Contents:

Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So

No need to prove it to yourself,or even demand science prove it,if science merely can say so and explain that "evidence" in a manner in which it could but never that it did,it must be true. So let's change the world around us to coincide,correlate,support, such science,and disregard,even argue against anything that doesn't. Even if it's the infallible word of God. The human mind has been around with its current capacity to think and plan for about , years or more. If it takes 1, years to make a civilization, then 20 civilizations could have risen and fallen in succession.

That does not even count parallel civilizations. So, Humanity goes back about , years. The Ancient writings tell a story of a group of War Lords trying to rebuild civilization after a catastrophe. For evidence of ancient civilizations, see monolithic structures such as Baalbek Lebanon and the ancient city of Dwarka.

They weren't the ones editing the book together. That was done way later by people who weren't dumb, but who were certainly ignorant. They weren't dumb enough to make the same mistake but they are dumb enough to record them in the same book, change three words around and pretend it's not the same person. High or exalted father. Abraham, father of multitudes. Given to Abram after 25 years of loyal and faithful service. You and the secular world say these are retellings, but I dont buy it.

The mistakes Israel made right in Gods face were also ridiculous, taking from his example more times than makes sense, but truth is often stranger than fiction. As for the desendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, Erech is very likely Uruk. In fact Uruk was the first Sumerian city after the flood, and Genesis says Nimrod established Erech right after the biblical flood. I don't personally think Nimrod and Gilgamesh were one and the same primarily because Gilgamesh went to visit the "Sumerian Noah" in the Gigamesh story.

If they were one and the same then Gilgamesh would have been visiting his great grandfather. He visited him to find out the secret to not dying and living such a long life. But yes, I think Nimrod was himself seen as a god by the humans that populated the region. All of them carrying with them the same stories of a flood. All of them the god-like beings in the ancient histories and fuzzy memories of these cultures. While the quote was found on Wikipedia, it was a direct quote from the Jewish Dictionary.

The mistakes of the Jewish people were not limited to just them. These are the free willed humans the stories focused on, but the same would have been the case for any human. You included, I assure you. It's simply illustrating how free willed humans are out of God's control no matter what He does. With free will God introduced an element into the world that's not under His control, by design. That is what they were and what we are. This is the central theme. When God tested Abraham it was the same thing. Would his own personal will override God's will, or would he choose God's will even if it was something he very much did not want.

This is why He bred from Abraham the line that ultimately brought about Jesus. God actually worked with an element not under His control to create Jesus. And I never said the bible is just a book filled with a few nuggets. These are actual accounts of the God of this universe interacting with mortal humans. These texts and the information in them are priceless. My pointing out that it's man made is not to diminish it in any way. Just to realize the importance of not interpreting it as a fault-free word of God Himself. To recognize it for what it really is to aid in studying it. To better understand it and what it's saying.

And no, it really doesn't work. The first two times it was Abram, then Abraham. The third time it was Isaac. All three with a Pharoah in Egypt. The same Pharoah in the second and third. This is the same story. Yes, history has as tendency to repeat itself, but this is just ridiculous. The Jewish culture is a story telling culture. Word of mouth tales were all the rage. This was one of those. Very popular and recorded multiple times. Multiple variations as it changed over the years. Going back to the descendents of Adam being mistaken for gods, any thoughts on the belief Gilgamesh could have also been Nimrod, which means "rebel", great grandson of Noah from the bible?

The city of Kish, and Nimrods grandfather Cush, seem likely to be related. Erech is very likely to be Uruk as well. There are several other similarities as well. You make it seem like these supposed conflicting incidents you keep bringing up, this one massive glaring contradiction spanning 3 well separated chapters of Genesis, are just rehashing the same story.

These aren't just two random dudes who lived decades or even years apart. Abraham and Isaac respectively, are father and son. Time flows like a river and depressingly history repeats itself. You could be right. I could be wrong.

Like Plato credited to Socrates, I don't claim to know more than I know. But I do have faith. I suppose all we can do is respectively agree to disagree. Its hard to take your critiques when you try to validate yourself through secular and unreliable sources like wikipedia. Thats even worse than trying to get me to believe what some atheist with a bunch of degrees on the history channel has to say. My impression of people is that they are people.

I respect Abraham but have no allusions about his mistakes during his early years. You must not have paid attention to the Tenakh? The Hebrews made the same mistakes over and over and over and over. And yes, Abram was scared and its obvious, a trait his son also carries.

You know, like father like son? He did great things but not until later in life. In fact, in the desert every five minutes they went back to worshiping Baal whenever Moses' back was turned. Do I seriously have to give a bunch of verses about the Israelites doing the same shady stuff over and over again?

God let them be enslaved and dispersed constantly due to their really dumb mistakes. I have face palmed several times reading the Old Testament wondering how they are so hard headed. Which version full of geniuses have you been reading? They are so consistently wicked that in 2nd Kings God finally lets 10 of their 12 tribes disappear for several thousand years or forever if you dont adhere to Revelations and ends their winning streak until just a few decades ago. And I don't kind of make it work as that would mean it also kind of doesn't work.

These aren't philosophical fictionalized history stories meant to have a moral at the end. If anything, this is God proving that people are weak and shady and helpless and no one is righteous without him; yet for all of this he is always faithful to keep his word in the long run.

