Christian Radio and Psychobabble

I am dogmatic on what I said as opposed to what you said, because what you said was just plain wrong. It was sexist. Some of it was blasphemous. And other statements bordered on heresy. These are serious allegations. And when such serious errors in doctrine are made they need to be pointed out and refuted, that all may see the error of one's way. Opinion is not Bible truth, especially when that opinion is directly opposite of what the Bible says. In my next post I will show you what I mean by answering another one of your posts.

 

What studies? Reference sources please, otherwise all I can do is assume you trying to support your assertion/opinion with a claim to a "study" that I can not verify. Thus, your point must be considered invalid.

Nonsense I made no comment or judgment regarding your salvation. I simply expressed that I and several other posters have found the statement you made regarding men and compassion to not be in line with the clear teachings of Scripture. I proved no point for you.

 

Yes and Paul was sexist when in Cor. admonished husbands to LOVE their wives as Christ loved the church.

Why did Paul have to say this? Because love in the way Jesus loves by showing EMPATHY and COMPASSION isn't as natural for men as it is for women (yes you have exceptions) just as it isn't all that natural for women to OBEY their husbands (yes you have exceptions) Paul was focusing on the rule not the exceptions.

And so was I.

 

Yes and Paul was sexist when in the bible. He admonished husbands to LOVE their wives as Christ loved the church.

Why did Paul have to say this? Because love in the way Jesus loves by showing EMPATHY and COMPASSION isn't as natural for men as it is for women (yes you have exceptions) just as it isn't all that natural for women to OBEY their husbands (yes you have exceptions) Paul was focusing on the rule not the exceptions.

And so was I.

 

This is heresy. Psycotherapy and the Scripture are miles apart, and in fact so far apart there is no comparison. Again it borders on blasphemy to put a man's philosophy on the same par with the Bible. Do you do the same thing with the Hindu Vedas, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, The Granth Sahib, etc.? Then why the writings of Psychotherapy? Why do they rate the same reverence as the Bible? There is no "fine line" between the two (psychotherapy and the Bible). The line is about as far apart as the Koran and the Bible. The Bible stands alone.

The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
’Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.


The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/b/i/bibstand.htm

The Bible stands; Psychotherapy fails. Don't even think of comparing the two again!!

Then learn to be effective.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Look, you have a choice. You can believe the Bible, and do your best to practice the principles contained therein. Or you can believe your man-made philosophies and oppose God in doing so. As for me, I will obey God, and follow his word.

No one denies that being a good listener and being empathetic is important. But it is not one or the other. It is both. The Word of God cannot be dispensed with.

Why do you make false statements (allegations) without proof. We call that slander. It is ironic that you use men as examples and then deny that men are compassionate. Can't you see the irony and contradtiction in your own position.
I still maintain that you confuse emotion with compassion. I will give you that women are more emotional, but not more compassionate than men.

They do. So why do you ignore the Scripture? I have been giving you Scripture all throughout this thread. I don't believe you have referred to the Bible at all. So what is with that? You refer to psychobabble and such things, but not the Scriptures. If you believe the Scriptures, then use them!!

 

Sorry but the conclusion you have reached regarding Paul's reason for saying what he said does not come directly from the text. Meaning you have not applied sound hermeneutical principles and soild exegesis of the text to reach that conclusion. You imported your presupposition regarding men and compassion onto the historical linguistic meaning of the text. When one imports one's presupposions into the biblical text it is called eisegesis. Eisegesis always leads to flawed and often heretical doctrinal positions.

 

How compassionate both your responses are LOL

Here if BB missed it I will post again this study read ALL 3 pages. Plus I mentioned the study on the child by the side walk where men walked by with no concern (and no one can prove it was due to being portrayed as a preditor) while woman after woman stopped...the study was done to PROVE that women had more empathy than men. Another I didn't mention was done where there was an old man in a wheel chair being mistreated by his caretaker and over and over again it was WOMEN who stopped and said something and called for help NOT men.

Do a google/yahoo search for yourself. I did and found too many to list.

Men and Emotions

Dr. Ron Levant, a professor at Harvard University, coined the term "normative male alexithymia". He teaches that most North American males suffer to some degree from the conditioning of our culture which causes men to be underdeveloped emotionally. His research shows that men have developed two primary responses to emotional issues. For vulnerable feelings including fear, hurt and shame, he sees men using anger as the "manly" response. For nurturing feelings, including caring, warmth, connectedness and intimacy, he sees men channeling these feelings through sex. It is called normative because his research shows that this limited dual response of anger or sex is the norm for men.

It is a male condition because he has found that women have a much wider range of emotional responses. He has found that women function through "emotional empathy"; whereas, men function through "action empathy". Emotional empathy is other oriented and exhibits the capacity for understanding interpersonal perspectives and emotions. Action empathy is self-serving and presents itself as the ability to enter into another person's point of view from the perspective of knowing what the other person is likely to "do". That is why men want to fix. Fixing is a "doing" activity. Alexithymia is the condition where "doing" replaces the cognitive step in the emotional experience. We can see this in the way that the four steps of the emotional process function:1) emotions originate in the limbic system in the brain;2) then, they move to the autonomic and endocrine systems;3) next, they move to the muscles and skeletal systems which engage theflight or fight activities (doing); and4) lastly, the cognitive awareness of the emotion is experienced.

