Kelly2363

3 hours ago, appy said:

True that the word “marriage” doesn't appear in 2 Corinthians 6. neither is there talk of perversion. But one cannot miss the words “yoke” and “unbeliever” in verse 14.

2 Corinthians 6:14 (KJV)
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14  (NLT)
Don’t team up with those who are unbelievers. How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness?

Paul for sure in this verse isn't speaking of avoiding unbelievers altogether or not being friends. So what's he talking about? Being unequally yoked must mean something other than being friends, even close friends, with an unbeliever. True that chapter 6 speaking of yoking the Christian faith with other religious or spiritual beliefs. There can be no doubt this principle also applies to other areas in our lives such as marriage.

Wedding day is more than dressing up in wedding apparel and going before a pastor while family and friends are present to witness the ceremony. The ceremony is really about the two coming together to form a lasting and binding contract that is permanent. When the two say their vows, they are agreeing to a contract.

So Paul is talking about making binding partnerships. The next verses tell us why we are commanded to not make BINDING agreements with unbeliever's. Paul cites several Old Testament Scriptures in chapter 6 to show that believers in Jesus must separate themselves from being ''yoked'' to unbelievers since God is their Father and lives among them.

It is important to note that forming a friendship is not the same as forming a contract that is binding. Paul illustrated this point with something his audience understood and was familiar with. And he also drew upon other OT teachings to show why we should not form binding agreements with unbeliever's

A yoke is a solid wooden beam that was affixed to two animals that BINDED them together. Neither animal could go in the direction they wanted to go independently, because they were bound together. Paul uses Deuteronomy 22:10 to illustrate that just as two unequal animals should not be bound together. Neither should a Christian be bound to an unbeliever.

(KJV)
Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.

(NLT)
“You must not plow with an ox and a donkey harnessed together.

One was clean and the other unclean. But they are also mismatched in strength and size and eventually one or both would chafe the other or both, that is … cause rubbing and sores, as they did not pull equally or in harmony. 

Paul is NOT speaking of romance, but that this is a spiritual issue. Paul is simply saying that we cannot be a Christian on the inside, while enjoying the unbelieving life choices. The two life choices cannot be mixed.

2 Corinthians 6:14
for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

So the idea of being yoked to someone refers to a deep bond that unites two people closely in their life’s direction and labor. For a believer to enter such a deep union with an unbeliever, while it may seem to work for a while, will ultimately chafe both parties as they are pulling in different directions, living by different priorities, serving different kingdoms, and loving different masters. Eventually the believer will be pulled towards compromise, worldliness and a diluted Christian witness.

A Christian shouldn’t pursue or enter into a marriage relationship with an unbeliever. Marriage is one of the most intimate and spiritual of all human relationships, so much so that the Bible tells us it’s a picture of Christ and the church.

Two people might seem compatible in other ways, but if one is a follower of Christ and the other is an unbeliever, it is usually the unbeliever who influences the believer to move away from Christ, and if the unbeliever is not, then the two will be pulling in different directions spiritually. This is most often painful, particularly if children are involved.

Solomon is an excellent example of this, for he started out with a heart for God, but after he married unbelieving wives, they turned his heart from God. 

 

I didn't write a thesis or a speculative report as some do - I posted three chapters of 2 Corinthians and did so to demonstrate rationally and materially that the Apostle Paul wasn't writing about marriage when he wrote the verse that was being used to demand and require a believing man to dump his chosen wife and be a more holy man. I don't care what the passage means but the simple truth is that Paul himself illuminated it in his own words and chapter 7 makes that abundantly clear. Mind you - I don't see many believers stepping down from their self righteous horses any time soon. Thats just the way of it. 

And Jesus quoted King Solomon in a somewhat curious way seeing that he had such a lust for women. It was in connection with the Queen of Sheba seeking wisdom from him. No thesis and no intention of bending my neck to abuse from pious Christians who believe they have wisdom. Then again I have been married to just one woman since the day I asked her father for her hand in marriage. Many of the marriages I witnessed have failed spectacularly. If only they had put less confidence in self righteous nonsense and more confidence in just being decent human beings.

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Yes, everyone understands what you thought you were doing. Everyone also understands what actually happened: My words were changed and negative attributions were assigned in what undeniably amounted to an unnecessary off-topic personal attack. 
 

Everyone also now sees the overture I have posted and its being neglected in favor of something else. So I am going to ask again. 

 

 

 

• If the overall theme or message of the op could be summarized into a single thesis statement (or two) what would that be? 
• If the intent of the op could likewise be summarized into a single statement what would that be?

 

.

Well it took you just four minuets to read my post and to respond - so we are done Josh. There is no godly reason to continue to engage with your comments and if you continue to abuse the OP I will simply leave the forum permanently seeing as you say that the Moderators are approving your posts.

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Yep. 

So when you make the discussion about the posters and not the posts' contents you're off-topic in your own op! 

Keep the posts about the posts and not the posters.

I though I was quoting yourself Josh when you said and I will exploit the problems to be solved and perhaps in some way reflecting on your own claim that every single post you make is being moderated and approved before becoming visible on the forum - because of complaints made about you. I made one complaint myself - but I can hardly think that would be sufficient to determine anything more than drawing attention to how your comments are perceived by me. And I only use the word perceived Josh because you tell me in this OP that I should not perceive you in a negative way. And you tell me that if I do -then I am unbiblical. Whereas, your very first comment in this OP you tell the whole forum:

Quote

 

Many times have I commended an op. This one should be deleted. It is godless from beginning to end. 

"As a man thinketh, so he is."

"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."

And all one need do to consider the veracity and efficacy is consider what kind of a person would post such dross. Psychology is like theology: we all do it whether we know it or not, even if we deny doing so and disdain those who study it. Ops like this prey upon the spiritually/scripturally and scientifically uninformed.

 

The obvious thing to say is I am the kind of man who would post such dross because I posted the OP and authored it to my use of the term Rhomphaeam in the footer I mentioned earlier.

Written by Rhomphaeam in 2009 to answer a question about the validity of social psychology in ministry.

As you assert scripturally to make your comment:

"As a man thinketh, so he is."

"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."

So why wouldn't I think that my heart is full of dross Josh - based on your statement? Yet the OP doesn't even mention Scripture or make a biblical argument. 

Perhaps the best thing to do is withdraw in humility or else post in a semblance of decency that permits others to make their own claims and to be taken to task when they actually make an argument without citing them to having a heart filled with dross. Just a thought Josh.

When @Alive posted his comment do you know why he did that Josh? I mean this specific part: "IMO, there is worthy content in this OP."

In part at least I do - and so to answer your requirement as expressed in your comment:

Let's try this:

• If the overall theme of the op could be summarized into a single thesis statement (or two) what would that be? 
• If the intent of the op could likewise be summarized into a single statement what would that be?

It could be expressed in a single sentence:

THE LATENT POWER OF THE SOUL 

@David1701 alluded to its meaning here in a sense of pointing out that Adam was an essential genius. 

