Harry Avis wrote:
"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."
I'm not sure which lines Harry Avis was reading between, but I was pretty
certain
HARRY AVIS
from the content of his comments that he didn't agree with Biblical
authority. I
IS
think what happened was that I addressed my comments to him and then, as
will
A
happen, I started just to make general comments addressed to everyone in
general
MATERIALIST
including fundamentalist Christians. I am sorry for the confusion.
When I asked my second question, ("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)?"), Robin Pearce responded, "It tends to be more a matter of values".
I agree and this causes me to ask what values do psychologists hold and are
they derived from empirical studies? If not, I would say they are outside
the realm of scientific test although they may be crucial to the practice of
psychology.
Harry Avis' response follows:
"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."
Here is a shocker for everyone on both sides of this issue. All that he says
can be true and homosexuality can still be the result of sin, since sin is
defined as those things which separate us from a relationship with God.
Speaking to the Christians here: certainly, the motivation for heterosexual
sin is equally genetic and hormonal and yet people still believe it is a
sin. Speaking to all: sin is a moral issue and has nothing to do with its
proximate cause. Many Christians believe that all people are born into a
state where it is impossible not to sin, so whether or not you sin doesn't
distinguish you from anyone else. And it is quite possible to believe that a
person's genetic and biological makeup have been corrupted by sin (in fact,
it is said, in the Bible, to be the origin of all physical death) so how
does a biological fact have anything to do with whether or not homosexuality
is a sin?
As to what is normal, I don't think we are going to use the standard of
everything that is "the result of a complex interaction between genetics,
hormonal influences during gestation and experience" is normal. Either
normal loses all meaning (since all behavior would fit these guidelines) or
we are saying that a number of pathological conditions are normal. In either
case, we need to come up with a new name for Abnormal Psychology.
Harry Avis goes on to say:
"Psycholgocial theory also assumes that physical punishment of children
should be avoided"
Psychological theory makes no value judgments ("shoulds"), as a scientific
theory, but instead reports what is more or less effective in what
situations and what may have unintended side effects.
"whereas the Bible adjures: Spare the rod and spoil the child."
I am ashamed to say I also believed it said this until I actually looked it
up. In Proverbs 13:24, it says, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he
who loves him is careful to discipline him." (NIV) It clearly does not speak
of outcomes, as the "spoiling" comment would suggest but focuses on the
relationship and it says that a father who chooses not to discipline his son
(Baumrind's Permissive-Neglectful) is expressing hatred of his son.
Certainly, this discipline may sometimes involve corporal punishment but
Paul also writes in Ephesians 6:4, "And, ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord." (KJV) Other verses in the Bible that speak of relationship of a
parent with a child also speak of a loving relationship not one dominated by
fear.
Harry Avis goes on to say: "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."
It is true to say that science does not recognize spiritual intervention
and, given the rules of science, it cannot take anything into account that
is not directly observable. Study of the natural world has nothing to say
about supernatural intervention since it is, by definition, supernatural.
There are certainly cases where allegedly supernatural cases can be exposed
as frauds, but in many cases there is no empirical evidence one way or the
other.
Harry Avis concludes: "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)."
Then I won't rant about it. I will simply direct interested parties to the
quotes below my signature and I will agree that there are few psychologists
today dispensing this kind of advice to husbands in marriage counseling.
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
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself
up for her" (Ephesians 5:25)
"In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies.
He who loves his wife loves himself." (Ephesians 5:28)
"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and
the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:33)
