The Mental Illness/Sin Threads

[freeatlast]

Can someone bring me up to speed on FAL's contentions? Is FAL saying that being mentally ill is a sin? Taking medication to control the illness is a sin? What's the deal?

I've not been reading the threads and since there are so many of them I would like a Reader's Digest condensed version.

You probably should ask the one you are asking about as that is the right thing to do.
I am saying what the bible teaches that when a person has a behavior issue that is not godly that issue is sin.
Mat 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 15:18,19
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Today the medical profession has decided that they know more then God and say the issues of life come from mental illness not from indwelling sin.
The only prescription that the bible gives for sin is confession and forsaking that sin, not a drug which only covers the sin.

 

[Fred's Wife]

You probably should ask the one you are asking about as that is the right thing to do.
I am saying what the bible teaches that when a person has a behavior issue that is not godly that issue is sin.
Mat 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Mat 15:18,19
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Today the medical profession has decided that they know more then God and say the issues of life come from mental illness not from indwelling sin.
The only prescription that the bible gives for sin is confession and forsaking that sin, not a drug which only covers the sin.

:thumbs::thumbs:

Today, the "Bible" of the medical profession (mostly psychiatry) is the DSM-IV

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I should not do this, but, as I have a talent for opening mouth...and then regretting it, here goes: I feel that emotion needs to get out of the way, and there is a need to utilize more reason in this "mental illness" fiasco than has been shown. While Free and Steadfast may have some mistaken notions, and while they may take their more dogmatic or emphatic statements too far: There is some legitimate value to the ideas and, I daresay, Scriptural evidences they used to support at least the legitimacy of the general thrust of much they were attempting to convey. I have not read all of the threads exhaustively, but I read the thread (started like a week ago which kicked this whole thing off) through, and I am pretty sure I know this much....No one, I think who takes issue with them (at least that I saw) observed or watched the video they posted which explains some of the complicated issues involved on what is, at minimum, a highly debateable topic such as the "scientific" or "medical" credibility of much of the modern practice of Phsychology and Phsychiatry. I believe few people (if any) bothered to watch it, as days worth of responses were forthcoming which were directly related to the topics addressed by the link provided, and yet no one (that I saw) addressed some of the fundamental premises which were challenged by the video that was linked to.

An example: I have read numerous posts very recently which assert the idea that MRI's and other various "scans" are used in the diagnosis of mental illness. Numerous posts have suggested that "mental illness" is as objectively and empirically verifiable as say...the presence or absence of cancer cells or a fractured bone in other disciplines in the medical field are. This is simply not the case: I quote from this site:
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih5/mental/guide/info-mental-b.htm
It is important to realize that these brain imaging techniques are not used for diagnosing mental illness

Mental health professionals evaluate symptoms to make a diagnosis of mental illness.

and this one:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...-mental-illness-a-window-into-the-brain.shtml

Currently, the main use of brain scans for mental disorders is in research studies to learn more about the disorders. Brain scans alone cannot be used to diagnose a mental disorder, such as autism, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder.

and this one:
http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/psych/asktheexperts/ask_the_experts_inquiry.asp?SI=152

In general, PET scans are not well established as being clinically useful for patients with psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. PET scans are used clinically in neurological illnesses, which may have psychiatric complications, such as Parkinson’s disease. However, in psychiatry, PET scans are mainly used for research on brain chemistry in an effort to uncover biological causes of mental illness. It is hoped that such research will lead to the development of diagnostic tests and better treatment.

and this one for any who insist on the universal authority of mental illness as a result of chemical imbalances:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/20...ioneers-depression-findings-pet-scan-research

“For years people have said that depression or mood disorders are a chemical imbalance in the brain,” NYSPI Chief of the Department of Neuroscience John Mann, M.D., said. “Now we have a large imaging center here on the medical campus and we’re actually able to image brain neurotransmitter systems in patients. Now we’ve shown unequivocal evidence of neurotransmitter abnormalities in bipolar disorder and in major depression, and we’ve shown how these abnormalities can have an impact on the probability of patients responding to different types of treatment.”

This one, is suggesting an entirely new genetic theory about the source of mental illnesses. And it hopes to purport the idea that researchers and psychiatrists might soon be able to "pre-screen" young children for the threat of these illnesses and put them on a treatment plan (drugs) earlier...This was addressed in the video link posted which no-one bothered to watch before assaulting S.F. Fred and FAL.