I won't take a stand on this, since it's impossible to prove, but it does seem quite possible, and would explain why highly intelligent people (Adam named all the animals in one day) only now realised that they were naked (because they were not completely naked before the Fall).

And I would say, that genus mind only materialised in a semblance of meaning when iterative processes and measuring devices were capable of reading the physiology of fear as a proven fact and not simply as a theoretical and clinically observable reality. In the occult that precept has been known as an undoubted fact of practise for millennia. 

Alive knows exactly what it means and @Abrielle expressed a momentary suprise at reading something that gave her a mechanism to connect what was an essentially psychoanalytical precept to a more factual semblance of fear in a biblical meaning.

Watchman Nee wrote it all down in 1926. What I did in my book was apply a prophetic insight into this day and see by the grace of God how that latency of the soul was being utilised by Satan - even as Nee did - but Nee expressly thought that this would be through para psychology and didn't reference psychology directly because it hardly even existed as it does now. God Bless you.

An extract taken from my book at page 177 of 356

In writing this book I have been keenly aware of the difference that Watchman Nee has emphasised in his teachings, and my own emphasis. The one, that of Nee has to do with the latent power of the soul, manifest in events such as signs and wonders and speaks primarily of the Great Tribulation. The other, that of myself speaks of sorcery arising out of the physical body itself, in the churches today; but points to the Great Tribulation as a final expression of sorcerous activity more generally. I have very good reasons for speaking of the need to understand sorcerous action as firstly arising from the physical body, and only then speaking of its expression through the soul. I may be mistaken in this assessment of Nee, but the difference may be simply a difference of the day these things are being written in. I believe that Nee was primarily concerned with the development of parapsychology and its introduction into general psychology, whereas I am more concerned with physical realities; while being expressed psychologically, are necessarily grounded in the body’s chemistry and neurophysiology.

This is not to deny that the heart is wicked and deceitful, rather it is to say that regardless of traditional occult practises, while they are mostly acquired through many years of study by its practitioners; the internal neurophysiological mechanisms that constitute the instrument of expressing the soul, cannot in any real sense be ignored. Curses have to pass through the mind, as do boastings, as must purified self-interest. Even miracles of healing are spoken through the mouth. None of this activity is independent of the nervous system and its various parts. In fact, it can be shown in all cultures that the body itself is essential to the ambition of experiencing sorcerous self-awakening, with its outward and visible practises and supernatural evidence. The way these things are presented varies, but the central characteristic is always the same. It is to make of the man a god in his own estimation, and for this god-man to live a supernatural life expressed in speech, well-being, and good health; both for himself and others if he is also a shamanistic prophet.

7 minutes ago, Josheb said:

The rest is immaterial. 

If you are off-topic in your own op then you have no basis for accusing others of doing the same, especially when it is not true. 

 

 

The op is specifically, explicitly a "warning" about psychology. Good. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with falsehood and falsehood presented to members of the body as if it is truth AND a failure to be forthcoming, honest, and collaborative with correcting the errors. This op is working from false information, antiquated and irrelevant information, misrepresenting and entire profession, doing so with potential adverse effect on the body, avoidance of more contemporary and valid concerns, and with a blatantly adversarial ad hominem resistance to better, more scriptural alternatives!

 

Any one of those could a place of collaboration. 

The OP tile explicitly and self evidently is 

Psychology – A Warning

The warning is also explicitly stated in the OP comment. It is also explained in the footer of the OP section as to its origination and what question it was answering or addressing. So I have also given multiple ways to see what the OP is about in my intention - and social psychology does have a very large inference to that meaning of a warning. But we haven't even moved from a definition of the physic of fear. There is no possibility of my addressing anything at all. That does seem to be the permitted will of the Moderators - seeing as they are posting your comments. 

I also raised a point that addresses your more fearful position as expressed in the second paragraph and spoke about Theotherapy as a modality. I also addressed that meaning to my personal position and stated that I do not use that modality myself even though I have studied it. What more can I do Josh? Are you writing the OP are are you going to address the OP and accept my answers as my own without telling me that I am always wrong? Where is the grace of God in that?

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

You have the opportunity to correct some of this here and now beginning with an acknowledgment much of this is antiquated. No one studies Freud anymore! ALL of the theories and techniques of the early days have been improved upon, transformed enormously, or simply done away with AND that's happened in both the secular arena and the Christian arena AND it has often happened because Christians did not abdicate the science to godless people. This thread is currently five pages of posts long. Where is the information on the current state of affairs, the current risks and concerns Christians should have today???  Where is the mention of Buddhist influences? Where is the mention of the influences of folks like Rawls (do you even know about whom I just referred)? Where is the mention of any of the empirically tested and repeatable influence and progress of Christians in the field?

And you have an opportunity to desist from endlessly inflecting meanings that are only upheld in your narrative diction. Either stick to the OP or else leave.

Trusting emotions based in physical experience is the most common basis for deception. In this scheme, physical means especially the eyes, the ears and the inner physiology of the central nervous system, forming a basis for believing what is seen or heard with no more justification than experiencing the body itself. Deception, is no less profound in its outworking towards others than through the body itself. My assertion is that in this day in which we live Satan is specifically seeking to make the emotional (physical) experience the basis for knowing what truth is. This is not only a matter of pseudo faith as a mechanism for achieving false conversions, but it is a very real danger for the one who is born again if we are not taught to deny ourselves daily.

With these things in mind, therefore, we can ask, what physical fear is? A simple physical schematic for describing fear may be as follows.

Auditory, visual and olfactory, stimuli are relayed by the Thalamus to the Amygdala and Cerebral Cortex. The Amygdala also receives contextual information from the Hippocampus. After processing of the emotional stimuli, the central nucleus of the Amygdala activates the nucleus of the Pons which triggers a noradrenaline response as well as stimulating the Hypothalamic nuclei. The stria terminalis (brainstem) or the extended Amygdala also acts as a control centre for the noradrenaline uptake response by integrating information from both the Amygdala itself as well as the Hippocampus. The central nucleus of the Amygdala is responsible for activating the Vagus Nerve in the Medulla (characteristically increased heart rate and raised blood pressure), In finality, the Frontal Cortex formulates cognitive responses which serve to modulate ongoing physiological responses. (Fight, Flight or Paralysis).

In this physical description of the principle parts of the Nervous System, involved in fear, we may realise very quickly that it is necessary to have a link between that which is physical and that which is psychical (soul).

I have no intention of being driven by your participation no matter how you perceive any value in it. If you want to answer @Alive then stick to the TOU and stop driving others with an endless determination to uphold psychology because the underpinning science of the more recent theoretical schools prove the bible (as you claim). I could show you Hindu texts written thousands of years ago in the Indus Valley that uphold these same premises in the bible and in modern psychology. That too is in my book Josh. It is God who proves God - not men unless those men are streams of living waters coming out of their innermost parts. Be blessed Josh and try to stick to the OP. 

