Carrie Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 22 2005, 01:22 PM']Many people with problems of depression have them because their life is too easy or they are focusing to much on what they want instead of what God wants, some don't help others enough. Problems are only as big as we allow them to be. People who want to change can. [right][snapback]654289[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Please read my post above.
photosynthesis Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 22 2005, 01:22 PM']I'm not talking about mental illness, I'm talking about behavior problems. Most depression is not a chemical problem, it has to do with our point of view of things going on around us. Many people with problems of depression have them because their life is too easy or they are focusing to much on what they want instead of what God wants, some don't help others enough. Problems are only as big as we allow them to be. Almost everything can be corrected with the proper point of view. All the psychological help we need can be found in the faith... So much is in Scripture... what is not in Scripture can be found in the Catechism and the writings of the saints. People who want to change can. [right][snapback]654289[/snapback][/right] [/quote] that is total BS. it sounds like you know nothing about depression. Depression is not a behavior problem, it is a mood disorder. Sometimes depression is caused by circumstances such as abuse, illness, problems at home, problems at work, school, etc. Sometimes it's a chemical imbalance. Antidepressant pills don't help everyone, but they do help many people overcome depression, along with prayer, therapy and support from friends and family. And the "proper point of view" you talk about makes it sound like you're coming from more of a cognitive perspective and not a behavioral one. Many people suffer from depression [i]because [/i]of cognitive distortions (irrational/abnormal thoughts or beliefs). Low self-esteem, believing that everyone hates you, believing that you deserve past abuse/illness/pain, all of these are cognitive distortions that make people feel depressed. Therapy can help people see their distorted thinking and overcome their problems. That does not mean it is a substitute for having a relationship with God and an active prayer life, and there are MANY people who go to therapy because they're looking for God in the wrong places. But good Catholics can and do go to therapy.
Carrie Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 [quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jul 22 2005, 02:28 PM']that is total BS. it sounds like you know nothing about depression. Depression is not a behavior problem, it is a mood disorder. Sometimes depression is caused by circumstances such as abuse, illness, problems at home, problems at work, school, etc. Sometimes it's a chemical imbalance. Antidepressant pills don't help everyone, but they do help many people overcome depression, along with prayer, therapy and support from friends and family. And the "proper point of view" you talk about makes it sound like you're coming from more of a cognitive perspective and not a behavioral one. Many people suffer from depression [i]because [/i]of cognitive distortions (irrational/abnormal thoughts or beliefs). Low self-esteem, believing that everyone hates you, believing that you deserve past abuse/illness/pain, all of these are cognitive distortions that make people feel depressed. Therapy can help people see their distorted thinking and overcome their problems. That does not mean it is a substitute for having a relationship with God and an active prayer life, and there are MANY people who go to therapy because they're looking for God in the wrong places. But good Catholics can and do go to therapy. [right][snapback]654407[/snapback][/right] [/quote]
cmotherofpirl Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 (edited) "Most depression is not a chemical problem, it has to do with our point of view of things going on around us. Many people with problems of depression have them because their life is too easy or they are focusing to much on what they want instead of what God wants, some don't help others enough. Problems are only as big as we allow them to be. Almost everything can be corrected with the proper point of view" Ironmonk. [color=blue]You have absolutely no qualifications for making such sweeping generalizations. You are simply promugating more myths about mental illness [depression IS a mental illness] and harming those who need help the most. [/color] Edited July 23, 2005 by cmotherofpirl
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 23 2005, 11:09 AM']"Most depression is not a chemical problem, it has to do with our point of view of things going on around us. Many people with problems of depression have them because their life is too easy or they are focusing to much on what they want instead of what God wants, some don't help others enough. Problems are only as big as we allow them to be. Almost everything can be corrected with the proper point of view" Ironmonk. [color=blue]You have absolutely no qualifications for making such sweeping generalizations. You are simply promugating more myths about mental illness [depression IS a mental illness] and harming those who need help the most. [/color] [right][snapback]655692[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I believe he has already stated what his qualifications where, so stating he has no qualifications is not factually correct, nor is it appropriate since unless you know Ironmonk personally you really don't know what his qualifications regarding anthing, simularly I have not seen Carrie's degree, nor Jamie's ,they could both be lying about having "qualifications" and who would know-- we are on the internet. Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". Personaly I think a doctorate in psycology qualifies you for nothing more than janitorial work at the stockyard but that is just my opinion.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 19 2005, 08:45 AM']I hope Don John's ok and still isn't feverish [right][snapback]649568[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I sincerly thank you for your prayers. I am feeling better today, not up to snuff but better.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='Carrie' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:17 AM']Me too. DJ, hope all is well... [right][snapback]650844[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I thank you for your prayers as well. I needed them.