And as regards this "chemical imbalance" assumption:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/

Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known “chemical imbalance.” However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function…abnormally.

Carlat refers to the chemical imbalance theory as a “myth” (which he calls “convenient” because it destigmatizes mental illness), and Kirsch, whose book focuses on depression, sums up this way: “It now seems beyond question that the traditional account of depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain is simply wrong.”[/U]

and this one:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/
Now, as Dr. Angell notes in her able–and I must say, vigorous–reply, she didn’t write in her essay that depression doesn’t have a biological basis. She simply wrote that the chemical imbalance story didn’t appear to have merit. But forget about that back and forth, for here’s the critical point: In their letter, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nierenberg acknowledged that the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders was disproven long ago.

That, in fact, is true.

and this one:


http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/Blaming_The_Brain_The_Chemical_Imbalance_Fraud.pdfBLAMING THE BRAIN

The ‘Chemical Imbalance’ Fraud
“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biological
imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical
imbalance?” —Dr. Ron Leifer, New York psychiatrist.
The cornerstone of psychiatry’s disease model today is the theory that a brain‐based,
chemical imbalance causes mental illness. However, Dr. Mark Graff, Chair of Public
Affairs of the American Psychiatric Association said that this theory was “probably
drug industry derived.”1 His cohort, Dr. Steven Sharfstein, APA president, was forced
under media pressure to admit that

Maybe S.F. Fred and FAL have been mistaken in some of their posts, but one thing I am quite sure of....those who have hurled their angrily derived condemnation at them, have little or no scientific basis for accusing them. These threads have been ruled entirely by emotion and a relative like or dislike for the particular circumstance of the "subject" (seeking) and the relative like or dislike of the persons involved in the dissenting view. Namely: S.F. Fred and FAL. If anyone objectively reads the posts as an outsider...there was, I would contend, far more vicious, non-productive, un-constructive personal attacking on the part of those opposed to S.F. Fred and FAL. and their point of view, than was posed by them. It is easy to become indignantly self-righteously judgemental about those occasions wherein they might have been less than obeisant in their responses when they are out-numbered roughly 235,622.4 to 3. Is it unreasonable that they might get defensive sometimes?

Did anyone catch the signifigance of (seeking's) statement:

I lived for 50 years with undiagnosed mental illness.

Apparently, all of your PSY docs have yet to deal with this very real and very pressing issue, which does deserve legit concern and respect.....But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Isn't one of the fruits of the Spirit: "Self-Control"? (Gal 5:23)

 

[Steadfast Fred]

I should not do this, but, as I have a talent for opening mouth...and then regretting it, here goes: I feel that emotion needs to get out of the way, and there is a need to utilize more reason in this "mental illness" fiasco than has been shown. While Free and Steadfast may have some mistaken notions, and while they may take their more dogmatic or emphatic statements too far: There is some legitimate value to the ideas and, I daresay, Scriptural evidences they used to support at least the legitimacy of the general thrust of much they were attempting to convey. I have not read all of the threads exhaustively, but I read the thread (started like a week ago which kicked this whole thing off) through, and I am pretty sure I know this much....No one, I think who takes issue with them (at least that I saw) observed or watched the video they posted which explains some of the complicated issues involved on what is, at minimum, a highly debateable topic such as the "scientific" or "medical" credibility of much of the modern practice of Phsychology and Phsychiatry. I believe few people (if any) bothered to watch it, as days worth of responses were forthcoming which were directly related to the topics addressed by the link provided, and yet no one (that I saw) addressed some of the fundamental premises which were challenged by the video that was linked to.

