Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1082523

Shown: posts 78 to 102 of 102. Go back in thread:

 

How does one accept Jesus as Christ - Ask a priest Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 3, 2015, at 17:06:32

In reply to Lou's reply-how does one accept Jesus as Christ SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2015, at 14:55:24

> > Okay, then.
> >
> > Let us be clear and not jump to conclusions.
> >
> > Lou: Can one reach the paradise that you speak of by accepting Jesus as the Christ, Lord and Savior?

> how does one accept Jesus as Christ

That's not my problem.

Go see Christian clergy if you would like that question answered.

Okay. Let's try again. Maybe we can get you to answer a yes-or-no question without obfuscation.

Yes or No:

Can one reach Paradise through the path offered by Christianity?


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2015, at 18:57:12

In reply to How does one accept Jesus as Christ - Ask a priest Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 3, 2015, at 17:06:32

> > > Okay, then.
> > >
> > > Let us be clear and not jump to conclusions.
> > >
> > > Lou: Can one reach the paradise that you speak of by accepting Jesus as the Christ, Lord and Savior?
>
> > how does one accept Jesus as Christ
>
> That's not my problem.
>
> Go see Christian clergy if you would like that question answered.
>
> Okay. Let's try again. Maybe we can get you to answer a yes-or-no question without obfuscation.
>
> Yes or No:
>
> Can one reach Paradise through the path offered by Christianity?
>
> h
> - Scott

Scott,
There is not one path but many that Christiandom offers. This is what causes the divisions in Christiandom. The Roman Catholic path diverts from the reformed groups and then there are subsets of divisions in those groups. The paths are divers due to disagreements as to what words mean, such as atonement, sanctification, righteousness, justification, grace, faith and many others. We could have limited atonement, universal atonement, atonement by baptism, atonement by repentance, sacraments, and others. A lot of the disagreements involve the period of the second temple period between 100 BCE and 70 CE and then the next 40 years or so.
Now each group contends that they have the truth concerning such, so that one could be right and all the others wrong, or they could all be wrong or there could be some agreement between some of the divisions in Christiandom.
Christandom's Jesus' could be different in various divisions. So your question as to if one can reach Paradise through the path offered by Christianity would depend on which path is being considered by what division as to which Jesus is being presented.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 3, 2015, at 19:34:54

In reply to Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 3, 2015, at 18:57:12

Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

Q: What is Christianity?

A: A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.

We are in agreement, then.


- Scott

 

Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS

Posted by pontormo on October 5, 2015, at 10:28:15

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 3, 2015, at 19:34:54

Are you joking? everyone knows you're getting no place with Mr Pilder. No one gets anyplace with Mr Pilder.

SLS, let me ask you: why are you fencing with someone who has time and time again proved himself to be totally closed, totally sopistical in argument; who is numbingly unwilling to answer a direct question with anything but a dodge, and with whom every pathway is a blind alley leading yet again some pithy-sounding but impenetrably knotted assertion of his being the one and only way, and he being the one interpreter and arbiter of the meaning of revelations that no one else can have access to?

 

Dead serious.

Posted by SLS on October 5, 2015, at 11:04:06

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS, posted by pontormo on October 5, 2015, at 10:28:15

> Are you joking?

Absolutely not.

I understand how ugly this discourse might be for some people to watch.

I await Mr. Pilder's response.


- Scott

 

Lou's objection and warning-Mr. Hsung's influence pontormo

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2015, at 11:14:13

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS, posted by pontormo on October 5, 2015, at 10:28:15

> Are you joking? everyone knows you're getting no place with Mr Pilder. No one gets anyplace with Mr Pilder.
>
> SLS, let me ask you: why are you fencing with someone who has time and time again proved himself to be totally closed, totally sopistical in argument; who is numbingly unwilling to answer a direct question with anything but a dodge, and with whom every pathway is a blind alley leading yet again some pithy-sounding but impenetrably knotted assertion of his being the one and only way, and he being the one interpreter and arbiter of the meaning of revelations that no one else can have access to?
>
> Friends,
Be not deceived at what you read about my character here that puts me in a false light that could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings toward me.
This is further objectionable by me in that Mr. Hsiung is allowing what could be seen as being supportive by him here and worse, that in his thinking it will be good for his community as a whole to be seen that way, and worse, these type of statements against my character he knows could cause me harm and allows it anyway.
This could be evidence that Mr. Hsiung and the poster here are in concert to cause me emotional distress by the nature that Mr. Hsiung is not holding the poster accountable in accordance with his enforcement policy in his TOS.
If you are steered into thinking that what is posted here about me is true, then reject having dialog with me as the poster asks Scott why he is "fencing" with me and using a dodge and that I am totally closed. That could get you influenced to not have dialog with me here and not respond to me as Mr. Hsiung says that he does not respond to me which could be his example for others to also not respond to me. That is another aspect of how a subset of readers could think that the poster here is in concert with Mr. Hsiung to inflict emotional distress upon me.
But you see, Scott is trying to have dialog with me and the poster here could be trying to influence Scott to not have dialog with me here. That IMHO could cause Scott's death because what I could say if we continued, could IMHO save his life.
Lou

 

. pontormo

Posted by SLS on October 5, 2015, at 11:18:04

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-Which Jesus? SLS, posted by pontormo on October 5, 2015, at 10:28:15

Thanks.


- Scott

 

Let us continue. Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 5, 2015, at 11:36:28

In reply to Lou's objection and warning-Mr. Hsung's influence pontormo, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2015, at 11:14:13

Hi, Lou.

I am sorry if you feel put down by the post of pontormo. I think it would be important for it to be reviewed by the moderator to evaluate it for adherence to civility guidelines.

Let us not be distracted from our important discussion.

To pick up where we left off:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1083193.html

------------------------------------------

"
Good. Now we are getting somewhere.

Q: What is Christianity?

A: A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.

We are in agreement, then.
"

----------------------------------------

As I indicated, we are finally in agreement.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-deohnleighwhey? SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2015, at 19:39:04

In reply to Let us continue. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 5, 2015, at 11:36:28

> Hi, Lou.
>
> I am sorry if you feel put down by the post of pontormo. I think it would be important for it to be reviewed by the moderator to evaluate it for adherence to civility guidelines.
>
> Let us not be distracted from our important discussion.
>
> To pick up where we left off:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140902/msgs/1083193.html
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> "
> Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
>
> Q: What is Christianity?
>
> A: A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
>
> We are in agreement, then.
> "
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> As I indicated, we are finally in agreement.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
We are in agreement that somewhere in Christiandom there is a path to return to God. But what is that path if you know> And would IYO those outside of christiandom also have a path different from the Christiandom path that could lead one back to God.
Lou

 

Alternative religions. Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 6, 2015, at 15:05:50

In reply to Lou's reply-deohnleighwhey? SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 5, 2015, at 19:39:04

> > ------------------------------------------
> >
> > "
> > Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
> >
> > Q: What is Christianity?
> >
> > A: A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> >
> > We are in agreement, then.
> > "
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > As I indicated, we are finally in agreement.

> Scott,
> We are in agreement that somewhere in Christiandom there is a path to return to God. But what is that path if you know> And would IYO those outside of christiandom also have a path different from the Christiandom path that could lead one back to God.
> Lou

First of all, I would like to suggest that a great many people are passionate in their belief that their way is the only way, even if their religion makes no such claim.

As a planet occupied by people of many different religions and spiritual faiths, there will be some religions whose doctrines are indeed founded on the tenet that the path to Paradise is exclusively theirs to follow. I find this sad, but this is today's reality. I like diversity, but not divisiveness. I think divisiveness is, in part, a product of intolerance. I find that tolerance of another's passions is helpful to me in moving forward happily in life without antipathy and the emotional energy depletion that surrounds negativity.

I like your idea that there may be different paths to Paradise and eternal life. Perhaps there is only one. I don't know. Still, I think that many people will favor one path over all others. I am tolerant of some affiliations, but not of others. The key for me, again, is tolerance. I tend to be tolerant of people who are willing to be tolerant me. Of course, there are things that I am intolerant of, but I would prefer to talk about the positive. It is too easy to find the negative.

I found a post from the Faith forum from 2008. It contained the following:

"What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."

I tolerate this sentence, even though it represents a belief in exclusionist principles. The author might even be misrepresenting Christianity. However, it does represent the passions of poster. I disagree with the use of the words "the only", but I tolerate them, especially in this forum. I think passion can overwhelm discretion. Not everyone feels the need nor has the talent to craft words with delicacy and tact. Certainly, this is no great transgression.

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20130321/msgs/1055722.html

People have fought wars and millions have been killed in the name of religions that are dedicated to love and brotherhood.

There is more to discuss, of course, so let us continue. I think our goal should be to bring about some degree of resolution to our concerns so as to enhance our experience on Psycho-Babble.

I respectfully await your reply.


- Scott

 

Lou's reply-pseakpherst SLS

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2015, at 16:32:05

In reply to Alternative religions. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 6, 2015, at 15:05:50

> > > ------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "
> > > Good. Now we are getting somewhere.
> > >
> > > Q: What is Christianity?
> > >
> > > A: A religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God.
> > >
> > > We are in agreement, then.
> > > "
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > >
> > > As I indicated, we are finally in agreement.
>
> > Scott,
> > We are in agreement that somewhere in Christiandom there is a path to return to God. But what is that path if you know> And would IYO those outside of christiandom also have a path different from the Christiandom path that could lead one back to God.
> > Lou
>
> First of all, I would like to suggest that a great many people are passionate in their belief that their way is the only way, even if their religion makes no such claim.
>
> As a planet occupied by people of many different religions and spiritual faiths, there will be some religions whose doctrines are indeed founded on the tenet that the path to Paradise is exclusively theirs to follow. I find this sad, but this is today's reality. I like diversity, but not divisiveness. I think divisiveness is, in part, a product of intolerance. I find that tolerance of another's passions is helpful to me in moving forward happily in life without antipathy and the emotional energy depletion that surrounds negativity.
>
> I like your idea that there may be different paths to Paradise and eternal life. Perhaps there is only one. I don't know. Still, I think that many people will favor one path over all others. I am tolerant of some affiliations, but not of others. The key for me, again, is tolerance. I tend to be tolerant of people who are willing to be tolerant me. Of course, there are things that I am intolerant of, but I would prefer to talk about the positive. It is too easy to find the negative.
>
> I found a post from the Faith forum from 2008. It contained the following:
>
> "What is Christianity? The only religion that offers a pathway for you to return back to God."
>
> I tolerate this sentence, even though it represents a belief in exclusionist principles. The author might even be misrepresenting Christianity. However, it does represent the passions of poster. I disagree with the use of the words "the only", but I tolerate them, especially in this forum. I think passion can overwhelm discretion. Not everyone feels the need nor has the talent to craft words with delicacy and tact. Certainly, this is no great transgression.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20130321/msgs/1055722.html
>
> People have fought wars and millions have been killed in the name of religions that are dedicated to love and brotherhood.
>
> There is more to discuss, of course, so let us continue. I think our goal should be to bring about some degree of resolution to our concerns so as to enhance our experience on Psycho-Babble.
>
> I respectfully await your reply.
>
>
> - Scott

Scott,
You wrote that you would want to bring about some degree of resolution to our concerns. I am unsure as to what you mean by that.
My concern here is to save lives, prevent life-ruining conditions and addictions and bring back to those that want their life back to return the Green Fields that they used to know. It has been revealed to me how that can be done. This WAY is not by human achievement.
You see, it has been revealed o me that we are created beings that were once in a Paradise Garden to live forever, for we possessed a spirit from God that could not die. But events occurred to cause mankind to loose that spirit and we all die. And returning to The Green Fields that we used to know is accomplished by God putting that spirit back into you.
And it has been revealed to me that there are other spirits not from God. These spirits are from the devil. You can read it in the morning papers, hear it on the radio. Murder and war and death and crimes against humanity and corruption in high places and woe.
Having just an earnest of God's spirit could give those power to overcome. This power could have those in addiction or depression be able to overcome and not kill themselves from the drugs causing the addiction. This spirit is not held by Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Islamic people and all other religions to be dolled out to people only by them. This Spirit is free and without price. I have come here to tell you how to have that Spirit come into you and I am prevented from doing so by the prohibitions to e here by Mr. Hsiung. And worse, the mind-altering drugs that are promoted here can cause this Sprit to leave, for it has been revealed me that our bodies are The Temple of this Spirit, and mind-altering drugs cause the person to be in a living death, wanting to kill themselves and others and even murder their own parents and commit mass-murder. Those are the works of the devil, not God's Spirit.
The Spirit that has been revealed to me is incompatible with the spirit of mind-altering drugs. For it has been revealed to me that the wages of mind-altering drugs is death. Whatever degree of resolution that you want to accomplish, is unknown to me, for you are promoting mind-altering drugs that has been revealed to me to be able to cause the death of a person, addict them, cause life-ruining conditions and ravaging diseases, and I am trying to bring life forever more to those here, free from addiction and the potential of having hideous consequences induced into them by the drugs that you promote. I have no resolution between life and death. It has been revealed to me to seek first this Spirit from God and more will be added to you to overcome all things.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-pseakpherst Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on October 12, 2015, at 19:15:22

In reply to Lou's reply-pseakpherst SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2015, at 16:32:05

Okay.

Do you respect and have tolerance for the beliefs of others?

Not many people would argue that psychotropic drugs can have negative effects on mood and behavior. They can. However, it has been my observation that this represents a small minority rather than a majority of cases. Unfortunately, what we see here on Psycho-Babble are, in my opinion, people whose psychobiology is atypical and does not react predictably to medication. It would not be valid to use the posting community of Psycho-Babble as being a representation of the general population of people with mood illness. This would be an overgeneralization.

If we were to line up 100 people who are taking Prozac, how many of them do you think would commit suicide?


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions SLS

Posted by Toph on October 13, 2015, at 11:07:54

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pseakpherst Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on October 12, 2015, at 19:15:22


>
> If we were to line up 100 people who are taking Prozac, how many of them do you think would commit suicide?
>

Hi Scott,
Forgive me for not reading this lengthy thread. I was just curious though, if you took 100 random depressed individuals who converted to Judaism, and one or more of them later committed suicide should we then warn everyone about the dangers of Judaism?

 

Conclusions? Toph

Posted by SLS on October 13, 2015, at 15:10:36

In reply to Re: Conclusions SLS, posted by Toph on October 13, 2015, at 11:07:54

>
> >
> > If we were to line up 100 people who are taking Prozac, how many of them do you think would commit suicide?
> >
>
> Hi Scott,
> Forgive me for not reading this lengthy thread. I was just curious though, if you took 100 random depressed individuals who converted to Judaism, and one or more of them later committed suicide should we then warn everyone about the dangers of Judaism?

I am confused by your post.

Considering the sensitivities of Mr. Pilder, I don't understand why you chose Judaism for your analogy.

Why not use Republicans or wind surfers?

What is your conclusion to the question you posed?

If it is your suggestion that some of the suicides occurring during Prozac treatment would have occurred anyway were they to have remained untreated, I would agree.


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions Toph

Posted by SLS on October 13, 2015, at 21:49:57

In reply to Re: Conclusions SLS, posted by Toph on October 13, 2015, at 11:07:54

Hi Toph.

The following linked post is an example of my current conclusions, which I reserve the right to change. :-)

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20150929/msgs/1083394.html

I would be appreciative if you would review it and enter any comments you may have.


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions SLS

Posted by Toph on October 14, 2015, at 18:07:27

In reply to Re: Conclusions Toph, posted by SLS on October 13, 2015, at 21:49:57

Hi Scott
I don't know how researchers distinguish between drug-induced suicidality and drug-exacerbated suicidality.

 

Re: Conclusions Toph

Posted by SLS on October 14, 2015, at 22:21:20

In reply to Re: Conclusions SLS, posted by Toph on October 14, 2015, at 18:07:27

> Hi Scott
> I don't know how researchers distinguish between drug-induced suicidality and drug-exacerbated suicidality.

Just a quick idea...

To be conducted in a research inpatient setting to control for variables, and allow for close observation. Observers would be blinded.

The intake process can establish a baseline rating for the presence of suicidality and violent behavior for an individual. Once the data is collected, each subject is then treated with active compound and followed longitudinally with daily patient ratings. Each patient is evaluated for the emergence of de novo or exacerbation of suicidal thinking. Data on the efficacy and side effects of active compound should be collected as well. Statistics do the rest. The key is to use longitudinal data collection rather than cross-sectional. It should be easy to do. Having a placebo arm would be provide even more data.

Of course, the appropriate intervention protocols will help prevent suicide attempts and completions.

Not bad for 5 minutes' work. I'd rather be selling automobiles, though.


Q: Do you believe that antidepressants can produce suicidality as an adverse side effect?


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions

Posted by Toph on October 15, 2015, at 12:07:21

In reply to Re: Conclusions Toph, posted by SLS on October 14, 2015, at 22:21:20


> Q: Do you believe that antidepressants can produce suicidality as an adverse side effect?
>

Not sure, but I know depression can.

In blind studies, what are the ethics of giving suicidal patients a placebo?