Dr. Ron Levant believes that many men stop the emotional process at the third step and, therefore, cut off the cognitive awareness of the emotional experience, i.e. control their emotions. The result of stopping the emotional process at step three is that emotions become somatized in the body, resulting in physical symptoms such as: constrictions to the chest, throat or face, shortness of breath, upset stomachs, headaches, backaches, tension in the shoulders, insomnia, high blood pressure and heart disease.

How do men learn to handle emotions in this way? In the North American culture, there has been a persistent theme that one can call the "traditional male stereotype". From the Marlboro Man to Clint Eastwood and from football heroes to the father and grand-father who went before them, men have learned to do the following:

- control your emotions - "Don't cry, be tough!"- be self-reliant - "Stand on your own feet and solve your own problems."- perform - "Work hard, achieve high performance."- compete - "A winner never quits and a quitter never wins."- avoid being feminine - "Don't be a wuss! Be a man."- disconnect sex and intimacy - "Be a great lover"
1 :: 2 :: 3 :: If you click on the whole article there is 3 pages this was only the first page.

http://psy.rin.ru/eng/article/87-101.html

 

So BB you are calling my pastor a liar and one who isn't well studied of the scriptures. A man who has majored in hermeneutics LOL
He himself said this was true and is exactly what Paul meant.

 

Goodnight...it is like thowing pearls before swine and you guys just keep proving my point the more you write LOL

 

The study is moot. It is irrelevant. It doesn't take into consideration other parts of the nation, and more importantly other cultures of the world. Remeber the Good Samaritan. Where did that happen. I will give you a hint. It wasn't in the USA. You are being far to ethnocentric. All the world doesn't revolve around you.

Again it is a flawed study not taking into consideration many other variables.
The main thing you ignore is the Bible. You would rather take a man's flawed research over the clear statements of the Word of God. I feel sorry for you. What causes you to disbelieve the Bible? Have you any reason not to believe God?

This really is a lot of bunk. However, if you prefer to believe this man's flawed thinking and opinions rather than God's infallible statements recorded in the Scriptures that is your choice. We shall all give account of ourselves before God.

Stereotyping is not only a logical fallacy; it is politically incorrect. You fail on both accounts. Even the Bible condemn what you are doing here.

For all your stereotyping (something God hates), you disregard the teaching of the Bible that God has made each and every person unique. He has a different purpose for everyone, and has made each person differently. That shoots holes in your stereotypical general sweeping assertions--logical fallacies and politically incorrect statements--a definite no-no. You should be able to do better than that.

 

Sorry but no. I called no one a liar. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Both DHK and I also hold advanced graduate degrees from different seminaries and we both hold to the principles of sound hermeneutics and solid exegesis. I said nothing about your pastor. My comments were directed solely at what you personally stated. It is highly suspect in debate when one makes a statement as if it is their own personal statement, and then when confronted, appeals to some other authority as the source of the statement. My debate is with you not your pastor. Please don't resort to the formal fallacy of setting up a strawman. According to Anthony Weston,

 

I consider it very compassionate to confront misinformation that does not line up with the clear teaching of Scripture. I am greatly concerned both for you, because of what appears to be an apparent disregard for God's Word when it contradicts your presuppositions, and for everyone out there that may read this thread. I have spent a great deal of time and effort tonight to try and show you the errors you have made using both the Bible and scholarly sources. I am sorry that you don't like what I am saying. However, I assure you that I am fully attempting to speak the truth in love. Sometimes it may come across as tough love, but I hope that I only resorted to that type of presentation when your posts indicated a refusal to see and/or hear the truth being presented.

I already addressed this bit of research. I informed you that I did in fact read all three of the linked pages. The research speaks solely about males and how we supposedly control our emotions. It says nothing about the male ability to show compassion. In fact the word compassion is not even used in the article. You are making an appeal to an inappropriate source of authority (which is a formal fallacy). In debate when one continually falls prey to formal fallacies one's entire line of argumentation is called into question and considered invalid. This means that one looses the debate not because the other side out debated you, but becuase one defeated him/herself due to the repeated use of poor logic and reasoning skills.

Please provide reference sources for these "studies." Without the reference source the information you assert can not be accepted as valid. Thus, the point you are trying to prove using this material remains unfounded and invalid.

Since you apparently like to repeat things that you have previously said, which have already been soundly refuted, I'll repeat what I posted on page four about the "study" of the little girl crying on the sidewalk:

The “study” you reference proves nothing because you have not really cited a study; rather, you have simply appealed to your memory of something you saw on TV. [As it now stands] there is no way anyone in this discussion can verify what you are saying. Likewise, assuming that this “study” exists there are several questions that must be raised.