An example: I have read numerous posts very recently which assert the idea that MRI's and other various "scans" are used in the diagnosis of mental illness. Numerous posts have suggested that "mental illness" is as objectively and empirically verifiable as say...the presence or absence of cancer cells or a fractured bone in other disciplines in the medical field are. This is simply not the case: I quote from this site:
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih5/mental/guide/info-mental-b.htm
It is important to realize that these brain imaging techniques are not used for diagnosing mental illness

Mental health professionals evaluate symptoms to make a diagnosis of mental illness.

and this one:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...-mental-illness-a-window-into-the-brain.shtml

Currently, the main use of brain scans for mental disorders is in research studies to learn more about the disorders. Brain scans alone cannot be used to diagnose a mental disorder, such as autism, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder.

and this one:
http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/psych/asktheexperts/ask_the_experts_inquiry.asp?SI=152

In general, PET scans are not well established as being clinically useful for patients with psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. PET scans are used clinically in neurological illnesses, which may have psychiatric complications, such as Parkinson’s disease. However, in psychiatry, PET scans are mainly used for research on brain chemistry in an effort to uncover biological causes of mental illness. It is hoped that such research will lead to the development of diagnostic tests and better treatment.

and this one for any who insist on the universal authority of mental illness as a result of chemical imbalances:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/20...ioneers-depression-findings-pet-scan-research

“For years people have said that depression or mood disorders are a chemical imbalance in the brain,” NYSPI Chief of the Department of Neuroscience John Mann, M.D., said. “Now we have a large imaging center here on the medical campus and we’re actually able to image brain neurotransmitter systems in patients. Now we’ve shown unequivocal evidence of neurotransmitter abnormalities in bipolar disorder and in major depression, and we’ve shown how these abnormalities can have an impact on the probability of patients responding to different types of treatment.”

This one, is suggesting an entirely new genetic theory about the source of mental illnesses. And it hopes to purport the idea that researchers and psychiatrists might soon be able to "pre-screen" young children for the threat of these illnesses and put them on a treatment plan (drugs) earlier...This was addressed in the video link posted which no-one bothered to watch before assaulting S.F. Fred and FAL.

And as regards this "chemical imbalance" assumption:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/

Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known “chemical imbalance.” However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function…abnormally.

Carlat refers to the chemical imbalance theory as a “myth” (which he calls “convenient” because it destigmatizes mental illness), and Kirsch, whose book focuses on depression, sums up this way: “It now seems beyond question that the traditional account of depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain is simply wrong.”[/U]

and this one:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/
Now, as Dr. Angell notes in her able–and I must say, vigorous–reply, she didn’t write in her essay that depression doesn’t have a biological basis. She simply wrote that the chemical imbalance story didn’t appear to have merit. But forget about that back and forth, for here’s the critical point: In their letter, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nierenberg acknowledged that the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders was disproven long ago.

That, in fact, is true.

and this one:


http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/Blaming_The_Brain_The_Chemical_Imbalance_Fraud.pdfBLAMING THE BRAIN

The ‘Chemical Imbalance’ Fraud
“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biological
imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical
imbalance?” —Dr. Ron Leifer, New York psychiatrist.
The cornerstone of psychiatry’s disease model today is the theory that a brain‐based,
chemical imbalance causes mental illness. However, Dr. Mark Graff, Chair of Public
Affairs of the American Psychiatric Association said that this theory was “probably
drug industry derived.”1 His cohort, Dr. Steven Sharfstein, APA president, was forced
under media pressure to admit that

Maybe S.F. Fred and FAL have been mistaken in some of their posts, but one thing I am quite sure of....those who have hurled their angrily derived condemnation at them, have little or no scientific basis for accusing them. These threads have been ruled entirely by emotion and a relative like or dislike for the particular circumstance of the "subject" (seeking) and the relative like or dislike of the persons involved in the dissenting view. Namely: S.F. Fred and FAL. If anyone objectively reads the posts as an outsider...there was, I would contend, far more vicious, non-productive, un-constructive personal attacking on the part of those opposed to S.F. Fred and FAL. and their point of view, than was posed by them. It is easy to become indignantly self-righteously judgemental about those occasions wherein they might have been less than obeisant in their responses when they are out-numbered roughly 235,622.4 to 3. Is it unreasonable that they might get defensive sometimes?

Did anyone catch the signifigance of (seeking's) statement:

Apparently, all of your PSY docs have yet to deal with this very real and very pressing issue, which does deserve legit concern and respect.....But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

Thank you HeirofSalvation, for objectively watching the video and not acting on emotions as so many have.

And thank you for the links. I had not seen some of these.

