Once in a while I feel I need to take my own inventory, and to that purpose I looked up:
A Liberal Decalogue by Bertrand Russell (from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1944-1969, pp. 71-2)
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
* 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
* 2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
* 3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
* 4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
* 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
* 6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
* 7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
* 8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent that in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
* 9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
* 10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
+++++++++++++++++
#10 is just plain weird.
But I really like the rest, and they're good advice
Except for #5.
* 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
I do respect some authorities. (But I accept none absolutely or unquestionably.)
What do you guys think? *************************************************** 05-03-06, 02:43 PM Professor I take 10 to mean, "Ignorance is not bliss."
I agree that 5 is weird. Maybe just an assertion of individual autonomy. I know, tell it to the judge... Smile
05-03-06, 03:34 PM aminator2002 I try to respect everyone including people in positions of authority. I don't always agree or simply fall in line. I just respect that everyone has a role and sometimes mine is to respectfully follow in the hopes that when I have to be the authority that the respect will be returned.
I don't find 10 that weird. There are people who are "happy" but never go through any self examination or introspection. Heads hiding in the sand through their whole lives. That means to me that while they may have been happy, that happiness didn't have the depth that can be achieved from a life full thoughtfulness. I don't think we can shelter ourselves from life by only seeking happiness... it is the good and the bad that make us appreciate life.
05-03-06, 05:20 PM sid1114 It's interesting that you post this in the atheism forum. Whereas BR was an atheist, I think such "rules" as these are not incompatible with belief in some form of diety; just with Biblical literalism.
And, as Juan implies, it's a bit of a paradox to suggest rules that reject rules. Nevertheless, the world would be much better off with more skeptics a la BR.
05-06-06, 12:13 AM synthesized synaesthesia
quote: 1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
Well, doesn't that mean you should also not be absolutely certain of the existance of God? Smile
05-06-06, 01:15 AM babthrower Correct. It is impossible to deny the existence of any entity which cannot be detected by physical evidence.
05-06-06, 02:54 PM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: Correct. It is impossible to deny the existence of any entity which cannot be detected by physical evidence.
Incorrect. God can be detected by physical evidence. Unfortunately, the powers that be are more hell-bent on detecting mental illness in those who hold this view.
05-06-06, 03:57 PM synthesized synaesthesia Theoretically since we know so little about God (if a God exists) it would also be folly to assume that the God will never reveal itself.
05-06-06, 07:13 PM frankvan Bab says that God can't be detected by physical evidence; Tsaeb says God can be detected by physical evidence, but "powers that be" conspire to attribute claims of such evidence to mental illness. I can only conclude that until such times as I am confronted with actual evidence of the existence of God, I must withhold judgement. Either the people who claim to have evidence are a select privileged minority, or they are mentally ill. I do not have enough respect for anyone's authority that their word alone, absent evidence, is good enough for me. Wink
05-07-06, 12:59 PM newnickname
quote: ...the powers that be are more hell-bent on detecting mental illness in those who hold this view.
Do you have any evidence at all to support this idea?
05-07-06, 05:43 PM Professor Babs, wasn't your original question about interpreting Bertrand Russel's 'A Liberal Decalogue' fifth commandment? To wit:
quote: 5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
I said it was about individual autonomy, but I change my mind. Russel is saying that one should be persuaded by an argument on its merits alone, rather than by who speaks it. "Authority" is in the intellectual sense. This rule gives a voice to "eccentrics" likes of Galileo, Darwin, and Einstein, in the best tradition of science and humanism. It fits right in with the rest of the decalog.
Edited to remove quote from deleted post
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Karrow, 02-12-07 06:52 PM
Regarding your link, I meant that there are well-respected individuals working in the field of mental health who would sooner call crazy than spiritually gifted anyone who claims to have evidence of the existence of God. So do you want the evidence of mental health practicioners who are against religious individuals, or do you want the evidence of the existence of God?
Broadly, I have come across writings with demeaning references to religious individuals, indicating that religious individuals should be expected to be prone to insanity. I do not keep track of such biased, bigoted, dangerous viewpoints.
