PDA

View Full Version : Should Christian study about psychology?



SilentThinker
Nov 23rd 2008, 12:40 PM
This is one of the confusing matter for myself.

I liked studying personality,which is part of psychology.

Should a Christian read up things like psychology?

Thanks in advance

GitRDunn
Nov 23rd 2008, 02:26 PM
This is one of the confusing matter for myself.

I liked studying personality,which is part of psychology.

Should a Christian read up things like psychology?

Thanks in advance
Are you asking whether every Christian should study it or are you asking whether people think it is ok for a Christian to study it (is it a sin)?

Athanasius
Nov 23rd 2008, 06:50 PM
I don't see a problem with it, as long as the Christian doesn't get swept into it. The more you study the depravity of the human condition...

musicmiss
Nov 23rd 2008, 10:30 PM
I think it depends. If you have good discernment than I think that it's ok. I do believe there are some people who have something wrong physically in their brains (certain mood disorders and stuff like that), and that would be considered psychology. I believe God made us with a psychological aspect, and just like studying health and our bodies, we shouldn't just shun off help from a psychologist if it is truly needed. But I think we need to use a great deal of discernment when it comes to deciding who really needs it, and then when it comes to what we take in from psychologists. While some psychology is ok in my opinion, there are other parts of it that are pretty whack and completely against scripture. So basically, yes, it's ok... as long as discernment is carefully practiced.

Luke34
Nov 23rd 2008, 11:06 PM
I'm baffled as to why the study of psychology would be considered "un-Christian" by anyone ever. I mean, really, why? I don't get it.

renthead188
Nov 23rd 2008, 11:16 PM
I'm a Psych Major (graduate with a BA this summer) at a state university (SUNY STONYBROOK!!!) and I've found it encouraging. Things God has shown me in these classes:

We are NOT as smart as we think we are.
God doesn't need a degree to use us.
Much of what we "know" we really assume based on other assumptions.
Logic and Reason Skills

Also, I am excited because I believe that God wants me to be a Young Life Leader and this will require being in personal relationships with lots of lost kids. I now have a bit more knowledge about how to approach people in different situations, also, more understanding about their worldviews at different stages of development.

So yeah, Christians can study psychology, just can't make it the rock we stand on. If anything is taught that doesn't jive with Scripture, you mark it down under "speculative theories" and memorize the info for the test. That's what we do in biology class, right? Except when they try and teach that morality evolved... then I ask questions.

Chris

RedBird777
Nov 24th 2008, 02:35 AM
It's about as sinful as studying physics.

However, MilitaryWife definitely has a point in that there is a secular view (think Sigmund Freud) and a Godly view.

And RentHead1888 DEFINITELY hit the nail on the head, no matter WHAT anyone studies.

It's all about using it to glorify God; if studying psychology will do that, then DO IT!!! God brings Christians to psychology for a good reason - I've had to visit a Christian psychologist before, and it is definitely refreshing that the guy who was helping me out knew where I was coming from Christian-wise. If it was a secular dude...well...then I don't think I would have gotten as far with them.

scourge39
Nov 24th 2008, 03:43 AM
Synthesizing Scripture with psychology can be helpful. I used to be dogmatically opposed to it until I took Pastoral Counseling in seminary. Some of the best books I've ever read in my life were part of that class. I recognize the value of psychology when it doesn't supercede Scripture. The key is to have a working knowledge of Scripture, Theology and Psychology and to make sure that Scripture is always the final authority above psychological theory. The following books are all written by Bible-believing Evangelicals who fully accept the authority of Scripture. I highly recommend them to anybody interested in this topic.

The Integration of Psychology and Theology by John D. Carter and S. Bruce Narramore is a classic and does NOT make Scripture subservient to psychological theory. It's an inexpensive, easy read.

Biblical Concepts for Christian Counseling: A Case for Integrating Psychology and Theology by William T. Kirwan is another great book that goes into more detail than Carter and Narramore.

Psychology & Christianity : With Contributions by Gary R. Collins ... Et Al is a great exchange between 4 Christian psychologists discussing various ways to integrate Scripture and psychology.

Care for the Soul: Exploring the Intersection of Psychology & Theology by Mark R. McMinn and Timothy R. Phillips. This is the best book on the subject, hands down. It's worth its weight in gold.

Psychology, Theology, and Spirituality in Christian Counseling (AACC Library) by Mark R. McMinn. A great introduction to the topic, which served as my Pastoral Counseling textbook.

