Rick Froman answers his own question in #1. Even though evangelicals hold to
inerrancy, they interpret the inerrant Bible differently leading to
disagreement. Reading between the llines, I got the idea that Froman thought
I agreed with Biblical autnority which I do not, since I am a materialist.
In answer to #2. much of this area has already been covered. Psychological
theory holds that homosexuality is the result of a complex interaction
between genetics, hormonal influences during gestation and experience, just
as is virtually every other aspect of human behavior and is, hence, normal.
Psycholgocial theory also assumes that physical punishment of children
should be avoided, whereas the Bible adjures: Spare the rod and spoil the
child. Psychological theory does not recognize spiritual intervention in
such human problems as depression, anxiety etc. While belief in a
supernatural power may be comforting to those who need it, and may even aid
in the recovery of those people, it is the belief that affectuates change.
Most psychological do not hold to the idea that the man is the head of the
household and the woman should be subservient. (I don't need rants about
what this "means", I have heard them all and none are convincing)
>From: Rick Froman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: question for all of you
>Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 09:42:38 -0600
>
>H
>
>"A counselor who accepts the Bible as the final authority and who
>encounters
>
>a situation in which psychological theory is in conflict which the Bible,
>must rely on "authority". Unfortunately, Biblical authority often conflicts
>with psychological theory hence the these discussions."
>
>I would make two points: 1) if the Bible is so unambiguous as to be the
>authority that Harry describes, how have Christians ended up with the
>number
>of denominations they have today? To see the authority of an inerrant
>scripture as being simply going to the Bible to find out what it says about
>something and then telling the client to do that, ignores the fact that the
>teachings in the Bible are very complex and not easily reducible to the
>jargon of the fundamentalists whether they be Christians or atheists. But
>so
>is life. If life had been boiled down to a few platitudes, there would
>certainly be no need for counselors. Even if you believe in the authority
>of
>the Bible, understanding of the scripture will still require thought and
>discernment and often people of good will end up on opposite sides of many
>issues. I wonder if that means that what they each believe is true for them
>or if it indicates that one or both of them must be wrong?
>
>2) What are some examples of where biblical authority conflicts with any
>psychological theory worthy of the name theory (in other words, a
>psychological theory grounded in empirical data)? If there are any, of
>course, they are cases where one person's reading of the Bible (which could
>be mistaken) disagrees with some aspect of a psychological theory (which
>may
>be based on no research or research that is methodologically flawed or not
>replicable). In any case, I am always interested in hearing of specific
>instances where someone believes that a psychological finding is in
>conflict
>with the Bible. It usually turns out to be something that has somehow come
>to be connected with psychology (thank you Sigmund Freud) that has no basis
>in empirical, psychological research.
>
>Rick
>
>Dr. Richard L. Froman
>Psychology Department
>John Brown University
>Siloam Springs, AR 72761
>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych/froman.htm
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