I don't believe that there are "well-respected individuals working in the field of mental health" who would label people who said they had evidence of the existence of God as crazy. I guess you've conveniently not kept track of any names or references either?
The main problem with your hypothesis that the mental health profession wrongly identifies religious experiences as mental illness is that you haven't been able to come up with one single example. You haven't even been able to get anyone on this board to call the religious nutty. (Your knowledge of what mental illness is and how it's experienced also seems a little shaky.)
05-29-06, 11:29 AM Sarai I think it's my fault. I stated a while ago that I thought Tsaeb may suffer from a form of mental illness because she hears God's voice speaking to her on occasion and believes herself to be a prophetess. I still think that, but I don't mean it as an insult in any way, shape or form. But of course, there isn't really any way for anyone to take such a statement except as an insult, so I understand her sensitivity to what I said. Sorry Tsaeb- I hope you can see why I would think that from my perspective, which may certainly be an ignorant one; it isn't out of any desire to hurt you. Personally, I think you're great. Which of us around here isn't a little crazy in some way or another, anyway? Smile
I'm in the minority on the belief that she's might be mentally ill, though- when I said it, a number of other posters disagreed with me (they argue that she is being dishonest about her status as a prophetess or else didn't think she was being literal when speaking about her conversations with God, whereas I think she is being quite literal and I don't think she is lying to us at all about what she experiences).
05-29-06, 02:52 PM babthrower Actually as I recall I was one of those who suspects (strongly) that Tsaeb loves it. She's like the teens who dress 'Goth' and then sit there and bristle, waiting for someone to JUST DARE to comment on their black lipstick and pierced everything. And if you ignore them, they shove in a little closer and say, "Bet you they'd just love to have us pushed off the bus." No, we'd just love to have you give us some space!
So when tsaeb prods us over and over to call her nuts, it's just so she can say, "See? They said Jesus was nuts, too!"
John 10 19 At these words the Jews were again divided. 20 Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?"
Except Tsaeb is much too light-hearted and fun-loving to be nuts. She knows a hawk from a handsaw, all right! Wink
05-29-06, 02:54 PM sid1114 Without mentioning names, I believe it's true that some posters here have in the past stated that they had at some time been treated for schizophrenia. Indeed, hearing voices is more or less a sine qua non of paranoid schizophrenia. Which is why it's easy to wonder about those who claim "proof" or other uncommon communications with God or gods. And to wonder how some manage to obtain significant numbers of followers (Koresh, Jones, Smith, ben Yousef) and others are left ranting on street corners. If I may quote from a side note in a book I wrote: "Of my medical school memories, next to those surgical the strongest are the ones from my psychiatry rotation, especially memories of talking to schizophrenics. All were young adults who seemed to have a depth and breadth of intelligence that far outstripped my own and that led me to believe that their craziness came from seeing, more than anyone else, the world as it really is; and that the clarity was too much for them. If, I thought, we could puzzle our way into their brains, we could find TRUTH, though surely we’d not want to."
So. Whether the mental illness causes visions, or whether it's the other way around, the fact is that we can only listen. There's no proof; only declaration. Whether it be the words of one's mouth, or those of a particular "holy" book.
05-29-06, 10:02 PM newnickname
quote: ...their craziness came from seeing, more than anyone else, the world as it really is; and that the clarity was too much for them...
I really disagree. I have, in the past, worked with many people with schizophrenia, and certainly some of them were very smart (and some not so much), but I never got the idea that they were somehow more sensitive to reality. I think that's something like the romanticising of mental illness that is the flipside of demonising it. Here's a short and simple description of what schizophrenia is like:
'The main features of schizophrenia include ambivalence (i.e., difficulty making decisions), problems displaying and expressing emotions, marked impairment of ability to function in social situations, and abnormal thinking. The abnormal thinking can occur in many different forms. It may include hallucinations-that is, touching, seeing, hearing, feeling, and smelling things that are not there. The most common form of hallucinations in schizophrenia involves hearing voices of individuals not actually present, so-called auditory hallucinations. The voices may actually tell the patient to do some act that the patient may feel uncomfortable about, such as killing oneself or others. In addition to hallucinations, schizophrenic patients may believe that someone is following them, controlling their thoughts, or making fun of them, and therefore, they may be paranoid. Less commonly, patients may believe that they have special powers, or that there is some physical condition affecting them, although there is no evidence of a medical problem. Cancer and AIDS are the most common imagined condition for these individuals.'www.lakeside.ca
In milder forms of schizophrenia, the symptoms might appear like a kind of gift from the heavens - unusual sights, sounds and sensations, and feelings of being different and special.