It's the paraphrased playbook He uses to grow closer to his sinful creation. See, this is the danger in treating the bible as God's infallible will I feel. You've rationalized a whole explanation around it to kind of "make it work". And in doing so you've deemed some characters chicken shits and whatnot. It's completely altered the impression you have of these characters. It changes the whole story. But it is not very probable that Abraham would have run the risk twice. Moreover, a similar incident is reported in regard to Isaac and Rebecca Genesis This recurrence indicates that none of the accounts is to be accepted as historical; all three are variations of a theme common to the popular oral histories of the Patriarchs.

That women were married in the way here supposed is not to be doubted. The purpose of the story is to extol the heroines as most beautiful and show that the Patriarchs were under the special protection of the Deity. Even those closest to the culture and the language don't take it as historical. These texts committed to tablet, were popular stories. I'm sure it was a popular story to tell. It's got all of that good stuff that people want to hear. A punished man of power who's oppressing the hero.

The hero going off into the sunset having been protected by a powerful God. The wife is exquisitely beautiful to the point that no man can resist. Yes, you're exactly right. Part of understanding context is understanding each story for what it really is. As for the hangup I have about the mysteries in the bible and the research is that I don't see God as being coy about what's happening.

Like it's some puzzle we have to figure out. Or to feel better about ourselves because we feel God has in some way deemed us worthy and has revealed something to us in some way.

Like your comments about David and Abraham and Moses. These men lived long, full lives. There's a reason why these stories only really focus in on their not so proud moments. If you edited together a brief story of my life with nothing but the less attractive moments end to end then I definitely would not come off well. But that's the theme of these stories. Humans have free will and constantly do their own thing. They can't be controlled.

You can do miracles right in front of them. Feed them mana from heaven. Strike them down in front of one another. Free them from slavery. They won't follow God's will. Free will is the theme of the story and illustrating how it affected these people is the whole point of the story being told. It's considered everything for a reason.

Without it the bible makes no sense. Abraham was a chickenshit. The Pharoah and Abimalech, ruler of Gerar are two different rulers he thinks will kill him because of Sarah. The Hebrew are the scum of the earth who backslide and forget god at the drop of a hat in spite of seeing more miracles than any other people. Isaac inherits his fathers fear and penchant for lies and repeats the same mistake of his father out of fear for his life.

Yet god shows that his power through grace is manifest in even the weakest and undeserving of people. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. It seems like a retelling with different names, but it isn't, Abram just had bad habits which he made up for in his older age and passed onto his son. Remember even Moses, though he did great things, was wrathful, cowardly, and a killer. David even murdered a man by sending him as cannon fodder so he would die and David could take his wife.

Wife stealing via murdering the husband was apparently a very common practice back then. The Hebrews made dumb mistakes over and over and over and over again like clockwork. And I dont see how God having mysteries such as when God tells Daniel and John not to talk about parts of what he showed them makes invalid that the bible requires intensive research to understand what appear to be inconsistency left and right. There's a big difference between the wife-sister narratives of Genesis and the gospels.

The gospels are four different points of view of similar periods of time in Jesus' life. The wife-sister narratives are the same story told with different characters in each role. If we're to believe all three actually happened then this same series of events happened to Abraham twice and the same Pharaoh twice. The much more likely explanation is that the story was told over and over throughout the ages, and like with many stories like this, the names are interchanged to maybe make them more relevant and familiar to whoever the audience is.

They were then edited into the narrative as though they happened during the course of these men's lives. I definitely don't think ancient people were dumb. These texts as you and I read them weren't edited together as they are now back then. These decisions were made by men centuries later. Genesis, for example, was cobbled together from at least four different sources. Here you first said that there are scriptures and mysteries hidden from us. Then you say the bible often reiterates things so research can be properly performed.

Just as you have here, I'm considering the conditions of the creation of the Bible and am considering those things in an attempt to further my study. The reason why I focused exclusively on the beginning of Genesis is because it's the oldest of all of them. Those first 11 chapters come from the oldest tablets. Multiple versions even back then, edited together. This editing together made possible by the fact that these four sources were so similar in context.

I incorporated the original Hebrew in every way I know how. I tested each piece of my theory and corroborated it word by word with the Hebrew version to see if I could find the Hebrew conflicting. I tried to break it. For the flawed thing that the new Testament is, I blame Constantine, murderous, boiling his wife alive after "converting to christianity" monster that he was for hurrying Nicea into dictating what was or wasn't truth due to all the theological arguments undermining his rule.

Issue 2 is mistranslation. Sentence structure, idioms, stylistic differences, context, etc.

Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So

Sentences can have different meaning depending on where the spaces are placed. Unfortunately the King James Version everyone loves with its thee and thou, completed in was not a translation of original Greek. They used Latin manuscripts translated from Greek. They compared Latin translations with the earlier Greek, found what they thought to be errors and decided that the later Latin version was right and earlier Greek manuscripts wrong even though they made those errors by translating it from Greek to Latin in the first place.

