Beyond Mitt's Underwear: Part 3: The Preexistence, Creation, and Plan for Salvation
Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones. They were once mortal humans just like we are and have retained their physical bodies of flesh and bone, but instead of blood they have “spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood”. At the time of creation
( Read more... )
Rationality dictates that for their survival, they change their habits. They have had it empirically proven to them that they will die if they do not stop, and they do not stop.
I think you need to take a class on psychology. There is a whole other system for why this happens that explains a great deal more than just addiction, and while you may decide afterwards that the root of that system is "God created humans to have brains that function in this way", if you skip the system itself, you are doing your clients a massive disservice. For you to say that there is no rational way to deal with these problem is completely provably false. There is absolutely a rational way of dismantling the systems that lead people to have those issues in the first place (and also to ignore them until they stop ignoring them), and that system is something you learn in therapy. That is what psychology-based therapy is there for.
Emotions are chemicals in your brain and the perceptions that you have. They are not inviolate. If you have ever successfully attempted to cheer yourself up when you've been a little down in the dumps, you know this to be true. You DO. We both know you do, whether you want to admit it or not. Emotion is absolutely a malleable thing that can be changed with effort. Knowing that on the one hand but then on the other claiming the complete opposite whenever it involves something more serious, something harder, something that could take years of work instead of just a few minutes, is complete intellectual laziness.
If you skip giving your clients the rational, workable tools that will, in fact, help them to dismantle even the biggest of emotional and psychological obstacles, and instead give them a band-aid false panacea of "do it because of God", you are, again, doing them a massive disservice. But I suspect that's only half the case. I suspect that the other half of what you do does involve giving them some of those tools, but only up to a point, and then you attribute the rest to God, without being willing to see that those same tools could go the full distance if you and/or your client actually wanted to push to get there. Which is half intellectual laziness and half intellectual dishonesty.
Not that my opinion, as someone who is living proof that what you have to say about this is incorrect, matters, but: I can accept someone who says, "I see and respect and embrace the rational system, and I think it's beautiful that a higher power created it." I can't respect anyone who says, "I can accept whatever rational systems don't make me uncomfortable, right up until the point where they DO make me uncomfortable, and then I switch to the irrational and throw comfortingly murky subjective bullshit at it until I can stop engaging with the problem."
But then again, rational psychology also tells us why you do that, so.
Reply
Goodness, I would never get any results from my clients if I believed that. Logic and rationality is a fantastic tool! It just isn't the *only* tool. I've taken many classes on psychology, and I am well aware of this.
I'm sorry that you misconstrued my words to mean something they didn't.
But I suspect that's only half the case. I suspect that the other half of what you do does involve giving them some of those tools, but only up to a point, and then you attribute the rest to God, without being willing to see that those same tools could go the full distance if you and/or your client actually wanted to push to get there. Which is half intellectual laziness and half intellectual dishonesty.
It's a good thing you said you only suspected instead of saying you knew, because your suspicions are wrong. :) The people who come see me have found out the hard way that "You and me, God" just doesn't work. I don't discount prayer. I encourage it. But the God I believe in does not help those that don't help themselves, so I don't give them a half-effective way to change. I give them an amazing way to change, and then have them ask God to make it even better.
Reply
> I never said anywhere that logic was stoopid,and dat peepl who tink dat logik is dum r de best peepl evr!
On the other:
> Logic has zero ability to change us or drive action.
You said logic on its own was useless. I said it's not, and can IN FACT be the sole tool and still produce results (please see: me), and that I think your ideas about emotions are bunk and I can prove it with one simple example, which I did. I'm not misconstruing anything. I think you just suck at communicating.
Reply
Anecdotal. :) Lest anyone accuse me of being a hypocrite, I think anecdotal evidence is great when defending an emotional argument. But when you use anecdotal evidence to support your claim that rationality is fundamentally true, you are so shooting yourself in the foot.
Here's the truth - I don't doubt you applied logic to solve a problem. But you applied logic and emotion together, not just logic. If you didn't care about logic, you would not act on it. Logic is awesome to help guide emotion, but logic alone is useless.
I think you just suck at communicating.
Awesome. Love me an ad homimen before I go to bed in the evening.
You are totally welcome to your opinion. :)
Reply
She said "X is true in at least one case, here's proof"
That's not "anecdotal", that's "it only takes one counterexample to disprove a universal. Which she did.
PS: Ad Hominem is "you are a bad person, therefore you are wrong". What she said was "you are a terrible communicator, therefore your points are communicated terribly". This is not ad hominem, and only someone who was really bad ar arguing, like you, would confuse the two.
Reply
Leave a comment