 

[freeatlast]

I should not do this, but, as I have a talent for opening mouth...and then regretting it, here goes: I feel that emotion needs to get out of the way, and there is a need to utilize more reason in this "mental illness" fiasco than has been shown. While Free and Steadfast may have some mistaken notions, and while they may take their more dogmatic or emphatic statements too far: There is some legitimate value to the ideas and, I daresay, Scriptural evidences they used to support at least the legitimacy of the general thrust of much they were attempting to convey. I have not read all of the threads exhaustively, but I read the thread (started like a week ago which kicked this whole thing off) through, and I am pretty sure I know this much....No one, I think who takes issue with them (at least that I saw) observed or watched the video they posted which explains some of the complicated issues involved on what is, at minimum, a highly debateable topic such as the "scientific" or "medical" credibility of much of the modern practice of Phsychology and Phsychiatry. I believe few people (if any) bothered to watch it, as days worth of responses were forthcoming which were directly related to the topics addressed by the link provided, and yet no one (that I saw) addressed some of the fundamental premises which were challenged by the video that was linked to.

An example: I have read numerous posts very recently which assert the idea that MRI's and other various "scans" are used in the diagnosis of mental illness. Numerous posts have suggested that "mental illness" is as objectively and empirically verifiable as say...the presence or absence of cancer cells or a fractured bone in other disciplines in the medical field are. This is simply not the case: I quote from this site:
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih5/mental/guide/info-mental-b.htm
It is important to realize that these brain imaging techniques are not used for diagnosing mental illness

Mental health professionals evaluate symptoms to make a diagnosis of mental illness.

and this one:
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publ...-mental-illness-a-window-into-the-brain.shtml

Currently, the main use of brain scans for mental disorders is in research studies to learn more about the disorders. Brain scans alone cannot be used to diagnose a mental disorder, such as autism, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder.

and this one:
http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/psych/asktheexperts/ask_the_experts_inquiry.asp?SI=152

In general, PET scans are not well established as being clinically useful for patients with psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. PET scans are used clinically in neurological illnesses, which may have psychiatric complications, such as Parkinson’s disease. However, in psychiatry, PET scans are mainly used for research on brain chemistry in an effort to uncover biological causes of mental illness. It is hoped that such research will lead to the development of diagnostic tests and better treatment.

and this one for any who insist on the universal authority of mental illness as a result of chemical imbalances:
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/20...ioneers-depression-findings-pet-scan-research

“For years people have said that depression or mood disorders are a chemical imbalance in the brain,” NYSPI Chief of the Department of Neuroscience John Mann, M.D., said. “Now we have a large imaging center here on the medical campus and we’re actually able to image brain neurotransmitter systems in patients. Now we’ve shown unequivocal evidence of neurotransmitter abnormalities in bipolar disorder and in major depression, and we’ve shown how these abnormalities can have an impact on the probability of patients responding to different types of treatment.”

This one, is suggesting an entirely new genetic theory about the source of mental illnesses. And it hopes to purport the idea that researchers and psychiatrists might soon be able to "pre-screen" young children for the threat of these illnesses and put them on a treatment plan (drugs) earlier...This was addressed in the video link posted which no-one bothered to watch before assaulting S.F. Fred and FAL.

And as regards this "chemical imbalance" assumption:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/

Prior to treatment, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, depression, and other psychiatric disorders do not suffer from any known “chemical imbalance.” However, once a person is put on a psychiatric medication, which, in one manner or another, throws a wrench into the usual mechanics of a neuronal pathway, his or her brain begins to function…abnormally.

Carlat refers to the chemical imbalance theory as a “myth” (which he calls “convenient” because it destigmatizes mental illness), and Kirsch, whose book focuses on depression, sums up this way: “It now seems beyond question that the traditional account of depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain is simply wrong.”[/U]

and this one:
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropo...illness-go-for-the-placebo-with-side-effects/
Now, as Dr. Angell notes in her able–and I must say, vigorous–reply, she didn’t write in her essay that depression doesn’t have a biological basis. She simply wrote that the chemical imbalance story didn’t appear to have merit. But forget about that back and forth, for here’s the critical point: In their letter, Dr. Friedman and Dr. Nierenberg acknowledged that the chemical imbalance theory of mental disorders was disproven long ago.

