코람데오닷컴

게시물 댓글

2014-01-04 10:05:16

삭제하기

하재성교수님의 댓글에 대한 반박글6

교수님께서는 또 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.

"저는 심리학을 무비판적으로 선전하는 전도사가 아니고,
혼합주의나 다원주의가 옳다고 가르치지도 않습니다.
그런데 위의 댓글은 그런 오해를 충분히 일으킬 수 있겠군요."

심리학은 이미 그런 성향을 다 포함하고 있습니다.
심리학이 가지는 혼합주의적이고 다원주의적인 성향은 이미 널리 알려진 사실입니다.
그런데, 놀랍게도, 제가 앞서 올린 글을 통해서 충분히 알 수 있듯이,
교수님께서는 심리학의 위험성에 대하여 간과하고 계십니다.

아래 글을 읽어 보시면, 그 위험성을 분명하게 아시게 되실 것입니다.
Our concern is with the syncretism of psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies with Christianity. As we have demonstrated in our writings, psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies are actually religious in nature and practice.3 Robert C. Fuller, in his book Americans and the Unconscious, states this very clearly:

Insofar as psychological theories purport to interpret reality and orient individuals within it, they inevitably assume many of the cultural functions traditionally associated with religion. And to the extent that psychological concepts are used to guide individuals toward life’s intrinsic values and ultimate mysteries, their religious character becomes prominent.4

We call this syncretism psychoheresy, which is taking psychological ideas, theories, and practices and mingling them with Christianity.

The euphemism for this kind of syncretism is "integration," which occurs when two or more ideas or systems are able to be combined. However, those who take the psychological counseling theories and attempt to combine them with Scripture cannot truly integrate them. They are as different as oil and water! One works with the old man of the flesh (carnal); the other works with the new man in Christ (spiritual). They are at enmity with each other, just as the flesh and the Spirit are contrary to each other (Gal. 5:17) and just as the carnal man is at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7). They cannot mix because they are enemies, just as the idols of the nations around Israel were at enmity with God. Thus these so-called Christian psychologists and other mental health professionals are not practicing and promoting ordinary integration, but rather religious syncretism. They are overlaying their psychology with the Bible, which ultimately serves to disguise the psychological religious systems they are using. As we have shown through the years, this psycho-syncretism subverts and subtracts from the faith.

Psychoheresy began years ago as pastors sought to use the latest information about the mind gleaned from men in the world of science and medicine. Pastors who struggled to help their people thought that the more they could learn about the mind, the better prepared they would be to minister to those in need. They thought that the information about psychological counseling theories that they were learning and using was safe because they believed these ideas came from the world of nature and medicine rather than from another religion. Did any realize that research into the unconscious involved occult practices, putting clairvoyants into trances, and then creating elaborate scientific-sounding theories out of what was spoken by those in the trance state?5 Some suspected the origins; others eagerly embraced what the world offered, often in place of the Bible.
(http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/syncretism-psychoheresy.html)

http://www.esesang91.com/

2014-01-04 09:59:02

삭제하기

하재성교수님의 댓글에 대한 반박글5

교수님께서는 또 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.

"목사님께서 말씀하신 것처럼 현재 기독교인들에게
심각한 영향을 끼치고 있는 실체를 발견하지 못하신다면
목사님은 지금 교회와 개인에게 매우 큰 잘못을 범하고 있는 것입니다."

이 말은 만일 제가 한 말이 맞다면,
교수님께서 "매우 큰 잘못을 범하고 있는 것입니다."

아래의 글을 읽어보시면,
누가 지금 바른 길을가고 있는지 분명하게 확인이 될 것입니다.

Psychology is a secular religion. Psychology offers a view of man. It theorizes that man has evolved and has infinite power to solve his own problems. It is an attempt to diagnosis and treat the fallen condition of man. It is an attempt to explain the reasons for man’s problems. The psychological approach is to blame every thing (parents, alcohol, low self esteem) but man's sinful condition and need for a savior. Why would we want to integrate an unbiblical, unproved, human system into Christianity? Why do Christian psychologists feel they have to defend what they are doing in "Christian" terms? Why would they say we need Jesus plus psychology? Because they need income? Because the Bible doesn't quite explain the human problem and meet the need? Brothers and sisters, read the Old Testament. The Israelites let in other religions, allowing them to mix, and what was the result? They lost the blessing of God and were eventually judged. Can we expect anything less? There are more Christian psychology radio programs and books today than ever before in history. Is it doing any good? Are Christian families any more together today than they were twenty or thirty years ago based upon all this wonderful new knowledge? Psychology is the religion of self, of the "me" generation. It has permeated society and now the church. It is so subtle, so deceptive. It crept in and no one even notices or seems to care. There should be shouts of warning - enemy in the camp! But alas, it is silent.
Now if psychology has its roots in a man-centered mind set that is void of God, why do so called "Christian" psychologists try and integrate it into Christianity? Does psychology know something about the human condition that God doesn't? Even some will admit that there is no such thing as "Christian Psychology" - just psychologists who happen to be Christians applying psychological principles in their work. I wish I had time to go into detail here because the problem goes to the very heart of modern Christianity. This is the leaven in the loaf. Psychology is a godless, empty, Antichrist mind set that has infiltrated the church and is subverting it. In fact, there are many practices in psychology such as hypnotism, visualization and forms of meditation that are not only New Age, but demonic. They put people in touch with demons (even though they may think they are speaking to Jesus, Mary or some dead saint). The problem is, once we let psychology into the church, we have opened ourselves to a "world view" that is against everything we should be standing for, and it is gradually transforming us, subverting us, deceiving us.
(http://www.the-tribulation-network.com/denemcgriff/Apostasy/recognizing_deception_and_apostasy_chapter_5.htm)