21 minutes ago, Josheb said:

You're not sticking to what I've brought to bear on the op. Man up. People have complained, Kelly. Every single post of mine is being reviewed by the mods. Every single post is being approved. 

That may be as it is. But whether that is a reflection of seeing how your manner could prove to uphold a continued exercise of that manner or else give ground to allowing others to write respectful and non personal posts that are only permitted to be personal in as much as those implications to ones claims are biblically implied remains to be stated by a Moderator. So either find the OP directive - and if as you claim you have understood it - be that from the OP itself or else of necessity others comments including my own replies - then utilise that and accept my responses to what you say are OP relevant interventions to represent others. 

15 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I am. 

You're not sticking to what I've brought to bear on the op. Man up. People have complained, Kelly. Every single post of mine is being reviewed by the mods. Every single post is being approved. 

You don't have basis for complaint. 

I understood what was posted. I rad what qualifications and lack of qualifications were posted. I simply asked for more information and none was forthcoming. You, not me, are leaving the readers not-knowing! I will give you credit for any qualification possessed. Everyone, not just me should know what expertise you bring to your own op IF you mean to tell other what and how to think AND do so in a manner and on a topic that can serious and profound consequences in the lives of others. 

My posts are op-relevant. 

Pretending they are not is a problem to be solved. 

 

I will work with what is collaboratively provided and I will exploit the problems to be solved for the benefit of others in the absence of collaboration. It's a fairly simple choice. 

Yes I know that you are exploitative Josh. I have seen it for nearly 18 months - long before I joined this site. You tell me you are exploitative - I believe you.

18 minutes ago, Josheb said:

No but our knowledge and understanding of anatomy has changed enormously. Unblessedly, the wisdom of what to do with that knowledge and understanding has not kept pace and many abuse the knowledge. Holocausts, abortion, and the current debate in the field of genetics and cellular biology readily illustrate this. Christians are necessary but much of this op would cause Christians to eschew the field both as professionals and beneficiaries. 

What I said was:

"My name is Robert Chisholm and I neither practise psychology as clinically or applied science - but I did study psychology at University and attended clinical lectures in order to acquire the necessary theoretical knowledge to be able to write up a simple paragraph on the anatomy of fear. That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam."

I did say as a qualification to the above was

That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam - and in medicine it has been around since the mid 19th century. What has developed is neurochemistry.

What I did NOT say was that [all] knowledge of anatomy hadn't changed. The schemata I wrote is both an accurate account of the neurology and scheme of experiential fear.

Hence from the OP itself:

And herein lies a serious problem with psychology in general. At its root is a denial of the existence of God, and the whole of its concern is pathological, in the sense that modern psychology is concerned with developmental or learned experience, and not with original causality. In the world of neurology, the concern is with disorders of the nervous system, both central as well as peripheral, including all visceral elements of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, enteric as well muscle systems. The neurologist can opine (give an opinion) on psychiatry, and due to the neurophysiological emphasis of neurology, much of the research that informs psychobiology feeds into generalised psychology and psychoanalytical theories. It is for this reason principally that psychology is limited and eclectic.

My points are always qualified linguistically Josh and are rarely a simple matter of the narrative diction. They are almost always connected to a rational and transparent objective. And in this OP that is to do with secular psychological theories whether of the Maslow School or the Freudian School or any other more deterministic model of theorising - that are being imposed on the churches through numerous legislative frameworks - and where the worldy church is vulnerable to the very direction of societies generally that have been driven by social and psychosocial theories which cause unspeakable harm to millions of people - making the embrace of those theories much easier if they are reflective of the law of the land.

Stick to the OP Josh.

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Some of this was good. It was actually pleasurable to read some facts and truth when there is so much misinformation in this op. An understanding of the amygdala, prefrontal cortex and the vagus nerve system (it runs through the brain, down the neck, around the heart and further down into the gut) can prove quite crucial in helping people change. What is described in this post is also a basis for original sin: Adam and Eve were irrevocably changed in that moment of trauma at Genesis 3:6. 

However, there are five, not three basic states: fight, flight, freeze, submit, or engage. What this post and others are describing is the parasympathetic nervous system, but God also designed the sympathetic nervous system and it's the later that helps be relational, emotionally aware, and engaging with self and others. Psychology can in fact be enormously worthwhile in Christian Ministry, hence the folly of this error-laden "warning." 

Kelly, Justin, much of this stuff that's being posted and linked-to is antiquated (and incorrect). The Bobgans (for example) started ragging about psychology and Christian psychologists forty or more years ago and they've recycled the material every few years for profit. I read everything they wrote back when I was first getting into the field (along with other critical sources such as Leeuwen or Szasz). It's antiquated stuff. No one uses Freud anymore. Everything any modern critic might write built on criticisms of Freud is a red herring. For anyone interested, Jones and Butman are a much better resource. Sadly, many people who can be helped won't get help because they now fear and hate the boogeyman due to this op. 

The thalamus, amygdala, or cerebral cortex are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible but examples of sympathetic- and parasympathetic-driven behavior can be found throughout the scriptures. As I noted earlier, the Bible is not a textbook on biology, human physiology, or psychology but its pages are filled with truthful and helpful information to be used in the hands of well-trained and skilled individuals and there are many of us in Christianity that provide a godly alternative to the secularized versions represented and misrepresented in this op. 

I wrote the book from which the pathological and neurological schemata was taken. I linked to an extract from the book to make the point. Your prior comment was made somewhat abrasively when this NOW comment and the post reference were already visible in the OP. My name is Robert Chisholm and I neither practise psychology as clinically or applied science - but I did study psychology at University and attended clinical lectures in order to acquire the necessary theoretical knowledge to be able to write up a simple paragraph on the anatomy of fear. That anatomy hasn't changed since the day of Adam - and in medicine it has been around since the mid 19th century. What has developed is neurochemistry.

As to the Bobgan issue you raise with myself and @Justin Adams. I spoke with Martin by email in 2017 when I was updating my book and he read some of my work - but he pointed out to me that what I was doing was markedly different to what he was doing. The distinction being that he is addressing the prevalence of psycho heresies in the churches - I am addressing those same heresies in the world coming into the churches through broader social policy directives now expressed in legislative and statutory frameworks - as an effect giving release to occult sorcery amongst believers. I could NOT care less about psychology or any other therapeutic endeavour. People are free to make their own choices and pay whom they wish for whatever they wish. On that note and in defiance of your claim - Martin doesn't charge for his core material and it is freely available in downloadable PDF files through the site linked by Justin.

I don't bring my own work into the churches at all. It's far too technical and esoteric to introduce to the flock. I give it to those who are capable of resisting using it to control others. In the churches I just rebuke ungodliness on behalf of the pastors who are keen to feed the sheep. So they say "bad man" about the prophetic behind their hands and "dear brother" to the pastor who then feeds them. That suits me just fine. 

I was impressed by your point What is described in this post is also a basis for original sin: Adam and Eve were irrevocably changed in that moment of trauma at Genesis 3:6. 