CrossMaker
Nov 24th 2008, 09:01 PM
We live in physical bodies bound and regulated by chemical processes. Nothing sinful about studying these processes and applying the science relating to them.

yoyoyo
Nov 25th 2008, 03:32 PM
yea man. studying psychology is definately a good thing. Sometimes they might try and teach you some iffy stuff that doesnt really go with what you believe. But as long as you know the truth, psychology can help you better understand yourself and help better understand other people. And when you have better understanding, that can lead to having better compassion and being able to help people more effectively.

Bex4Jesus
Nov 25th 2008, 03:55 PM
Okay I just took Intro to Psychology, and I am totally baffled as to how this is even a question?!? I mean, any subject you take in school (history, biology, astronomy, political science, sociology, etc. etc.) COULD, and probably does, include something you disagree with, or something you think is not consistent with the Bible. But we all interpret the Bible differently so even we would not agree.

Everyone's religous beliefs are different, and someone is bound to be wrong. They can't offer "Psychology for Protestants" and "Psychology for Muslims," etc. They can only offer the most objective material possible. Now when professors go on anti-Christian rants, I hate that! :(

Biastai
Dec 4th 2008, 06:23 AM
I'm taking a break from Bible studies by reading Sigmund Freud, and I'm having a blast. Christians should venture fearlessly into further education of many types. Do not worry as the Lord is to be revealed no matter what is uncovered.

Roza
Dec 6th 2008, 12:21 AM
I love psychology. It helps you understand people. If you can understand them better, you have a better chance of witnessing to them. :)

Revinius
Dec 8th 2008, 05:51 AM
I'm taking a break from Bible studies by reading Sigmund Freud, and I'm having a blast. Christians should venture fearlessly into further education of many types. Do not worry as the Lord is to be revealed no matter what is uncovered.

I concur that one should expand ones horizons, but not at the loss of time with the Lord. That's like exchanging the baby for the bath water. :S

Athanasius
Dec 8th 2008, 06:10 AM
I'm taking a break from Bible studies by reading Sigmund Freud, and I'm having a blast. Christians should venture fearlessly into further education of many types. Do not worry as the Lord is to be revealed no matter what is uncovered.

Not in the writings of Freud...

Revinius
Dec 8th 2008, 05:11 PM
Not in the writings of Freud...

lol indeed. A cocaine addict who is convinced everyone wants to have sex with their mother prolly isnt your best source for truth.

inharmswayus
Dec 8th 2008, 05:43 PM
Psychology as historically developed and presented today has many false and dangerous facts. Many (perhaps most) Christian Psychologists appear to embrace many ideas from Psychology that are directly opposed to Biblical truth. An example would be the concept of the value of self esteem.

The problem is that the valid truth of Psychology is difficult to discern from the many anti Biblical ideas. Most Christians Psychologists do not have enough Bible or Theological knowledge to make valid judgments regarding the integrating of Psychology and Biblical truth. Gary Collins and Bruce
Narramore are good examples of this. Their books have concepts clearly opposed to a Biblical approach.

Most problems of the christian are best solved by Biblical Counseling by a knowledgeable and mature person. Best in the local church setting.

There are many valid and proven truths that have been brought forth by the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry. Genuine Mental illness must be handled by a Psychiatrist who has an M.D. and can prescribe medicine. Genuine mental illness has a Psychological cause and involves the Brain. The psychiatrist can diagnose and the Psychologist can assist with ongoing treatment in conjunction with the Psychiatrist. Mental illness effects about 2% of the American population. Many Christian philosophies of counseling do not give a knowledgeable and proper place to the treatment of mental illness. "Nouthetic" counseling is such a counseling philosophy and itself is not Biblical in its approach. However, it has become popular.

The proper approach to this subject is what I call a "Priority of truth" philosophy of counseling. Biblical truth takes priority. Only scientifically based Psychological truth is considered. But all truth is screened by applying Biblical principles.

Biastai
Dec 9th 2008, 05:51 AM
I concur that one should expand ones horizons, but not at the loss of time with the Lord. That's like exchanging the baby for the bath water. :S

Thank you for your input.
Do you feel that other studies are sharply demarcated from those of the Lord? In English Bible translations, Jeremiah mentions a "fixed order of heaven and earth." (Jer 31:25) Evidence of the Lord penetrates into fields of study like history and science. How can he not as he is all encompassing? I'm reminded of so-called "faith vs. science" debates. Are they really two fields never overlapping? Isn't science simply a man-made method for observing the phenomena of God's creation? It need not be perceived as a threat. You may differ with me on this, but studies of history, archaeology, critical theology, and sciences greatly enhanced my faith personally.