cmotherofpirl Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 We totally disagree but I am glad you are feeling better.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 15 2005, 06:24 AM']Hope your feeling better. Here's some more "tripe". Now how's about backing up your sweeping opinions? [right][snapback]644348[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes I remember the psychology of priestly formation, I particularly remember the Fransican Psychologist who came to my formation house to "elaluate" us. After being accused of being liars-- which happened within the first 15 minutes of his general session with the entire house, we where systematicly "evaluated" ---- You ant to know one of the major reasons why vocations are down, it is using "psychology' in priestly formation. Somehow the Church survived 1900 years without using psychology in priestly formation, and yet now that we increase it's use we have fewer and fewer priest---- what a shock. JPII was wrong to intergect psychology into anything Church related. Edited July 23, 2005 by Don John of Austria
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 23 2005, 01:16 PM']We totally disagree but I am glad you are feeling better. [right][snapback]655822[/snapback][/right] [/quote] thank you.
Aloysius Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 I am very sympathetic to both sides of this debate and find it quite interesting...
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 14 2005, 10:55 PM']Oh we're just getting warmed up Don. But this was the deal. I provided the documentation that the Church recognizes the contributions made. You can rephrase your challenge if you want. But how about backing up your opinions with some documentation? Where are the Church documents that reject psychology? [right][snapback]644091[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I already have, I have made point after point of the Church rejecting Materialism with regards to the mind, you have made no response to any of them. Now if You want to say that some psychology rejects Materialism, it rejects that personhood is in the Brain-- ( or in any material object) and accepts that the Mind is immaterial. Then do that, please tell me where I can read about this branch of Psychology.
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Posted July 23, 2005 First glad you're feeling better. Second of all you have provided no documents whatsover. Where are they? I've quoted Church documents that while give warning about the appropriate uses of psychology, acknowledged that there were "irrefutable truths" learned by the science. I've quoted documents that showed where the Church was incorporating psychology in the training of our priests. Documentation [quote]The Church recognizes the contrabutions of the field of psychology --agian REALLY please point me to [b]the document in which THE CHURCH and not a member of it does so[/b]. I will get back to you with documents which reject Psychology's givens.[/quote] When I do that you rephrase the question. [quote]So I will rephrase my earlier challenge can you provide a document which recognizes POSITIVE contrabutions of the Field of psychology,[/quote] The use of psychology in the training of priests goes directly to that. You respond "JPII was wrong" Not good enough. Just because you don't like what the Church has said, doesn't make it true. Yet you have yet to provide any Church documentation to demonstrate that the Church rejects the practice of psychology. I've actually quoted from the documents most critical yet still accepts the practice. All you've offered is opinion.
Don John of Austria Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 23 2005, 03:57 PM']First glad you're feeling better. Second of all you have provided no documents whatsover. Where are they? I've quoted Church documents that while give warning about the appropriate uses of psychology, acknowledged that there were "irrefutable truths" learned by the science. I've quoted documents that showed where the Church was incorporating psychology in the training of our priests. Documentation When I do that you rephrase the question. The use of psychology in the training of priests goes directly to that. You respond "JPII was wrong" Not good enough. Just because you don't like what the Church has said, doesn't make it true. Yet you have yet to provide any Church documentation to demonstrate that the Church rejects the practice of psychology. I've actually quoted from the documents most critical yet still accepts the practice. All you've offered is opinion. [right][snapback]655973[/snapback][/right] [/quote] JPII was not and is not[b] the Church[/b], the above document was not a Statement as the Head of the Church anymore than his books where, don't over blow it. If we are going to play the " a pope said it that means it is the Church saying it" game then you really aren't going to like how this arrgument turns out. Pope Paul VI was condemning it in the post you made.