That is an astute observation because it speaks about the psychological man without attributing a necessary misdirection to imply a changed physiology. Of course that would have to be qualified by epigenetic and other environmental factors - all of which are evident in the occult and in life. 

1 hour ago, David1701 said:

Or, more briefly, the physical mechanisms of Adam's fear response, were not the source.

The neurology and pathology were all there when Adam was innocent. And yet after he sinned not only did he suffer the removal of God's glory {to use your perception) that also exposed him to a dependance on physical domains, but he also no longer had a means to settle his mind when he experienced fear. That precept is the precept that the sister alluded to when she posted the comment in which she spoke about The Insanity of Normality by Arno Gruen. His file was psychoanalytical theories and especially Fraud - it was whilst attending clinical lectures that I was astonished by Freudian theories and the demonic character of them. If I had not been personally in ministry evangelising at the time the Lord would not have had a way to teach me about the reality of fear through a spiritual glass in order to apply my own knowledge of how fear had driven me to exceptional ends and even into the occult. 

It was desiring to be loved that makes you vulnerable to being driven. 

Gruen's place in the history of psychology can be summarized as follows. According to Sigmund Freud, human beings are born with an innate tendency to destruction and violence; throughout his scholarly and clinical career, Prof. Gruen challenged that assumption, arguing instead that at the root of evil lies self-hatred, a rage originating in a self-betrayal that begins in childhood, when autonomy is surrendered in exchange for the "love" of those who wield power over us. Wikipedia

This kind of theorising is of course abstract - and my file was abstract theories in various psychological schools and in sociology. I knew even then that I was not going to find any answers in psychology or sociology that would be helpful for the church. So I set about to write a book trying to explain one simple premise that grounded the anatomical contract with the chemical and the physiological man. One commentator rebukes me and says I am speaking against God and another mocks when they ask if I am weighing one injury against another injury and saying my injury was worse and look at me. Such a mind would be the mind that Arno Gruen spoke about because it would be self loathing. Whereas what I know is that our deliverance is in Christ and a new man. 

In the end because this took place over a period of several decades it corresponded to the emergence of occult predications in the churches pertaining to the physical man which I had been a part of in Occult Theosophy before I was saved. So I extended my writings to cover that effect also. And here's the very truth - none of it is necessary if we would simply put our confidence in Christ and deny ourselves. 

What we now call psychology was not invented by God unless we mean the physical man and the natural mind - it was a work of the devil in ruining the mind of Adam so that he became a psychologically vulnerable creature. His son Abel is given to us in his countenance of anger to signal the second most prevalent emotional reality after fear. And the entire Scriptures are filled up with its proof. And not a mention of therapy anywhere. Just obedience unto death. What a God we serve. 

1 minute ago, David1701 said:

Or, more briefly, the physical mechanisms of Adam's fear response, were not the source.

Precisely so. 

21 hours ago, anynmsfmly said:

Ok, Well let me offer you a moment to not shut up. This is what we call, "The Peer Support System,",....................... In short, "My illness is less severe than yours, Or I was able to recover, So you should, too,",................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Is this correct, Or do I have this wrong ?..............,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

What is called "The Peer Support System"? 

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

• As far as the author's personal anecdotal experience goes, that is all it is: his personal anecdotal experience and not something representative of all of psychology. I am going to present another view and if it boils down to my view versus his view then we both failed the readers. 
• As far as anecdotal experience goes I started out studying social

Extract: The Darkest Hour 
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

An Easy Deception

One would be quite justified in asking how it has become possible for the churches to take this apostate route with such ease at this time, compared with the huge struggles that characterised apostasy in the early church of the 3rd and 4th centuries. My own understanding, and a part explanation, presently lies in two primary fields of human endeavour. They are Philosophy and Psychology. Many younger psychologists, psychotherapists and councillors are concerned by the separation which took place in the late 19th century between the original study of the soul (psychology) and Philosophy. The claim is that the study of the soul was broader in the past than it is today. While I agree with the thrust of the statement, those who suffer from this abstract nostalgia have apparently missed the great weight of philosophical knowledge that has informed psychoanalytical thinking, almost from its inception.

The scientific model was primarily responsible for this change in emphasis, from fuller questions about the human psyche to the eventual narrower focus on the mind, with the attendant neurology. The need for observable evidence of the soul, as defined by the iterative scientific model was demanded by serious scholars and in the absence of proof, psychology, or the study of the soul, turned to that which could be outwardly measured and therefore proven. This change eventually led to the beginnings of what is today called behavioural psychology. This change of emphasis has never been reconciled with the original broader meaning of the study of the soul in ancient cultures as well as previous generations, where the rational philosophical roots of psychology are said to lie. Nevertheless it has served to facilitate the justification of self as the primary agent of benefit.

Over the last 100 years, behaviourism or behavioural psychology developed into a major system of thinking, along with Cognitive Psychology more recently. Both are firmly grounded in the scientific model and have contributed to significant changes in the way societies behave. At the same time (1900-1950) as behaviourism developed into a dominant model, psychotherapy also came to maturity. It has been psychoanalytical models of behaviour, however, that have been responsible for introducing a vast range of Eastern philosophical and occult thinking into the West by synthesising neurological, subjective observational and atheistic thought into theoretical frameworks; thereby giving rise to complex theories of behaviour. In the early years, the application of these ideas were mostly limited experiments on men and women who presented with psychological disturbance, as well as children, and to some extent, they were developed in the treatment of those who could meet the cost privately.

Through time, strands of pure subjective theoretical reasoning, laid against known occult as well as philosophical filters, were even incorporated into the most scientific field of behavioural and cognitive psychology, such as in Constructivism with its self-oriented cognitive learned process model. Today this mix of religious deception and scientific observation is scarcely separated in the minds of even trained psychologists themselves. It would take a vast knowledge of ancient Eastern philosophy, ancient Greek philosophy, shamanism, anthropology, anatomy and theology to make a meaningful distinction between what is real, and represents deception, and what is real, and accounts for a logical way of understanding behaviour in the context of mental illness. In fact, the distinction is more than likely impossible. It is only in the context of having a genuine and sound conversion, and a living faith in Christ Jesus, as well as a love of the truth, that one would be able to recognise lies and deception when these theories are being taught and presented to new students.

Homogeneity

Those believers, who so freely embrace the world in which we live, do not necessarily realise that societies have been fundamentally influenced by social as well as public health initiatives, which have been informed by an increasingly competent methodological scientific technique, where many occult and mystical deceptions, which had their roots in ancient societies, are incorporated into the very fabric of the underlying paradigms which form the basis for interpreting the data upon which those psychological and sociopsychological imperatives were written. Sociology, Politics, Philosophy, Anthropology, Finance, Theology, Social Policy, Health Policy, Criminology, Education, Gender, Conflict Theories of labour, and a range of others areas of societal influence on the individual, have all been increasingly informed by psychology, indirectly or else directly, over the last 100 years. Today, we scarcely realise just how much society has changed.