But (and this is the mistake that Tsaeb and others seem to making) symptoms like voices, for example, are more often grotesque, troubling and harmful viewed from any standpoint.
Koresh & Co could do what they did because they were not schizophrenic. They were able to manipulate others and hold things together. They may have been psychopathic.
There seems to be an idea in the air that 'voices from God' can easily be confused with the auditory hallucinations of schizophrenia. That's nonsense - unless we believe that God tells you your testicles have been invaded by aliens, you should kill yourself or others, you're already dead, or whatever.
Tsaeb's take on Christianity, to pick a random example Smile, may seem silly - but it shows no sign of any disordered and bizarre thinking that would register at all on a 'mental illness' radar. Feeling that you're guided by God is not a sign of illness, unless God is guiding you to go play in the traffic or something. Claiming to be a prophetess is not a sign of mental illness; people make dubious claims to be war heroes, computer experts, related to ancient royal families, good with animals or whatever, for a variety of reasons having nothing to do with mental illness.
Maybe Tsaeb could clarify what she means by "hearing God's voice speaking". I'm guessing that most people mean this metaphorically; that it's like an inner prompt, 'gut instinct', or an idea that pops into your head - not an actual voice as if from an invisible cell phone. That would be a possible sign of mental illness (or epilepsy, or a brain tumour, or some other glitch in the hardware) or - just maybe - The Voice Of God.
But, in the latter case, I'd want to ask God why He wants to keep pushing this lame idea that the Bible contains hidden messages only decodable in English translations.
05-29-06, 11:39 PM sid1114 The comment I quoted was of an impression -- a musing. I did not imply that schizophrenics had clarity of thought; only that, as an impressionable and young medical student, it occurred to me that their current state of disorder had derived from a form of clarity that, prior to implosion, led to their current state. Looking into the maw, blowing one's mind. Like that. Just a musing. Not a theory. An impression created by the sense of intelligence once there.
As to the rest of it, well, I'd say it's only a form of disordered thinking that allows one to conclude there are either hidden or consistent meanings in the Bible. English or otherwise.
05-30-06, 01:18 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: I'd want to ask God why He wants to keep pushing this lame idea that the Bible contains hidden messages only decodable in English translations.
What's stopping you from asking God your question? Are you afraid that either the answer will pop into your head or that God will audibly speak the answer to you?
05-30-06, 01:22 AM tsaeb When it comes to reading the silly (yes, silly) things which you folks write about me, I always wonder what prevents you from just shelling out the measy little price for my prophecy book in the event that you just might arrive at the very least at some peace of mind regarding the condition of my mental health. You seem to me to be a pack of wimps, afraid to reveal your names and addresses to a legitimate businesswoman. Don't you realize that there are a few participants here who have bought my book a long time ago and are laughing so hard at you? In fact, one participant sent me $50 for two copies. Now, where's juanruiz, who has let it be known that not only will he buy my book but also that he will come face to face with The Prophetess--and live? Big Grin
05-30-06, 09:30 AM newnickname
quote: I always wonder what prevents you from just shelling out the measy little price for my prophecy book...
In my case, it's your website. Smile
Kidding aside, when (if) you talk about messages from God, do you mean a literal voice, as if someone invisible were talking to you, or one of the other alternatives mentioned?