That, in fact, is true.

and this one:


http://www.cchr.org/sites/default/files/Blaming_The_Brain_The_Chemical_Imbalance_Fraud.pdfBLAMING THE BRAIN

The ‘Chemical Imbalance’ Fraud
“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biological
imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical
imbalance?” —Dr. Ron Leifer, New York psychiatrist.
The cornerstone of psychiatry’s disease model today is the theory that a brain‐based,
chemical imbalance causes mental illness. However, Dr. Mark Graff, Chair of Public
Affairs of the American Psychiatric Association said that this theory was “probably
drug industry derived.”1 His cohort, Dr. Steven Sharfstein, APA president, was forced
under media pressure to admit that

Maybe S.F. Fred and FAL have been mistaken in some of their posts, but one thing I am quite sure of....those who have hurled their angrily derived condemnation at them, have little or no scientific basis for accusing them. These threads have been ruled entirely by emotion and a relative like or dislike for the particular circumstance of the "subject" (seeking) and the relative like or dislike of the persons involved in the dissenting view. Namely: S.F. Fred and FAL. If anyone objectively reads the posts as an outsider...there was, I would contend, far more vicious, non-productive, un-constructive personal attacking on the part of those opposed to S.F. Fred and FAL. and their point of view, than was posed by them. It is easy to become indignantly self-righteously judgemental about those occasions wherein they might have been less than obeisant in their responses when they are out-numbered roughly 235,622.4 to 3. Is it unreasonable that they might get defensive sometimes?

Did anyone catch the signifigance of (seeking's) statement:

Apparently, all of your PSY docs have yet to deal with this very real and very pressing issue, which does deserve legit concern and respect.....But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

Thank you for taking the time to look into this. There is no question it is a deeply emotional issue, but one the church needs to dig deeper into instead of simply jumping on the band wagon of the world.

 

[DHK]

Maybe S.F. Fred and FAL have been mistaken in some of their posts, but one thing I am quite sure of....those who have hurled their angrily derived condemnation at them, have little or no scientific basis for accusing them.

It works both ways. They haven't posted their medical degrees either

These threads have been ruled entirely by emotion and a relative like or dislike for the particular circumstance of the "subject" (seeking) and the relative like or dislike of the persons involved in the dissenting view.

Now you are calling people's judgment, and even their integrity into question. Has it ever occurred to you that most of us haven't met who is on the other side of the key board. We don't know if we would "like" them or not. It is the views that some of disagree with. It is a debate forum, and in a debate often emotions do get involved and subjects are debated with passion.

Namely: S.F. Fred and FAL. If anyone objectively reads the posts as an outsider...there was, I would contend, far more vicious, non-productive, un-constructive personal attacking on the part of those opposed to S.F. Fred and FAL. and their point of view, than was posed by them.

They are in the minority. However some of their posts (if you read all of them) are the most outrageous. You are not in a position to make such a judgment unless you have read all the evidence.

It is easy to become indignantly self-righteously judgemental about those occasions wherein they might have been less than obeisant in their responses when they are out-numbered roughly 235,622.4 to 3. Is it unreasonable that they might get defensive sometimes?

Bit of a hyperbole don't you think? And in doing so you have become judgmental yourself.

Apparently, all of your PSY docs have yet to deal with this very real and very pressing issue, which does deserve legit concern and respect.....But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

And maybe this last paragraph is the greatest condemnation yet on a pastor who has sought the Lord, and the Lord has sought fit not to heal him. Who are you to judge your brother and condemn him as such?

Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It works both ways. They haven't posted their medical degrees either

You simply didn't read what I said

Now you are calling people's judgment, and even their integrity into question. Has it ever occurred to you that most of us haven't met who is on the other side of the key board. We don't know if we would "like" them or not. It is the views that some of disagree with. It is a debate forum, and in a debate often emotions do get involved and subjects are debated with passion

.
don't kid yourself

You are not in a position to make such a judgment unless you have read all the evidence.

I have read the vast bulk of it, admitted to it, and am confident in asserting precisely what I have asserted...ALL of the

"evidence"

would have been immaterial, inasmuch as my contention is that "evidence" has in no way, whatsoever dominated these threads.

Bit of a hyperbole don't you think?

UHHHH.....yes, it was hyperbollic...I utilized a somewhat common rhetorical device I learned about in school to convey a point. So.........

And in doing so you have become judgmental yourself.