Silly, hard headed, egotistical stuff. One must seek in order to find and do our own research which is what the Boreans were credited for, which is another reason the road to eternity is narrow and few find it. I also challenge you to bring me these supposed mistakes you say the bible is full of. I am not a perfect theologian but perhaps I can clarify some issues many mistake as obvious biblical errors as I like to think apologetics are my specialty. I will happily admit when I am stumped. We have mysteries hidden from us.

The book of daniel proclaims it. There are then, according to this, likely scriptures that are deliberately kept from us or destroyed. Also those chapters are not mistaken retellings just like Matthew through John are not faulty retellings, but tellings of diffetent events through the eyes of of different witnesses of Jesus' life.

The bible reiterates itself often, on purpose, so that research may be properly performed. Ancient people aren't as dumb as you might think they were that they wouldn't correct such hilariously glaring problems in their fake biblical history. Miracles make any attempt at complete scientific or historical evaluation utterly impossible. God confounds the minds of the 'wise' for a reason. It's why many hardcore Muslims will roll their eyes at you if you try to use anything other than a proper text in the proper parent language to debate them. Also Revelations and Daniel state there are prophecies and assorted knowledge that will come to light when it is Gods will for it to.

English and other language translations are not inspired by God and it was never my intention to defend them as their flaws are often laughably obvious. King James for instance even wrote about what was thought to be the proper witchcraft of the day. The original texts themselves are what is infallible inspired Word. I don't defend anything but original Hebrew and Greek. And the only writing from God proper is of course the ten commandments themselves.

No overriding of free will is necessary to inspire people who want to know and write the truth. Trust me, in those days it wouldn't be hard at all for God to easily convince a willing scribe or an already existing prophet to write what He tells them. He wouldn't have had to make the assertion that people will be cursed if they tamper with the words and prophecies of the bible if humans are incapable of said tampering. Those who created false books or translated wrong have had or will have their just rewards.

The only things that are without question are how to obey gods laws and obtain life in the world to come. The rest is mostly fluff and flavor. My apologies for not expounding on this earlier. I agree with you. I also enjoyed reading the article. It brought to mind more questions and ideas. You - "It wasn't until the 60s that schools taught the universe had a beginning. Thanks to Hubble, "Let there be light" is now current science fact. And think of how much more we know now than then. More of the bible can be shown to be scientifically accurate. You - "If the bible is man made and god had nothing to do with keeping it intact, then none of its contents is anything but bullshit.

The texts of the bible are recorded events in human history when this God interacted with humanity. But for the words of the bible to be God's word He would have had to override a human's free will to act through that person. It's often said the writers of the bible were 'inspired' by God. If so it's still their words and created by their hands.

You - "To believe otherwise and cherry pick what parts of religions you want to accept is delusional. This is why it was deemed by religions to be the infallible word of God. So you can't argue what it says. It was established as 'perfect'. What you and I have on our bookshelves have been through numerous changes. There are hundreds of different translations of the same text. I've got one bible that says the "sons of God" in the book of Job. Another that says "Angels". One of them calls the beings in Gen6 the "Nephilim". The other says "Giants".

There are some bibles that have books included that aren't in others. It's not possible that these can be the "word of God". Not to mention the mistakes. It's clear these are duplications of the same story, just written with different characters three different times. If this was God's infallible word, that wouldn't happen. The Word does not.

It wasnt until the 60s that schools taught the universe had a beginning. If the bible is man made and god had nothing to do with keeping it intact, then none of its contents is anything but bullshit. To believe otherwise and cherry pick what parts of religions you want to accept is delusional. This entire discourse is a waste of time as the longer you live, the more proof of god comes to light. The god of this world will advent soon, the prince of the power of the air through technology will speed up prophecied events, and all will know truth in short order.

These are not God's words. God didn't write this. The bible is man made. But the people who did write these words, who told these stories, they actually walked and talked with God. The creation account they give is what they were told. It's an account of the Earth's creation told in a perspective humans can understand. From a surface of the Earth perspective. And when seen that way it lines up exactly with what science says happened in Earth's history.

The darkness was because of a dense cloud cover over the Earth before the land and atmosphere existed. The light was light coming through that dense atmosphere. The early Earth could certainly be described as "without form and void". It all lines up. Genesis does say there were humans before Adam and Eve. They were the first of God's creation able to behave of their own will. The humans created in Gen1 were told to "be fruitful and multiply" and to "fill the Earth" and to establish dominance in the animal kingdom.

Then God deemed all of creation "good". Humans before them carried out God's commands though it took numerous generations. Science shows that humans did exactly as God commanded. Would they even be able to carry out God's commands? I agree with you about faith. If it could be proven then faith would not be required. Someone centuries later proving it would undermine all of those who believed through faith without physical confirmation.

Personally I think it's about calibrating us. Training us to look within to find our connection to God. To not depend on our senses and scan the outside world for proof. When it's by faith, it's a choice. We choose by free will. If there were proof it would no longer be a choice. I think you may find this interesting. Of course, some speculation but much scripture to back up the theory. I don't know that there's any harm in speculation. That's between the speculator and God.

When I read Genesis, 1: Creation isn't without purpose; an accident is. There is no telling of the time it was created. That is not relevant so God left that part out. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. I think there is a great catastrophy between 1: Man went to the Moon only to find out it is a wasteland. How did it get like that? I think that's what Earth was like.

