![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 96 to 120 of 125. Go back in thread:
Posted by Hello321 on April 21, 2016, at 20:04:16
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 21, 2016, at 18:45:05
When profits are the priority above else...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201509/the-truth-about-study-329
Posted by baseball55 on April 21, 2016, at 20:12:43
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 21, 2016, at 18:45:05
> But in the end, a chemical developed by an extremely wealthy drug company is developed for the same reason any "get well quick" treatment is developed. To bring in more money to the seller. The sellers interests are highest on the list is of priorities. And one jhas to wonder where mental health treatment would be at today if this weren't the case. If getting help to the ones who are suffering were the highest priority. And this goes for any such medical treatments. Maybe then there'd even be no need for psychobabble to exist.
>
Just because drug companies are trying to make fortunes on drugs, doesn't mean the drugs themselves are shams. I'm no fan of drug companies. But I recognize that drug companies have made fortunes developing new antibiotics to treat infections for which standard treatments don't work. They've made fortunes on drugs like tamoxafin, which has greatly increased the life expectancy of women with breast cancer. They've made huge fortunes with statins, which successfully lower cholesterol and on any number of meds that lower blood pressure. They are trying to develop drugs to treat Alzheimers, which would be a huge and lucrative market.Drugs that don't work don's sell. So they try to develop drugs that work. I'm sure if they could figure out a sure-fire AD, they would market it like crazy and make a fortune. They just haven't figured it out yet because nobody really understands the neuro-physiology of depression. I also have no doubt they are looking for drugs that treat psychosis without the metabolic side effects.
The real problem is that the US has no national health care system to negotiate prices and perform basic cost-benefit analysis. Drugs stay on patent too long. Drug reps try to corrupt doctors (and often succeed) by paying them to speak about drugs at fancy dinners at expensive restaurants. All this sucks, but that doesn't mean they don't develop or try to develop breakthrough drugs.
Posted by SLS on April 22, 2016, at 5:03:55
In reply to Re: the lost sheep » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on April 21, 2016, at 20:12:43
This is great synopsis!
- Scott----------------------------------------------
> Just because drug companies are trying to make fortunes on drugs, doesn't mean the drugs themselves are shams. I'm no fan of drug companies. But I recognize that drug companies have made fortunes developing new antibiotics to treat infections for which standard treatments don't work. They've made fortunes on drugs like tamoxafin, which has greatly increased the life expectancy of women with breast cancer. They've made huge fortunes with statins, which successfully lower cholesterol and on any number of meds that lower blood pressure. They are trying to develop drugs to treat Alzheimers, which would be a huge and lucrative market.
>
> Drugs that don't work don's sell. So they try to develop drugs that work. I'm sure if they could figure out a sure-fire AD, they would market it like crazy and make a fortune. They just haven't figured it out yet because nobody really understands the neuro-physiology of depression. I also have no doubt they are looking for drugs that treat psychosis without the metabolic side effects.
>
> The real problem is that the US has no national health care system to negotiate prices and perform basic cost-benefit analysis. Drugs stay on patent too long. Drug reps try to corrupt doctors (and often succeed) by paying them to speak about drugs at fancy dinners at expensive restaurants. All this sucks, but that doesn't mean they don't develop or try to develop breakthrough drugs.
Posted by Hello321 on April 22, 2016, at 9:33:22
In reply to Re: the lost sheep » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on April 21, 2016, at 20:12:43
> > But in the end, a chemical developed by an extremely wealthy drug company is developed for the same reason any "get well quick" treatment is developed. To bring in more money to the seller. The sellers interests are highest on the list is of priorities. And one jhas to wonder where mental health treatment would be at today if this weren't the case. If getting help to the ones who are suffering were the highest priority. And this goes for any such medical treatments. Maybe then there'd even be no need for psychobabble to exist.
> >
> Just because drug companies are trying to make fortunes on drugs, doesn't mean the drugs themselves are shams. I'm no fan of drug companies. But I recognize that drug companies have made fortunes developing new antibiotics to treat infections for which standard treatments don't work. They've made fortunes on drugs like tamoxafin, which has greatly increased the life expectancy of women with breast cancer. They've made huge fortunes with statins, which successfully lower cholesterol and on any number of meds that lower blood pressure. They are trying to develop drugs to treat Alzheimers, which would be a huge and lucrative market.
