criticism and isn't useful that often. If that was all that was used there would be many cases of misdiagnoses. However, since you have likely never diagnosed anyone you wouldn't know. There are books that deal specifically with each one of those schools. But I'm not asking for books because those aren't good sources (ie. they are secondary literature). I'm asking for primary literature and if you don't understand what that is then your entire argument of coming from a scholarly perspective is shot. Also, the articles I referenced are not representative of any single school of thought. In fact, most of them are eclectic and take the practical psychotherapy approach. Proving that you haven't access to them despite them being widely accessible to the scholarly world.

Second, the psychodynamic school of thought is progressed so far past any of the ideas that you are bringing up that it's not worth my time to discuss this with you. Second, Freud is not well respected. He is the most the ridiculed persona in the history of psychology. He has done far more harm than good. Everything that he influenced was indirect influence, such as the theory of developmental stages and the existence of defense mechanisms, but his precise ideas are no longer considered valid at all and he was disowned by his own students. Jung is often ridiculed as well.

Third, that case study is introductory psychology. Freud's conclusions are considered laughable. The ideas of penis envy and sexual longing for the mother is so dated it hurts.

fail, it is always used and neglect of use can be grounds for suspension of medical licences and malpractice lawsuits. EVERY piece of psychological literature suffers from major criticism.


there are. or atleas claimed to be. but then again a psychological diagnosis isnt similar to a somatoform diagnosis. its nearly impossible for stubborn parties to PROVE either way. that is why different schools exist and multiaxial grading in the dsm exists. it is to tackle the problem from certain ANGLES, be is psychoanalytical/behavioural or medical.



true. i am not a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist and wud never give any person a confirmed psychological diagnosis, im not that silly. but then again, have you? and again, what is primary literature????? dsm 4-tr is THE primary source of diagnosing disorders. its called the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL for a reason.



their sources might be eclectic, but your references in question are not. and they are just that, articles, a drop in the bucket. the theories of sexuality and generally accepted view of psychologically healthy sexual lifestyles is a much larger and established thing. and please dont say they take the practical psychotherapy approach, they take the biblically conveniant psychotherapy approach is more like it. and many things are widely accessible and i have read many such material, you on the other hand have never seemed to have gotten literature telling you the general view of sexuality that psychology has taken in the last century or so. theres a reason mainstream christianity/islam etc is against psychology despite claims of reconciliation.



really? because client centred psychoanalytical therapy still forms the basis of most psychodynamic treatments. plus the idea of i.d. ego/superego is pretty much intact, there are advances etc, like dissociated/frgamneted ego for psychopaths n whatnot but the basis still exists. the basis of phobias is still accepted to be internal conflict and the psychosexual stages are still extensively references by the majority of psychodynamic adherants. dream interpetation still plays a major part. surely you know all this. cause i just confirmed from a harvard qualified psychiatrist with over 20 years of practice and running a rather large non profit ngo and psychological treatment facility here. infact im pretty sure he said many of the psychodynamic adherants still use hypnosis today. {and this is a psychIATRIST}.

second, freud IS well restpected. and the insult of christian psychologists etc do nuthing to take away from his respect and place in psychology. his ideas were in infancy but not one without a grain of truth to them. its just that his ideas are misinterpreted because people fail ot understand what he MEANT when he said sexual drives etc, since it is different from a layman's definition of such things. you have to understand where he was coming from before his findings can be reconciled with general knowledge as your perspective sees it. as for the claim of more harm than good , simply because it does not cater to your subscribed morales doesnt mean its harmful. he has done a LOT of good and psychology wud not have progressed without him, nor would acceptance{that you unfortunately fail to see} of sexuality and justified instincts as healthy and necessary be accepted today by psychologists.{or perhaps your not understanding that at the times he voices his thories, the world was a much much MUCH more repressive and suffocating place than it is now. your judgement here is very much biased}. and yes, those ARE his theories, defence mechanisms, they were ESTABLISHED later like much of his work. but they are his nonetheless. only a few followers disowned him, many who left merely believed in more than just his version{jung being an example}. jung is reidiculed, yes, but so was galileo, and to this day, anthropologists who claim the earth is over 2000 years old or evolutionists, yet there is nuthing unscientific or wrong about their claims.