The darkness is the absence of God. What do you get without God? What does the Bible tell us about Satan? He fell from heaven. Where did he go when he fell? The Earth was without form and void. Then God moved and made it a habitable place for man. Apparently, there was some creature on Earth before Adam, before the spirit of God moved. But God has not given us all the details. The spirit of God moved and recreated. Then in the next verses you have the six days of renovation of the Earth.

He used the matter that already existed and recreated. I have faith that when God says six days, that's what me and you refer to as six days. He created light and separated it from the darkness. Called the light day and the dark night. He created the first 24 hour day. God separated the waters. Some above and some below. Then he separated the waters from the land. Then he prepared the ground for man. Who is to say that God didn't create a hydraulic chamber with the water above? Whose to say God couldn't unseparate and reseparate the waters horizontally and vertically when he pleased or during Noah.

As for Adam, he created, not recreated, man.

Please enable Javascript to view this site..
A Square of Daffodils, Capitalism, and Why Children Dont Learn: The Story of Building a Wonderful, L.
Quantum Attitude: The System Of Applying The Law Of Attraction!
Fried Lambs’ Brains.
The Ethics Toolkit: A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods (Wiley Desktop Editions).
Eat, Little Bird.

Gave him consciousness and free will. Was he the only man God ever made? God doesn't tell us. He only gives us enough details to have faith. The fall of all humans happened when Eve and Adam ate the forbidden fruit. God covered all their needs, gave them power and they didn't have to do anything.

All the food was there they just had to gather it and not eat of the forbidden.

The Brain Creates Religion

They sinned and then they were required to work for their food. Then they had to sacrifice innocent blood in order to be in the presence of God. To cover their sins with killing an innocent animal and offering to God. If other people were on the Earth when God made Adam, were they sinners or did they have the same power as Adam?

Was Eve the first? The author's purpose, God's purpose, in the old testament is to tell us who created, what he created, why he created and how we were separated from him and that the solution would come in the new testament. In six days God turned an inhabitable place for man into a habitable. I am inclined to believe when he says replenish he means there is no other human. Replenish also indicates that something has been there before but not during their time. God uses the word replenish again with Noah. Every human was wiped from the face of the Earth and Noah was to repopulate the Earth.

Does it matter if every drop of water covered the land? There are many things we cannot explain about God, his power, his miracles. How do we scientifically prove the virgin birth, the resurrection or even where we were when God created all of this? We can speculate all we want, we may have evidence to support our hypothesis, overwhelming evidence, but the truth of the matter is that you can explain away any detail you want but God is the only one that knows.

God wants us to believe with faith. He already knew the intellectual man would be interested in his book and want to bridge the gap between human and biblical knowledge. Or separate it further. That we are a curious people and like to have all the answers. If someone tells you they love you, there may or may not be any evidence to support their claim. If there is evidence, correlation does not equal causation. You cannot know for sure that what they say is true. There isn't a test they can do on the brain to tell you that. You either blindly believe or not.

I think God knew there wouldn't be a man on Earth that could prove that anything happened the way that it did. That in all eternity we could not scientifically prove a thing. He wants us to believe without all the answers and without any proof. I don't want to confuse anyone. I'm only speculating the unknown. It's better to stick to the facts that save. Virgin born, innocent sinless Jesus, died as a sacrifice for our sins and rose again. He's sitting at the right hand of God waiting for us to recieve him and the forgiveness of our sins.

He will return one day and save us from judgment. No one reads a book only to focus on the introduction. In my opinion, the middle is one of the best parts of a book and the end is the very best. My desire isn't to prove the existence of God or to 'win souls'. I'm pointing out the obvious truth. God and "evolution" are not two opposing sides. As Mother Jones magazine put it, Schonfeld seemed "yet another person who owed a nearly miraculous recovery to the new generation of antidepressants.

Schonfeld had been in the control group. She was taking a sugar pill-in the research lingo, a placebo. Her recovery, the doctor hastened to assure her, was entirely genuine. But the only drug she had received was an immaterial and immortal substance- hope. Schonfeld's main challenge, given that she lived in a materialist environment, was to accept the evidence of her own experience-that a recovery based on her inner resources is real-rather than the urgent cultural messages that only a brain-bending drug could really help her.

The NICE review data suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors do not have a clinically meaningful advantage over placebo , which is consistent with other recent meta-analyses. In addition, methodological artefacts may account for the small effect seen. Evidence that antidepressants are more effective in more severe conditions is not strong, and data on long term outcome of depression and suicide do not provide convincing evidence of benefit. In children, the balance of benefits to risks is now recognised as unfavourable. We suggest this may also be the case for adults, given the continuing uncertainty about the possible risk of increased suicidality as well as other known adverse effects.

This conclusion implies the need for a thorough re-evaluation of current approaches to depression and further development of alternatives to drug treatment. Since antidepressants have become society's main response to distress, expectations raised by decades of their use will also need to be addressed. Studies show that at least 80 percent of the antidepressant effect is a placebo effect —the positive response that people have to any treatment that they hope or think will work. But the remaining 20 percent of the positive result may be caused by the " active placebo " effect—which is related to the fact that the antidepressants, unlike placebos, have noticeable side effects that convince the subjects that they are getting "strong" or "real" medicine.