>
> Drugs that don't work don's sell. So they try to develop drugs that work. I'm sure if they could figure out a sure-fire AD, they would market it like crazy and make a fortune. They just haven't figured it out yet because nobody really understands the neuro-physiology of depression. I also have no doubt they are looking for drugs that treat psychosis without the metabolic side effects.
>
> The real problem is that the US has no national health care system to negotiate prices and perform basic cost-benefit analysis. Drugs stay on patent too long. Drug reps try to corrupt doctors (and often succeed) by paying them to speak about drugs at fancy dinners at expensive restaurants. All this sucks, but that doesn't mean they don't develop or try to develop breakthrough drugs.Do you think if a drug company stumbled upon a treatment didn't require an chemical thst amazingly indefinite amount of use to modify brain function in a way to relieve depression, and therefore was only needed for short term treatment, that it mightnot make business sense for a drug company to develop and sell? Today's treatments have to be taken continuously. And if someone benefits from a med like cymbalta, they might just have they persons business for the rest of his life.
Can't deny that it's profits above patient benefits when you see the light links I posted. The one showing Bayer had sold HIV tainted blood is especially scary. But they saw a possibility that they could get away with it in the country they sold it in, and went for it.
I wish I could see drug companies in the light many users of psychobabble still do. I used to. But if I still viewed them the same way I did in my teens, then my thoughts would be working against my own interests.
But I'll let you guys be. All of you complementing each other when one comes up with a way to show the psychiatric industry in a better light... I get internested in the Congo sometimes, but sometimes it just gets old. One can see both sides of the tale, that theres a possibility these chemicals can help, and still recognize that they're seeking help from an industry that doesn't have their interests at heart, and would infect them with AIDS if it made business sense.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2016, at 9:48:58
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Tabitha on April 21, 2016, at 16:30:24
> > I have come here to seek and have saved the lost sheep. These are those that know that their heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
>
>
> Right. People who feel desperate and lost are more vulnerable to belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures.Tabitha,
You wrote that people that feel desperate and lost are more vulnerable to belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures.
I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
Fill in:A. The belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures are:
_____________________________________________B. The ordinary human pleasures that I have not specified, Lou, are:
__________________________________________True or false:
C. I really do not know how the Spirit of Truth that you are writing about, Lou, enters someone that changes a person so that they can overcome addiction and depression.
D. I really do not know that what you could post here to lead people to that Spirit would require them to give up any ordinary human pleasures.
E. The lost and desperate people would be better off being lost and desperate, Lou, than to have a new heart and a new spirit that would lead them to dramatic salvation that could give them power to overcome addiction and depression.
F. I posted what I did, Lou, because I want readers to think that if they are lost and desperate, to discard what you write about receiving the Spirit of Truth and receive a new heart and a new spirit, because that comes from the Jewish perspective.
Lou
Posted by Hello321 on April 22, 2016, at 10:09:15
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 22, 2016, at 9:33:22
I couldn't discount the possibility that a Company like Eli Lilly has knowledge of certain lesser known, unpopular lifestyle changes that were much safer and at least as effective as their drug treatments. Maybe something like a very low carb, high healthy fat diet could benefit many brain problems. But of course it wouldn't be in their interests to promote this.
I dont remember the video I watching weeks ago, but it was about Cancer treatment and i just remember general info from it. It had drug company scientists talking about the advances they're making.and there was a comment one made about how beneficial a certain diet or lifestyle or something can be (dont remember exactly), and he said "If only we could find a way to take all the benefits of this and put it in a pill. I know these aren't exact details, but if a drug company does know of a better treatment, and can't put it in a pool to get rich off of. We are going to be missing out if we don't search far beyond our quest to find a better pill.
Posted by baseball55 on April 22, 2016, at 20:26:13
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 22, 2016, at 10:09:15
Sure it's true that a drug that could be taken once and permanently fix depression might be suppressed as less profitable than drugs that are taken for years. It's also true that non-drug solutions are not studied by drug companies who finance the studies.
