social psychology Psychology – A Warning

[Alive]

My time is very limited for now. Please let us all tend to the tos.

IMO, there is worthy content in this OP.

[Kelly2363]

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.

 

[Kelly2363]

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. 

[Kelly2363]

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. 

[Kelly2363]

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?

[Kelly2363]

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.

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Kelly2363
spelling

[Kelly2363]

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.

[Alive]

Ok guys, topic not individuals.

My error when I wrote OP had worthy content, what I meant was that IMO, the thread itself has potential for useful content and the subject matter to be helpfully informative.

Sometimes the weeds hide flowers.