The answer is important because the current generation of antidepressants often performs barely better than placebos, as we shall see. In other words, if a patient can effectively self-heal by learning, through focused therapy, how to recruit existing inner resources, antidepressants can be targeted to specific, focused needs.

Similarly, in clinical drug trials, forty percent or more of patients with anxiety or depression commonly feel better when given a sugar pill that they are told will be helpful to them. If the conditions are right—that is, if the patients have a lot of faith in what they are being given—a sugar pill may produce emotional improvement in 60 to 90 percent of patients.

This is the placebo effect—improvement that comes from a positive expectation or faith in the drug or the doctor rather than from any chemical impact of the substance. The placebo effect can be helpful. The placebo effect also explains much of the effectiveness of psychiatric drugs. However, when an individual attributes improvement to the physical characteristics of a pill, and to the expectation that it will work, that person's belief in his or her own psychological or spiritual power can be undermined. This experience can encourage reliance on the pill rather than on personal efforts.

This produced, for instance, an explosion in the use of gabapentin Neurontin in the late 's, fueled, it appears, by a series of ghostwritten articles, planted in a series of journals by the drug's manufacturer, Warner Lambert, that suggested gabapentin would be effective for mood disorders. The bubble was punctured when a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that gabapentin had little if any mood-stabilizing property. Making it look effective required selecting from among the studies and then doctoring them statistically to include patients who had also been treated with tranquilizers.

Prozac is now marketed as a generic drug and has lost popularity to other SSRIs. Predictably, interest in its effects and history has faded—which allows many of the errors and deceptions in its approval and marketing to be repeated with impunity for the drugs that follow. Its treatments have been empiric and serendipitously discovered, not rationally understood. Moreover, the treatments are partial, in that psychosis is the treatment-responsive symptom domain, whereas cognition and negative symptoms respond minimally.

The hope that other new antipsychotics with fewer metabolic side effects might offer a similar effect was not fulfilled. Some have pointed out that older drugs like perphenazine, with their lower costs, may now once again become rational first-line therapies. The memory of patients with tardive dyskinesia still haunts many clinicians, however. This study strongly confirms what we have seen before, that clozapine is our most effective drug for schizophrenic psychosis. It is only clozapine that is superior, although its side effects are clearly challenging. Tamminga, American Journal of Psychiatry First , the negative nocebo psychological effect of knowing ahead of time that there will be drug withdrawal pains, making them psychosomatically worse than they actually are.

Second , the actual physical pains of drug withdrawal. When a stimulant for depression is removed from the brain, it sends the person into a natural depression because the brain had been trying depress mental activity in response to the unnatural stimulating effect of the drug. When you take an anti-anxiety drug, it is like applying the brakes to the car, which means you must press the gas petal at the same time to keep the car moving at the same speed.

Was Adam the First Human?.
The Mythology of the First Civilization;
The Nasty Bits: Deep-Frying Brains | Serious Eats.
.

All this convinces the person that they need the drug to remove their depression and they are insane because of a chemical imbalance in the brain. Of course when they start taking the drug again, the withdrawal pains instantly go away ask any junkie and the brain is artificially stimulated once again, bringing it up to normal equilibrium levels.

For a full discussion of the nocebo and placebo effect, click here. A junkie is a junkie, even when your doctor's prescribe the drugs. If you have been taking psychiatric drugs for more than 30 days, you are a junkie, and like all junkies, you will suffer greatly when you stop taking your meds. In the psychiatric literature, this phenomenon is usually referred to as a "relapse. This reawakening can lead to feelings of panic in people who do not realize the extent to which their hearing, touch, taste, or sensations of cold and heat can become unexpectedly acute after having been desensitized or anesthetized for long periods.

Patients having been diagnosed with "chemical imbalances" despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and that there is no real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like. Patients with years of medication trials which have done nothing except reify in them an identity as a chronic patient with a bad brain.

This identification as a biologically-impaired patient is one of the most destructive effects of biologic psychiatry. Against Biologic Psychiatry , Dr. XIII, Issue 12 "We condone and promote the widespread overuse and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long term effects: So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary?

No, thank you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. Mosher, Psychiatrist, resignation letter from the American Psychiatric Association, "The modern medical system treats depression with anti-depression drugs which provide temporary relief but have harmful side-effects and do not remove the causes or prevent its recurrence.

The harmful side-effects include gross liver damage, hypersensitivity, insomnia, hallucinations, a confused state, convulsions, a fall in blood pressure which brings on headaches and dizziness , blurred vision, difficulty in inhaling and urine retention. The plan of action for self-treatment of depression consists of regulating the diet, exercise, scientific relaxation and meditation. However, this does not stop psychiatry from making essentially unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety disorders, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin , and that it is only a matter of time until all this is proven.

This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naive and perhaps delusional. XIII, Issue 12 "Today's dominant theory of serious" mental illnesses" posits them to be genetically determined i. A critical review of the scientific available evidence reveals no clear indication of hereditary factors, no specific biochemical abnormalities, and no associated causal neurologic lesion s.