I think the solution to this is to vastly increase funding for the NIH and NIMH to take on the studies drug companies have no interest in. That means not cutting taxes and demanding big cuts in discretionary programs and trying to shut down the government. I'd be very interested to see what the NIH budget is and how it's changed in recent years. I think I'll look that up tomorrow and get back to you all.
> I couldn't discount the possibility that a Company like Eli Lilly has knowledge of certain lesser known, unpopular lifestyle changes that were much safer and at least as effective as their drug treatments. Maybe something like a very low carb, high healthy fat diet could benefit many brain problems. But of course it wouldn't be in their interests to promote this.
>
> I dont remember the video I watching weeks ago, but it was about Cancer treatment and i just remember general info from it. It had drug company scientists talking about the advances they're making.and there was a comment one made about how beneficial a certain diet or lifestyle or something can be (dont remember exactly), and he said "If only we could find a way to take all the benefits of this and put it in a pill. I know these aren't exact details, but if a drug company does know of a better treatment, and can't put it in a pool to get rich off of. We are going to be missing out if we don't search far beyond our quest to find a better pill.
Posted by SLS on April 23, 2016, at 6:18:16
In reply to Re: the lost sheep » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on April 22, 2016, at 20:26:13
> Sure it's true that a drug that could be taken once and permanently fix depression might be suppressed as less profitable than drugs that are taken for years. It's also true that non-drug solutions are not studied by drug companies who finance the studies.
>
> I think the solution to this is to vastly increase funding for the NIH and NIMH to take on the studies drug companies have no interest in. That means not cutting taxes and demanding big cuts in discretionary programs and trying to shut down the government. I'd be very interested to see what the NIH budget is and how it's changed in recent years. I think I'll look that up tomorrow and get back to you all.Thanks.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:24:46
In reply to Re: the lost sheep, posted by Hello321 on April 21, 2016, at 18:45:05
> If you think about it, this is the approach that psychiatric treatment takes.Well, sure, proponents of any remedy, whether it's medical, alternative-medical, self-help tactics, special diet books, or even religion will typically make a pitch to the consumer offering to help with their problems.
I understand that you see all approaches as equally valid, thus it doesn't make sense to you to place higher value on psychiatric treatment than non-medical interventions like a change of diet. You don't seem to recognize the value of testing to establish that an intervention is safe and effective before selling it to consumers. Without that testing, people are prone to keep buying and buying books, supplements, and "interesting" therapies and belief systems that don't actually work as expected. People are also prone to think things work that actually don't work, for reasons listed in the articles I linked to previously.
> But then too often the person in need of help gets no benefit or is made even worse when they use this treatment. And yes, some do benefit from it greatly.Yes, it's possible that a medication that has been tested to be effective in a population may not be helpful for all individuals. And it's possible that some (or most) individuals will experience undesirable side effects. However, I think you're making it sound like it's a cr*p-shoot. Which again suggests you don't appreciate the value of controlled testing. If a treatment has FDA approval, it has been shown to be safe, and shown to be more effective than placebo for some portion of a population. It may not be perfectly safe and effective, but isn't it preferable to an intervention that has never been shown to be safe and effective at all, or has even been shown to be ineffective (e.g. acupuncture, homeopathic remedies)? If those things did work, wouldn't the manufacturers or book publishers be motivated to present credible evidence that what they're selling works?
>
> But in the end, a chemical developed by an extremely wealthy drug company is developed for the same reason any "get well quick" treatment is developed. To bring in more money to the seller. The sellers interests are highest on the list is of priorities. And one jhas to wonder where mental health treatment would be at today if this weren't the case. If getting help to the ones who are suffering were the highest priority. And this goes for any such medical treatments.Of course, nearly everything available in a capitalist society costs money. How much money do you think the book "Grain Brain" made for its publishers? I often see people defending alternative remedies by arguing that conventional medicine is profit-oriented. I don't understand how they overlook the fact that alternative remedies are also profit-oriented.
>
> As I've said, I'm not trying to discredit anyone who has been helped by a med like Cymbalta. I just try to put things in a different perspective than they're generally presented in.If I read you correctly, you want to present the perspective that things such as FDA approval shouldn't carry any more weight that the claims on a book jacket. It's a pretty contrarian position to take on a board dedicated to psychiatric medication.
Posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:44:35
In reply to Lou's reply-a reward for giving up pleasures? » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2016, at 9:48:58
>
> Tabitha,
> You wrote that people that feel desperate and lost are more vulnerable to belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures.
> I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.Pardon me, Lou, I was speaking more of general observations of people who undergo religious conversions (particularly Christian, since that's what I'm familiar with) rather than the specific things you talk about with the Spirit of Truth and the Rider. I'm not really able to say much about your specific recommendations since you don't post details that you think are forbidden by Mr Hsiung.
But I'll try to answer your questions anyway so that you many understand my comment.
> Fill in:
>
> A. The belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures are:Some examples are evangelical Christianty and radical Islam. Both of these promise a blissful afterlife as a reward for the faithful for following restricted lifestyles.
> _____________________________________________
>
> B. The ordinary human pleasures that I have not specified, Lou, are:
> __________________________________________
Many things are regulated by different religions. For instance, many have dietary restrictions. There are rules about what foods can be eaten, and days or weeks of required fasting. Sexual behavior is regulated. Women's participation in public life can be severely limited. People's dress and personal adornment (partiularly women's) can be regulated. People's daily and weekly schedules can be regulated by required prayer and worship times. Some people may thus be missing out on yummy food, free sexual lives, the enjoyment of public life and leadership, the pleasure of being able to control one's own schedule, the enjoyment of sleeping late instead of attending church, the pleasure of wearing colorful clothes, adorning oneself, and feeling the breeze in the hair.
>
> True or false:
> C. I really do not know how the Spirit of Truth that you are writing about, Lou, enters someone that changes a person so that they can overcome addiction and depression.True
> D. I really do not know that what you could post here to lead people to that Spirit would require them to give up any ordinary human pleasures.
True
> E. The lost and desperate people would be better off being lost and desperate, Lou, than to have a new heart and a new spirit that would lead them to dramatic salvation that could give them power to overcome addiction and depression.
That sounds like a false dichotomy. The options for people are not limited to only remaining lost and desperate OR being transformed by the Spirit you talk about.
> F. I posted what I did, Lou, because I want readers to think that if they are lost and desperate, to discard what you write about receiving the Spirit of Truth and receive a new heart and a new spirit, because that comes from the Jewish perspective.False. I don't want anyone to reject what you write because it comes from the Jewish perspective. As I said, most of my personal skepticism about religious paths comes from my experience with Christianity.
Posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:54:53
In reply to Lou's reply-a reward for giving up pleasures? » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on April 22, 2016, at 9:48:58
Hi again, Lou. Maybe you can answer some questions that will help me understand your posts by knowing their context.
1. The conditions that brought me to psychobabble are:
2. The psychiatric medications I am currently taking (if any) are:
3. Medications I have taken in the past are:
4. Problems I had with medications taken in the past are:
5: Problems I am continuing to experience are:
Posted by SLS on April 23, 2016, at 12:34:53
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:44:35
Marry me.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 15:14:47
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » Tabitha, posted by SLS on April 23, 2016, at 12:34:53
> Marry me.
>
> :-)
>
>
> - Scottha ha ha, I'll take that as a high compliment. Thanks!
Posted by Lamdage22 on April 24, 2016, at 3:54:07
In reply to Re: being closed minded » baseball55, posted by Phillipa on April 19, 2016, at 20:08:19
You are saying that we deserve the stigma. Who the hell are you to decide that?
And all that just because you have read a book?
Posted by Horse on April 24, 2016, at 14:44:53
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » SLS, posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 15:14:47
Hey you two, you made me smile like 'in the old days'. And Tabitha, touché.
Posted by baseball55 on April 24, 2016, at 19:00:42
In reply to Re: the lost sheep » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on April 22, 2016, at 20:26:13
Follow up. I did look up info on the NIH and NIMH budget. Posted the results in a separate thread, if anyone's interested. Their funding has been cut and cut and cut.
> Sure it's true that a drug that could be taken once and permanently fix depression might be suppressed as less profitable than drugs that are taken for years. It's also true that non-drug solutions are not studied by drug companies who finance the studies.
>
> I think the solution to this is to vastly increase funding for the NIH and NIMH to take on the studies drug companies have no interest in. That means not cutting taxes and demanding big cuts in discretionary programs and trying to shut down the government. I'd be very interested to see what the NIH budget is and how it's changed in recent years. I think I'll look that up tomorrow and get back to you all.
>
> > I couldn't discount the possibility that a Company like Eli Lilly has knowledge of certain lesser known, unpopular lifestyle changes that were much safer and at least as effective as their drug treatments. Maybe something like a very low carb, high healthy fat diet could benefit many brain problems. But of course it wouldn't be in their interests to promote this.
> >
> > I dont remember the video I watching weeks ago, but it was about Cancer treatment and i just remember general info from it. It had drug company scientists talking about the advances they're making.and there was a comment one made about how beneficial a certain diet or lifestyle or something can be (dont remember exactly), and he said "If only we could find a way to take all the benefits of this and put it in a pill. I know these aren't exact details, but if a drug company does know of a better treatment, and can't put it in a pool to get rich off of. We are going to be missing out if we don't search far beyond our quest to find a better pill.
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 24, 2016, at 20:01:23
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 10:44:35
>
> >
> > Tabitha,
> > You wrote that people that feel desperate and lost are more vulnerable to belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures.
> > I am unsure as to what you are wanting to mean. If you could post answers to the following, then I could respond accordingly.
>
> Pardon me, Lou, I was speaking more of general observations of people who undergo religious conversions (particularly Christian, since that's what I'm familiar with) rather than the specific things you talk about with the Spirit of Truth and the Rider. I'm not really able to say much about your specific recommendations since you don't post details that you think are forbidden by Mr Hsiung.
>
> But I'll try to answer your questions anyway so that you many understand my comment.
>
>
> > Fill in:
> >
> > A. The belief systems that promise dramatic salvation as reward for giving up many of the ordinary human pleasures are:
>
> Some examples are evangelical Christianty and radical Islam. Both of these promise a blissful afterlife as a reward for the faithful for following restricted lifestyles.
>
>
> > _____________________________________________
> >
> > B. The ordinary human pleasures that I have not specified, Lou, are:
> > __________________________________________
>
>
> Many things are regulated by different religions. For instance, many have dietary restrictions. There are rules about what foods can be eaten, and days or weeks of required fasting. Sexual behavior is regulated. Women's participation in public life can be severely limited. People's dress and personal adornment (partiularly women's) can be regulated. People's daily and weekly schedules can be regulated by required prayer and worship times. Some people may thus be missing out on yummy food, free sexual lives, the enjoyment of public life and leadership, the pleasure of being able to control one's own schedule, the enjoyment of sleeping late instead of attending church, the pleasure of wearing colorful clothes, adorning oneself, and feeling the breeze in the hair.
>
>
> >
> > True or false:
> > C. I really do not know how the Spirit of Truth that you are writing about, Lou, enters someone that changes a person so that they can overcome addiction and depression.
>
> True
>
> > D. I really do not know that what you could post here to lead people to that Spirit would require them to give up any ordinary human pleasures.
>
> True
>
> > E. The lost and desperate people would be better off being lost and desperate, Lou, than to have a new heart and a new spirit that would lead them to dramatic salvation that could give them power to overcome addiction and depression.
>
> That sounds like a false dichotomy. The options for people are not limited to only remaining lost and desperate OR being transformed by the Spirit you talk about.
>
>
> > F. I posted what I did, Lou, because I want readers to think that if they are lost and desperate, to discard what you write about receiving the Spirit of Truth and receive a new heart and a new spirit, because that comes from the Jewish perspective.
>
> False. I don't want anyone to reject what you write because it comes from the Jewish perspective. As I said, most of my personal skepticism about religious paths comes from my experience with Christianity.Tabitha,
You wrote that Christianity is a religion that promises dramatic salvation as a reward for giving up ordinary human pleasures.
I know of no basis that those professing Christianity are rewarded with dramatic salvation by giving up ordinary human pleasures. I would like for you to substantiate your claim so that I could respond accordingly. The substantiation would need to come from doctrine promulgated by some Christendom sect or from some other, unbeknownst to me, source.
Lou
Posted by Marcus Cicero on April 24, 2016, at 23:15:25
In reply to Lou's response-allowing the hate » zonked, posted by Lou Pilder on April 16, 2016, at 16:37:13
Test
Posted by SLS on April 24, 2016, at 23:26:22
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » SLS, posted by Tabitha on April 23, 2016, at 15:14:47
You are very compassionate and generous with your time and energy.
With regard to your ongoing interaction with another poster along this thread, you were challenged to produce evidence regarding the practice of Christianity. It has been my experience that producing such evidence to this poster will only lead to obfuscation. I hope that knowing this will mitigate any frustration that may develop.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on April 24, 2016, at 23:28:25
In reply to New to Dr-Bob's, posted by Marcus Cicero on April 24, 2016, at 23:15:25
> Test
You passed!
Welcome. You posted along a very contentious thread. It is not representative of most others.
- Scott
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2016, at 7:41:22
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » Tabitha, posted by SLS on April 24, 2016, at 23:26:22
> You are very compassionate and generous with your time and energy.
>
> With regard to your ongoing interaction with another poster along this thread, you were challenged to produce evidence regarding the practice of Christianity. It has been my experience that producing such evidence to this poster will only lead to obfuscation. I hope that knowing this will mitigate any frustration that may develop.
>
>
> - Scott
>
> Scott,
You wrote,[...It has been my experience that producing such evidence to this poster (Lou) will *only* lead to obfuscation....].
What you posted could decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held and induce hostile and disagreeable feelings and opinions about me. Your statement could stigmatize me and arouse anti-Semitic feelings to those that have seen your posts slandering me here and your posts of anti-smitic propaganda being allowed by Mr. Hsiung to be seen as being supportive. And that Mr. Hsiung allows you to be exempt from his enforcement policy. This could seriously mislead readers to their deaths.
Here in this thread you use the word {only}. But there could be life to come out of this thread that could open up people to the Spirit of Truth and not just *only* obfuscation according to your defaming me here.
The tragedy here is that you poison a new poster's mind against me with hatred toward me that puts me in a false light. This could prevent readers from receiving the Spirit of Truth and induce false conclusions against Jews as you cast a shadow over me.
But the darkness here can be dispelled by the Light. I am prevented from posting here about how that Light could unveil the Truth that could lead readers here out of addiction and depression and into a marvelous light of being unshackled from the chains of their addiction and depression due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
Yet today, you are permitted to post showing that you want readers to think of me so that if they respond to me that there will be *only* obfuscation? I say to you that those that die here from acting on your defamation against me and suffer a horrible death from the drugs that you promote here will not have their blood upon me, but be inflicted with the poison of hate that is allowed by Mr. Hsiung showing that an orchestration of hate can continue to harm me and the Jews here and powerfully influencing our young people against the Jews.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on April 25, 2016, at 14:04:50
In reply to Re: a reward for giving up pleasures? » Tabitha, posted by SLS on April 24, 2016, at 23:26:22
Posted by Tabitha on April 25, 2016, at 14:23:25
In reply to Lou's reply-is it true? » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on April 24, 2016, at 20:01:23
> Tabitha,
> You wrote that Christianity is a religion that promises dramatic salvation as a reward for giving up ordinary human pleasures.
> I know of no basis that those professing Christianity are rewarded with dramatic salvation by giving up ordinary human pleasures. I would like for you to substantiate your claim so that I could respond accordingly. The substantiation would need to come from doctrine promulgated by some Christendom sect or from some other, unbeknownst to me, source.
> LouI'm not really making a controversial claim here. There are any number of Christian sects that promise eternal life in heaven for the faithful and require the members to lead restricted lifestyles in order to maintain their "saved" status.
My knowledge comes from personal relationships with members of such groups, and from reading memoirs and blogs by ex-members. There are many, many similar stories.
You can verify it yourself easily enough. Some groups to research are Quiverfull, the Apostolic Church, the FLDS, the Amish and Mennonites.
Posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2016, at 15:43:39
In reply to Re: is it true? » Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on April 25, 2016, at 14:23:25
> > Tabitha,
> > You wrote that Christianity is a religion that promises dramatic salvation as a reward for giving up ordinary human pleasures.
> > I know of no basis that those professing Christianity are rewarded with dramatic salvation by giving up ordinary human pleasures. I would like for you to substantiate your claim so that I could respond accordingly. The substantiation would need to come from doctrine promulgated by some Christendom sect or from some other, unbeknownst to me, source.
> > Lou
>
> I'm not really making a controversial claim here. There are any number of Christian sects that promise eternal life in heaven for the faithful and require the members to lead restricted lifestyles in order to maintain their "saved" status.
>
> My knowledge comes from personal relationships with members of such groups, and from reading memoirs and blogs by ex-members. There are many, many similar stories.
>
> You can verify it yourself easily enough. Some groups to research are Quiverfull, the Apostolic Church, the FLDS, the Amish and Mennonites.
>
> Friends,
Be not deceived. The poster wrote,[...Christianity is a religion that promises dramatic salvation {as a reward for giving up ordinary human pleasures}...].
Then the switch to:
[...some Christian sects promise eternal life in heaven for the faithful and require the members to live a restricted life style in order to maintain their "saved" status.....].
Be not deceived. Those are two different topics and her reply is not to my request. The central teaching of Christianity is that people are saved by having faith in the Anointed One. That faith is different from giving up, let's say, smoking.
You see, Christianity is a Jewish belief. It is a belief in receiving a new heart and a new spirit. Christianity calls this being born again. And when this Jesus of Nazareth was talking to a Jewish leader, this Jesus said to him that he must be born from above to enter the kingdom of God. And the man asked how?
He answered by saying that a Jewish leader like himself should know that. This means that in the scriptures that the Jews use, it is written there. An if we look in the book called Ezekiel in the 36th chapter verse 26 we see:
[...A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you...].
And then there was a conversation between them that has been revealed to me as to how you can have a new heart and a new spirit. You see, it has been revealed to me that Christian people become Jews when they are born from above.
And in the encounter, the Rider said to me, "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
The central teaching of Christianity is not that you have hair covered or polygamy or live as a recluse or anything outside of the Great Commandment. There are numerous groups claiming to be Christian no doubt that teach salvation outside of faith in the Anointed One. That does not stretch to what the poster here says in the she says that Christianity is a religion that promises salvation by giving up pleasurers. There may small groups that teach that, but that does not mean that Christianity teaches that. To say that because there are some small groups teaching that the earth is flat, that does not mean that all of the science community teaches that. Some teachings are false. Some are outright lies.
I have come here to have revealed to you the truth so that you can see the lies exposed. The Spirit of Truth is hovering above with healing in His wings.
Lou
Posted by Tabitha on April 25, 2016, at 19:45:39
In reply to Lou's reply- Sun of rightousness » Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on April 25, 2016, at 15:43:39
> Be not deceived. Those are two different topics and her reply is not to my request. The central teaching of Christianity is that people are saved by having faith in the Anointed One. That faith is different from giving up, let's say, smoking.
OK, Lou, I'll agree that there is a difference between saying that salvation is promised in exchange for following lifestyle restrictions, and saying that salvation is promised and lifestyle restrictions are required to maintain salvation. And I'll agree that for many groups, the central teaching about salvation is usually about believing in a savior and feeling things in your heart, which I think is the point you are making. But I honestly can't think of any Christian groups that promise salvation solely for belief, without any additional pressure or requirements to do things or stop doing things.
> You see, it has been revealed to me that Christian people become Jews when they are born from above.
Huh. Interesting. I have never heard anyone say that Christians become Jews in this way.
> There are numerous groups claiming to be Christian no doubt that teach salvation outside of faith in the Anointed One. That does not stretch to what the poster here says in the she says that Christianity is a religion that promises salvation by giving up pleasurers. There may small groups that teach that,We may disagree about numbers of Christians who live in fear of losing salvation for breaking rules of behavior. Don't Catholics think that many actions can damn them? Those are not small numbers.
> but that does not mean that Christianity teaches that.
I can't speak for all of Christianity. I don't think anyone can. Many groups think theirs is the one true faith. Thus if I said "Christianity teaches that..." feel free to substitute "some Christians teach that..."
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.