Of course....As have all of us. And when you provide any Scripture which suggests that those who take their beliefs, world-view, understanding from the Word of God are commanded not to "judge" ideas then you have a point. I was gracious to "seeking" as I do not pretend to understand all of the ins and outs of his troubles....had you bothered to read what I said without an immediate and emotionally-driven compulsion to react, you would have recognized this: Since you have apparently refused to read what I actually....what is the word I mean to use......SAID.....yes, that's it! I re-quote:

Apparently, all of your PSY docs have yet to deal with this very real and very pressing issue, which does deserve legit concern and respect.....But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

And maybe this last paragraph is the greatest condemnation yet on a pastor who has sought the Lord, and the Lord has sought fit not to heal him. Who
are you to judge your brother and condemn him as such?

I just quoted my last paragraph.....there was zero condemnation....merely the constructive suggestion (which pre-supposed the idea that it has been tried before)...I did that on purpose....Note this quote from me:

If this has occured....Try again maybe?

I did this in order to stave-off possible responses I (rightly) guessed might be forth-coming from such as yourself....Do you realize I answered this particular objection of yours long before you posted it??

Everything in my power was used to be as civil to all persons involved, and I have (and still do) assume only the best about what seeking is dealing with, and his honest attempt to do everything in his present knowledge to rightly deal with it. If you cannot understand that, if you cannot realize my attempt at an honest critique of the situation at large. Then you must have sub-consciously ignored the sprit and general thrust of my first post, and you have failed to read and understand it correctly.

 

[agedman]

I should not do this, but,...

I have read through the links.

It is amazing NOT ONE state that mental illness does not exist.

Rather, repeatedly they state that the current technology isn't capable of a completely diagnostic scientific results such as a blood test will check for blood sugar levels.

Some articles do state the research is still in infancy.

As far as chemical imbalances, the articles are weighty and yet they also indicate that although there is no "blood test" it doesn't mean conditions do not exist.

HERE on the BB, some have taken such articles to state that mental illness is a myth, and that taking medications is a sin.

Neither has been proven true by the articles.

They are good read, and I would recommend everyone read them.

Thanks for the links.

 

[freeatlast]

I have read through the links.

It is amazing NOT ONE state that mental illness does not exist.

Rather, repeatedly they state that the current technology isn't capable of a completely diagnostic scientific results such as a blood test will check for blood sugar levels.

Some articles do state the research is still in infancy.

As far as chemical imbalances, the articles are weighty and yet they also indicate that although there is no "blood test" it doesn't mean conditions do not exist.

HERE on the BB, some have taken such articles to state that mental illness is a myth, and that taking medications is a sin.

Neither has been proven true by the articles.

They are good read, and I would recommend everyone read them.

Thanks for the links.

:BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:

 

[agedman]

...But maybe there is some truth to the idea that it is possibly time for the "Great Physician" to get involved inasmuch as the "medical" ones have heretofore only helped him possibly "cope" with it. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," and maybe presentation before the elders of the Church may be in order.....If this has occured....Try again maybe? What is there to lose....He can do anything. No?

I would suggest that unlike some who reject medical assistance and even the term "mental illness," the Godly professionals will use medication and counsel hand in hand.

They will engage the "great physician" and as the Scriptures teach:

Ga 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."​

 

[freeatlast]

I would suggest that unlike some who reject medical assistance and even the term "mental illness," the Godly professionals will use medication and counsel hand in hand.

They will engage the "great physician" and as the Scriptures teach:

Ga 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."
​

See, no drugs called for. Calling these people godly does not make their practice correct. There is sincere and sincerely wrong and pointing a Christian to drugs even if sincere is sincerely wrong based on how scripture says we are to deal with sin. The Doctors of George Washington were sincere and perhaps considered godly men, but old George died because of their sincere medical advise.

 

[agedman]

See, no drugs called for. Calling these people godly does not make their practice correct. There is sincere and sincerely wrong and pointing a Christian to drugs even if sincere is sincerely wrong based on how scripture says we are to deal with sin. The Doctors of George Washington were sincere and perhaps considered godly men, but old George died because of their sincere medical advise.

Actually, George died because he demanded being bled against medical advice.

The OT called on the apothecaries oil to anoint the temple and all that pertained to both priests and temple worship.

I suggest that your sincerity places you as sincerely wrong by not accepting that God has provided the healing arts and especially Godly folks in the healing profession. You call into question not only the gift given by God, but the capacity to be lead by the Holy Spirit in wisdom and knowledge.

 

[freeatlast]

Actually, George died because he demanded being bled against medical advice.