However, a number of environmental factors have been found to be related to their cause s and course bibliography in preparation. It is also generally held that the anti-psychotic drugs are the mainstay of treatment and should, in most cases, be taken for a lifetime. In fact, the data indicate that neuroleptic drug treatment is not usually necessary especially in persons newly identified as psychotic if a proper interpersonal environment and social context is provided in alternatives to hospital care.

It also appears that has drug treatment has resulted in less favorable long-term outcomes than was the case before anti-psychotic drugs were introduced. Furthermore, anti-psychotic drug treatment is associated with the induction of irreversible brain pathology resulting in reduced intellectual and abnormal motor functioning and shortened life expectancy.

Pre-neuroleptic drug era long-term follow-up studies indicate that recovery can not only occur, but is to be expected in the majority of cases. Ergo, so called "chronicity" in "mental illness" is likely the result of its medicalization, institutionalization with its social network disruption, marginalization, discrimination and the less specific social consequences e. She then decided to see if she could get off the benzodiazepine she was taking, Klonopin, and that turned into another horrible withdrawal experience, as she suffered such severe headaches she'd be in bed by noon.

Still, she was gradually undoing her drug cocktail, and that caused her to question her bipolar diagnosis. She had first seen a therapist because she cried too much. There had been no mania—her sleeplessness and agitation hadn't arisen until after she had been placed on an antidepressant. Could she just have been a moody teenager who had some growing up to do? Newborn Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal Pregnant and taking any drugs of any kind?

More "nasty bits"

You made your baby into a junkie like you! If you are ok destroying your own body with psychiatric drugs, that is one thing. But you have no right to destroy the brain of another human that will suffer and cost the rest of us a lot of money to care for the rest of its life. All for your own selfish needs and purposes you knowingly hurt your baby to make yourself feel better with drugs. You are not even supposed to take an aspirin when you are pregnant and you are taking powerful, destructive drugs that alter brain function! It is now all about the baby, and none about you. Get used to it.

If this information triggers an attack of postpartum depression, click here. Some physicians try to reassure pregnant or nursing mothers about their baby's safety while they are taking psychiatric drugs. But there is no scientific basis for offering this reassurance in regard to any drug that affects the brain. There are many reasons not to start taking psychiatric drugs and many reasons to stop taking them once you have begun.

If you want to know what your baby is going to go through, try stopping your drugs cold turkey and see how it feels! That's what happens to your baby the moment it is born. The constant trickle of drugs your baby was consuming from your bloodstream ends at birth and instantly triggers huge and painful withdrawal symptoms.

The Nasty Bits: Deep-Frying Brains

The most common symptoms were tremor, gastrointestinal problems, an abnormal increase in muscle tone hypertonicity , sleep disturbances and high-pitched cries. None of the 60 infants without exposure to SSRIs developed the syndrome. Since insanity is not a biological problem, but a spiritual choice, insanity is never an excuse for sinful or criminal conduct. We are always fully accountable for our actions. The insanity plea " not guilty for reasons of insanity " must be abolished. A person's freewill is never violated by either "insanity", drugs or the withdrawal symptoms of drugs.

Biopsychiatrists argue that chemical imbalances induce a person to murder, rape and commit suicide through an "irresistible impulse". We reject this outright! Self-killing and the killing of others are voluntary acts for which the actor is responsible. We must distinguish between a drug's, say a barbiturate, causing sleep , and a drug's, say Thorazine, "causing" suicide. Sleep is a biological condition. Suicide is an action. To be sure, an antipsychotic drug may cause involuntary movements and tormenting inner tensions, which may "drive" some people to kill themselves, as also may the loss of loved ones, bad marriages, and stock market crashes.

Coerced drugging, as I have stated, is an evil, even if it has no biologically harmful effects. If a person ingests a drug voluntarily, he is and ought to be held responsible for his drug-influenced behavior. If a person is drugged against his will, the poisoner ought to be held responsible for the poisoned person's drug-influenced behavior.

When a patient does not take his "prescribed medication" and then kills himself or others, he blames the patient's behavior on "untreated mental illness. The anti-drug psychiatrist claims that psychotropic drugs predispose to cause suicide and murder. When a patient takes his "prescribed psychiatric" medication and then kills himself or others, he blames the patient's behavior on the psychotropic drug.

The anti-drug psychiatrist attributes agency to certain psychotropic drugs but not to others, such as alcohol and nicotine , and non-agency to persons whom he considers victims of psychiatric malpractice—and testifies in court that the patient was not legally responsible for his lawless acts. It doesn't help that they have been coached that they are not responsible for their psychotic behaviour because it is the involuntary consequence of a genetic defect and broken brain chemistry.

Psychiatrists argue that the drugs used to correct the "chemical imbalance" force a person to murder, rape and commit suicide through an "irresistible impulse" independent of free will. Violent crimes, murders and suicides have been wrongly blamed on the effect of the drugs. Actions are always the result of free will choices that God will hold us accountable for in judgement. A person who has a medical record of seeing a psychiatrist AND is on neuroleptic drugs, knows he can commit any crime he can imagine with full double legal immunity because his psychiatrist will argue he is not guilty because of insanity AND claim that the drugs themselves caused him to commit the crime.