As for your response regarding Freud, I actually think his is a personality that Christians would respect if not admire. I feel he challenges our perceptions of God but no more than that. As for "everyone wanting to have sex with his mother," to Freud, that is an early stage in infantile development that immediately precedes development of intensified identification with one's father. Is something so wrong with that?

Athanasius
Dec 9th 2008, 08:08 AM
Thank you for your input.
Do you feel that other studies are sharply demarcated from those of the Lord? In English Bible translations, Jeremiah mentions a "fixed order of heaven and earth." (Jer 31:25) Evidence of the Lord penetrates into fields of study like history and science. How can he not as he is all encompassing? I'm reminded of so-called "faith vs. science" debates. Are they really two fields never overlapping? Isn't science simply a man-made method for observing the phenomena of God's creation? It need not be perceived as a threat. You may differ with me on this, but studies of history, archaeology, critical theology, and sciences greatly enhanced my faith personally.

"Faith vs. Science" debates are exemplary misunderstandings of both science and faith and certain events in history which have been blown out of proportion, turned into mockery and put up on a pedestal for all the world to see the evils of 'X' as it relates to 'Y' and vice versa. If you want to study archaeology, critical theology, the sciences, history, psychology... Great, awesome. I study the same things as well as a few others. But I don't do so at the expense of my study and personal devotions involving scripture.

There was a time, very recently, where I did put down this thing for the other and as a result my faith because this very intellectual thing with absolutely no regard to how God works in the hearts of men. In fact I had gone so long studying these things intellectually (and yes I kept in mind that God was behind it all) that I started forgetting what Christianity was really all about... To say very superficially, it's not all about head knowledge. If you lose God's power in your life then all the studying about what God has down through history isn't going to mean a thing. You stop studying scripture; you stop your personal devotions in favour of other studies then I've got five words:

It is all in vain

You want to enhance your faith, great, but don't forget where it came from (God) and how you came to know Him (Bible).



As for your response regarding Freud, I actually think his is a personality that Christians would respect if not admire. I feel he challenges our perceptions of God but no more than that. As for "everyone wanting to have sex with his mother," to Freud, that is an early stage in infantile development that immediately precedes development of intensified identification with one's father. Is something so wrong with that?

Yeah... It's wrong.

I mean what are you saying, we should respect and admire Freud simply because he challenges our perceptions? If that's the litmus test then I'm heading for the hills because that's absolutely ludicrous. Adopting such of a view (especially in regards to an extremely vile man) of these sorts of people makes me scratch my head, I say that in all seriousness. I'm all for challenging and even disproving my faith but I wouldn't exactly respect (beyond any respect due as a creature of God) or admire certain men who challenge my perceptions. Great for Freud... He hated God and did just about everything he could to 'disprove' of His existence. Ignoring we're talking about Freud, so what? There are hundreds of well known people who've done the same thing. Heck, there's a world full of people doing the same thing - well known or not.

Psychology is an interesting field but ultimately it misses the mark because of it's abandonment of God. When you must deny the literal existence of God on one hand and the re-invent this God on the other (as I believe Jung did) - Live as if God did indeed exist - then you really have to start asking yourself questions; does that even make sense? Secular psychology denies God and tries to make whole that which can't be made whole without God. Behavior is modified but the heart is untouched.

MrAnteater
Dec 9th 2008, 05:16 PM
There is nothing wrong with psychology, that is, as long as it's Christ centered.

I went to secular counseling for years before accepting Jesus. Now looking back, many of the things they told me were Unchristian and I reject those things today. Overall, it did more harm than good and I would not recommend a Christian ever do secular counseling.

Freud's theories are definitely Unchristian and I would approach those topics as I would with any other Unchristian theory or author. I would learn enough so I could dispel them, the same as any other false religion.

Biastai
Dec 9th 2008, 08:00 PM
"Faith vs. Science" debates are exemplary misunderstandings of both science and faith and certain events in history which have been blown out of proportion, turned into mockery and put up on a pedestal for all the world to see the evils of 'X' as it relates to 'Y' and vice versa. If you want to study archaeology, critical theology, the sciences, history, psychology... Great, awesome. I study the same things as well as a few others. But I don't do so at the expense of my study and personal devotions involving scripture.