05-31-06, 01:25 AM tsaeb
newnickname: Revelations, which are words of wisdom comprised of words of knowledge, make up with visions and other manifestations of spiritual gifts those volume-sized revelations. The numerous smaller revelations, as words of knowledge put together, can be from one's unregenerate self (the one trying to omit God) or one's regenerate self (the one trying to admit God). I usually work with God's help. The gift of discerning of spirits manifests in the way that a spirit (and God is a spirit) chooses to manifest. So you figure out whether a spirit even God prods one's mind subliminally or outrightly speaks in an audible voice or both. P.S. I would never classify myself as crazy, only unique and sometimes kooky.
juanruiz: We can't let 'em down.
05-31-06, 09:36 AM newnickname Thanks, Tsaeb. I'll take that as 'not literally a voice'.
Nobody else has classified you as crazy, either (and we've yet to see any evidence at all that mental health professionals classify those claiming to have evidence of God as crazy). On the other hand, everyone]/i] is unique and sometimes kooky.
Going back to the original post - I agree that [i]"Have no respect for the authority of others" must involve some idea of rejecting the logical fallacy of 'argument from authority'.
I think also, however, that it might mean having no respect for a statement that is supported by something like Tsaeb's "I usually work with God's help". I'm not saying that Tsaeb is insincere, but the statement is meaningless from an atheist point of view.
Some religious people do seem to be taken in by this kind of thing, especially in the mouths of politicians and televangelists (who are insincere) - "Oh, he says he's with God; he must be making some kind of sense..." Maybe Russell's point was that an atheist shouldn't be fooled that way.
05-31-06, 10:47 AM Sarai Newnickname, perhaps this will help, since Tsaeb is dancing around the answer to your question. Tsaeb said:
quote: Around the time that I was trying to get my prophecy book printed, I asked God whether He was going to do something big in the way of allowing a tragedy to occur so that my book would sell, and He answered in such a low voice, "Yes." This extraordinarily low voice, coupled with what it was indicating, gave me such creeps that I told God that I did not want to know what He was going to allow to happen.
I also vaguely remember a post of hers in which she described the first time she heard God audibly answer a question she was asking in prayer (which of course was totally unexpected), but I can't find it.
So Tsaeb, which is it? Was the "low voice" symbolic or did you actually hear it? It sounds to me like you actually heard it.
05-31-06, 11:59 AM frankvan Does God always talk to people only when they are alone?? Does he never talk to groups any more? Confused
05-31-06, 02:34 PM juanruiz
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: Does God always talk to people only when they are alone?? Does he never talk to groups any more? Confused
Good question. I'm at a loss to remember whenever he did talk to groups. Seems it was always one or two select prophets.
05-31-06, 03:13 PM frankvan You'd think that after all these reports of God talking to someone, someone else would report having overheard it? Or don't "select prophets" ever associate with other "select prophets". Do the faithful always have to pay to get the second-hand or hearsay, (un-corroborated) messages?
05-31-06, 03:59 PM babthrower There was a case once in which God spoke to two men at the same time. But it didn't result in a new religion because before they reached the bottom of the mountain they had quarrelled over the interpretation of what he had said, struggled and fought, and fallen over a cliff to their deaths.
05-31-06, 06:35 PM frankvan
quote: Originally posted by babthrower: There was a case once in which God spoke to two men at the same time. But it didn't result in a new religion because before they reached the bottom of the mountain they had quarrelled over the interpretation of what he had said, struggled and fought, and fallen over a cliff to their deaths.
Holy cow! I wonder how anyone ever reconstructed that story, after the tragic death of the two prophets. Probably revealed to a third prophet?? Roll Eyes
05-31-06, 07:00 PM babthrower Well, ya see, the guys announced to the people they were going up to talk to god one night. Then the people saw a great light on the mountain, and silhouetted against it, the two guys, and a great hulking figure in a long woolly robe and lots of facial hair and long flowing white hair but bald on top so he did a comb-over. He thundered at the two for a while, but no one could make out what he was saying - too rumbly and echo-y. Pretty soon he starting whirling around, and lo, the stars whirled around in synch. He whirled faster and faster, and finally disappeared, leaving a column of smoke and flame behind. So the people instantly knew he must be the god. So then the two little guys started running down the mountain, quite clearly racing, and the one who was falling behind grabbed the front guy's robe and (they were close enough now to hear what they said), said, 'He did so say I would be the Daddyboss, and you'd be my flunky,' and the other one said, 'Flunky me, would you? I'll flunky you,' and the next thing BABOOM! they both went over. So they didn't start a religion because they died before they could get it going. But one of the audience said she had a gift of superhuman hearing and had heard every word the god had said, and the god had prophecied that the two would quarrel and kill each other, and that the duty of revealing the god's message would be inherited by her to interpret, and people should give her money so she should begin the god's work. So they threw her over the cliff too, saying, "Boy, she must think we're really stupid!" Then they also said, "If we can't find a better god than that one, who first tells those two idiots his secret, and he didn't even know they'd die, then we'll just do without a god, and save our best cattle and sheep and stuff for ourselves and not have to burn it on an altar, like those numbskulls in the next tribe west of here do for their priests, which is dumb anyway."
