Originally posted by DigiMark007If I can't burn money to keep me warm, then I'm suffering 😛
Vows of poverty, silence, and chastity don't imply suffering, just sacrifice for a greater purpose. It's no different than meditation, since its a life decision intended to attune oneself with the more important aspects of life.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Vows of poverty, silence, and chastity don't imply suffering, just sacrifice for a greater purpose. It's no different than meditation, since its a life decision intended to attune oneself with the more important aspects of life.
poverty{christian}= deluded. god can never take anything from you nor does he require anything from you. poverty brings in physical and social hardship when severe. if a person does it for an unneeding god, then either he has to be so deluded that he doesnt feal the pain, or he will feal pain and it will be for nuthing even by the perspective of christianity.
if a person shouls do it, it should be for themselves, because they want to escape the grasps of desire/materialism etc, and for no mystical god.
silence{christian}= god gains nothing by your silence. it will severely impair ability to functions socially and psychologically and either a person is deluded again, or will feal pain. if a person does it for their OWN satistfaction/desire, to slow things down/feal the fealing of not partaking verballty, etc. than they are aware of their own reason and might not suffer. it shud be for no1 but the person themselves.
chastity{christianity}= u know the drill. god does not gain anything from it. for a normal person, its will cause mental anguish, physical side affects, their desires will manifest in different/more depraved ways.[also its almost impossible to delude one'es self to finish suffering here] it cud cause other mood/mental changes. on the other hand if they do it to escape lust/desire for personal reasons/expirience. then they may not suffer like the person who deludes himself. but as with all the above, it isnt a guaruntee.
If you are stupid and don't understand the vow of poverty that you have taken you might run into problems. But not in 99% of cases. It isn't about what God needs. It is very much a vow that focuses one away from materialism as you suggested because of what one wants to do.
Prove that people that take vows of silence suffer psychologically.
Prove that it will cause mental anguish, aversive physical side effects, or that these people desires with manifest themselves in depraved ways. Prove that it could cause mental and mood changes and prove that these people suffer.
Originally posted by Nellinator
If you are stupid and don't understand the vow of poverty that you have taken you might run into problems. But not in 99% of cases. It isn't about what God needs. It is very much a vow that focuses one away from materialism as you suggested because of what one wants to do.Prove that people that take vows of silence suffer psychologically.
Prove that it will cause mental anguish, aversive physical side effects, or that these people desires with manifest themselves in depraved ways. Prove that it could cause mental and mood changes and prove that these people suffer.
havent we been down this path already. your the man who tried to defend celibacy as having no negetive affects, reguardless of surrouding conditions and tried to defend the christian view on no sex before marriage. not to mention you found nothing wrong with the mother being impure for twice as long for a girl's birth than a boy's birth. and seem to find nothing wrong with the idea of the pain of childbirth as being a curse on women.
if you are stupid and are willing to ignore the negetivities that your relegions preaches under a guise of scholarly grasp of the subject, then i can not help you.
vows in organised relegions are often taken to please god or follow his teachings. not for personal reaosn seperate from relegious doctrines.
people who supress their desires unnaturally and furthermore do it not for themselves{for which they would have to completely understand themselves and be aware that it is what THEY want}, will develop internal conflicts. not getting enough sex or inability to form natural social relationships will negetively affect you. every1 knows that, and this will turn into psychological problems over time specially since VOWS last a lifetime.
if you think that the majority of people with lifelong vows like that, which are made based on interpretation of DOCTRINE and not completely personal reaosn will not suffer social/psychological/physical backlash, then i have nothing more to say to you. and its sad to say, but your debating tactics are getting devious.
Originally posted by leonheartmmI asked for proof. You have provided none for these statements. You provided none in the other thread and instead decided to support the pseudoscience that is psychodynamics that has proven to be harmful in psychotherapy and is a rapidly dying field that does not use any empirical evidence just like you.
havent we been down this path already. your the man who tried to defend celibacy as having no negetive affects, reguardless of surrouding conditions and tried to defend the christian view on no sex before marriage. not to mention you found nothing wrong with the mother being impure for twice as long for a girl's birth than a boy's birth. and seem to find nothing wrong with the idea of the pain of childbirth as being a curse on women.if you are stupid and are willing to ignore the negetivities that your relegions preaches under a guise of scholarly grasp of the subject, then i can not help you.
vows in organised relegions are often taken to please god or follow his teachings. not for personal reaosn seperate from relegious doctrines.
people who supress their desires unnaturally and furthermore do it not for themselves{for which they would have to completely understand themselves and be aware that it is what THEY want}, will develop internal conflicts. not getting enough sex or inability to form natural social relationships will negetively affect you. every1 knows that, and this will turn into psychological problems over time specially since VOWS last a lifetime.
if you think that the majority of people with lifelong vows like that, which are made based on interpretation of DOCTRINE and not completely personal reaosn will not suffer social/psychological/physical backlash, then i have nothing more to say to you. and its sad to say, but your debating tactics are getting devious.