There was a time, very recently, where I did put down this thing for the other and as a result my faith because this very intellectual thing with absolutely no regard to how God works in the hearts of men. In fact I had gone so long studying these things intellectually (and yes I kept in mind that God was behind it all) that I started forgetting what Christianity was really all about... To say very superficially, it's not all about head knowledge. If you lose God's power in your life then all the studying about what God has down through history isn't going to mean a thing. You stop studying scripture; you stop your personal devotions in favour of other studies then I've got five words:

It is all in vain

You want to enhance your faith, great, but don't forget where it came from (God) and how you came to know Him (Bible).



Yeah... It's wrong.

I mean what are you saying, we should respect and admire Freud simply because he challenges our perceptions? If that's the litmus test then I'm heading for the hills because that's absolutely ludicrous. Adopting such of a view (especially in regards to an extremely vile man) of these sorts of people makes me scratch my head, I say that in all seriousness. I'm all for challenging and even disproving my faith but I wouldn't exactly respect (beyond any respect due as a creature of God) or admire certain men who challenge my perceptions. Great for Freud... He hated God and did just about everything he could to 'disprove' of His existence. Ignoring we're talking about Freud, so what? There are hundreds of well known people who've done the same thing. Heck, there's a world full of people doing the same thing - well known or not.

Psychology is an interesting field but ultimately it misses the mark because of it's abandonment of God. When you must deny the literal existence of God on one hand and the re-invent this God on the other (as I believe Jung did) - Live as if God did indeed exist - then you really have to start asking yourself questions; does that even make sense? Secular psychology denies God and tries to make whole that which can't be made whole without God. Behavior is modified but the heart is untouched.

Thank you for your points.
"Running for the hills" (amusing by the way:)) would be a bit excessive whenever one's perceptions on God are challenged. Such challenges are documented throughout the Bible, namely from the 8th century B.C. prophets, the author of Job, Jesus, and Paul. But when I suggest meeting a challenge, I'm not telling anyone to amalgamate all Freudian ideas into our belief system and to rationalize each and every point. Reject what is to be rejected and accept what is truthful. Rarely does anyone write as much as Freud did and not reveal even a kernel of truth, especially if he's simply relating his observations during analyses as he often did. Name-calling (he's been called names 3 times in 2 posts) is just unnecessary, over-reactive, and reflects badly on Christians.

His "archaic inheritance" he discusses in The Ego and the Id has some points of coinciding with Paul's sinful flesh. Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego reveals some interesting clues as to why the early Israelites perceived YHWH the way they did. Freud's much repeated return to the topic of sex brought upon himself the derisive accusations of being a "pan-sexualist," but his principles of repression show why. What topic is repressed and treated as taboo as much as sex? Naturally, it actually explains the heavy opposition to his views! Aren't struggles with sex a common problem for Christian believers? Aren't we more able to address a problem we better understand?

Thank you for your concern that I may lose sight of what's most important in my studies. I've anticipated many of those problems and keep a strict eye on it. I only offer these views and questions as food for thought, not to win anyone over. I plan to study the Bible differently than most during my lifetime, and I respect our differences in opinion in how to approach things. "Running for the hills" is one way, lining up for battle in the plain another, and meeting at a table for discussion allowing for all views to be put on the table is yet another.

Ascender
Dec 9th 2008, 08:04 PM
Any science is worth the time and effort it takes to study -- the danger is falling for the "naturalistic philosophy" that writes God and Scripture out of the equation. I don't care what the hierarchy of needs may list, God is in there.

Athanasius
Dec 9th 2008, 08:28 PM
Thank you for your points.
"Running for the hills" (amusing by the way:)) would be a bit excessive whenever one's perceptions on God are challenged. Such challenges are documented throughout the Bible, namely from the 8th century B.C. prophets, the author of Job, Jesus, and Paul.

Take my words in their full context - I did not make the remark solely to the affect that I would run to the hills due to our perception of God being challenged (I would be living in the hills by now if I had). The comment was made in regards to our respecting to the point of admiration men who challenge our perceptions of God, in this example Freud. Who, by the way, is not in the least comparable to the prophets, Job, Jesus and Paul, all of whom either believed in God or were God. Freud himself despising any notion of God, explaining human psychology in strictly naturalistic terms, neglecting the spiritual dimension to our existence.



