First major doctrine of psychology, "all truth is relative" But is this really "true"? How can it be to a psychologist who doesn't believe anything is true? the first and most important mind-fuck of psychology, and the absolute crux of the problem people have with NOT seeing the truth of 911! It's not so much a concious belief, as a mindset that molds concious belief.
(on top of all that, it puts a lie to the whole "scientific process' of discovery.)

Yes,Christianity claims that belief in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the ONLY thing necessary to "salvation". There is no other way, no variables. On the other hand, Sidhartha Buddha was a philosopher, not a prophet or messenger of God, and NEVER claimed to be. Mohammad was, well, Mohammad ! He may or may not have actually had conversations with Allah, but in any case, his claims of Allah being the same God as Jehova can be disproven by simply reading the Holy Bible, and the Q'ran.

Quote:

You as a self-professed christian though, I can say with much certainty that you would not take into account the concepts of islam or buddhism, otherwise you would not specifically label yourself AS a christian.

My last statement is not a parroting of "Christian apologists' but from my own research. I have studied some of the beliefs of Buddhism , and studied and read the Q'ran many times. (I've even read the insanely funny "Book of Mormon!")
And I have never labeled myself a Christian,because the label leads to so many misconceptions. that's your label,not mine.


And , to all who are wondering what the Jesuit/Vatican connection to all this is, I'm afraid no simple "smoking gun" will be found.
Throughout history,they have worked behind the scenes using stealth, deceit and "psychology" to fool people into doing their bidding.
I was hoping to find a clearer link to the "founders" of psychology to the Vatican, but realize to connect the dots for everyone will require a very large picture. And at this point, don't really think it will be worth the time and effort.
For those who understand and have studied the "occult", need only read a few short biographies of Carl Gustav Jung, to see that his "theories" on the workings of the mind are derived directly from his occult researches. In other words, his Psychological concepts are based on the same "mystery religions" that form the basis of Catholisism.The Babylonian beliefs, not the twisted and tortured teachings of Jesus that the Vatican tries to pass off as truth. (the most recognizable of his concepts is the "collective unconcious",which is just a "scientific" description of the spirit world.This term is used constantly in our modern world, and no one understands what it really is, especially Psychologists! )
And I'm not here saying Jung or Freud created psychology, they were simply expanding on the beliefs of Acedemics, or people who had been educated in the great Universities. And who was behind all the great universities in Europe? It's no argument that the Jesuits have always been the educators throughout the whole of the common era (A.D.)
Many researchers have stated that "good king" Rene' D'Anjou is the father of all modern Universities, and is certainly regarded as one of the most important figures of the "enlightenment". A serious study of just this one man,(and a student could spend years connecting the dots between this man and virtually every historical personage of this most important time in world history) will see that his influences were 1. the Roman Catholic Church (he was a devout Catholic),2. the MANY secret societies he belonged to, and in some cases was reputed to be grandmaster of,3. and the occult, which was his avocation. ( in terms of academic study, the occult is nothing more than the beliefs of the "mystery religions" which go back to ancient Babylon and Egypt.) THESE are the influences of the man who influenced centuries of "Learned thought"

There is something in Jung's life that I think Phil and others may find interesting; His grandfather,Carl Jung Sr. was the grand master of the Swiss Freemasons. And He was believed to be the illegitemate son of the famous German writer, Goethe! (Faust)
And, an interesting comment in one of Jung's biographies, about him being molested by a Jesuit priest when he was 12 years old. Have not been able to confirm this, though.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

Trueblue,

MY comment was: Then you replied with: My REPLY to yours. DUH... Whether you realise it or not, you just said what I did, but worded it differently. AND AGAIN, trueblue, THAT is WHY psychology is NOT religion. Variables in psychology (to you "relative") enter into the equation with sciences, but religion does NOT allow for the variables. Should I word it differently so you MIGHT get it this time trueblue?
In SCIENCE, including psychology, but across the board, there are NO claimed absolute truths as the variables (or again for you "relativity") always come into the equation , Why can you NOT get your head around that?