In my view while there is no doubt that psychology presents some valid and useful mechanisms for understanding the behaviour of those individuals who have good reason to be thought of as in need of help, that help could have just as easily been given with an exercise in compassion and decency, than by a means which simultaneously excuses sinful and rebellious behaviour, or else robbed the individual of any perception of absolute morality. An essential fuel for the rebellious mind is no longer hunger, or a lack of love by others, or else the cold, but has become the belief that your own rebellious actions are justified in the sight of others. If others justify your rebellion then you yourself are free to embrace the natural heart as a reasonable and desirable inheritance with its wicked and deceitful inclinations.

A sorcerous mind is that mind which embraces in its most ruined state. the ambition and hope that at the end of its efforts it will realise a true and full consciousness, and by an existential path arrive at a perfect self. It is a mind that cannot conceive of God as He truly is, yet intuitively knows that such an account exists. In that ruined state the sorcerous mind therefore necessarily rejects God Himself and instead lays hold of creation. It is a mind that cannot know that the soul is not the spirit and thus seeing nothing of spiritual reality, the sorcerous mind lays hold of the only reality that it can conceive of, and therefore lays hold of the body itself. In this wicked and deceived condition the sorcerous mind conceives of spiritual reality as no more than elements scattered to an infinite place wherein that mind presses itself in a false hope. In the end, the sorcerous mind lays hold of itself in an embrace that amounts to the determination and ambition of Satan who makes of men, souls and bodies his commodity.

Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

Because you're worth it! 

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Psychological understanding is good for the spiritual man, too.

Extract: The Darkest Hour
Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

Psychology & Physiology

It is important to realise that no study in psychology will of itself produce the necessary understanding that gives rise to a conviction of sin. The purpose here, therefore, is not to replace the working of the Holy Spirit; it is rather to facilitate an understanding that the very physical body is ruined because of sin and death. The mind, which is a function of the soul, is weakened. In this fallen condition the emotions of the mind are experienced in the physical body itself. They are essentially imprisoned by the physical body. Indeed this could be said for the soul itself and not simply the seat of emotion. The genetic material which all men and women share is ruined, and while it is still possible to restrain the outer man by physical means, it is not possible to repair the genetic man by conduct arising from that fallen condition. It took another kind of man altogether, one without sin and death working in Him to answer that profound problem. “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body; it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonour it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” (1 Cor 15:42-47)

Trusting emotions based in physical experience is the most common basis for deception. In this scheme, physical means especially the eyes, the ears and the inner physiology of the central nervous system, forming a basis for believing what is seen or heard with no more justification than experiencing the body itself. Deception is no less profound in its outworking towards others than through the body itself. My assertion is that in this day in which we live Satan is specifically seeking to make the emotional (physical) experience the basis for knowing what truth is. This is not only a matter of pseudo faith as a mechanism for achieving false conversions, but it is a very real danger for the one who is born again if we are not taught to deny ourselves daily.

With these things in mind, therefore, we can ask, what physical fear is? A simple physical schematic for describing fear may be as follows.

Auditory, visual and olfactory, stimuli are relayed by the Thalamus to the Amygdala and Cerebral Cortex. The Amygdala also receives contextual information from the Hippocampus. After processing of the emotional stimuli, the central nucleus of the Amygdala activates the nucleus of the Pons which triggers a noradrenaline response as well as stimulating the Hypothalamic nuclei. The stria terminalis (brainstem) or the extended Amygdala also acts as a control centre for the noradrenaline uptake response by integrating information from both the Amygdala itself as well as the Hippocampus. The central nucleus of the Amygdala is responsible for activating the Vagus Nerve in the Medulla (characteristically increased heart rate and raised blood pressure), In finality, the Frontal Cortex formulates cognitive responses which serve to modulate ongoing physiological responses. (Fight, Flight or Paralysis).

In this physical description of the principle parts of the Nervous System, involved in fear, we may realise very quickly that it is necessary to have a link between that which is physical and that which is psychical (soul). We cannot ignore the fact that Adam himself knew that he had disobeyed God at the moment he heard God in the garden. This knowledge also forms part of who Adam was. He clearly wasn’t simply a physical man. He was a living soul as well. Clearly, emotions are experienced in the body, yet they are perceived as being of the soul itself in the mind. In fact, the seat of emotion is said to be of the soul. If the seat of emotion is of the soul and yet emotions are experienced in the body, what is the soul? This question is beyond science. In the ordinary iterative model of science fact, there is no possibility of proving that the soul even exists. Yet the very least thing which all men and women comprehend is that they do in fact exist distinct to the body. For those who believe in God and Christ, not only do we know that we exist as sentient beings, but we comprehend that we are eternal souls as well.

It is psychology and philosophy which endeavour to answer those questions outside a biblical account.. In looking at the physical explanation of fear, we can rationalise that from seeing, hearing or smelling something, a physical process ensues which in the end results in a behavioural outcome. In the case of Adam, it was hearing God in the garden that produced both psychological and physical fear as well as the corresponding behaviour (flight). “Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.”” (Genesis 3:9–10)

It is certain that Adam and Eve knew that they had disobeyed God, and therefore even before God called out to them they had this understanding in their minds. In basic psychological parlance this is called anticipation and forms a pre- experiential basis for explaining why fear occurs. It is a blind use of the idea of stimulus and response. In other fields of psychology, Adam and Eve’s fear would be said to be no more than the sum of chemical responses to external stimuli. In this view learned behaviour arises from evolved physiological mechanisms, and amounts to no more than a survival response. Although it may seem implausible, most psychological theories would ignore disobedience, and instead emphasise acquired knowledge, as a positive step forward in evolutionary development. I have to say that such a view is Satanic. And herein lies a serious problem with psychology in general. At its root is a denial of the existence of God, and the whole of its concern is pathological, in the sense that modern psychology is concerned with developmental or learned experience, and not with original causality.

In the world of neurology, the concern is with disorders of the nervous system, both central as well as peripheral, including all visceral elements of the sympathetic, parasympathetic, enteric as well muscle systems. The neurologist can opine (give an opinion) on psychiatry, and due to the neurophysiological emphasis of neurology, much of the research that informs psychobiology feeds into generalised psychology and psychoanalytical theories. It is for this reason principally that psychology is limited and eclectic.

These two strands of knowledge are always in tension with one another. In Europe the emphasis is still in favour of psychoanalytical models of behaviour and in North America Object Oriented psychology has been embraced in favour of the latter in recent years. So while I have said earlier that psychology is a better medium through which to understand neurophysiology and psychophysiology, there is no direct, simple school of thought in psychology itself which makes this task easy or clear. The best which one can do is to identify that all aberrant behaviour carries consequences, and through those consequences, something is learned. Yet in the case of Adam what he experienced, was that sin itself had made a separation between himself and God. He knew that when he disobeyed God, he was disobeying God. He was under a strict command and disobeyed. He was not deceived at that moment. Adam must have had this in mind, as well as the realisation that he was naked as he spent those few hours in the garden knowing that God would come to fellowship with him in the evening.