But when I suggest meeting a challenge, I'm not telling anyone to amalgamate all Freudian ideas into our belief system and to rationalize each and every point. Reject what is to be rejected and accept what is truthful. Rarely does anyone write as much as Freud did and not reveal even a kernel of truth, especially if he's simply relating his observations during analyses as he often did. Name-calling (he's been called names 3 times in 2 posts) is just unnecessary, over-reactive, and reflects badly on Christians.

Then do as you have claimed; reveal to me through the writings of Freud the Lord; do so first without any reference to scripture, please. As you've claimed, we should find God in those aforementioned fields of pursuit; this means we should find God without any a priori presuppositions (i.e. ties to scripture). If in fact one must have knowledge of scripture to be able to relate these fields to God then one must question why anyone would abandon biblical study for other studies (as opposed to doing both).

As for any name calling, please keep those comments directed as those who are doing the name calling, it's superfluous to our discussion as I've not called Freud anything other than wrong.



His "archaic inheritance" he discusses in The Ego and the Id has some points of coinciding with Paul's sinful flesh. Group Psychology and Analysis of the Ego reveals some interesting clues as to why the early Israelites perceived YHWH the way they did. Freud's much repeated return to the topic of sex brought upon himself the derisive accusations of being a "pan-sexualist," but his principles of repression show why. What topic is repressed and treated as taboo as much as sex? Naturally, it actually explains the heavy opposition to his views! Aren't struggles with sex a common problem for Christian believers? Aren't we more able to address a problem we better understand?

I then invite you to expand upon what you believe to be coincidences between the writing of Freud and Biblical authors; especially those concerning why the Israelites viewed YHWH they way they did, other than because that's how YHWH revealed Himself to them. Again, though, can you relate this field of study to revelation of who God is without returning to scripture? That's really all I've been saying... We should not abandon scripture for a time to study other things.

Are you suggesting that we're opposed to Freud's work on sex because of taboo?



Thank you for your concern that I may lose sight of what's most important in my studies. I've anticipated many of those problems and keep a strict eye on it. I only offer these views and questions as food for thought, not to win anyone over. I plan to study the Bible differently than most during my lifetime, and I respect our differences in opinion in how to approach things. "Running for the hills" is one way, lining up for battle in the plain another, and meeting at a table for discussion allowing for all views to be put on the table is yet another.

Differences are fine (within reason)... Just don't misconstrue what I've said and provide retorts to that misrepresentation.

Revinius
Dec 10th 2008, 04:00 AM
Thank you for your input.
Do you feel that other studies are sharply demarcated from those of the Lord? In English Bible translations, Jeremiah mentions a "fixed order of heaven and earth." (Jer 31:25) Evidence of the Lord penetrates into fields of study like history and science. How can he not as he is all encompassing? I'm reminded of so-called "faith vs. science" debates. Are they really two fields never overlapping? Isn't science simply a man-made method for observing the phenomena of God's creation? It need not be perceived as a threat. You may differ with me on this, but studies of history, archaeology, critical theology, and sciences greatly enhanced my faith personally.

I have no problem with knowledge based disciplines (i am a historian myself) but such disciplines should never come before the greatest resource, which is God directly talking to us through His Word.


As for your response regarding Freud, I actually think his is a personality that Christians would respect if not admire. I feel he challenges our perceptions of God but no more than that. As for "everyone wanting to have sex with his mother," to Freud, that is an early stage in infantile development that immediately precedes development of intensified identification with one's father. Is something so wrong with that?

I don't like my preconceptions being challenged unless they are worthy of the challenge (e.g. the Lord does it). I think it is abhorent that frueds basis for relationship in a family is sexual, it reduces us to something akin to hormone driven animals which is against the attitude God desires us to take towards one another. My preconceptions about God are always open to challenge but the real issue is not when or how i am challenged but by what. Who are humans to challenge God? Who is the clay that it should gripe to the potter? You get my meaning? The natural world does not have a basis for judging God, but rather it can only rationally sit back and observe His creation which so wonderfully reflects back His glory.