YOU wrote:I don't even have to say anything..... ;)

trueblue also wrote:Again, I don't even have to comment, but you did neglect to "show" your claimed "facts". Then you stated:

Do you consider yourself a christian or not, trueblue?

Well if it is merely MY label (not taking into account the above exerpts of trueblues "christianity"), why not make it clear, not only to me but also your "brothers and sisters in christ" - like Phil or soldier of the lord, that you don't label/consider yourself as a christian?


I was just reading through the thread and firstly, apologies to iscribe for not having responded to him/her as to their comments to me. I didn't realise you had made comment, so after this post, I will address those. It will be later today my time as I have life issues to contend with, but it will be today.

Back to trueblue. I find absolute irony, in you on the one hand bitching and whining about other self professed christians, like the catholics dictating "this or that" when the ONLY knowledge you have to base your "faith" on, comes strictly from THEIR (catholic)teachings. It WAS the catholic church which compiled the doctrine you of jc you hold so dear. There is nothing to show historically prior to the inception of catholicism in circa 107ce and then built upon over a couple of centuries, but I have no doubt you equate "substance" with heresay accounts and squat else. Then you have the audacity to claim that I am a "true-believer in the catholic bs" and then direct iscribe to phils 666 banner as your "substantiated "proof" that I am?! lol heads up trueblue. I don't believe in any of that , BECAUSE there is no substantial evidence to support the existence of the BIBLE god/jesus figures YOU quite obviously ..AGAIN..hold so dear, which perhaps in a different "way" catholics and other "christian" faiths/beliefs/religions, do. YOU are the "Kling-on" here trueblue...not me.

Show me anything as to the NT certifiably dated, whether by c14 or gauged by writing style, that it came and was written PRIOR to in inception of catholicism. (which has already been mentioned in comment to dfrankl on this thread).

SHOW the "substance" you claim to requie in your personal "quest". which you claim is a given in this comment from you

trueblue wrote:I am familiar with this belief, but have found no evidence for it. To the contrary, the best evidence shows that the books of the New Testament were written long before the formation of the Catholic religion. Many of the scholars who agree with me are agnostics or atheists, and are saying this because it's true, not because they want to believe it.[/quote]

PPHHHFFTTTT!! Well then, if you have seen it, the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. I have no doubt, if you HAD "proof" of this, then you would near break your neck to present it, whether it came from agnostics, atheists or otherwise. source, especially considering you claim they "agree" with you. lol

Again though, you are funny, trueblue.












This is a sideline...to fawcett...I did have to say something as to homosexuality. THAT particular varient is not a taught concept, and the enrtire animal kingdom shows that. hey I know that missionaries have been to assorted and far-flung areas, however, I don't really believe that whatever they are claimed to be teaching in that regard, would translate and be taken aboard by MANY animals. Sus out dolphin mating/sexual behaviour to realise that it was around well before biblical doctrine.

You know what Cmar?
[spoil:fe864671d5]Despite your years of education (or probably because of) you are BY FAR the most ignorant person I've run across in my long and varied life!
Yes, I said what you just said, but worded it differently, TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IT WAS NONSENSE. You are the one who fails to see the illogic in your statements.
Your nasty reply (the whole post) actually reinforces what I said, but you're too damn dense, and SMUG, to see anything that Might possibly deflate,even a little, Your ingrained, brainwashed opinion of your RELIGION![/spoil:fe864671d5]