So proof or you fail.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I asked for proof. You have provided none for these statements. You provided none in the other thread and instead decided to support the pseudoscience that is psychodynamics that has proven to be harmful in psychotherapy and is a rapidly dying field that does not use any empirical evidence just like you.So proof or you fail.
Can your provide proof for:
1) God exists
2) Christianity is total truth, not myth
3) Your version of God is the creator of all
4) Jesus Christ was resurrected
If you cannot provide proof, than you Fail 👇
psychodynamic therapy is NOT a declining field. you are lying. it is one of the legitamate{and very large} schools of thought in psychology, main ones being, cognitive/social/humanistic/biological/psychodynamic.
also i gave you plenty of evidence, you simply shrugged it off. but then again, i suppose i can excpect that, seeing as you dont even consider the current DSM as a PRIMARY literature when diagnosing mental disorders...
doesnt matter either way. any1 can dig up the thread and see which side had more credibility. your illogical rationalisations/protection of biblical law from a psychological perspective is ridiculously deluded at best. and the fallacy of many truths combined with lengthy debating tactics which require the most basic/accepted/apparent truths to be verified by the opposition at every corner do NOT make your argument any more legitamate then before.
Originally posted by SpearofDestinyNope, hence why I don't blame people for disagreeing with those points. Religion is not science. Psychodynamic psychology wishes it were.
Can your provide proof for:1) God exists
2) Christianity is total truth, not myth
3) Your version of God is the creator of all
4) Jesus Christ was resurrected
If you cannot provide proof, than you Fail 👇
Originally posted by leonheartmmExcept the part where it is declining and is the subject of ridicule in the scientific disciplines.
psychodynamic therapy is NOT a declining field. you are lying. it is one of the legitamate{and very large} schools of thought in psychology, main ones being, cognitive/social/humanistic/biological/psychodynamic.also i gave you plenty of evidence, you simply shrugged it off. but then again, i suppose i can excpect that, seeing as you dont even consider the current DSM as a PRIMARY literature when diagnosing mental disorders...
doesnt matter either way. any1 can dig up the thread and see which side had more credibility. your illogical rationalisations/protection of biblical law from a psychological perspective is ridiculously deluded at best. and the fallacy of many truths combined with lengthy debating tactics which require the most basic/accepted/apparent truths to be verified by the opposition at every corner do NOT make your argument any more legitamate then before.
The DSM is not primary literature. You don't even know what primary literature is apparently. Primary literature = original research articles. The DSM is not that. You have stupid ideas that don't fit the definition of what primary means. You are obviously not educated enough to make these distinctions because those are terms you have to learn in the first week of university science. Also, I did not assert that the DSM is not the most commonly used source for diagnosis. I asserted that is often critiqued and that it is dangerous to use alone. Which it is. Someone with a specialty in OCD or something of the like is not going to use the DSM because his own specialty is superior to what the DSM can offer.
Also, you fail so miserably at logic that I can't even take your assertions seriously. They are not basic truths that you use. Your typical debate tactic is to make a huge generalization, use some rhetoric and not use anything to back it up. So I ask you again to back it up. Like all other threads I have requested you to do so in, you have failed to do so. The likely conclusion is that you can't. You overstep yourself and look stupid.
So I'm still waiting for some proof of these claims. I'm also waiting for proof that psychodynamics is not pseudoscience.
Originally posted by inimalistFreud maybe, though the context should be considered. In terms of history, Freud was one of the first psychologists to really develop the field so his name is mentioned a lot, although not always in a good way.
lol, well, you know Jung and Freud are still the most prominent names in psychology...
On the list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of all-time Freud was ranked third behind B.F. Skinner and Jean Piaget. Freud was the most quoted and Jung wasn't even in the top 25 most quoted.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
poverty{christian}= deluded. god can never take anything from you nor does he require anything from you. poverty brings in physical and social hardship when severe. if a person does it for an unneeding god, then either he has to be so deluded that he doesnt feal the pain, or he will feal pain and it will be for nuthing even by the perspective of christianity.
if a person shouls do it, it should be for themselves, because they want to escape the grasps of desire/materialism etc, and for no mystical god.silence{christian}= god gains nothing by your silence. it will severely impair ability to functions socially and psychologically and either a person is deluded again, or will feal pain. if a person does it for their OWN satistfaction/desire, to slow things down/feal the fealing of not partaking verballty, etc. than they are aware of their own reason and might not suffer. it shud be for no1 but the person themselves.
chastity{christianity}= u know the drill. god does not gain anything from it. for a normal person, its will cause mental anguish, physical side affects, their desires will manifest in different/more depraved ways.[also its almost impossible to delude one'es self to finish suffering here] it cud cause other mood/mental changes. on the other hand if they do it to escape lust/desire for personal reasons/expirience. then they may not suffer like the person who deludes himself. but as with all the above, it isnt a guaruntee.