Biastai
Dec 10th 2008, 04:41 AM
Take my words in their full context - I did not make the remark solely to the affect that I would run to the hills due to our perception of God being challenged (I would be living in the hills by now if I had). The comment was made in regards to our respecting to the point of admiration men who challenge our perceptions of God, in this example Freud. Who, by the way, is not in the least comparable to the prophets, Job, Jesus and Paul, all of whom either believed in God or were God. Freud himself despising any notion of God, explaining human psychology in strictly naturalistic terms, neglecting the spiritual dimension to our existence.



Then do as you have claimed; reveal to me through the writings of Freud the Lord; do so first without any reference to scripture, please. As you've claimed, we should find God in those aforementioned fields of pursuit; this means we should find God without any a priori presuppositions (i.e. ties to scripture). If in fact one must have knowledge of scripture to be able to relate these fields to God then one must question why anyone would abandon biblical study for other studies (as opposed to doing both).

As for any name calling, please keep those comments directed as those who are doing the name calling, it's superfluous to our discussion as I've not called Freud anything other than wrong.



I then invite you to expand upon what you believe to be coincidences between the writing of Freud and Biblical authors; especially those concerning why the Israelites viewed YHWH they way they did, other than because that's how YHWH revealed Himself to them. Again, though, can you relate this field of study to revelation of who God is without returning to scripture? That's really all I've been saying... We should not abandon scripture for a time to study other things.

Are you suggesting that we're opposed to Freud's work on sex because of taboo?



Differences are fine (within reason)... Just don't misconstrue what I've said and provide retorts to that misrepresentation.

I'm sorry if I took your words out of context, but I believe you are also guilty of the same. I'll keep an eye on this, but bear with me as I'm not familiar with the multi-quote function. :bounce:

My admiration of Freud is not because he challenges our perceptions on God. The challenge comment was a separate thought described in a new sentence. I admire him for his unabashed presentation of what he felt to be truth. Although laughed at for most of the duration of his medical career, he stood by the patterns he observed and the conclusions he drew from them. Its a quality I would like to find in myself one day.

The only point of comparison between Freud and the prophets, Job writer, Jesus, and Paul I claimed was their challenge to perceptions of God. The former's challenge was unsuccessful within the Christian community while latter examples had success in theirs. Never did I claim he was to be considered by the Christian to be equal to them.

My words in my original post were "the Lord is to be revealed no matter what is uncovered." This doesn't mean the Lord is to be revealed in the writings of Freud. When the sum of all views are brought to the table, my confidence is in the fact that God will not be disproved. In other words, the Lord doesn't cease to exist because of what Freud wrote, but he may have information that you might want however little of it is accepted by you. And whoever said anything about abandoning Biblical studies? Neither I nor you did.

My comment about name-calling was more generally directed. I apologize that this was unclear. You were only responsible for calling him a "vile man" which I felt was unnecessary.

The points of meeting between Freudian writings and the Bible are few. Did I ever claim they overlapped in a great degree? Briefly, Freud makes comments that may help our understanding of certain events in the OT. Examples include Adam and Eve's shame of nakedness (Freud describes this as a stage in individuals as well), the repeated favoring of the younger son & sibling rivalry (Abel-Cain, Jacob-Esau, Manasseh-Ephraim, Joseph-brothers, David-brothers), and the rape of Tamar (polarity of love-hate, the author thought it significant enough to record Tamar was repulsive to the rapist following the act). He did not cite these scriptures in these writings. They were simply biblical accounts that came to mind when reading them.

Freud's views on sex are badly misunderstood. Its due partly to his adjectival use of the term "sexual" which covers a wide area including infantile object-love which includes not a hint of the actual act of sex. The other big reason is yes, I believe it's the most repressed topic of all time.

I agree with you that Freud's denial of the existence of God is a grave error. I believe his mistakes come from equating the church with God. He punishes God for the shortcomings of the church. You and I are in agreement that his is a badly mistaken view on this point.

Now, on to the Israelites' perception of YHWH. Freud describes characteristics of the primal horde father in the work I cited in the above post. This type of primitive social group would share some similarities with the nomadic patriarchal Israelites. According to Freud, in the primal horde, it was dangerous to approach the father at an undesignated time or to look directly at his face. Moreover, he asserts a possession of a mysterious power and robs the individual of his will. These characteristics seem to have attached themselves to the YHWH perceived by Israel and are included in what is termed holiness. Why wouldn't this be expected? Don't we call God the Father? As the Israelites described YHWH with characteristics of a father figure, we have done the same. This doesn't pose a problem for you or me unless we want it to.