Personal attack ... Star

Apologies to everyone for this post, I would prefer to keep this discussion on the level of verifiable facts, but our illustrious Psychologist seemingly never learned this basic skill in all her years of schooling. Are you upset,Cmar that I don't have the proper respect for your profession? Is it because to face the truth would mean that you've wasted many years of your life, and mislead who knows how many,to believing a lie?
What exactly is it that makes you want to insult me for disagreeing with you? I've supplied facts, ALL you have supplied is opinions based on "facts" that support your opinions. for example, the fact that we don't have AN ORIGINAL,IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING, COPY OF A NEW TESTAMENT BOOK as if anyone would know what their handwriting looked like,anyway! IS NOT PROOF THAT THE WRITING IN QUESTION WAS NOT WRITTEN BY THEM!!! All the REAL evidence (and it's voluminous!) supports the opinion that the New Testament WAS written by the men who these writings have always been attributed to.
Anyone out there reading this CAN verify this for themselves. I'm not going to do their homework, or yours. Once you've seen the error in your logic, I'm sure you can still choose from any number of rationalizations to believe that the writers misunderstood Jesus, or made it all up for reasons of their own,or whatever. It's really not necessary to doubt the authorship, to doubt the message. BTW, which aspect of Catholicism leads you to believe that any of the apostles would have had anything to do with that institution? Sure, the Catholic Church claims Peter as their founder, but they also claim to be the guardians of the teachings of Jesus Christ, Which is contrary to EVERYTHING about the Catholic faith. Why would THEY write a book that flat out contradicts most of their teachings?

Whewww. enough on that already! the reason she keeps reverting back to Christianity,Which does not belong in a discussion on Psychology, is her assumption, which comes from her Psychology training, that the reason I so adamantly reject psychology, is my religious belief.If this were a court of law, I could bring in many witnesses who will testify that I held these same opinions of psychology LONG before I came to my present understanding of scripture. My "religious" beliefs have nothing to do with my opinion of psychology,Cmar, and if you can't get over that FACT, you should give it up. (this argument AND your profession.) talk about ironic, you're the one who believes in all these variables, yet you are so bound to your beliefs, you can't imagine any different.

If the kind of variables you describe were applied to, say, Physics, then I guess it would be possible for the events of 911 to have happened as suggested by the authorities. Because REAL science doesn't have that kind of latitude, I believe we are still on solid ground in our belief that it couldn't have happened that way. Science does not allow for a FACT to change with the prevailing mood.

I'm not sure that I would do that for anybody, but I sure as Hell won't bother with you! That information comes from many sources, and anyone who's REALLY interested in verifying this should do the research themselves. I don't take ANYBODY'S word for ANYTHING, and neither should anyone else!

2000 years of history is not substantial?

It doesn't even require "textual criticism" to prove that many 1st century writers quoted from known books of the NT. Just a little honesty. And there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of fragments of the NT from that period, that all agree with each other,and also disprove the opinion that over time, countless errors have corrupted our modern versions. It just ain't true!
PROVE That it's false! See how that works?

I look in vain for any factual defense of psychology in your posts, and I REALLY don't have any interest in arguing religion, with you or anybody else. In my non=professional opinion,it sounds like you have a real problem with Christianity in particular, and are using the "soft science" of psychology to prop up your obviously deep=seated hatred. It's OK. your hatred of Christianity can't possibly be as strong as my hatred of the destructive, false religion of psychology.

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

Apologies accepted.. but can you two keep your ad hominems to a minimum .. Both of you!!

As Phil said earlier in this thread he would allow the discussion even though you guys hijacked the thread.. let's keep it at that level.

I will comment on an aspect I am familiar with and that is the Psychological one.

Science bases' it's progress and reputation on .. repeatable and reviewable evidence which has a foundation in uncertain theory. There has never been complete science and there will never be such a thing. It's an evolutionary thing. The more we learn the more we need to learn. The complexity increases with time.

To me the Faith (Christian or Otherwise) issue of uncertain doctrine is a system of control, based on a personal desire to satisfy an uncertainty in Life.

This is illogical for me and I do not allow myself the comfort of feeling good in Faith. To me Life is a test of an ability to survive this fleshy world and live in reasonable psychological comfort. God is not an issue in this quest. We are of this world.

God is not of this world. The creator, whoever that conjures up for any of you and me thinkers, doesn't give a flying dingoes barbecued kidneys about your silly arguments.