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Posted July 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 04:29 PM']JPII was not and is not[b] the Church[/b], the above document was not a Statement as the Head of the Church anymore than his books where, don't over blow it. If we are going to play the " a pope said it that means it is the Church saying it" game then you really aren't going to like how this arrgument turns out. Pope Paul VI was condemning it in the post you made. [right][snapback]656006[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No a pope can say it and SEMINARIES PUT IT INTO ACTION is quite different than JPII saying "Psychology is good". Who assigns the cirriculum for the seminaries anyway? Could it be the bishops? You wanted documentation. It isn't an infallible document. It is an document reflecting what the Church put into action in their seminaries. Therefore it answers your request. Edited July 23, 2005 by jaime
Jaime Posted July 23, 2005 Author Posted July 23, 2005 Also you ignore in Paul's apparent "condemnation" of psychology he says (and I will quote again [quote]that we must respect the scientific contributions which it makes to the study of the religious problem, [b]with arguments drawn from unquestionable sciences such as psychology and sociology[/b];...[/quote]
Cam42 Posted July 23, 2005 Posted July 23, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jul 23 2005, 02:06 PM']I believe he has already stated what his qualifications where, so stating he has no qualifications is not factually correct, nor is it appropriate since unless you know Ironmonk personally you really don't know what his qualifications regarding anthing, simularly I have not seen Carrie's degree, nor Jamie's ,they could both be lying about having "qualifications" and who would know-- we are on the internet. Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". Personaly I think a doctorate in psycology qualifies you for nothing more than janitorial work at the stockyard but that is just my opinion. [right][snapback]655810[/snapback][/right] [/quote] As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all.
Pio Nono Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 JMJ 7/23 - St. Apollinaris of Ravenna [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:17 PM']As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all. [right][snapback]656029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] w00t w00t!
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 23 2005, 05:17 PM']As far a hot stuff's degrees go, I have seen them. They are lovely, by the way. And he is more than qualified to speak about this issue. That was not only rude and insensitive, but intollerably crass and defeating. Your arrogance is only matched by your intolerance. I would hope that you apologize for making such a disgusting statement. Why would anyone lie? There is no need. I didn't know that this was a popularity contest. Incidentally, what qualifies you to judge hot stuff, Carrie, or anyone else's education. That is a sad commentary......sad, sad, sad..... I am just curious, how am I supposed to know, for certain that you are a man and that Ironmonk's name is really Max? I mean this the internet and all. [right][snapback]656029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What part of "Jamie and Carrie I am not acccusing you of anything just pointing out the stupidity of the " you aren't qualified statement". " didn't you understand? And while I'm almost certain you are correct about hot stuff's degrees, DJ has a point...this is the internet, anybody can be anyone they want to be. We've already had our share of that sort of thing here - people pretending to be what they weren't - WAY before ya'll came along. It's good that you can vouch of hot stuff, and vice versa. I most certainly can vouch that Don John is a man. So can dUSt. And inDEED, and most of Point 5 Covenant, and Sarah, and dUSt's wife, and Winchester, and XavierBlaise, and MC Just and a couple of other people here I've probably missed. "Why would anyone lie?" Huh. Wow. Gosh, I dunno. Ya'll are the psychologists. The simple answer would be, "Because they can".
Kilroy the Ninja Posted July 24, 2005 Posted July 24, 2005 And as an aside, Don John is an [i]educator[/i], a [i]teacher[/i] and therefore imminently qualified to judge a person's education. It's kinda what he does for a living... judging people's educations, determining what they need to know about the subjects he's teaching.. that sort of thing. But really that's kind of off-topic. Back on track people!
Recommended Posts