cmar1965

Phil wrote:Hi Phil,

Hope you are feeling a lot better.

Yes, you and I did have a LOOOONG chat about this and just as you mean no disrespect to me, ditto. However I do see significant irony in 911 "truthers" - as this board is, wanting to prod and probe and explore every given avenue, leaving no stone unturned to reveal the truth as to what happened on 911, rather than just believing at face value, "official version", but live their lives, without bothering to poke, prod and explore an also "official story" with more holes in it than a wedge of jarlsberg!

Frankly, it just doesn't add up!

Also, condescention is not my intent, however any time I ask someone, whether you or int his instance trueblue to validate their/your belief with a concrete evidence as TO stated belief, comments like "talkd down to" or condascending" enter the equation, whereby the question originally asked, wanting your replies is avoided. It should not be a difficult task to answer it, considering your "faith" is allegedly so strong, should it?

Also, Christianity IS a religion, unless of course you don't follow the commandments as dictated by the bible, or believe your salvation is dependent on "belief" in jc AS the saviour. What is supposed to happen if you DON'T accept this, Phil? Dire consequences as dictated by the alleged "good book".

FTR, the "persuasion" technique is nothing new, and in fact it is exactly what I was taught to do to get new converts into the fold. Along the lines of ""Hey, I hate religion as much as you do; I would never try to push that on you. I just want to tell you the Good News that Jesus loves you and wants a personal relationship with you. I'm not talking religion, but a relationship and having faith in Jesus' Christs' love for you."

Sound familiar Phil?

As to the comments made post the one I am replying to right now. I do have to say that I have taken no offence to anything written by yourself or trueblue, as it was merely a discussion on (well at least originally) origins of biblical texts, which frankly I see (as you know) as nothing but ficticious drivel, there mainly to instill fear, supress any REAL choice and free thought.

NO "real" loving "god" or alleged divine son would make their "love" a conditional commodity, AS the bible does and getting back to the actual topic in some way, shows that the bible is purely a work of fiction, meant to oppress and dictate conformity.

It is getting late here and I have to head off to bed, but I will address this for now, but if anyone wants me to to comment on other things I have missed, I am more than happy to tomorrow.

phil wrote:OK, well you just let me know via PM if there is a new # and also times suitable as already discussed in PM. I appreciate you are busy at the moment and rather than take you away from your current issues, I don't really need to know anything "concrete" (as to the 3 way)..as in times etcc.. until the 23-26th Nov.


Oh quick PS to Trueblue: Re Freuds letter, are you referring to the one he wrote to Otto Rank or a different "friend"? If you COULD "dig it up", citing source etc, I would be more than happy to peruse t!

trueblue

Some years ago I worked closely with a PHD psychologist. He would frequently joke about his PHD standing for "Pile it Higher and Deeper". I had a lot of respect for this man, mainly because he was smart enough to know that psychology is not a science, but a belief.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

cmar1965

Goodness me! Seems he has a lot of respect for his chosen vocation and also himself..not! lol I would certainly love to see some of his peer reviewed papers! To have a PhD some of his works MUST have been published. care to provide his name so I can sus out his works?

With all due respect trueblue, I doubt the man would have stated that psychology is not a science (considering the scientific method "hoops" he would have had to have jumped through to achieve his PhD), but rather "a belief" (which I gather you are trying to push to support your claims that psychology is religion...I am certainly enjoying your attempts at 'spin" though) psychology like all sciences, requires objectivity and being analytical, rather than strict adherence based on a singular "belief", hence with ALL sciences, again including psychology. there is always exception to a 'claimed rule and most studying, practicing it or writing about it, are open to these exceptions. Science does not claim "absolutes", like religion or faith does.

Like ALL sciences, Psychology works on the afore-mentioned scientific method of; observation, experimentation, hypotheses/ theory (based on the higher percentage of invariants over variants from observation and experimentation data), then further experimentation and analysis. When significant variant to the former hypotheses shows itself, the cycle begins again...then again...then again and so on. these again are the reasons it differs from religion, "faith" or a belief.

I do hope that clears it up for you Trueblue, oh, and any luck finding that "letter" from Freud to his pal you stated you would dig up and also, are you going to set up a thread elsewhere on here to further explore the beginnings and subsequent comments of our debate, or shall I do it?

trueblue

So, I take it Cmar, that you are SO brainwashed you can't even imagine someone making the effort to earn a PHD without becoming as brainwashed as you.?
Just curious, have you knowledge of the Tavistock Institute? and if so, what think ye of their "scientific method"?