The OT called on the apothecaries oil to anoint the temple and all that pertained to both priests and temple worship.

I suggest that your sincerity places you as sincerely wrong by not accepting that God has provided the healing arts and especially Godly folks in the healing profession. You call into question not only the gift given by God, but the capacity to be lead by the Holy Spirit in wisdom and knowledge.

On Thursday, December 12, 1799, Washington spent several hours inspecting his plantation on horseback, in snow, hail and freezing rain—later that evening eating his supper without changing from his wet clothes. That Friday he awoke with a severe sore throat (either quinsy or acute epiglottitis) and became increasingly hoarse as the day progressed. Sometime around 3 a.m. that Saturday morning, he awoke his wife and said he felt ill. Following common medical practice at the time, he was bled—initially by an employee and later again by physicians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

By the way this has nothing to with my sincerity as I am basing my belief on the bible and these Medical people are basing theirs on the teaching of the world. Being sincere is vain if it is not right and this practice is not right based on the word of God. Confess and forsake for sin, not drugs. By the way Godly men believe the word, confess and forsake, not the practice of the world, drugs.

Ga 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

 

[agedman]

For a better account read this link on the death by an eyewitness.

By the way this has nothing to with my sincerity as I am basing my belief on the bible and these Medical people are basing theirs on the teaching of the world.

That is an assumption that has no foundation.

You do not have any resource or ability to make such an extreme statement.

It has neither Biblical or scholarly support.

Only your own bias demands such a view.

Being sincere is vain if it is not right and this practice is not right based on the word of God. Confess and forsake for sin, not drugs. By the way Godly men believe the word, confess and forsake, not the practice of the world, drugs.

Sincere comes from the Roman Latin word sine 'without' and cera 'wax'.

Wax was at times forced into marble to hide a crack. The sculptor would have the marble turned in the sun to detect the marble was sine cera - without fault covered by wax. A crack would ruin the sculpture.

Sincere is not vain, nor is it sinful as applied to Godly folks who have been endowed by the Creator with the gift and it is applied under the Holy Spirit's leading.

That you assign such a gift as vain and sinful is in such an assignment placing what God authorizes into evil intent. That is sin on your part and needs to be confessed and forsaken.

To continue in such a sin, would be bring the very rebuke of God upon you and yours.



FAL - You can repeat the mantra "confess and forsake for sin, no drugs" to your heart's content.

NNE is arguing that point.

 

[freeatlast]

For a better account read this link on the death by an eyewitness.





That is an assumption that has no foundation.

You do not have any resource or ability to make such an extreme statement.

It has neither Biblical or scholarly support.

Only your own bias demands such a view.




Sincere comes from the Roman Latin word sine 'without' and cera 'wax'.

Wax was at times forced into marble to hide a crack. The sculptor would have the marble turned in the sun to detect the marble was sine cera - without fault covered by wax. A crack would ruin the sculpture.

Sincere is not vain, nor is it sinful as applied to Godly folks who have been endowed by the Creator with the gift and it is applied under the Holy Spirit's leading.

That you assign such a gift as vain and sinful is in such an assignment placing what God authorizes into evil intent. That is sin on your part and needs to be confessed and forsaken.

To continue in such a sin, would be bring the very rebuke of God upon you and yours.



FAL - You can repeat the mantra "confess and forsake for sin, no drugs" to your heart's content.

NNE is arguing that point.

Like I said drugs cover while confession and forsaking sets one free. The thing is not all people believe the word of God so they trust drugs instead.

 

[agedman]

Like I said drugs cover while confession and forsaking sets one free. The thing is not all people believe the word of God so they trust drugs instead.

Just because "not all people believe the word of God so they trust drugs instead," do not make drugs evil nor it a sin to take what a medical professional has the authority to prescribe.


YOU have provided no proof that drugs cover sin.

 

[freeatlast]

Just because "not all people believe the word of God so they trust drugs instead," do not make drugs evil nor it a sin to take what a medical professional has the authority to prescribe.


YOU have provided no proof that drugs cover sin.

I have proved that sin is to be confessed and forsaken.

 

[annsni]

I have proved that sin is to be confessed and forsaken.

Yet that has never been at issue.

 

[agedman]

I have proved that sin is to be confessed and forsaken.

But you have NOT proved that drugs "cover" sins.