REGUARDLESS, it is a passage from psychology which you were demanding. and his conclusions are laughable to YOU. it is a fact that the phobia in hans vanished and that he didnt carry the guilt etc associated with it. im not saying i agree with it fully or at all, im just comparing it your rebuttal based on SOLID evidence which comes in forms of selectively quoted statements. penis envy, i agree is one of the few ideas of freud's which has been proven untrue{however i would advice u to read freud's own words on the subject, on how humble and open minded he is when suggesting such a hypothesis, and how much he accepts it is shaky. you might be surprised to the personality of the man which is so often demonised}. as for the oedipus and electra complexes, i think you cant accept that there is sumthing to it because your misinterpreting freud's meaning of SEXUAL ATTRACTION. you can not generalise with freud, read what hes saying. youll understand the meaning behind it by grasping HIS views on the motivational eros and thanatos. simply put, he associated all things PLEASUREABLE in one way or another to sexuality. because he is emphasising more on the fact that they wudnt exist if you were male or female then he is using sexuality as a way of describing sexual lust. similar to his thoeries of why god is often considered male. quite interesting even if you dont at all agree with his point of view.

oh n btw, in the REAL psychological theory, things like intelligence testing garner far FAR more critique and ridicule than the theories of freud of karl jung{little known fact} and yet ontelligence testing and i.q. testing are generally accepted as SCIENCE in the world which thinks they are based in accepted psychology. and yet im sure you wudnt have the same misgivings about these systems because they dnt much interfer with your views based in faith. all im saying is dont be biased and hasty to pass judgement.

Freud has some still vaguely viable credibility in modern psychology but most of his ideas on sex are antique and unused.

So, if you'd like to provide a more recent documentation of how sexual promiscuity is good, it be nice. And if this more recent source isn't a coke addict, that would also be helpful.

And ANY psychologist besides a quack will tell you that indulging a DESIRE passed necessity is NOT healthy.

Jesus, 10 out of 10.

Is there prep?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm

http://www.unm.edu/~humanism/socvsjes.htm


has any1 read this/is familiar with this. i think its a nice article pointing out some of the shortcomings of christianity as a whole. interesting and humourous to read too. Both made up characters. All stories based off of the zodiac.

Originally posted by Shin_Nikkolas
Freud has some still vaguely viable credibility in modern psychology but most of his ideas on sex are antique and unused.

So, if you'd like to provide a more recent documentation of how sexual promiscuity is good, it be nice. And if this more recent source isn't a coke addict, that would also be helpful.

And ANY psychologist besides a quack will tell you that indulging a DESIRE passed necessity is NOT healthy.

most of his ideas have been ADDED ON , nt destroyed. just like reletivity and quantum mechanics. i never said promiscuity is good in itself, i said there was nuthing BAD about it. and if it helped you achieve other things{i.e. releif, bodily satisfaction, pleasure, etc which ARE harder without promiscuity in certain situations} then it is good. and none of the things i describe come from a coke addict.

actually most psychologists will tell you indulge in desires and passions beyond the necessity for them{including my psychology teacher who is a very able shrink who also happens to run her ngo and the harvard dude i talked about who runs about the only charity psyche hospital here and is a psychiatrist/therapist for over 20 years. i suggest both them and the authors of most psychological literature are quacks}. its about living and making the most of life. they will only tell you to refrain from them if the desires in question are intellectually or physically harmful to you or put you in addictive cycles{although addiction holds only in the most extreme criterion for sex etc in psychology} which are harmful to your mindset for producing non delusional happiness.