Also, in your professional opinion, why do you think so many people would fall for the patently absurd lie of 911? I'm old enough to remember a time when only the most feeble minded would believe the lies of 911. What's happened since then to make people doubt that up is up, red is red, and that snake oil salesmen are NOT to be trusted?

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

cmar1965

Brainwashing has little to do with my comments as to your alleged PhD earned associate. It is just that I know from my own experience that there are certain expectations that he would need to be meet TO achieve it (his PhD alone would have been a full 4 year course) and someone with a PhD specifically goes into the analytical/research side of psychology, rather than becoming a practitioner. His use and knowledge and expertise of the previously mentioned "scientific method", would have factored highly into his getting the PhD,

Oh re the brainwashing thing though. I gave that up once I left the church/religion/faith. The brainwashing techniques I learned at seminars while in the "faith" environment, would make your head spin.


Trueblue wrote:Yes I certainly know of them, but their propagandic techniques have little to do with the aforementioned "scientific method", but everything to do with the already existing and perhaps first propaganda technique, known as "the holy bible". instill fear in all to follow X path or certain calamity would present itself. "satan" is bible god's, once friend now "external evil", just as Hitler was once the US's friend, then "external evil", OBL again first "friend" then external evil, same with saddam hussein. I can go on and on but you I hope get the gist by now. Just the same shit being spun out over and over and as history has shown, it is the religious "faithful" who have bought the bunk, ironically resulting in the deaths of many, in the name of "peace".

Tavistock though began in 1913 and the US itself has used that tecnique prior anyway, which the US public bought hook, line and sinker, with the propagandic "spin" on the story of "the Maine".

trueblue wrote:I don't know how old you are trueblue, nor do I know where you live, however, I am guessing as you use "zeds" rather than esses in certain words, you are in the US.

That depends on how the "so many" are sectioned, then on top their age, "faith" or other belief or non-belief system. Are you talking about those personally affected(as in loved one allegedly lost), a perhaps "survivor" from somewhere "hit" that day, or the armchair critic - pseudo patriot with the US flag flying in their front yard, so are so pissed that a claimed "external evil" has dared a claimed retaliation/attack on their "USA USA USA IS AOK" home turf, that they are willing to send their own kids off to be killed, because..."it is the 'merkin way"

I know that Australians personally affected(as per above criteria) were approached by ONE central law firm based in QLD here, offering them multi $000000 sums to NOT "make waves". Some took it, others didn't. The same could well have applied in the US, hence some (because of monetary sum received) pretend to "believe" or just keep their mouths shut, others could be suffering PTS or still going through certain stages of grief where they still don't recognise nor admit to any "loss", per se therefore really have no opinion at this time..etc etc.. They are all relative to their own personal experience. Some though may well be so deluded(and more often than not, they are the elderly, that they just believe everything their govt tells them verbatim, as "their" representative of the nation just would NOT lie to them. (despite the reality that the representatives have been lying to them their entire lives). In this case, it comes down to them refusing to even acknowledge that their own government could be party or complicit or responsible. They tend to have the fingers in their ears "la la laing" approach, unless of course it affects their pension, then all "hell" breaks loose! lol

I would say thogh that in a broad synposis incorporating them all and you asked for opinion, it comes down to mainly FEAR. Fear if they don't believe, fear if they DO speak out. They fear the consequences. History has shown what happens to dissenters,

The fear aspect is what I personally witnessed to be HUGE with the US troops I interacted with in Iraq and many of the kids I talked to while there ONLY joined the forces post 911, pushed in most cases by the pseudo patriot parents. <--- perhaps that specific point should be discussed on another thread.

Anyway, trueblue, dinner time here and I have a horde to feed.

trueblue

Even though Phil doesn't believe this debate can be profitable in any way, Cmar can't help herself from using the bludgeon of the pseudo-science of psychology to bash the competition, which is any and all religious beliefs.

I have not tried defending ANY religion here, yet Cmar constantly proves my contention that psychology was created (not discovered) for the purpose of supplanting religion. To me, a scientific based religion ( Scientology also makes the claim of being scientific ) is no improvement over a religion based on mysticism or spiritual revelation.

Simply replacing one false belief with another.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

cmar1965

You are funny trueblue, I will give you that! lol It appears by your definition, even cooking(recipe making...where the great fondue is given divinity status over other cheese products...) is religion, rather than a science, the wheel is a religion too no doubt in your eyes! lol

It appears that you tend to view anything that IS actually physically testable as a religion? AGAIN, psychology encompasses the workings of the brain, as well as subconscious/unconscious/concious, as well as the neurological chemical aspects of the working brain, which no doubt you must believe we humans have in order to function even in the most minimal way? YOU DO BELIEFVE WE ALL HAVE BRAINS, RIGHT TRUEBLUE? Psychologists did not create the brain, however scientific method discoveries have shown in many examples higher invariant "norms" to diagnose "y" as being causal to "x". Again, as all sciences there is always an exception to the rule if "w" enters the equation...again showing exception to the rule.