http://www.esesang91.com/

2014-01-04 09:52:41

삭제하기

하재성교수님의 댓글에 대한 반박글4

교수님께서는
"아직 한글로 번역되지 않은 이 심리학자들의 책들까지도
한 번 다 구입하셔서 모두 정독해서 읽어 보"라고 말씀하셨습니다.

과연 교수님께서는 제가 읽은 책들을 다 읽어 보셨는지요?
교수님께서는 지금까지 읽은 책이 몇 천권쯤 되시는지요?
저와 함께 책 읽은 분량으로 말하시기를 원하십니까?
아니면 책의 진수에 대하여 논하기를 원하시는 것입니까?

저는 분명하게 확신합니다.
심리학이라는 것이 무슨 심오한 깊이가 있는 책도 아니고,
또 성경보다 더 높이 무게를 두어야 할 것도 아니라고 굳게 확신합니다.

심리학이라는 것이 무엇을 지향하고 있으며,
그 심리학이 가지는 위험성을 제대로 알고 있는 사람이라면,
심리학을 교회 안으로 끌고 들어올 수가 없습니다.

http://www.esesang91.com/

2014-01-04 09:45:06

삭제하기

하재성교수님의 댓글에 대한 반박글3

교수님께서는 프로이트와 융의 "영향력이 전혀 크지 않다"고 말씀하셨습니다.
제가 융을 말한 것은,
교수님께서 "예배에 있어서 상징들(symbols)이 중요한 이유"를 말씀하셨기 때문입니다.

<예배자들에게 “생명과 죽음, 사랑과 악, 인류와 우주의 기원과
운명 등에 대한 거대한 질문들을 마주하고서,
논리적인 형식으로 하나의 대답을 제시해 줄 수 없기 때문이다.”(29)
이처럼 심층적인 의미를 가진 상징들조차도
고난의 심오한 의미들을 시적으로 이해할 수 있도록 돕는 하나님의 방편이다.>

이런 글이 칼 융의 분석심리학이 아니라고 말할 사람이 있을까요?
그렇다면 그 사람은 심리학의 '심'자도 모르는 사람이 분명합니다.

칼 융이 양복입은 무당이라는 것을 이미 널리 알려진 사실입니다.

저는 진지하게 여쭙고 싶습니다.
프로이트와 융의 영향력이 크지 않다면,
왜 교수님께서 그런 융 심리학적인 글을 쓰셨는지요?

Jung needed a father as much as Freud needed a son, and Freud formally anointed Jung his ‘son and heir’. However, as time passed, it became increasingly clear that Jung was unable to accept Freud’s assumptions that human motivation is exclusively sexual, or that the unconscious mind is entirely personal. For Jung, sexuality was but one aspect or mode of expression of a broader ‘life force’, and beneath the personal unconscious there was a deeper and more important layer that contained the entire psychic heritage of mankind. The existence of this ‘collective unconscious’ had been hinted at by Jung’s childhood dreams and experiences, and confirmed by the delusions and hallucinations of psychotic patients which contained symbols and images that occurred in myths and fairy-tales from all around the world. In his book of 1912, Transformations and Symbols of the Libido, Jung replaced Freud’s concept of libido with a much broader concept of undifferentiated psychic energy, arguing that undifferentiated psychic energy could ‘crystallize’ into the universal symbols contained in dreams and myths, for example, into the hero’s slaying of the dragon, which represents the struggle of the adolescent ego for deliverance from parental dominance. For Jung, the purpose of life was ‘individuation’, which involves pursuing one’s own vision of the truth and, in so doing, realizing one’s fullest potential as a human being. If this meant disagreeing with Freud, then so be it. In 1913, on the eve of the First World War, Jung and Freud broke off their relationship.
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201204/jung-the-man-and-his-symbols)

2014-01-04 09:29:20

삭제하기

하재성교수님의 댓글에 대한 반박글2

교수님께서는 심리학에 대하여 다음과 같이 말씀하셨습니다.