please the overwhelmingly large amount of the psychological community isnt as repressive as u percieve them to be. theyd give the opposite advice of what u r suggesting.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh n btw, in the REAL psychological theory, things like intelligence testing garner far FAR more critique and ridicule than the theories of freud of karl jung{little known fact} and yet ontelligence testing and i.q. testing are generally accepted as SCIENCE in the world which thinks they are based in accepted psychology. and yet im sure you wudnt have the same misgivings about these systems because they dnt much interfer with your views based in faith. all im saying is dont be biased and hasty to pass judgement. O RLY?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I didn't attach any ego to it. I didn't support IQ tests and I don't really support IQ tests. They tend to be linguisticly and culturally biased and have many interfering factors. They are also inaccurate in certain ranges, they are outdated and pigeonhole children which I deeply resent.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=453752&pagenumber=2
Perhaps you should have been so hasty to make an erroneous and biased judgment. It is ironically hypocritical for you to say that I shouldn't while you are doing it. I am and always have been against intelligence testing and they aren't science because the questions are subjective to cultural bias and therefore are inaccurate representations of intelligence.

Originally posted by Nellinator
O RLY?


http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=453752&pagenumber=2
Perhaps you should have been so hasty to make an erroneous and biased judgment. It is ironically hypocritical for you to say that I shouldn't while you are doing it. I am and always have been against intelligence testing and they aren't science because the questions are subjective to cultural bias and therefore are inaccurate representations of intelligence.

too bad good intelligence tests have cultural markers now which take out the cultural bias or that is whats claimed. that isnt the only reason and thats besides the point. you forget that i was also on that thread and posted. and still say that you dont ridicule them to the same level as you apparently do jung and freud.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
SOCRATES vs JESUS

How much time does each one have to prepare, and what powers do they have?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
fail, it is always used and neglect of use can be grounds for suspension of medical licences and malpractice lawsuits. EVERY piece of psychological literature suffers from major criticism.


there are. or atleas claimed to be. but then again a psychological diagnosis isnt similar to a somatoform diagnosis. its nearly impossible for stubborn parties to PROVE either way. that is why different schools exist and multiaxial grading in the dsm exists. it is to tackle the problem from certain ANGLES, be is psychoanalytical/behavioural or medical.



true. i am not a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist and wud never give any person a confirmed psychological diagnosis, im not that silly. but then again, have you? and again, what is primary literature????? dsm 4-tr is THE primary source of diagnosing disorders. its called the DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL for a reason.



their sources might be eclectic, but your references in question are not. and they are just that, articles, a drop in the bucket. the theories of sexuality and generally accepted view of psychologically healthy sexual lifestyles is a much larger and established thing. and please dont say they take the practical psychotherapy approach, they take the biblically conveniant psychotherapy approach is more like it. and many things are widely accessible and i have read many such material, you on the other hand have never seemed to have gotten literature telling you the general view of sexuality that psychology has taken in the last century or so. theres a reason mainstream christianity/islam etc is against psychology despite claims of reconciliation.



really? because client centred psychoanalytical therapy still forms the basis of most psychodynamic treatments. plus the idea of i.d. ego/superego is pretty much intact, there are advances etc, like dissociated/frgamneted ego for psychopaths n whatnot but the basis still exists. the basis of phobias is still accepted to be internal conflict and the psychosexual stages are still extensively references by the majority of psychodynamic adherants. dream interpetation still plays a major part. surely you know all this. cause i just confirmed from a harvard qualified psychiatrist with over 20 years of practice and running a rather large non profit ngo and psychological treatment facility here. infact im pretty sure he said many of the psychodynamic adherants still use hypnosis today. {and this is a psychIATRIST}.