The profound thing about this account of Adam lies in the fact that there is no explanation given, or attention drawn to his disobedience as a consequence, beyond the knowledge which was acquired through disobedience (chiefly that he was naked and felt ashamed). Until God came into the garden, we know nothing of any other effect in Adam’s mind beyond this knowledge. Only when God called is there an effect that goes beyond the knowledge that was already gained. We know this because Adam was not naked at that moment of hearing God call to him. He had in fact covered his nakedness with an apron of leaves. Nothing is said about whether Adam was anxious (fearful) about his next meeting with God. Yet the moment that opportunity presented itself he experienced in his own body physical fear, and understood this to be connected to his newly acquired knowledge, that he was naked underneath his apron. This knowledge was more than the first realisation of being naked when he sinned. It amounted to a development in his experience, in so far as now in a possible face to face encounter with God, fear races through his body to his mind, and he is compelled to hide. This is the central tenet of learned behaviour.

Copyright © Robert Chisholm 1986, 2011, 2017 All Rights Reserved

Because you're worth it! 

57 minutes ago, Josheb said:

There are some corrections warranted because a number of mistakes exist in this op beginning but not limited to the belief psychoogy begins with man and begins with the Greek philosophers. This is the way secularists think about the science of psychology. It's the way they think about all the sciences and scientific endeavors. So, Kelly, right from the very beginning you (and whoever your sources were) have bought into a secularized version of something that begins with God, not man. 

You would not say the same things about engineering, biology, physics or any of the other sciences so do not teach Christians to have contempt for psychology. Like anything and everything else it can be corrupted and misused by sinners but that does not mean psychology is thoroughly a man-made device. 

The op is way to long for me to go through it line by line so here are just a few of its problems warranting correction: 

 

• Psychological understanding is good for the spiritual man, too. Properly speaking the human being is not made up of three separate and distinct parts, the body, the soul, and the spirit, the human is body, soul, and spirit and to remove one from the other causes the whole to cease to exist. The opening lines of this op are an insinuated abuse of 1 Cor. 2:14 in reverse. The spiritual man understands both the natural and the spiritual; the natural man does not and cannot understand the spiritual. Nothing wrong with nature. Nothing wrong with God's design of humanity. Nothing wrong with studying God's designs. Everything wrong with abusing that study as many within and outside psychology do. 
• The sentence that reads, "The subject and application of psychology as social psychology, emphatically represents a union between men and the prince of the power of the air," and the lines that follow it are just lies straight out of the pits of hell. Just think about this sentence if any other science were substituted for psychology: "The subject and application of psychology as social biology, emphatically represents a union between men and the prince of the power of the air". This is the kind of nonsense that led men to believe illness was caused by an imbalance of the for humours and flies are spontaneously generated from steak. It is also the kind of thinking that as I just noted in point 1 that can only come from denying God as the basis for all human scientific endeavors. It is a godless attempt to argue for a inherent godlessness of something deeply rooted in God, not human or demons. 
• As far as the author's personal anecdotal experience goes, that is all it is: his personal anecdotal experience and not something representative of all of psychology. I am going to present another view and if it boils down to my view versus his view then we both failed the readers. 
• As far as anecdotal experience goes I started out studying social psychology, sociology, and anthropology at secular state universities that were staffed with a few Nobel Laureates and my experience as a Christian was mixed. Several of my professors were Christians, some of them former clergy. Alternatively, some of my professors were raging antitheists and on at least one occasion one of them was forced to meet with a dean because of his treatment of others. I moved to a Christian university to finish my graduate studies and there I had twice as many books as I had at any of the secular state universities, Literally. Literally twice as much reading. For every secular textbook we had to read there was an accompanying textbook written by Christian authors and all of it was discussed in small classrooms where every belief and thought was rigorously examined because they do not want bigots and/or educated people with strongholds doing counseling. They don't want people with pre-existing biases getting their fingers in the broken souls of others. Every semester I saw someone get "invited to explore other options".  Every counselor has to go through the process him/herself and most have done so long before they got to graduate school. We are constantly examined for many years. You can be crazy and get a degree in engineering. You can be crazy and get a degree in biology, pr physics but you cannot be crazy and get a degree in psychology. And every single class had every single student's faith examined. You want to know how and why I'm so articulate? Then thank a Christian university that demanded you have a scripturally rational case for what you believe. Some of the professors with whom I studied and those who wrote the Christian textbooks we used are some of the leading psychologists in America, recognized by both secularists and Christians as such. So, Kelly, if you were studying with secular humanists then you've got no one but yourself to blame. 
• As I stated the science of psychology did not start with the Greco-Romans. The formalization of the study of human behavior may have begun with the Greeks but that is not the same thing as saying that is where psychology started. From the very beginning of scripture we have an exposition of human psychology. It just does not come with flashing neon signs saying, "Look! Psychology! Psychology! Pay attention because there's psychology going on here!!!" From the beginning of Eve's internal dialogue to Adam's scapegoating denial and their son's murderous intent we have psychology and it is deeply intertwine spirituality and soulishness that begets real action. real observable, measurable action. And this is true whether the Genesis account is taken literally or allegorically. 
• "Behavioural psychology believes that what is true for a dog is just as true for a man." I'll let that speak for itself because it is prima facie false and it's the kind of statement that should be supported by authoritative documentation (not personal opinion). 
• As far as "fruit" goes, I have a successful practice and a good reputation among clients and peers and I routinely interact with academia. I do the same with clergy of enormous theological diversity and remain held in high esteem. There isn't a single day I don't help others improve their lives in ways desirable by most Christians (I was going to say "enviable" but we all know the critics are just looking for reasons to criticize). I dare you to bear that kind of fruit,  Kelly. When you readers go to worship services on Sunday (or Saturday) look around you because at least a third of those people have been in counseling and half of those who are married have committed adultery. Secular statistics on treating adultery say the short-term success of couple's counseling treating adultery is only 35%. Long-term success is 15%. Those are egregiously bad success rates so I started keeping track. I've worked with over 400 adulterous couples and 84% of them still have their marriage..... now adultery free. I dare you to bear that kind of fruit for God, Kelly. 
• There's much, much more I could say but I've already committed a wall of text. Fundamentally at the bottom of this op is a presupposition that was ignored in the op. This presupposition says there is a place in creation where God does not reign. Alongside this lie is the belief Christians should not serve God in an authoritative manner in this field. When the sciences of biology, zoology, cosmology, etc. were in their fledgling states they got a lot wrong. No one in modernity thinks the way they did 10,000 years ago and the simple, oft-denied fact of science is replace much of what it hold true about every 150 years. The same is true of psychology. Freud is gone. So too are Plato and Aristotle.

 

Many times have I commended an op. This one should be deleted. It is godless from beginning to end. 

"As a man thinketh, so he is."

"A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."