A person who has a medical record of seeing a psychiatrist AND is has recently withdrawn from neuroleptic drugs, knows he can commit any crime he can imagine with full triple legal immunity because his psychiatrist will argue he is not guilty because of insanity, not guilty because the drugs made him do it, and not guilty because even the withdrawal symptoms caused him to act out "of irresistible impulse". Our position is crystal clear and simple.

We ultimately control how what we do. Mood altering psychiatric drugs, LSD, marihuana and alcohol can change how we feel, but never force us to act in any way. Pain, suffering, depression, anxiety, worry, guilt do not force a person to rape, murder, commit acts of violence or commit suicide. Drugs may affect our feelings, but have no impact on our moral responsibility because they do not affect our freewill to choose our actions.

In other words, the persons behaviour improved while on the drug and deteriorates when he is off the drug. When you realize that antipsychotic drugs are chemical lobotomies that suspend executive functions and create apathy, indifference and "I don't care about anything" attitude, we do agree that these drugs modify behaviour. But this is no proof that the person has a biological problem. Insanity is a moral choice of behavour and the drugs make the person not care to continue this behavour. A person may be sad or depressed and the drugs make him indifferent to his real life problems.

The drugs to not solve any problems, they just remove the care and worry about these problems. When the drugs wear off, the normal emotions return to the person and they get sad again. South American Indians have long chewed coca leaves for this reason. Freud felt that smoking enabled him to be more creative.

He did not claim, however, that the beneficial effect of nicotine is evidence that the smoker suffers from a disease for which nicotine is a treatment. Basing the claim for the disease status for depression and schizophrenia on the subject's allegedly favorable response to drugs rests on precisely that logic. If giving a particular drug is authoritatively classified as a "treatment," the subject as a "patient," and his posttreatment behavior as an "improvement," then, ipso facto, the disease that he had was a bona fide disease.

Thus has "response to treatment" become one of our diagnostic criteria. The case of Sharon: However, after 4 years, Sharon wanted to become drug free so she quit cold turkey.

Search Site with Google

Just as importantly, they also concluded that because healer and healed are equally deceived and self-deceived, the effectiveness of the hocus-pocus therapy appears real, at least for a while. What do you mean, now you know?! How is anyone to believe anything you say? Yes, God gave us free will, but he wanted to see the Isrealites use that free will to have faith in the things he asked of them as well as in the promises he gave them. You are reading into the text that which is not present. Ordering the texts as they were written also allows scholars to put the evolution of Christianity in a historical context.

After two days she collapsed emotionally into a deep lethargic depression and contemplated suicide. Her family doctor was completely unaware of the fact that sudden withdrawal from psychiatric drugs has huge side effects equal to that when you withdraw from long term heroin use. He told her that her depression when she stopped taking the drug was proof she really did have a chemical imbalance and he wrote her a new prescription and doubled the dose.

However, Sharon wanted to become drug free or start taking different antidepressants that did not turn her into a zombie during her work day. Over a period of months, she went from doctor to doctor but each one had the same story: She did a bit of reading and learned that you must withdraw one month for every year you are on psychiatric drugs.

Unable to find a doctor to help her become drug free, she incrementally reduced the dose over a period of time and avoided any withdrawal side effects. Once drug free, she reflected how Zoloft had robbed her of her life and had turned her into a listless, indifferent robot merely acting out life's daily routines. She also realized that she had been depressed because of problems at home and work. Some were outside of her control, but several problems she had created herself.

For all the years she was on Zoloft, these problems remained unchanged, waiting for her to take responsibility for her own actions, live with the one's she could not change and change the one's she could. A Christian friend at work gave her the prayer of St. She began attending church, became a Christian and found new purpose and meaning in life. She also found new guidance in her own personal behaviour and her relationship with her husband and workmates improved dramatically. Sharon has now been drug free for over 10 years and regrets the harm psychiatrists did to her with their drugs.

The case of Jeff Demann: Demann's routine reflects a national trend toward forcing people with psychotic tendencies to get treatment -- even if they haven't committed violent acts. Driving the trend are E. Fuller Torrey, a year-old maverick psychiatrist who believes the laws help prevent crime, and memorabilia mogul Ted Stanley, who has contributed millions of dollars to the cause. Demann, the year-old Holland, Mich. That is when he was diagnosed as schizophrenic after he broke up with his girlfriend and accidentally overdosed on her antianxiety pills, he says.

Branded as suicidal yet constantly refusing medication, Mr. Demann says mental-health authorities are forcing him to take a drug, Risperdal, that he says causes him to be moody, angry, restless and depressed. Food and Drug Administration in found that Risperdal and some other antipsychotic drugs can increase the incidence of diabetes. Demann agrees he needs therapy but doesn't want drugs. AI "Hence, the focus of this book—the stories of persons who were not listened to as they suffered torment of the soul, self and mind from psychotropic drugs—often given against their will, is very important.

They are the stories of courageous decisions made against powerful expert doctors and sometimes families and friends —and the torment that sometimes ensued. Stopping medications began to restore their brains' physiology to their pre-medication states. Unfortunately, the suffering was usually necessary in order restore soul, self and mind—the essence of humanity. If you are on Neuroleptics by a judge's order, get a job and show you can function on your own and ask for your drugs to be reduced by your doctor.