second, freud IS well restpected. and the insult of christian psychologists etc do nuthing to take away from his respect and place in psychology. his ideas were in infancy but not one without a grain of truth to them. its just that his ideas are misinterpreted because people fail ot understand what he MEANT when he said sexual drives etc, since it is different from a layman's definition of such things. you have to understand where he was coming from before his findings can be reconciled with general knowledge as your perspective sees it. as for the claim of more harm than good , simply because it does not cater to your subscribed morales doesnt mean its harmful. he has done a LOT of good and psychology wud not have progressed without him, nor would acceptance{that you unfortunately fail to see} of sexuality and justified instincts as healthy and necessary be accepted today by psychologists.{or perhaps your not understanding that at the times he voices his thories, the world was a much much MUCH more repressive and suffocating place than it is now. your judgement here is very much biased}. and yes, those ARE his theories, defence mechanisms, they were ESTABLISHED later like much of his work. but they are his nonetheless. only a few followers disowned him, many who left merely believed in more than just his version{jung being an example}. jung is reidiculed, yes, but so was galileo, and to this day, anthropologists who claim the earth is over 2000 years old or evolutionists, yet there is nuthing unscientific or wrong about their claims.



REGUARDLESS, it is a passage from psychology which you were demanding. and his conclusions are laughable to YOU. it is a fact that the phobia in hans vanished and that he didnt carry the guilt etc associated with it. im not saying i agree with it fully or at all, im just comparing it your rebuttal based on SOLID evidence which comes in forms of selectively quoted statements. penis envy, i agree is one of the few ideas of freud's which has been proven untrue{however i would advice u to read freud's own words on the subject, on how humble and open minded he is when suggesting such a hypothesis, and how much he accepts it is shaky. you might be surprised to the personality of the man which is so often demonised}. as for the oedipus and electra complexes, i think you cant accept that there is sumthing to it because your misinterpreting freud's meaning of SEXUAL ATTRACTION. you can not generalise with freud, read what hes saying. youll understand the meaning behind it by grasping HIS views on the motivational eros and thanatos. simply put, he associated all things PLEASUREABLE in one way or another to sexuality. because he is emphasising more on the fact that they wudnt exist if you were male or female then he is using sexuality as a way of describing sexual lust. similar to his thoeries of why god is often considered male. quite interesting even if you dont at all agree with his point of view. Not every piece suffers major criticism. That is simply false. Many studies go through peer review with few revisions. And no the DSM is not always used. If you did that you would be a terrible psychologist. When you are diagnosing, you would use the DSM to get a general idea. You need far more specific literature to properly diagnose a mental illness or condition. That is, several primary literature sources over the DSM. Otherwise, you deserve to have your license pulled.

No problems with the second response.

Have I? Yes. Primary literature is basically a scientific article that is the report of a study. It contains original or verifying research and is written by the people conducting the study. Credible primary literature is almost always peer reviewed and published in an established scientific journal. The DSM is secondary literature. That is, a composite that draws conclusions from the various findings of many primary sources, usually in less detail.

LOL. Those reports are take an approach to therapy combining many different schools of psychological thought. It's a fact. Have you even read them? I severely doubt it with a statement like that. Once again you are making sweeping statements about what mainstream psychology supports and yet have no sources whatsoever to back them up. You are basing them on nothing credible. If they exist and you are actually studied outside of what wikipedia tells you then source them. And internet websites don't count because that is not scholarship. Also, not that I did not say sex was unhealthy. It isn't. Promiscuity is. That is what science says.

You are right, not everything Freud said has been thrown out. Why? Because he created the idea of stages which has been extremely influential. However, psychology is moving away from that idea. From a staged development model to a continuous model. Also, Freud's personal stage model is no longer put to practical use (because it is full of holes). Rather the concept of stages that he started was adopted by Erik Erikson who was a neo-Freudian (not a Freudian) to create the idea of psychosocial development. However, even that is being replaced by the continuous model originally put forth by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. Vygotsky and Piaget themselves has many critics and their work has been heavily modified, but they are the true leaders in those areas. Ideas of dream interpretation existed long before Freud and there are many different theories. However, dream interpretation is probably the only thing that Freud really contributed to the furthering of psychology that is considered viable today. His ideas of ID and superego are heavy criticized. Lookup Karl Popper for that one. His ideas of ego and the defense mechanisms are more widely considered plausible or decent. But they still had to be extensively reworked. Freud was not scientific. Nothing he put forth was testable and, therefore, was unscientific. He had a few decent ideas, but he was idiot overall. Also, psychodynamics is a very broad term. Today, it can hardly be associated with Freud. It was been expanded and adapted into something much more scientific than anything Freud or Jung did. Very few psychologists adhere strictly to psychodynamics simply because it doesn't work very well or often. And yes, hypnosis is still used pscyhotherapy, but it is often criticized as well because it has great potential to be harmful.