I'll put it all in pseudo-Jacobean English for you later. I guarantee it'll sound a lot more impressive then.
05-31-06, 09:41 PM sid1114 And a few decades later, several people who claimed to have been at the bottom of the mountain wrote it all down, and the people knew that the writing had been inspired by god, and that the words were true. One witness said they fell off a cliff. Another said they were smitten by god himself. Another said it was a man and a woman. Another said that later the two men actually got up and limped away. All the books were collected into one, called The Book, and the people said The Book was the literal word of god. They discussed it, argued about it, preached it. Surely it showed god's mercy some said. His fierce jealousy, said others. His perfection said they all. Later The Book made its way to other lands, where it was translated. The mountain became a hill. Hill, it was pointed out, was the name of the prophetess Anita, and the wizard Grant. Surely it was no coincidence, for god is great and perfect. So we learn that in mounting the hill, great harm was done. And that Grant would limp. So it is said. Blessed be the word of god.
06-01-06, 03:20 AM tsaeb Y'all are forgetting that a prophet/prophetess must be 100% accurate. So what difference does it make how the prophet/prophetess got the 100% accurate info? Y'all must be afraid that one day you will hear His voice.
06-01-06, 09:00 AM babthrower Of course, the prophetess always has a bolt-hole to run into: 'taking back' the prophecy.
Tsaeb told us she made a true prophecy.
Tsaeb was a bit annoyed with me. She prophesied that something is coming to this forum which I especially would not like. But it wasn't very bad, because I just might miss the foretold event:
quote: Anyone who gets jollies out of calling me DELUSIONAL with VISIONS OF GRANDEUR and implies that I am a fool ... which adds up to a DELUDED FOOL with VISIONS OF GRANDEUR deserves to have a nickname in capital letters so that all can remember just who is due for God's judgment: BABTHROWER ... It is true that what goes around comes around, and what is coming to this forum, I am certain you especially will not like. That is a true prophecy. I have patience, and lest you miss to what I refer, you have my pledge that I will be sure to be self-absorbed and point it out to you in due time.
But then you took it back.
How does that work again?
To prophesy is to foresee the future.
Then she takes it back? Does that mean the prophecy was wrong in the first place? Or did she change the future? That is certainly a godlike power!
(P.S. All those good old posters. Remember Xaurreaux? Minnesota? Airedale?)
06-01-06, 09:33 AM newnickname Ah, nostalgia.
It seems people were calling poor old Tsaeb 'delusional'. But then Tsaeb was calling the group under discussion at the begining of the thread 'loonies'. I guess we throw around insults about mental health without much thought.
On Sarai's last post in this thread; the idea of delusion was maybe a charitable explanation. I took Tsaeb's evocation of 9/11 and God's basso profundo more as a case of "all's fair in love, war and marketing self-published books".
Who says that a prophet must be 100% accurate? A quick look at prophets through history certainly doesn't show that. The only way prophets can claim to be accurate is to be as vague and obscure as they can get away with - or to be ready with plenty of "Ah, what I really mean..." excuses.
Tsaeb, could you demonstrate how 'God can be detected by physical evidence. Unfortunately, the powers that be are more hell-bent on detecting mental illness in those who hold this view.' is 100% accurate?