FFS if God created the whole shebang what the Hell, .. do you think he considers your view relevant. He created it all in the first instance anyway.

So GET OVER IT and enjoy life as it's supposed to be enjoyed

I'm not a God Botherer

Stann

Stann,
this may surprise you,but I'm in total agreement with you. Unless you too missed it, I have never once argued an unprovable aspect of the Bible in this thread. I was responding to irresponsible academic claims regarding history,not some nebulous faith in "the force" or whatever. If you got that impression from the thread, go back and you will see that the impression came from Cmar's allegations, not from my direct statements. I am not trying to defend the content of the Bible to Cmar, but the historical writings of the documents, and am sure that you can make that distinction. She continually makes assumptions based on assumptions, and that is what I have a serious problem with. And the fact that her "credentials" would, to the average person, give more weight to her pronouncements is just one of the problems I have with her profession.
As our beloved President W. proves, social standing and a degree from a fancy university is no guarantee of coherent thinking.
I would love to have you join the debate on the issue of psychology as a science, at least then I could debate someone who understands logic!

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

trueblue: They say that it is better to seem a fool than to open your mouth and prove it. You have shown an inanity beyond belief in suggesting that physics or "real science" has not latitude. Let's look at a couple of examples of physics where great latitude is taken with the variable s to explain something. A recent case was Planck's black body, in which such latitudes had to be taken to disagree with classical physics. Einstein and his theories of relativity, or perhaps De Broglie. These theorists were taking huge latitudes with the variables in their physics to come up with their ideas. If you want to look at biology, facts do change with prevailing mood, particularly with the production of hormones.

Your referral to psychology as a 'soft science' is ridiculous. Psychology uses the same scientific principles as any of the other branches of science, Observe, hypothesise, test, record, redo. It applies across the board. Maybe you have heard of the DSM-IV. Just a little book that outlines all of the mental disorders thant have been recognised by psychology. They have been discovered through the same principles of scientific research that any discovery in physics, chemistry and biology has followed. Psychology is not just about sitting on a couch. Then again, from the ignorance that you are portraying through this thread, perhaps you still believe that schizophrenia, MPD and epilepsy are caused by demonic possession or from being moonstruck (for the bible tells you so).

Your little tirade against cmar certainly showed you to be like a rabbit in headlights. You had nothing new to say except a different version of previous rants you have used in attempts to show evidence of biblical mumbo-jumbo. I, like cmar, look forward to you actually showing something that is a) evidence b) credible and c) substantial in order to support your arguments.

Coach, are you suggesting that conditions such as epilepsy,schizophrenia, and MPD did not exist until they were named by psychology? What has psychology discovered that hadn't been observed in man before?

the very last part of your quote shows your bias, and obvious ignorance of the Bible. That statement does not apply to me. or the Bible. Whatever gave you that idea. (rhetorical question, I already know where you got that idea from.)
It truly amazes me how none of you seem to be able to argue the merits of psychology without bringing RELIGION into the battle!

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH

I do find it amusing iscribe, that you make a request to trueblue to answer your question of "God is real to you because______________ ? Please give an answer that does not include a version of "because the Bible says." and then later on in your pos,t quote from romans and hebrews! lol Too funny!

Oh, too. As for your comment .

Your boredom is your issue iscribe, but you do have the the insight now to liven things up. for yourself If you decide to read any of my postings from here on in, you at least now know to bring popcorn, lemonade and perhaps a rubic's cube to curb your "dulls". Hey, can't hurt! ;)

I make no promises. But I will refer you to a book which I was given in 1976, and first published in 1970. This was a turning point book for me. I still have the Abacus copy and it is very well worn ... has had many readers over the years.

Here's a short review for those who may be interested. It's a very logical book I might have to re-read it to participate here!



The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - John M Allegro

Stann

Uhh, Stann

I read that back about the time you first did. I take it you found it convincing?

__________________
A LIE BELIEVED BY EVERYBODY IS NOT THE TRUTH