Next paragraph only gets laughter. Freud is not respected. You have merely proven to me that you are not in psychology circles, or science for that matter. I do not disagree with Freud over moral reasons. See above. Once again, I never said sex has bad, therefore I'm not against science saying it's healthy. I am saying that promiscuity is unhealthy according to science and that being abstinent is not unhealthy. You have yet to source anything suggesting otherwise. I have primary literature stating otherwise. Therefore, you are now given the burden of backing your claims with something over than another long paragraph in horrible grammar containing your sweeping statements and attempts at calling my religious beliefs into a scientific debate where I have never even brought up the Bible or sourced anyone that is a Christian.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not every piece suffers major criticism. That is simply false. Many studies go through peer review with few revisions. And no the DSM is not always used. If you did that you would be a terrible psychologist. When you are diagnosing, you would use the DSM to get a general idea. You need far more specific literature to properly diagnose a mental illness or condition. That is, several primary literature sources over the DSM. Otherwise, you deserve to have your license pulled.

No problems with the second response.

Have I? Yes. Primary literature is basically a scientific article that is the report of a study. It contains original or verifying research and is written by the people conducting the study. Credible primary literature is almost always peer reviewed and published in an established scientific journal. The DSM is secondary literature. That is, a composite that draws conclusions from the various findings of many primary sources, usually in less detail.

LOL. Those reports are take an approach to therapy combining many different schools of psychological thought. It's a fact. Have you even read them? I severely doubt it with a statement like that. Once again you are making sweeping statements about what mainstream psychology supports and yet have no sources whatsoever to back them up. You are basing them on nothing credible. If they exist and you are actually studied outside of what wikipedia tells you then source them. And internet websites don't count because that is not scholarship. Also, not that I did not say sex was unhealthy. It isn't. Promiscuity is. That is what science says.

You are right, not everything Freud said has been thrown out. Why? Because he created the idea of stages which has been extremely influential. However, psychology is moving away from that idea. From a staged development model to a continuous model. Also, Freud's personal stage model is no longer put to practical use (because it is full of holes). Rather the concept of stages that he started was adopted by Erik Erikson who was a neo-Freudian (not a Freudian) to create the idea of psychosocial development. However, even that is being replaced by the continuous model originally put forth by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. Vygotsky and Piaget themselves has many critics and their work has been heavily modified, but they are the true leaders in those areas. Ideas of dream interpretation existed long before Freud and there are many different theories. However, dream interpretation is probably the only thing that Freud really contributed to the furthering of psychology that is considered viable today. His ideas of ID and superego are heavy criticized. Lookup Karl Popper for that one. His ideas of ego and the defense mechanisms are more widely considered plausible or decent. But they still had to be extensively reworked. Freud was not scientific. Nothing he put forth was testable and, therefore, was unscientific. He had a few decent ideas, but he was idiot overall. Also, psychodynamics is a very broad term. Today, it can hardly be associated with Freud. It was been expanded and adapted into something much more scientific than anything Freud or Jung did. Very few psychologists adhere strictly to psychodynamics simply because it doesn't work very well or often. And yes, hypnosis is still used pscyhotherapy, but it is often criticized as well because it has great potential to be harmful.