 

And all one need do to consider the veracity and efficacy is consider what kind of a person would post such dross. Psychology is like theology: we all do it whether we know it or not, even if we deny doing so and disdain those who study it. Ops like this prey upon the spiritually/scripturally and scientifically uninformed.

 

I expected nothing less from you Josh. But as usual you jump the gun and miss what is being said. It's an introduction and it is a qualified introduction not an emphatic statement. It is qualified to an end. But please don't feel any need to reply. I knew you would be offended - that's just the way of it.

You said:

Many times have I commended an op. This one should be deleted. It is godless from beginning to end.

I neither seek your commendation nor do you have authority to delete anything Josh. 

But you can answer just one pesky question. Was Adam naked when he hid himself from God?

2 Corinthians 5:1–21

For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— for we walk by faith, not by sight— we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest to God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your consciences. We are not again commending ourselves to you but are giving you an occasion to be proud of us, so that you will have an answer for those who take pride in appearance and not in heart. For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. 

2 Corinthians 6:1–18

And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain— for He says, “At the acceptable time I listened to you, And on the day of salvation I helped you.” Behold, now is “the acceptable time,” behold, now is “the day of salvation”— giving no cause for offense in anything, so that the ministry will not be discredited, but in everything commending ourselves as servants of God, in much endurance, in afflictions, in hardships, in distresses, in beatings, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in hunger, in purity, in knowledge, in patience, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit, in genuine love, in the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left, by glory and dishonor, by evil report and good report; regarded as deceivers and yet true; as unknown yet well-known, as dying yet behold, we live; as punished yet not put to death, as sorrowful yet always rejoicing, as poor yet making many rich, as having nothing yet possessing all things. Our mouth has spoken freely to you, O Corinthians, our heart is opened wide. You are not restrained by us, but you are restrained in your own affections. Now in a like exchange—I speak as to children—open wide to us also. Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.

2 Corinthians 7:1–16

Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Make room for us in your hearts; we wronged no one, we corrupted no one, we took advantage of no one. I do not speak to condemn you, for I have said before that you are in our hearts to die together and to live together. Great is my confidence in you; great is my boasting on your behalf. I am filled with comfort; I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction. For even when we came into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side: conflicts without, fears within. But God, who comforts the depressed, comforted us by the coming of Titus; and not only by his coming, but also by the comfort with which he was comforted in you, as he reported to us your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me; so that I rejoiced even more. For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while— I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter. So although I wrote to you, it was not for the sake of the offender nor for the sake of the one offended, but that your earnestness on our behalf might be made known to you in the sight of God. For this reason we have been comforted. And besides our comfort, we rejoiced even much more for the joy of Titus, because his spirit has been refreshed by you all. For if in anything I have boasted to him about you, I was not put to shame; but as we spoke all things to you in truth, so also our boasting before Titus proved to be the truth. His affection abounds all the more toward you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, how you received him with fear and trembling. I rejoice that in everything I have confidence in you.

Not a mention of marriage - not a semblance of perverting natural affection - and all to do with sexual immorality that was exposed in the first Corinthian letter that Titus was entrusted by Paul to take to the Corinthian Church. That letter set down the meaning and it was to do with a man who was having sexual relations with his father's wife. Which the Corinthians were boasting in. How sad that we are willing to pervert natural affections in order to uphold an unnatural one. 

1 hour ago, Ray12614 said:

Agree whole heartedly. It really is as simple as this: Either you obey scripture principals (don't be unequally yoked with unbelievers), or you don't obey.

Everything else surrounding this issue is minor. Marriage is not an evangelistic tool.

Everything around anything that gives an opportunity for some believers to parade is the entire ambition for many believers. Its all a parade and the drum major is the most righteous man in the flock. He just loves requiring absolute obedience and then when he goes home to his wife and removes his uniform he becomes a dog. There is nothing minor about that reality - and neither will Christ overlook it. 

3 hours ago, SIC said:

He may not suffer an eternal loss. But his life on earth will be made much harder because his wife is an unbeliever. His witness to his children will be severely compromised. His involvement with the church will be compromised. An unbelieving wife will probably be dead against giving to the church. Unnecessary complications. Which is why the person needs to be warned.

I'd probably warn him once. And that is it. Thereafter it is between him , the lady and God. I will probably continue praying for him.

 

Most of the manipulators and abusive people I have met have been believers. I wouldn't worry too much about unbelievers other than to bring them to Christ and to pray that they turn out better than many of those who are already saved. Of course you could just report a highjacking - its obvious. 

3 hours ago, SIC said:

I didn't liken an unbeliever to a prostitute. Please read the thread clearly. Someone said ' If a brother frequents prostitutes you should warn him not for this'. I responded  visiting a prostitute, dating an unbeliever both are against God's word. Both are sinful '. I'm paraphrasing 

 

As for the Ezekiel passage. Why is it misappropriation? I think every believer is a watchman over those believers that God has put in his life. Especially the ones of the same sex. In the future I may be walking down the wrong path. I hope some brother will warn me. In the past a brother has called me 'foolish' for the way I spend money. A week later I went and thanked him for warning me. 

But I agree I nerd to exercise discernment and need to be prayerful in warning. 

You also need authority to warn and not simply discernment. It doesn't take discernment to warn a brother that the Scripture admonished believers not to be unequally yoked. It simply takes a form of reading and a form of words. It can be expressed in no more than a common sense meaning - even if you are wholly ignorant of why the admonition is given in the Scripture. 

I was once approached by an elder of a missionary work when I was a young believer to ask me what I thought about he and a younger sister becoming engaged to be married. I knew that he had been married previously and that his marriage faltered because of his sin of adultery - but whilst he understood that fact seeing as he could cite the Scripture regarding adultery and remarriage - he wanted to know whether he was released from that meaning seeing that he was not born again at the time. So I told him that marriage was instituted in Eden - it was not simply a matter of spiritual meanings but was also a natural fact of the intentional will of God. I also told him that seeing as he was a Roman Catholic at the time of his adultery he needed to say whether he did understand the meaning of marriage before God when he married in a Church and before witnesses - whether he knew God or not.

He picked me up every week for ten months and took me to his home to pray with him on this issue. I never changed my mind. He often expressed a spiritual claim that he did not know God when he married the first time and I always said that he did know the Scripture because he was a Roman Catholic and knew the sanctity of marriage. In the end he and the younger sister were engaged and he asked me to be his best man at his wedding. So I took the only position I could take and agreed because I also knew the sister and she was a mature woman who was in the spirit and part of the Mission Work. I then committed the matter to the Lord.

On the way to the church on his wedding day in a carriage bearing witness to all that the groom was coming to his bride - he turned to me and expressed doubts because it suddenly came to him what he was doing. So I told him that it was far too late by then. Marriage is a more private matter than we suppose it to be - even when it is witnessed by thousands. In the end the Groom will come to gather up His Bride - and unless she is dressed in readiness He will refuse her because He will not marry a whore. 