 

Re: Conclusions Toph

Posted by SLS on October 15, 2015, at 12:52:30

In reply to Re: Conclusions, posted by Toph on October 15, 2015, at 12:07:21

> > Q: Do you believe that antidepressants can produce suicidality as an adverse side effect?

> Not sure, but I know depression can.

What would you need to see in order to be sure?

> In blind studies, what are the ethics of giving suicidal patients a placebo?

That's a good question. Not sure.

Maybe the best thing to do is to exclude from the study people who score above some threshold of suicidal ideation using a rating scale while retaining the placebo arm.

I'll need to think about this one.

I would still prefer to be selling automobiles, though.


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions

Posted by Toph on October 15, 2015, at 14:17:30

In reply to Re: Conclusions Toph, posted by SLS on October 15, 2015, at 12:52:30

> > > Q: Do you believe that antidepressants can produce suicidality as an adverse side effect?
>
> > Not sure, but I know depression can.
>
> What would you need to see in order to be sure?
>

I have been fortunate not to have suffered another major depressive episode in 30 years on lithium. Many antidepressants are contraindicated as producing manic episodes in bipolars anyway.

-
Are there any statistics on the incidence of antidepressants saving the lives of suicidal patients?

-
> I would still prefer to be selling automobiles, though.
>

I spoiled myself with a new MX-5 in retirement. It has proven to cure dysthymia. This car sold itself.

 

Re: Conclusions

Posted by SLS on October 15, 2015, at 22:10:14

In reply to Re: Conclusions, posted by Toph on October 15, 2015, at 14:17:30

> Are there any statistics on the incidence of antidepressants saving the lives of suicidal patients?

I don't know. I've never seen any.

Antidepressants look real good in trials that are limited to people with the most severe of depressions. In the past, such trials using TCAs produced 66% response rates with low placebo response rates. Unfortunately, as time passed, the demand for test subjects became higher, and investigators began allowing people with mild and moderate depressions to participate. I believe that this set up for too many placebo responders and a loading of non-responding people whose depression was not diagnosed properly. In other words, they were treating people who didn't have the disease that the test drug was meant to treat. Of course, that is a very simplistic approach to understand the issue.

One day soon, many of these questions will be answered by evaluating biological markers - PET scans or blood tests perhaps.


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions SLS

Posted by Toph on October 17, 2015, at 9:16:30

In reply to Re: Conclusions, posted by SLS on October 15, 2015, at 22:10:14

Then how did they reach the conclusion that lithium effectively reduces the risk of suicide in many patients Scott?

 

Re: Conclusions Toph

Posted by SLS on October 17, 2015, at 9:40:35

In reply to Re: Conclusions SLS, posted by Toph on October 17, 2015, at 9:16:30

> Then how did they reach the conclusion that lithium effectively reduces the risk of suicide in many patients Scott?
>

That's a great question. I don't know. It is possible that a cross-sectional analysis was performed. Perhaps the suicide rate in the general population was compared to the suicide rate in people taking lithium. I'm not sure how the latter would be assessed.

What do you think?

Where are we headed?


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions SLS

Posted by SLS on October 17, 2015, at 9:58:41

In reply to Re: Conclusions Toph, posted by SLS on October 17, 2015, at 9:40:35

> > Then how did they reach the conclusion that lithium effectively reduces the risk of suicide in many patients Scott?
> >
>
> That's a great question. I don't know. It is possible that a cross-sectional analysis was performed. Perhaps the suicide rate in the general population was compared to the suicide rate in people taking lithium. I'm not sure how the latter would be assessed.

I see a problem here. One would have to compare bipolar to bipolar. Randomized placebo-controlled trials would do this.


- Scott

 

Re: Conclusions Toph

Posted by SLS on October 17, 2015, at 10:07:03

In reply to Re: Conclusions SLS, posted by Toph on October 17, 2015, at 9:16:30

> Then how did they reach the conclusion that lithium effectively reduces the risk of suicide in many patients Scott?
>

I did a quick search on Google.

I used the keyords: "lithium suicide trials" and "lithium suicide prevention"

Easy.

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/06/29/lithium-still-tops-in-reducing-suicide-risk-in-depression-bipolar-disorder/56637.html

Am I to soon see your using this information about lithium to further our discussion regarding antidepressant-induced suicidality?

Have you come to any conclusions?


- Scott


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.