Next paragraph only gets laughter. Freud is not respected. You have merely proven to me that you are not in psychology circles, or science for that matter. I do not disagree with Freud over moral reasons. See above. Once again, I never said sex has bad, therefore I'm not against science saying it's healthy. I am saying that promiscuity is unhealthy according to science and that being abstinent is not unhealthy. You have yet to source anything suggesting otherwise. I have primary literature stating otherwise. Therefore, you are now given the burden of backing your claims with something over than another long paragraph in horrible grammar containing your sweeping statements and attempts at calling my religious beliefs into a scientific debate where I have never even brought up the Bible or sourced anyone that is a Christian.
That was not what I was asking for. That was simply a story you can find in any introductory psychology textbook. I'm asking for sourced evidence (ie. from a credible preferably peer-reviewed journal) that is recent (ie. the last twenty years). I disagree with Freud's views because they are not scientific and have no root in science. What they have a root in is his own sexual oddities and his anti-Victorian era sentiments. Some of his conclusions contain plausible ideas, most are idiotic. I have read Freud and he does not carry salt in his arguments. It isn't science, it is conjecture and faulty logic.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
too bad good intelligence tests have cultural markers now which take out the cultural bias or that is whats claimed. that isnt the only reason and thats besides the point. you forget that i was also on that thread and posted. and still say that you dont ridicule them to the same level as you apparently do jung and freud. There have been steps made to remove cultural bias. It is still FAR from being remedied. Plus, it is the pigeonholing I hate more than the inaccuracy of the tests. And I read your posts in that thread. I never disagreed with them.

I think Freud and Jung are jokes and they don't bother me because they are generally disregarded. I despise the use of IQ tests and what they do to children. There is a big difference between how I feel about them. Two different emotions. My criticisms of IQ tests are far more relevant because they still play a role in the psychological world.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Jesus, 10 out of 10.

Is there prep? Originally posted by Devil King
How much time does each one have to prepare, and what powers do they have?

You imitate me, Devil.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You imitate me, Devil.

No. No, my friend. I'd be imitating you if I knew what 10 out of 10 meant. As it is, I'm really only guilty of not reading the whole thread before I post.

Ten matches out of ten, ennit.

The chosen mathematical model of the CBvF.

yes it does. infact, playing the devil's advocate is a must for any primary data in psychological researches. critisism and CORRECTION however are two very different thing. i can criticise intelligence testing all i want but to be able to imprve on it is another thing. lack thereof is not evidence for validity of the premise. DSM is ALWAYS used, it is there to set limits on what can be deemed a psychological problem or what can not. practically every responsible psychologist does. and i think you are mixing what is meant by primary literature with significance here. primary literature is anything which is discovered or recorded using PRIMARY RESEARCH, i.e. case studies, social experiments etc. it isnt primary in SIGNIFICANCE. primary data is unusable in diagnosis because it is researching problems in controlled conditions and changing variables. that is not possible in real life and the dsm puts the results of those researches into summarised criterian which can be used in conjunction with alternate results to come at a conclusion. primary data is taken from one point of view alone.

No problems with the second response.



sigh. read above post. the results of primary research are tabulated or cater to controlled variable to study their affect. extended case studies of a few kinds are the only real credible form of primary data which can be used directly to come to a diagnosis. other than that it is unusable. primary as a technical term referring to primary research should not be confused with significance of literature.




outside of what wikipedia tells me??????????? i dont look at wikipedia for psychology, i study psychology as a subject and from time to time meet with psychologists/psychiatrists because of one reason or another. im not making sweeping statements about what mainstream psychology approves, i am talking about vast and established things in the greater pat of the psychological community. the problem your using in your favour is the fact that these things are so well known that people do not write papers any more on them then they write papers on how black men are less intelligent than white men or how they are more full of lust than white men{although if you looked at PRIMARY DATE statistics/studies etc youd find that this ridiculous phrase has evidence to back it up seen from a strictly biased perpspective in primary psychological data. its only in secondary data where it is questioned and a more rounded and truer view reached and in secondary literature do u find plausible explanations for it}. even if i do quote one or two sources saying sumthing understood, youd downgrade the significance of it based on the facts that youd think that they are just singular sources and do not subscribe to the generally accepted way of thinking in psychology.