So by all means be a watchman - but don't warn your brother with a trumpet because he says that he is to marry an unbelieving women. Marriage is a natural fact instituted by God - don't make it into a spiritual claim inferentially that has it that in doing so your brother will suffer loss. In the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. His wife will be excluded if she remains in unbelief - whereas he will not be excluded when he marries a woman who is free to marry him according to the natural institution of God laid down in Genesis. Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

2 hours ago, missmuffet said:

I am done with this psychology debate with you Kelly. Have a nice day and God bless. 

The following is something I posted just two weeks after joining this forum: It speaks to your mocking when you assert a claim and then infer a question.

Quote

 

I work in special needs care (paid work) and in ministry (unpaid) and have done since 1979. When I was 18 years old I found myself working on a male adolescent ward in a large mental health hospital set in its own grounds and literally felt a desperate need to understand why these men were so debilitated. Looking back I knew almost nothing - but realise now that the one thing I did have was compassion.

By contrast my own childhood was exceptionally harmful and my father and mother were cruel physically and mentally. So by the time I was seven - like your older brother - I was seeing a psychiatrist and by the time I was ten I was in special needs care myself. 

Within less than one year of being married I had a severely cognitively and physically disabled child to look after and to make sense of with my wife.

In ministry work I have been astonished at just how much abuse and harm people have endured in their lives - from very elderly men and women right down to children.

 

You are free to post anything you wish - but regardless as to who we are in life we can never escape our own words. Despite going to a special needs school I have attended Universities and a Theological Seminary - but I count all of that as rubbish to what I gained in Christ. I gained eternal life and my mind. If we are going to assert to others that which is implausible when we ask questions of them and never even answer a simply point - then we are well short of a discerning spirit when the man who is asking has endured more abuse than many and spent 34 years caring for his disabled son and more than four decades caring for others who have lost their minds. 

18 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

The brain is a complex organ and sometimes something can go wrong. God has put Christian psychologists or counselors on this earth. Biblical psychologists or counselors see the Bible alone as a source of counseling. Sometimes a person has a need to speak with a professional regarding a mental issue they are dealing with in their life. I would not take advice from anyone. Especially those who have not been trained and have an educational background. They could get some bad advice.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Some are good and some are bad. 

 

Not in the bible He hasn't But that is not the issue here. You are resisting even a semblance of trying to understand what I would like to say and have said inferentially - and so I have asked you a simple question. You can answer it from the Bible. 

Was Adam naked when he hid from God. That is not a complex question is it? 

1 minute ago, missmuffet said:

You have had a bad experience with a psychologist at one time?

Bless you Miss Muffet - no I haven't had any bad experiences with psychologists. They stay well clear of me. But is that to be it - are we to have no more than polite mockery? 

1 minute ago, David1701 said:

This all ties in with the NT as well.

Rev. 3:17,18 (MKJV)

17 Because you say, I am rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing, and do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked,
  18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold tried in the fire, so that you may be rich; and white clothing, so that you may be clothed, and so that the shame of your nakedness does not appear. And anoint your eyes with eye salve, so that you may see.

They could not "see" their own spiritual nakedness, due to the effects of sinful greed and complacency.  It's a kind of reverse of what happened with Adam and Eve.

Indeed. 

15 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

First tell me what that has to do with psychologists.

This following is the neurophysiological schematic for the fight or flight mechanism in man. 

Auditory, visual and olfactory, stimuli are relayed by the Thalamus to the Amygdala and Cerebral Cortex. The Amygdala also receives contextual information from the Hippocampus. After processing of the emotional stimuli, the central nucleus of the Amygdala activates the nucleus of the Pons which triggers a noradrenaline response as well as stimulating the Hypothalamic nuclei. The stria terminalis (brainstem) or the extended Amygdala also acts as a control centre for the noradrenaline uptake response by integrating information from both the Amygdala itself as well as the Hippocampus. The central nucleus of the Amygdala is responsible for activating the Vagus Nerve in the Medulla (characteristically increased heart rate and raised blood pressure), In finality, the Frontal Cortex formulates cognitive responses which serve to modulate ongoing physiological responses.

Fight, Fight or Paralysis

It is taken from page 142 of a book I wrote called Deepening Shadows. 

So I have asked was Adam naked when he hid. (Flight)

That question has to do with a psychophysiological reality that is evidenced in Adam when he said I was afraid. Its not one thread of an answer but numerous threads that need to be drawn if one is going to explain why psychology is a worthless endeavour in Christian Ministry and hence a - WARNING

17 hours ago, David1701 said:

No problem.

1. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25
2. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings Genesis 3:7
3. He said, “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself.” Genesis 3:10

1. וַיִּֽהְי֤וּ שְׁנֵיהֶם֙ עֲרוּמִּ֔ים הָֽאָדָ֖ם וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֖א יִתְבֹּשָֽׁשׁוּ׃ Genesis 2:25
2. וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת׃ Genesis 3:7
3. וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֶת־קֹלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי וָאֵחָבֵֽא׃ Genesis 3:10

1. καὶ ἦσαν οἱ δύο γυμνοί, ὅ τε Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ᾐσχύνοντο Genesis 2:25 (Manuscript Genesis 3:1)
2. καὶ διηνοίχθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ τῶν δύο, καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι γυμνοὶ ἦσαν· καὶ ἔρραψαν φύλλα συκῆς καὶ ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς περιζώματα. Genesis 3:7
3. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Τὴν φωνήν σου ἤκουσα περιπατοῦντος ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, καὶ ἐφοβήθην, ὅτι γυμνός εἰμι, καὶ ἐκρύβην Genesis 3:10

1. Genesis 2:25 naked         עֲרוּמִּ֔ים
2. Genesis 3:7 naked           עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם
3. Genesis 3:10  naked         עֵירֹ֥ם                 

1. Genesis 2:25 naked   γυμνοί
2. Genesis 3:7 naked     γυμνοὶ
3. Genesis 3:10 naked    γυμνός

To this:

מַעֲרֹם maʿărôm, mah-ar-ome´; from 6191, in the sense of stripping; bare:—naked.

עָרַם ʿâram, aw-ram´; a prim. root; prop. to be (or make) bare; but used only in the derived. sense (through the idea perhaps. of smoothness) to be cunning (usually in a bad sense):—× very, beware, take crafty [counsel], be prudent, deal subtilely.

I found this:

“Besides all your abominations and harlotries you did not remember the days of your youth, when you were naked and bare and squirming in your blood.

Here are the two expressions idiomatically implicit in the references in Genesis 2:25, Genesis 3:7 and Genesis 3:10

I am sure that it would be possible to derive further idiomatic and cognate equivalencies  but at what point does that endeavour become vain? I do agree that it is difficult to resist the sense that there may have been a spiritual cloche or veil over their eyes - not seeing nakedness  - that may transcend the precept of innocence as a child cannot see their own nakedness in the first few years. It seems rather as Israel who to this day have a veil over their minds.

Of course what I am drawing attention to in this OP has to do with a psychological fact - albeit your point doesn’t remove that and may strengthen it.