I'll make a proposal. Let's retract our accusations to each other that the one has taken the other's words out of context intentionally. It appears that it was more a result of unintentional misunderstanding of what was written. I see that I directed comments to you that were intended to be directed generally. I ran away with your "running to the hills" expression because I thought it useful to describe a common tactic by Christians, not necessarily you. However, you attributed certain claims to me that were never mine to begin with.

Since I detect anger in your replies, I'll offer this comment. I also feel an anger in this dispute. Don't get me wrong because I've enjoyed your views. My anger, or more accurately my disappointment, is again directed generally. Whether you and I like it or not, Freud is considered a great thinker of the last century. I'm not so sure I even like the fact we are discussing him at all. With the gifts we Christians have been given, our community should have produced the greatest thinkers of all time. Freud seems to think so too since he ranks Paul among them. Instead, the strongest period of the church is a time associated with darkness and ignorance. With the gap and the need perceived, the rationalists, scientists, etc etc have stepped up where the Christians failed to deliver. Opinions may differ on this, but that won't change the overall concensus.

Biastai
Dec 10th 2008, 06:21 AM
I have no problem with knowledge based disciplines (i am a historian myself) but such disciplines should never come before the greatest resource, which is God directly talking to us through His Word.



I don't like my preconceptions being challenged unless they are worthy of the challenge (e.g. the Lord does it). I think it is abhorent that frueds basis for relationship in a family is sexual, it reduces us to something akin to hormone driven animals which is against the attitude God desires us to take towards one another. My preconceptions about God are always open to challenge but the real issue is not when or how i am challenged but by what. Who are humans to challenge God? Who is the clay that it should gripe to the potter? You get my meaning? The natural world does not have a basis for judging God, but rather it can only rationally sit back and observe His creation which so wonderfully reflects back His glory.

Now that you've said you are an historian, I might very well be picking your brain in the future. :hmm: I agree with you on its proper use as a supplemental resource.

As for your abhorence of sexual basis for family relationships, I would certainly understand. But I opposed your comment on the Oedipus complex because I felt it to be inaccurate. Freud used the term "sexual" to cover a wide area of libidinal ties many of which do not include the act of sex. Freud never mentions the driving force of sex hormones. On closer examination, Freud's description of the Oedipus complex is of an infantile stage. Freud believes in the libido at first being separated from reproductive function which adds to the confusion and misunderstanding.

When let's say a son is born, he first develops 2 libidinal ties, object-love for the mother and identification with the father. When he realizes object-love with his own mother is not able to be fulfilled, he drops it and he then intensifies his identification with his father. The concept of the act of sex has not entered his mind. This stage advancement is termed the "positive Oedipus complex" by Freud and is considered the normal pathway. There is a negative pathway that Freud had observed often in the history of homosexual males. I think Freud chose a terrible name to describe this phenomenon as it brings images to the mind of mythology where this infantile wish is actually fulfilled!

Though I won't be so hasty as to adopt this all as truth, how can it discount God in any way? All we see here is the development of the child's perception which is naturally spotted with ignorant gaps. I remember as a child being upset because I thought for some reason I would eventually have to marry my younger sister. Based on my limited perception of the external world and my conclusions of them, this, believe it or not, was what I thought was a normal sequence of events. It was totally innocent although I can look back at it and laugh at my lack of sense. It doesn't become a problem as long as we are guided through life as we are. The positive Oedipus complex is simply an example of our accumulation of knowledge through life.

In what area of history do you specialize?

Revinius
Dec 10th 2008, 07:45 AM
Now that you've said you are an historian, I might very well be picking your brain in the future. :hmm: I agree with you on its proper use as a supplemental resource.

In what area of history do you specialize?

I started off in Roman Republic History (before coming to Christ) mainly cos i enjoy studying warfare. Now i am diverging into New Testament and Early Church which i will be doing a Masters in soon. From there i will be going to Bible College and working towards my real passion of planting a church and preaching the Word.

Biastai
Dec 11th 2008, 04:52 AM
I started of in Roman Republic History (before coming to Christ) mainly cos i enjoy studying warfare. Now i am diverging into New Testament and Early Church which i will be doing a Masters in soon. From there i will be going to Bible College and working towards my real passion of planting a church and preaching the Word.

Great! Best of luck in that program!
If you can provide a recommendation, I'm looking for good references to learn more about the time immediately following the apostolic age/start of localized church leadership. A name I keep running into is Papias. I don't believe he is an historian, but are his writings still around and are they a good source?