"심리학? 저는 목사님께서 생각하시는 것처럼 심리학이
그렇게 대단한 영적인 세력이라고 생각하지 않습니다.
그저 인간의 생각이나 행동을 더 깊이 이해하고
치료를 돕고자 하는 사람들의 연구 정도라고 생각합니다."

교수님께서 생각하는 것처럼
과연 심리학이 영적인 세력이 아닐까요?

그렇다면 왜 오늘날 심리학은 영적인 일에 지대한 관심을 기울일까요?
예를 들어, psychologytoday.com에 가보면 다음과 같은 글이 있습니다.

PSYCH BASICS
Spirituality
Spirituality means something different to everyone.
For some, it's about participating in organized religion:
going to church, synagogue, a mosque, etc. For others, it's more personal:
Some people get in touch with their spiritual side
through private prayer, yoga, meditation, quiet reflection, or even long walks.
Research shows that even skeptics can't stifle the sense that
there is something greater than the concrete world we see.
As the brain processes sensory experiences,
we naturally look for patterns, and then seek out meaning in those patterns.
And the phenomenon known as "cognitive dissonance" shows that
once we believe in something, we will try to explain away anything that conflicts with it.
Humans can't help but ask big questions—the instinct seems wired in our minds
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/spirituality)

이런 글들은 이 사이트에만 나오는 것이 아닙니다.
심리학과 영성을 연결하여 말하는 글들은 엄청나게 많이 있습니다.
제가 일일이 열거할 필요는 없을 것 같습니다.

그러면 제가 잘못보고 있는 것일까요?
아니면 교수님께서 잘못보고 있는 것일까요?

교수님께서 심리학을 "대단한 영적인 세력이라고 생각하지 않"는다고 생각하시는 것은
전적으로 교수님의 자유에 속한 일이시겠으나,
심리학은 이미 영적으로 대단한 세력으로 자리 잡고 있습니다.

그러면, M. Scott Peck에 대해서는 무엇이라고 말하시겠습니까?
M. Scott Peck에 대해서는 더 잘 아시리라 믿습니다.
다음 글을 읽어 보시면 얼마나 심리학이 영성과 깊이 연관되어 있는지,
특히나 기독교인들이 얼마나 분변하지 못하고 있는지도 말하고 있습니다.

WHY IS PECK SO POPULAR?
Peck wrote The Road Less Traveled at a propitious time. Whereas psychotherapy stood at a distance from the average person — wrapped in “scientific” jargon and devoid of a spiritual dimension — Peck offered solutions in a nonscientific and easy-reading style. He addressed the spiritual cravings of Americans who apparently were not being satisfied through the church or their culture.
Over the past few decades many Americans have sought after a spiritual meaning to life. In fact, one study revealed that 58 percent of adults in this country “feel the need to experience spiritual growth.”9 In keeping with this, 25 percent of the titles on the December 1994 New York Times Bestseller list were on spiritual matters,10 albeit primarily from a psychological rather than a theological perspective.11
People come to Peck with numerous debilitating emotions like fear, anger, loneliness, guilt, and grief. He offers them relief. As a matter of fact, Peck promises that “we can solve all problems” with total discipline.12
PECK’S INFLUENCE AMONG CHRISTIANS
Surprisingly, Peck and his writings have had a strong influence on many Christians. Contemporary Christian magazine said his book People of the Lie is “enthralling, frustrating, controversial, paradoxical, revolutionary — People of the Lie may well be one of the most significant new works in recent memory” (emphasis in original).13
Not only has Peck been praised in the media, he is also a frequent speaker in Christian churches, as well as in New Age meetings.14 Since cowriting The Less Traveled Road and the Bible15 I have discovered that various Christian schools use Peck’s books in classes and Christian counseling centers give them to counselees.
Christians have not been very discerning regarding Peck’s teachings. Simply because Peck uses Christian terminology, or offers some legitimate solutions, many Christians have embraced him and his books without reservation. Using that same criteria, however, Mormon material should be accepted because it has helpful information on the family. Likewise, Jehovah’s Witness literature should be accepted because it argues against materialistic evolution. Certainly as much discernment and caution should be exercised with Peck’s works as is used for cultic material.
(http://www.equip.org/articles/m-scott-peck-traveling-down-the-wrong-road/#christian-books-1)

상단영역

본문영역

토론방

본인에 의해 삭제 되었습니다.

게시물 댓글

비회원 로그인

댓글목록