1. Since we maintain that compassion is the result of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23) we must ask how many of the male subjects involved in the study were born again Christians capable of displaying said fruits of the Spirit? If the vast majority of the men in the study were not born again Christians then the conclusions reached by the study are significantly skewed to the negative.
2. Who conducted the “study”? Are they a legitimate authority in the matter at hand?
3. What was the scientific method used in the study? Was it a double-blind study? Can any of the researchers involved be demonstrated to possess a significant bias toward “proving” an outcome with a specific conclusion?
4. Are there other possible and valid reasons, other than a lack of compassion, why some men did not stop to assist the little girl?

These are just a few of the relevant unanswered questions regarding the “study” you are citing.

Again, it is not my place to provide the research to support your line of argumentation. If you can not or will not provide the research and the reference sources then no one is going to take you seriously.

 

Why is it that every poster who comes into these debate fora and is unable to back up their position (with Scripture and/or scholarly sources) resorts to the "Throwing pearls before swine" misquote from the Bible? The passage is talking about biblical truth (being the pearls part). In order for such a quote to be applicable the one saying it must have been espousing biblical truth, the clear teaching of the Word, those represented as the swine must be consistantly rejecting that biblical truth. I am sorry to say it but this simply is not the case with TBLady in this discussion. Misrepresenting the debate in this manner amounts to nothing more than a poorly disguised ad hominem attack against the opposition in the debate (referring to us a swine); yet, another formal fallacy...

 

I opened doors for years, then started running into nasty looks and moody silence. It began to seem like politeness was causing enough irritation that it was defeating its purpose.

Then twice, within a matter of days, when I opened and held doors for women, I got angry comments. One gritted her teeth and said, "I can open my own doors."

I said, "I know. I didn't mean to imply that you couldn't."

After that I didn't open a door for a woman for several years.

A couple of years ago, I started again, and, I have to say, I care less now about who it offends. Perhaps I need to repent of that.

 

All I can say here is a hearty amen!

Part of the psychobabble that "we" have bought into is that compassion means appeasement -- that compassion means agreement or capitulation -- that compassion means telling someone they are right when they are wrong. In my arena -- giving a kid an A who doesn't understand an A's worth of material.

I agree that emotion is confused with compassion. My heart wells in compassion and it shows visibly. Ron's heart may well over the same situation and he probably will have to tell me about it. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I can tell you that in our house, he will stay on the case longer, have a greater buy-in, and be more generous in the end because of it. The fact of the matter is that each of us is different and our level of compassion is going to be different.

And I quite frankly fail to see where Paul defining the roles of those in the family is sexist. It is a continuation - a verbalization (in written form) - of God's plan. gb93433 mentioned Proverbs 31. Verse 25 in the ESV says that "strength and dignity are her clothing." Pretty powerful stuff - to be strong and dignified and seen as such. No psychobabble there.

 

I think you mean to reference Ephesians 5:25 not something from either 1 or 2 Corinthians, right?

 

It tells you a lot about those women who would go out of their way to insult someone. I grew up on a farm where all of us worked and I can't imagine my sister or mother ever saying such a thing. My mother and sister worked on the farm just like us. One time my dad had hired some young men to help us and my sister was helping that day. One of the young men wanted to know where my dad found my sister. They did not know she was my sister. It was funny when he told them who she was. In high school she played first singles in tennis. Today she owns a business and has been doing the same thing for about 25 years. Her husband will tell you that he is glad to have such a capable wife. It has provided a living for many more people. Most likely her daughter will take over the business in a few years.

How I can remember those days described. When I was dating if a lady did that then that was the last time I dated her. Those kind of ladies need to be alone because a considerate man would not get along with such an inconsiderate, rebellious woman.

I still open the door for my wife and daughter. Regularly I get comments on what a great wife I have. Over the years it has spoken volumes to my family who none of which were Christians at the time I got married. I prayed for a wife that would be a witness to my family by who she is. I also prayed for a wife who would not just tell me what I needed to know but who would provide an example to me. I got much more than I ever prayed for.

Currently I know of two men who meet with a number of us in the morning once a week who have expressed how their wives stick their nose in when they try to discipline their children. One expressed at how his son skipped class for almost three weeks and the mother thought her husband was too hard on the son. All of us men sat there shocked at the foolishness of such a wife. I think most of us thought the guy was quite easy on his son.

 

Family Radio. I turn it off only when Camping comes on.

 

Since TBLADY was using secular studies and making sweeping generalizations about women being more compassionate than men I thought I would throw in this gem that my fourteen year old daughter recently came across:

"Since 1990 Terrorists have killed 3,000 Americans;
Since yesterday, Americans have killed 4,000 infants.

Who's more compassionate? If you use those statistics it seems like the average American woman who kills an average of four thousand babies a day is less compassionate than your average terrorist.
Again this only emphasizes the fact that true compassion comes from the fruit of the Spirit, which is related to how closely one walks with God.

 

Yeah I hear that alot, even my husband has had the same reactions from women. I assume the men who open my door appreciate when I thank. I would hope this is the correct response other Christian women have when a man opens their door.

But hey we better watch it Chessic cause we are sterotyping :laugh: