Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I would believe this if Jesus had called them stories or fables, but He absolutely used terminology which meant it was actually history. Read it again, no one believes that Jesus is speaking of stories. He is speaking of history.
Told by others 100 years after the fact.
Even with modern technology, can we be sure what Kaiser Willhelm II was saying in the days leading up to his assassination 100 years ago?
Not a chance. And he was followed by a whole lot more people than the Jesus portrayed in the bible was at that time.
This is entirely assumption based on a false premise. Jesus USING what our ancestors believed to make His points and explain principles IN NO WAY endorsed them as history. That is silly. Using that logic . . . whenever one of Aesop's fables is used to make a point or illustrate a principle . . . it is proclaiming it a true event!! You really need to study some of the modern Bible scholarship to obtain a more educated view. Dealing with cognitive primitives . . . Jesus had no choice but to use fables, parables, and other literary devices to make His points. That is called "carnal milk." Future leaders were to discover the clues He left to the "solid food". . . but they didn't. They stagnated understanding at the 1st century level and retained it till the 21st century as a sign of faith in God!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
I would believe this if Jesus had called them stories or fables, but He absolutely used terminology which meant it was actually history. Read it again, no one believes that Jesus is speaking of stories. He is speaking of history.
He almost always taught using parables. He is USING what they know and believe to make His points, period. He didn't say that they were history, did He?
He almost always taught using parables. He is USING what they know and believe to make His points, period. He didn't say that they were history, did He?
Of course not. If I say that Beauty and the Beast teaches us that you cannot judge by appearances and that people can change their hearts, does that mean that Beauty and the Beast is historical?
He almost always taught using parables. He is USING what they know and believe to make His points, period. He didn't say that they were history, did He?
Indeed he did. The language He used are not indicative of recalling stories and no biblical scholar believes that Jesus didn't accept the OT as fact. Jesus spoke of Jonah and Nineveh as real historical entities, as the verses show quite plainly. If anyone refutes this, I would ask them to prove it.
When Jesus spoke in parables, it is known it is a parable. When Jesus speaks of Moses and Abraham, he speaks of 'prophets' and 'fathers' and 'the days of old'. It is simply undeniable that Jesus believed these individuals to be historical.
Unlike the christian counselor I was married to, who though she had to perform exorcism on mentally ill to "drive the devil out of them". Her pastor had sponsored her to take the course through the Seventh Day Adventists.
Real woo-woo land.
Don't tell me that you would support that type of "christian counselling"? After all, it was pastor endorsed and the SDA church gave the classes.
This is entirely assumption based on a false premise. Jesus USING what our ancestors believed to make His points and explain principles IN NO WAY endorsed them as history. That is silly. Using that logic . . . whenever one of Aesop's fables is used to make a point or illustrate a principle . . . it is proclaiming it a true event!! You really need to study some of the modern Bible scholarship to obtain a more educated view. Dealing with cognitive primitives . . . Jesus had no choice but to use fables, parables, and other literary devices to make His points. That is called "carnal milk." Future leaders were to discover the clues He left to the "solid food". . . but they didn't. They stagnated understanding at the 1st century level and retained it till the 21st century as a sign of faith in God!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
He almost always taught using parables. He is USING what they know and believe to make His points, period. He didn't say that they were history, did He?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Indeed he did. The language He used are not indicative of recalling stories and no biblical scholar believes that Jesus didn't accept the OT as fact. Jesus spoke of Jonah and Nineveh as real historical entities, as the verses show quite plainly. If anyone refutes this, I would ask them to prove it.
When Jesus spoke in parables, it is known it is a parable. When Jesus speaks of Moses and Abraham, he speaks of 'prophets' and 'fathers' and 'the days of old'. It is simply undeniable that Jesus believed these individuals to be historical.
You have no interest in the truth or you would actually study some of the existing Bible scholarship. Your unwillingness to face reality and the truth about the Bible and its content means you do NOT use reason or intellect about these issues . . . just emotion and magical thinking. There is little point in continuing to try to educate you. Any responses I make from here on will be targeted at any lurkers who might be following your rigid and dogmatic views. Have a good day.
You have no interest in the truth or you would actually study some of the existing Bible scholarship. Your unwillingness to face reality and the truth about the Bible and its content means you do NOT use reason or intellect about these issues . . . just emotion and magical thinking. There is little point in continuing to try to educate you. Any responses I make from here on will be targeted at any lurkers who might be following your rigid and dogmatic views. Have a good day.
Ah, more bluster with no substance. I'm still waiting for you to show me where the Scripture indicates Jesus didn't believe in a historic Old Testament. I'll wait, take your time.
No because most Christian counselors do not have the training or the credentialing. Most are pastors or clergy who have a good knowledge of the theology presented, and may have some decent answers for some of life's problems, but they are ill equipped to deal with the conditions which may need a licensed and professional counselor.
Many of them are NOT trained psychologists.
That being said, anyone can be a counselor. We have nurses working for us who handle psych patients, and the do not have Clinical psychology degrees. But they are effective.
If a person has a religious question, perhaps a conflict of "Do I believe in God or not?" then a Christian counselor might be able to help, having been in situations perhaps of helping others with similar questions. Or suppose a person is (hypothetically) drafted into the army yet feels a moral desire not to fight. A religious counselor would be a good person with which to explore the feelings of being a conscientious objector.
However, if the person is under psychiatric care (like pretty much everyone I see), then no, a religious counselor would not have the ability to be helpful. In this situation, we need counselors who are more adept at dealing with the more serious psychological issues.
In addition, I have had some pretty bad experiences with religious counselors. While there may well be some very caring individuals who are in the business of counseling, most place doctrine/church first and person second. Many I have seen have tried to use guilt and fear to goad their patients into a level of religious addiction, something that religious counselors do not even seem to want to acknowledge as a problem. And often, due to doctrine or dogma, the Christian counselor will not have at his disposal the methods or means which might be appropriate for certain situations. One situation I encountered in college was a lady who came to a church for counseling. She was being abused at home by her husband, who was also abusing her children. According to the case study, she had expressed a desire to leave her abusive home, but was dissuaded by the pastoral counseling on the grounds that divorce was not Biblical or even an option. Any good counselor would have moved her and her children to a shelter, a safe house, but church counselors do not always have that option. The reason being that to the church counselor, God and religion come first and the client's needs come second, where as to the secular counselor, the client's needs always come first.
Likewise, while many psychotherapists may have one therapeutic modality over all others, they are trained and exposed to various treatment methods and options, whereas the Christian counselor is trained ONLY in one limited religious perspective. This is not always in the client's best interest, depending on the situation.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by LargeKingCat
My Opinion ?
No because most Christian counselors do not have the training or the credentialing. Most are pastors or clergy who have a good knowledge of the theology presented, and may have some decent answers for some of life's problems, but they are ill equipped to deal with the conditions which may need a licensed and professional counselor.
Many of them are NOT trained psychologists.
That being said, anyone can be a counselor. We have nurses working for us who handle psych patients, and the do not have Clinical psychology degrees. But they are effective.
If a person has a religious question, perhaps a conflict of "Do I believe in God or not?" then a Christian counselor might be able to help, having been in situations perhaps of helping others with similar questions. Or suppose a person is (hypothetically) drafted into the army yet feels a moral desire not to fight. A religious counselor would be a good person with which to explore the feelings of being a conscientious objector.
However, if the person is under psychiatric care (like pretty much everyone I see), then no, a religious counselor would not have the ability to be helpful. In this situation, we need counselors who are more adept at dealing with the more serious psychological issues.
In addition, I have had some pretty bad experiences with religious counselors. While there may well be some very caring individuals who are in the business of counseling, most place doctrine/church first and person second. Many I have seen have tried to use guilt and fear to goad their patients into a level of religious addiction, something that religious counselors do not even seem to want to acknowledge as a problem. And often, due to doctrine or dogma, the Christian counselor will not have at his disposal the methods or means which might be appropriate for certain situations. One situation I encountered in college was a lady who came to a church for counseling. She was being abused at home by her husband, who was also abusing her children. According to the case study, she had expressed a desire to leave her abusive home, but was dissuaded by the pastoral counseling on the grounds that divorce was not Biblical or even an option. Any good counselor would have moved her and her children to a shelter, a safe house, but church counselors do not always have that option. The reason being that to the church counselor, God and religion come first and the client's needs come second, where as to the secular counselor, the client's needs always come first.
Likewise, while many psychotherapists may have one therapeutic modality over all others, they are trained and exposed to various treatment methods and options, whereas the Christian counselor is trained ONLY in one limited religious perspective. This is not always in the client's best interest, depending on the situation.
^^^^^^^
THIS is why 'christian counselling" is so very, very dangerous.
I wish that pastors would get their head around that. Your god does not solve everything, or actually, anything. You might as well have chicken entrails spread around a fire with drummers making some sort of cacophony while some a shaman makes incantations. The results would be the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