Since this was intended as a response to my last comment, I feel obligated to respond, though a bit mystified. It's good that you can explain these things in a Christian context, but my brief comment was just intended to draw a link between meditation and vows, as well as other ascetic practices.
...
Freud was almost universally wrong, but he was groping in the dark before anyone else was in the field. I admire the effort, if not the result. Jung has some valid stuff to say, but psychology in general is highly subjective and open to flaws and misrepresentation.
My one regret of one of my personal heros (Joseph Campbell) is that early in his life he was enamored with psychoanalysis and tried to recontextualize myths in this light. His only questionable writing is when he does this, though he thankfully abandoned such pursuits later in his career.
Nope, hence why I don't blame people for disagreeing with those points. Religion is not science. Psychodynamic psychology wishes it wereExcept the part where it is declining and is the subject of ridicule in the scientific disciplines.
untrue. there are many people in each field which ridicule the other, some cognitive ridicule the social, some social ridicule the biological , some biological ridicule the psychodynamic. you are merely picking the ones which serve your argument and presenting it as universal truth. freud's ORIGINAL theories in raw form are called counter intuitive and unscientific, but supression of biological urges and i.d., ego, superego {and their developed forms} are NOT called unscientific, it is simply a different perspective of looking at the issue.
The DSM is not primary literature. You don't even know what primary literature is apparently. Primary literature = original research articles. The DSM is not that. You have stupid ideas that don't fit the definition of what primary means. You are obviously not educated enough to make these distinctions because those are terms you have to learn in the first week of university science. Also, I did not assert that the DSM is not the most commonly used source for diagnosis. I asserted that is often critiqued and that it is dangerous to use alone. Which it is. Someone with a specialty in OCD or something of the like is not going to use the DSM because his own specialty is superior to what the DSM can offer.
STOP, right there. you said the dsm wasnt primary literature as far as DIOGNOSING goes, {i think the phrase used was primary DIOGNOSTIC CRITERIA}. and i disagreed. any fool who has passed highschool knows the difference between primary data{primary research data} and secondary data{compiled data not researched on by yourself}. do not try to rephrase the argument to make it seem we were discussing THAT. because we were not, you were trying to discredit the DSM as the primary criteria for diagnosing mental disorders and you failed.
sum1 who has a speciality WILL still be using the dsm criteria. but ADDING ON THEM, the dsm has rather strict MINIMUM criterian which shud be present before the disorder can be diagnoses. the only thing a specialist would be able to do without referring to or complying to the dsm is diagnose things in "remission"{which again is critiqued}. i know, this because i asked two psychologists{one of them my teacher, who is going for her phd, and the other is already a harvard trained phd in psychology and beenn practicing for 18 years in his own mental hospital. just so you can not discredit ME for coming up with idiotic information with no source} and both of them told me. not to mention that they told me that the dsm is still the primary criterion for DIAGNOSING since it is the only way that uniformity of diagnostic critera{direly needed in the world of psychology}can be reached.
Also, you fail so miserably at logic that I can't even take your assertions seriously. They are not basic truths that you use. Your typical debate tactic is to make a huge generalization, use some rhetoric and not use anything to back it up. So I ask you again to back it up. Like all other threads I have requested you to do so in, you have failed to do so. The likely conclusion is that you can't. You overstep yourself and look stupid.So I'm still waiting for some proof of these claims. I'm also waiting for proof that psychodynamics is not pseudoscience.
lmao, says the person who defends the fact that women are impure for weeks after birth and LOGICALLY impure twice as long if it is a female birth as opposed to a mel birth{yet gives NO evidence for it, which he seems to be so fond of asking the opposition}, orrr didnt you also fail miserably when i asked you to logically defend the pain of childbirth as a curse on women.
all on top of the fact that you delude yourself into beleiving the bible is not sexist.
psychodynamics is not psuedoscience. if it were then thousands of qualified psychologist wouldnt practice it, nor wd it be a part of psychology, nor wud prestigious universities offer courses in it CONSIDERING it to be psychology{consider that they do not offer courses in alchemy anymore}. only certain extreme follower of physical paradigms and schools of thought beleive it to be psuedoscience, it is simply your oppinion and it is NOT supported by evidence.
also, you have stooped to using devious debating tactics here{which i though you were above- no sarcasm intended}. initially{and any1 can see by looking up the thread}, you started out as psychodynamics being a viable schol of psychology and debated that FREUD wasnt taken seriously and said that psychodynamics was a broad term and it encompassed far more than freud who "isnt even a significant part of psychodynamics anymore".
is it just me, or are u contradicting yourself?{nicely putting it}. also, your tone is very much highheaded and condescending. please do not assume that whoever you debate with has inferior knowledge of psychology/mind/logic than your high and mighty self.
Freud maybe, though the context should be considered. In terms of history, Freud was one of the first psychologists to really develop the field so his name is mentioned a lot, although not always in a good way.
On the list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of all-time Freud was ranked third behind B.F. Skinner and Jean Piaget. Freud was the most quoted and Jung wasn't even in the top 25 most quoted. [/B][/QUOTE]