To stay on topic of this thread, I've grown very weary of psychology in such a short time. I plan on putting it down for a looooong time after this Friday.

Revinius
Dec 11th 2008, 07:14 AM
Great! Best of luck in that program!
If you can provide a recommendation, I'm looking for good references to learn more about the time immediately following the apostolic age/start of localized church leadership. A name I keep running into is Papias. I don't believe he is an historian, but are his writings still around and are they a good source?

To stay on topic of this thread, I've grown very weary of psychology in such a short time. I plan on putting it down for a looooong time after this Friday.

I am only beginning to start studing the period after the apostolic age. Authors you might like to look at that will give you an insight into the early church are: Ignatius, Iranaeus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome. If you do a google search for early Christian writers you can probably find a rough timeline of them. Then if you want to be thorough, go through them systematically. Remember, the best sources are the primary ones, so look to them before others like 'modern references' or 'church tradition'.

Good luck.

mccain22
Dec 15th 2008, 05:44 AM
I'm baffled as to why the study of psychology would be considered "un-Christian" by anyone ever. I mean, really, why? I don't get it.
I agree. I don't either. In high school i had a friend who wanted to take it but his parents wouldn't let him, and i never understood why. Theirs nothing unChristian about it. I found it fascinating and is now one of my favorite subjects.

Ixthus
Jan 15th 2009, 07:23 PM
Its not a bad thing, it actually probably would be helpful to you.

clewis
Apr 18th 2009, 12:14 PM
When we study mental health from a secular perspective, we get a worldly viewpoint instead of a Christian viewpoint. I agree with another poster that some people do have physical problems in their brain but my question is, how is this problem found? Psychologist can not prescribe medications and will only give you hints of things to do like relaxation techniques. They can tell you to see your family doctor who can prescribe medications ant that can really mess up your brain.

I guess what we need to understand, before mental health practitioners such as Freud, Jung and Rodgers, people turned to God through the Holy Scriptures. Jesus tells us that all of our problems are related to the condition of the heart (not the muscle pumping blood) but the inner self. Psychology as a field attempts to deny sin and deny Christ. Freud hated Christianity so much, he officially opened his business on an Easter Sunday.

If you believe it's OK to integrate psychology and Christianity, I suggest you do a little study on what integration of the two mean. In the meantime read these verses (Hebrews 4:12-15)

12. For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

13. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

14. Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.

15. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

Athanasius
Apr 18th 2009, 12:57 PM
If you believe it's OK to integrate psychology and Christianity, I suggest you do a little study on what integration of the two mean. In the meantime read these verses (Hebrews 4:12-15)

The integration of the two means that you study psychology from a Christian, rather than a humanistic, perspective. This allows for a greater, fuller understanding of the 'human condition'. Where Jung might tell you to live as if God exists, even though he doesn't exist. We will tell you to live as if God exists, because He does. In the process we understand why the world is the way it is.

apothanein kerdos
Apr 18th 2009, 09:17 PM
Admittedly, it's difficult for a Christian to study psychology and come up with Christian solutions. This is because an unfortunate majority of psychologists, even if Christians, think the mind and the brain are the same thing.

Let me ask my friend for some books he recommends that discuss with realist psychology (the mind and brain, though operating together, are different). This is his field of specialty, so it should be of some service.

renthead188
Apr 19th 2009, 12:32 AM
Admittedly, it's difficult for a Christian to study psychology and come up with Christian solutions. This is because an unfortunate majority of psychologists, even if Christians, think the mind and the brain are the same thing.

Let me ask my friend for some books he recommends that discuss with realist psychology (the mind and brain, though operating together, are different). This is his field of specialty, so it should be of some service.

I would be interested in those book titles, if you'd be so kind as to provide them. I might want to take up some reading this summer. I graduate with a dual major in psychology/sociology this fall.

SweetSomber
Apr 19th 2009, 01:40 AM
I don't think that it's at all unchristian to study psychology. I mean, of course don't believe all of it, but that's a given with anything you study.

I study psychology so that God can better use me to help people. I knew people with D.I.D. and while I tried to help them the best I could, to make peace with themselves, and merge, and not break again, I knew that I didn't know what I was doing.

I don't want to just say "Well, I'll pray for you, but I can't do anything to help you," like I would say to people with physical ailments, no, I want to study, and then be able to actually serve these people and help them heal.