06-01-06, 09:09 PM Sarai Sorry, I'm a bit bored and have been searching for the thread where Tsaeb described her first experience of hearing God (hmm. I think I need to get a life. Well, that's another thread! Smile) Anyhow, I haven't found it, but I did come across this old thread about hearing voices from God, started by Tsaeb. She writes:
quote:
Is there any validity in the following reasoning? Assume for the sake of discussion that all unnatural voices heard do come from either God or an angel. Well, then, without being told this, it seems reasonable that most folks who then hear unnatural voices would be quite "disturbed" by them--they would exhibit symptoms of mental disorders. So the solution to these reactions to voices manifesting as mental disorders seems to be to explain to these hearers that they are only hearing the voices of spiritual beings who are able to communicate to them other than naturally, or spiritually. If the world's people were taught to react to spiritual beings in a spiritual way, which is to say, by thinking right back at them even back and forth with them, then wouldn't the incidences of mental illnesses reliant on improper reactions to unnatural voices necessarily decline?
Anyway, where is the validity in claiming in the first place that all unnatural voices are hallucinatory? Unfortunately, psychiatry is not any time soon going to test the hypothesis that even after having reacted in panic to the unnatural voices, patients can still be told that the unnatural voices are those of spiritual beings who require communication by mental telepathy (simple thought back and forth) so that patients may live at peace with their new spiritual friends. Patients could tell the spiritual beings to either go away or rarely bother the patients. In the Bible, it is written that spirits are subject to you. The trouble with some societies is that they teach that privacy is an across the board right, despite the powers of spiritual beings to intrude in such privacy. P.S. I did not intend to sound nuts, only avant garde. After all, what would happen if everyone suddenly started hearing unnatural voices?
Interesting take on it.
06-01-06, 10:20 PM newnickname
quote: Unfortunately, psychiatry is not any time soon going to test the hypothesis that even after having reacted in panic to the unnatural voices, patients can still be told that the unnatural voices are those of spiritual beings who require communication by mental telepathy (simple thought back and forth) so that patients may live at peace with their new spiritual friends.
I'm sure this general idea has been put forward by others, too. It shows a lack of experience of mental illness. The typical sequence is not one of hearing voices, followed by a reaction. The voices are often a symptom that appear as the illness progresses. It is also, of course, entirely possible to have schizophrenia without any auditory hallucinations.
Furthermore, as has been pointed out several times, the nature of the voices is often enough to rule out their being "spiritual friends". They can be bizarre, belittling, threatening or they can advocate violent acts. If that's the kind of thing that the divinity has to say to us, we're definitely better off ignoring him/it/her.
Some people can live with their voices - but not by imagining that they are from God:
'This view may sound radical, but is based on sound research involving questionnaires and interviews conducted with many voice hearers, both within and outside of psychiatry. What was found, was most surprising, voice hearers cope with their voices (or conversely don't), not because of the content of the voice experience (which can be either abusive and devaluing or guiding and inspiring - or both) but because of the nature of the relationship with the voices. Bottom line, this means that if you believe the voices to be in control you can't cope - if you believe you are stronger then the voices are, you can.
As a result of these findings it is no longer a sustainable position to think of voices as part of a disease syndrome, such as schizophrenia. Instead hearing voices can be regarded as a meaningful, real (although sometimes painful, fearful and overwhelming) event, that speak to the person in a metaphorical way about their lives, emotions and environment. For instance, people experiencing distress as a consequence of abusive or commanding voices can often recognise their voices as those of their actual abusers and the voices have the effect of attacking their sense of self esteem and worth.
Having discovered these kinds of relationships psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK and the Netherlands are developing techniques to assist voice hearers focus on their experience and get to know their voices better. The new approach requires the voice hearer to make space for the voices, to listen but not to necessarily follow, to engage, but in their own time and space - essentially to learn how to control them in their own terms, according to their own beliefs and explanatory framework. This acceptance of the voices is crucial to growth and resolution, voice hearers who have learnt these techniques can now say "I hear voices, they are part of me and I am glad they are..."
...Perspectives which discourage voice hearers from seeking mastery of the voices tend to yield the least positive results.
In the process of developing your own point of view and taking responsibility for oneself, the essential first step is acceptance of the voices as belonging to me. This is one of the most important and difficult steps to take.
Voices can express what the voice hearers are feeling or thinking, for instance aggression or fear about an event or relationship. When voices offer information in this way, the challenge posed by their presence is less significant then the reason for the feeling. When the voices express such views, it can be valuable to discuss the messages with some one you trust, this can often be a friend, a nursing staff member etc.
When you hear voices that are malicious it is difficult to accept the existence of a positive, helpful dimension to the experience. Contact with other voice hearers can lead to the discovery that positive voices exist, and the realisation that these can be detected, as a result of acceptance of your negative feelings. Imposing a structure on the relationship with the voices helps minimise feelings of powerlessness. It is valuable to see that you can set your own limits and restrain the voices from excessive intrusion on your life.'mentalhealth.org.uk
The site also questions the link between 'voices' and mental health diagnosis - 'are voices a symptom of illness or a variety of human experience?
06-01-06, 10:31 PM babthrower I think tsaeb has a kind of authentic quality. In one of her alternate lives, I can see her crossing the plains, headed west in a covered wagon -- on which she hitched a ride, of course, based on dubious (but moral) presentations. I tease her about her blatant sexuality, but of course I perceive her as quite reserved and conventional.
Of course she drives me nuts. But that's neither here nor there, and has nothing to do with her validity as a person -- or as a prophet, for that matter.
There was an old saying - "Handsome is as handsome does" -- and of course it meant that you may rave about someone's physical attractiveness, but it is what they do that determines their worth. Similarly, Tsaeb may have lots of fun in her prophet persona, but -- what has she foretold?
Oh. Sorry. Dumb me. Of course. I gotta buy the book.
But no thanks. I saw the website, I read the posts, I bought the T-shirt. 'Nuff.
06-01-06, 11:16 PM babthrower
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: The site also questions the link between 'voices' and mental health diagnosis - 'are voices a symptom of illness or a variety of human experience?
In Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman's autobiography Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman he tells of hearing a voice just as he was dropping off to sleep one night, it was a teacher's voice; and later in connectioon with his enlistment, two military types ask a standard question: "Have you ever heard voices?" He answered, honestly, "Well, yes. I was just dropping off to sleep. Teller's voice said ..." He was classified 4F.
06-02-06, 12:02 AM newnickname It should go without saying that mental health is a continuum. We can all, surely, recognise times when we could identify (at least hints of) traits of depression, mania or obsessive-compulsive disorder in ourselves. I thought the website was pushing that idea a bit with auditory hallucinations, but Feynman's example is a good one.
06-02-06, 02:09 AM tsaeb babthrower: It was not a true prophecy the way that a true prophecy should be written, because it did not come from God, but I made it up out of my own self. Shucks, I was being bad. However, I then took back the words, and explained this misdeed as follows.
"Now, I, too, am looking for what I won't like. Oh, well, I will just have to reverse that prophecy, if it be God's will. God? He said, "Yeah, she doesn't need your stupid words against her."
The coast is clear. If something does come here which we do not like, it isn't my fault.
God also said, "Great job, tsaeb!" He likes it when stupid prophecies are reversed. He likes it even better when I consult Him first."
Nevertheless, the prophecy was true. So you must be wondering what nasty thing of which you would not be aware would inevitably happen. Big Grin How did I put it? I wrote it as follows.
"It is true that what goes around comes around, and what is coming to this forum, I am certain you especially will not like. That is a true prophecy. I have patience, and lest you miss to what I refer, you have my pledge that I will be sure to be self-absorbed and point it out to you in due time."
Notice 1) "what goes around comes around," 2) "you especially will not like," and 3) "I will be sure to be self-absorbed and point it out to you in due time." Oh, well, although I do not prefer to do unto cruel others as they do unto me, it must have been God's will that you be used to choke on your own words. Therefore, I confess that shortly before you started your second condemnation of my publishing company, I wrote to the admin here and warned that your postings had to be watched, because you were acting "not up to par." Roll Eyes Hence admin was right on your latest viciousness, although you seem to imply in this thread that you get impatient with me. More importantly, this website and all associated with it averted a lot of grief.
Well, at least I can boast that I have a very exciting life, and some of you have admitted that you need to get a life. Maybe I should pray that God talk to you. Then, we can determine your level of coping afterwards.
Also, for the umpteenth time, prophecy is not predicting. If you were not so haughty in your wicked imaginations regarding what is reality, you would have continued to read the material on my website and learned that prophecy requires a vision, or mental image, to which other spiritual gifts are applied so that we can arrive at truths many of which are unobtainable by other means. I can see that you prefer darkness (ignorance) instead of light (knowledge) lest you arrive at these truths.
On a lighter note, I am happy to learn from newnickname that some are taking what seems to be a more successful approach to individuals who hear voices.
06-02-06, 02:26 AM tsaeb Sarai: It serves you right that you should go around like a bored cat chasing its tail, trying to find one of my posts on discernment of spirits. However, being merciful and not getting any jollies out of your frustration, I want you to know that the post which you seek is on TruthSeekerHaven. Big Grin
06-02-06, 02:33 AM tsaeb
newnickname: I am quite avant garde myself. Following is a post of mine from "The Unexplained."
"Behavior in the Presence
Rule #1: Respect the entity, but try to do so as though the entity were a known relative or friend. The entity may want to establish a relationship.
Rule #2: Don't start shouting that some devil should get lost, because you will be succeeding only in making a fool of yourself.
Rule #3: Give the entity a name, and use it. The entity may relate its reason for contact without being badgered with the usual "What do you want?" If the entity takes offense to the name, change the name."
Elexina was ROFL, but I was serious, and I did not tell her so. P.S. When Daniel was in the lion's den, he was hearing his own named spiritual entities, wasn't he?
06-02-06, 06:12 AM babthrower Wow, Jehovah reads AP! Hope he doesn't take offense that I have more than once said that if he existed, we would have to call him a vicious psychopath, based on his behavior.
Actually Zeus has more to be upset about. I once said he'd be locked up if he were a real guy.
But on the other hand, I seldom worry about the opinions of imaginary beings. As my daddy said when I asked him if he was afraid of ghosts, "Don't worry about dead people. It's the ones that are still alive that you gotta watch out for."
In a private conversation, which is only anecdotal evidence so we are not obliged to take it as gospel, Razz you say:
quote: God also said, "Great job, Tsaeb!"
God better watch it. He's showing the early signs of Alzheimer's if he calls making a false prophecy a 'great job'. Either it's a lie or a mistake.
As you have already said, Tsaeb,
quote: Y'all are forgetting that a prophet/prophetess must be 100% accurate.
Maybe we're not the only ones that forgot that point. Big Grin
06-02-06, 09:42 AM newnickname I forgot the prophets' other all-purpose get-out; "Oh, that one wasn't a prophecy, that was just me..."
Tsaeb is right in saying that prophecy doesn't have to mean forecasting the future; m-w.com tells us it's "the the inspired declaration of divine will and purpose". We've yet to see any real evidence of that from any of our self-declared prophets either, though.
Tsaeb - the approach to coping with voices mentioned on the www.mentalhealth.org.uk page is the opposite of anything you've said. The principles there are to take it that the voices are part of oneself, created by oneself, and that the hearer is more powerful than the voices. Thinking it's God talking, or that these are independent entities, doesn't seem likely to help, in most cases.
I take it that "...unfortunately, the powers that be are more hell-bent on detecting mental illness in those who hold this view" was not an ex cathedra statement and not, therefore, bound to be 100% accurate.
The insistence on 100% accuracy seems to be what ties many of the religious in knots. For example, the contradictions in Hoss's thread are only a problem for those who see the Bible as inerrant. Assigning infallibility to religious statements is ridiculous - it's as if we weren't allowed to contradict or build on what Newton said in science. Maybe (getting back to the original post again) that's also part of what Russell meant about having no respect for authoriy.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 6413 | Location: British Columbia, Canada | Registered: 06-11-02
AnswerPool.com 