It's all up to you! The key to your freedom from psychiatric slavery is when you prove to them you are self-sufficient and not in need of welfare. They key indicator psychiatrists and judges look for in releasing you from compulsory court ordered drug regiment is that you stop annoying people and are not dependent on anyone. If you are voluntarily taking psychiatric drugs, it is the sin of pharmacia Gal 5: Consult a doctor and work out a drug withdrawal program and then stay off these dangerous man-made chemicals that cause many problems and solve none. Anti-psychotic Drugs cause brain damage by Loren R.

Psychiatric drugs don't cure, only remove pain and suffering of the spirit. When the drugs wear off, the pain returns. Neuroleptic and anti-psychotic drugs do not fix this imagined "chemical imbalance" but merely tranquilize and stupefy. Get a full medical examination: Moreover, they seem particularly prone to overlooking the importance of physical symptoms in women. Some women with obvious signs of a hormonal disorder or heart condition are put on antidepressants and antianxiety drugs without first being required by their internists or psychiatrists to undergo a physical evaluation.

I had permission to behave in that way , but now I am holding myself to the same behavioral standards as everyone else, and it turns out I can meet them. This is not to say that I don't have bad days. I do, and I may still worry more than the average Joe, but not that much more. For most of Kevin's life, he had been on a wide variety of psychiatric drugs.

The school told his mother that unless she put him on Ritalin, they would either expel him or transfer him to a school for children with learning disabilities. Through high school, Kevin was drug free, but as a young adult, Kevin was prescribed antidepressants Prozac and Paxil , tranquilizers Xanax and Ativan , and mood stabilizers Lithium and Depakote. He felt like his life was a blur and he wondered how he would feel if he became drug free again. Most of the time, he was calculating how he could try new combinations of his drugs to balance the biochemical imbalance in his brain so he would feel normal again.

However, nothing seemed to work. He was unsure if one disease morphed into a new one, or if he had them all at the same time! He noticed, however, that he began to feel worse if he missed a dose. He wrongly assumed this was proof the drugs were correcting his chemical imbalance rather than the same drug withdrawal pain a heroin addict feels if they miss one of their 5 intravenous shots a day. Heroin addicts inject a small amount of the drug many times a day to stave off the pain of addiction. For example Jeff, a long time heroin user, became drug free after quitting cold turkey and literally spent 6 days writhing on the floor of his apartment by himself in excruciating pain and nausea without food.

It almost killed him and he had been strongly warned not to do this. But he became drug free and Jeff is still is to this day. Kevin, however, did not have the basic understanding of drug addiction withdrawal pain and did not realize he was a "legal junkie". Kevin believed his psychiatrist when he told him that he had an incurable genetic and biological disorder.

Kevin felt robbed of hope and believed he was a biological misfit. His psychiatrist looked him in the eye and sternly told him that he would need medications for the rest of his life. Kevin was not prepared to accept this but it troubled him that he was in denial about his mental disease. Kevin went to the internet and typed in "biological misfit" as a form of self-punishment late one night and what he read made him angry.

He came to the "Clinical Textbook of Biblical Psychiatry" and learned that all behaviour is a moral choice and that there was no scientific proof that the schizophrenics have a biochemical imbalance in their brain. He was angry that these "stupid Bible thumpers" believed in a year old earth, Adam and Eve and Noah's ark but rejected all the scientific proof that the mentally ill have a biochemical imbalance in their brain. He woke up the next morning and said to himself, "I wish to God that they were right about biochemical imbalances being a myth because then I could become drug free".

He started reading more and was stunned with the admission of top medical authorities that they really had no idea what caused mental illness but they ASSUMED it was caused by biochemical imbalances in the brain. Once they have been poached, you simply dip them in beaten egg and coat them in flour, before immersing them in hot oil to become golden and crispy on the outside.

Of course, Cathay Pacific wanted me to include artichokes in the photo, and so this photo shoot was actually comprised on two entirely new dishes for me. Thankfully, the Roman-Style Fried Artichokes was relatively easy to prepare, and you can read about that recipe in my post here. If you are flying with Cathay Pacific or Cathay Dragon this month June , you can read the article and find my photo in their in-flight magazine, Discovery. How interesting and what a great write-up on this. Now I need to try! Hi Lisa, I wish you were here to help us finish the brains after the photo shoot!

We ate a lot of lambs brains when we were children. It always amused us when mum asked the butcher if he had any brains! She prepared them in a similar way, although she would flour, egg and breadcrumb them, then shallow fry them and serve them with bacon.

My family are NOT adventurous eaters and this would be a step too far for them. I initially wanted to use breadcrumbs in this recipe for the extra crunch and texture, until I read that the dish Chef Bombana ate in Rome only used eggs and flour. My husband is an adventurous eater and grew up eating a lot of offal. But I had fun recreating this recipe and trying something new and out of my comfort zone! And i have always wanted to try a brain only dish. So today I made the above and I must say I was pleasantly surprised.

I made it in two batches one as described above witch was a bit bland for my taste. The second batch I added a bit of seasoning seasoning salt, red chili pepper and garlic powder to the flour and for me that made the difference. Hi Vahid, Thanks so much for your feedback. In my recipe above, I tried to replicate how the dish is cooked in Italy.