as for the second part, u have zero unbiased pshychological evidence t suggest that promiscuity is bad. it is neither good nor bad, if it helps you achieve positive goals{which is often the case if extremes are not present outside sexuality in the equation} which it often can in today's world, than its good. if it doesnt, than it is bad. but its the things assocaited with it, sex is definately GOOD, not neutral.



actually no, your wrong there. psychology is trying to find a middle ground between the continuum and fragmented approach. it is not moving AWAY from the model of stages but it is doing research into other models ALONG WITH the fragmented one. there are vehement and large number of supporters for both in psychology, u shud know, even now. and btw, freud's personal model is used as much as milgram or zimbardo or taajfel or cooley. i.e. not at all, BECAUSE a model can not be called the same even if a little change has been made to it. however at the basis, the psychodynamic/psychoanalytical model is still freud's. and no milgram, is not the leader in this field, where on earthdid u get that, it is just ur subjective oppinion. u calling him an idiot doesnt improve your credibility either, just shows bias. psychodynamics is still very much freudian, and youve neglected to mention his other influences i mentioned which are credited to him, phobias as a result of supression of id instincts etc among others. also, every good psychologist adheres to multiple schools of thought, i have no problm with that as long as you dont have problem with accepting the psychodynamic views on sexuality and it being a major psychological school of thought. hypnosis has great potential for harm if misused intentionally or unintentionally. that is why you go through special training before you can be a licenced hypnotist. heck psychology as a WHOLE has great POTENTIAL for harm as its a tool unless you have the mindset to use it properly.
as for testable, he has case studies describing why exactly he came up with the explanations he did. or did you think any other explanation of the time were any more scientific for phobias etc other than somatoform ones. psychological processes can only be inferred, it is practically impossible for the greater part to actually SEE them. positivism is your friend here. i think your referring more to his theories being counterintuitive as opposed to unscientific.

and you have proven the same. there is a significant percentage which adhere more strictly to freud than i would think adviseable. there is a yet greater percentage which are accpting of psychodynamic principles and use them in conjuction with other schools of thought. as for the promiscuity remark, zero evidence and against logic. on the other hand the abstinance remark cracked me up again. really your clueless about it. abstinance is SUPRESSION of an unhealthily sever kind of a desire which arises often and has healthy physical and mental affects. honestly, your position seems to me that supression of major desires to the point of complete supression is NOT BAD. which is frankly ridiculous. you have selective quotes suggesting otherwise.{not concerning abstinence mind you}. its true u havent brought up the bible, but you might as well have with the comment on abstinance, lmao, as if. also your bias clearly shows in those last lines.




yes just like the STORY which set up piaget's stage model as having scientific basis. u can also find that in any introductory psychology book. as for the last twenty years thing, the major experimental evidence for thing like intelligence not being connected to race etc was found in the middle of the last century or earloer part of the last century. and research on such obvious matter is deemed unnecessary in the major and u prolly wudnt find an article describing major experiments to PROVE so. is that evidence for the fact that blacks are inferior mentally to whites?????

they are as scientific as one cud get at the time considering the techniques and processed being studied. your discrediting of hims shows open bias. perhaps you should read about the development of ideas/philosophy in the west before comparing freud's views in the backdrop of the scientific method as seen TODAY. he was a huge step forward. obiously weve come a long way from then but still. its like saying that newton attributing light waves to waves in the static ether was unscientific{when infact evidence-conclusion/corellation wise, it is no better than freud's conclusion of the oedipus complex stemming from personal therapy sessions with children. infact the later is more credible}. again positivism is your friend here. and there is nuthing wrong with antivictorian era sentimnts. he was a liberal and his views much more enlightened than the society that surrounded him. you misunderstand what he means by the terms he uses and hence say there is nuthing to his theories.