Religions don't allow that, and I am quite sure of someone claimed to bring forth a written gospel accoridng to "steve" showing full well in his OWN words that "he" was actually "the divine one" and his autobiography shows his life path has more than fit ALL criteria "required" as "THE christian messiah", you would freak out and say "nay"! lol

Sciences, including psychology however welcomes new information, new takes, free thought and questioning. Religion (speaking bible here) doesn't.. as even to christians, there is ONE "saviour" because the NT(bible) says so and poo poo anyone who can show significant evidences to the contrary.

I noticed that you didn't address my previous comments back to me specifically, as you quite simply couldn't as you had no viable arguement for them, hence addressing "the forum". Have you always sought "approval" from the masses or at least heirachy trueblue? Phil stepped out and I understand his reasoning, so why even mention him in your reply to debate between you and I? What is it you were trying to achieve?? That was rhetorical, BTW. You have not answered any other questions posed, so I don't expect an answer to that one either.;)

trueblue

No, in fact I never have! That's your "professional" interpretation.? That post began with an aside to Phil, that only he would understand. I really don't care if you are offended at not having my undivided attention. This isn't about you, Cmar.

For any scientific Maxim to be true, it must be repeatable. This, and this alone, is what makes something scientific. Not the theory, the experimentation, or results that confirm your theory. I have no argument with you concerning the "science" of propaganda that Psychology has helped hone to a very fine point. Manipulating the mass perception of reality is the only real achievement of psychology. (on an individual or local level,conmen have convinced people to believe all sorts of lies, long before Freud and Jung)
Which precept of psychology is, in your opinion, testable and repeatable?

Do you believe that electrical impulses racing around the human brain create thoughts?

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

Iscribe2

oh bother

Deep subject---but I did read through this whole thread curious about the original subject dealing w/ Jesuits---and thought----enough already---I had to interrupt.

I wish ppl would realize faith is based on evidence and substance. TB, God is real to you because______________ ? Please give an answer that does not include a version of "because the Bible says."

Step out.

If yours (your faith) is not based upon personal KNOWLEDGE that God has revealed himself to you without a doubt---it is on shaky ground. (As boringly illustrated by you, CMAR) These days that are upon us are going to be too hard for "Christians" to "keep the faith" unless, like Christians before them, they KNOW because they DO have a personal relationship with God. THEN it becomes more of a matter of introducing your friends / acquaintances to one another. And no, , it is not like meeting Harvey. CMAR, you have been like many others who teach about what they know not. But, TB, on this thread at least, you too.

I know God is real because of the evidence I have seen in my life
and as God is personal, I know He is more than able to provide
evidence that He Is to others.
He Is seen in His Works. Jesus Christ Is seen in His Works.
The scriptures are one ONE path to follow, and line things up with---as the prophets are subject to the prophets. But it is ignorant for anyone to limit God to the pages of a book, even if that book has been divinely inspired. Phil, you know good attorneys win cases based upon not only persuasion, but evidence.



TB, remember and never forget: Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

TB & Phil: Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I speak to you not as 2 people who do not know these things, but as 2 who need reminded. Thank you CMAR. And CMAR, may God bless you.

And poor patient (golly-I forget his name---(I apologize. Was it Frank?) you, the guy who started this thread---I hope you start another thread of that subject matter---I'd really like to read it. I will learn your name---(but if I go back to that page. this post w/b deleted in my effort--so sorry)

__________________
--Isaiah 49:24 & 25

trueblue

This is the original post of this thread;
Iscribe2. Yes this thread seems to have gone far afield, but as sometimes happens, we may discover Jesuits in the woodwork of the "science" of psychology. This thread was not ever really about religion, unless you think the Jesuits really are holy defenders of the truth as taught by Jesus Christ. I had been a student of the "New Age" religion for many years before discovering the role of Pierre Teilhard deChardin in the formation of those beliefs. (Jesuit)
I'm not the one arguing about the Christian faith here, Cmar is the one who is trying to prove somehow that psychology has proved (to her, anyway) that ALL beliefs are false.(except of course, the "scientific" discoveries of psychology)

So, in effect, this thread is not about faith, but the beliefs that attempt to undermine that faith (whatever it may be!) I can't answer your above question because my faith is FAR more complicated than the simplistic question you asked, and the simplistic answer that Cmar is looking for. I agree with you that faith is based on evidence and substance. or should be, anyway.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH