*"Christianity: CBT Cult"*

Post Reply New Topic

CBT= Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

The Gnostic mysteries mixed with Buddist "mindfulness", and hebrew monotheism produced a revolution.

Was it a healthy revolution, or a terrible mistake, or deliberate manipulation/social control?

An amalgam of monotheism, gnostic mysteries, and the buddhist approach, ( which had flourished in the east for almost 600 years already and had spread to the middle east in the previous 100 years or so, which taught students, with help of breathing exercises etc, to notice internal mental activity, but, unlike Christianity, to ignore it).

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Jun 2008, 10:58 am, edited 15 times in total.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Jun 2008, 7:12 am, edited 4 times in total.

Was there self-realization before Christianity and Buddhism?

I don't find anything revolutionary about both religions, one putting their beliefs in a Personal Being, the other not. Mysticism was certainly in existence before either two, just read the Vedas.

It might be partiality on my part, but I don't see anything original in Christianity. Much of what Jesus said can be found in the Gita and Upanishads (of course not literally). The Gnostic scriptures certainly have more mystic influences in comparison to the synoptic Gospels--Mysticism which one can see in Gospel of John. A realization which one can achieve by renunciation and devotion.

I don't know what self-realisation refers to/means. I was actually wondering about "self-conciousness", in the sense of realising that one has an inner mental life, an ongoing internal monologue of beliefs, thoughts, etc, aswell as perhaps deeper, more body-based archetypal tendencies/processes/reactions.

It was the first religion to combine/splice together monotheism, poly-theism, and awareness of inner mental life. I think that this was actually an extraordinary meeting of ideas, and a very strange mixture too; mono and poly theistic beliefs in one religious teaching!

Major "meme" event: Buddhist/eastern awareness of an inner mental world, ( acknowledged as such, rather than projected as in the West, in stories of gods and nobles/heroes), meeting with the monotheism of the hebrews, the people of the Ten Commandments, its "Thou shalt nots".

The inner mental world, made visible by the eastern spiritual knowledge, came under the rule of the Ten Commandments. Suddenly the inner world was policed too. This was entirely new. Noone, no religion, had previously said that certain thoughts were to be rooted out, shunned, only that certain actions were wrong.

People became aware not only of the apparent necessity to control the insides of their heads aswell as their actions, but believed that it was possible. Not, as in Buddhism, "noticing"/registering this inner world in order to ignore all the thoughts/beliefs as so much self-important irrelevent monkey chatter, but in order to select amongst them, pick out the right ones, discard/suppress the "bad" ones.

Last edited by ouinon on 31 May 2008, 4:24 am, edited 4 times in total.

Until Darwin came up with the Theory of Evolution, most people, by placing the Gospel in a historical framework, were able to avoid the full consequences of this strange spiritual hybrid. But Darwin's theory suddenly put us in, showed us as part of, an ongoing process, rather than the most active element in an otherwise static/finished " landscape".

It's as if the added dimension experienced as a result caused a huge number of people, including Freud, and Jung, etc to realise/notice/enter the dimension in our heads that till then had still remained pretty much private-property.

Perhaps the implications that Darwin's theory had for free will encouraged people to seek somewhere that they might be able to convince themselves that they exercised free will. To search for free will "inside" themselves because "outside" its existence was in doubt.

It's like a second coming, of the hybrid spiritual teaching called Christianity, now expressing itself in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy workshops, and psych sessions, etc, all over the land, from which people leave lifted up, exalted, intoxicated with the power of their minds, the endless possibilities open to them, ... ... until like me become more than disillusioned with its dangerous delusions.

Now we aren't just measured/compared on the basis of actions but also on our thoughts/beliefs/mental activity... ...

I prefer Buddhism, because it does not teach that some thoughts are better than others, or that some must be discarded, or suppressed. It teaches that all thoughts/beliefs should be ignored as so much blah blah. None are better or worse than others. They are all illusions/stories we tell ourselves.

Ah, I believe I misread. Self-consciousness in my beliefs is realized through self-realization, that is realization of the Self from which consciousness comes, which is why it found itself in my comment. They tend to be inseparable in my interpretation.

Yoga and meditation existed before Buddhism. The event of thinking inwards, of removing the Self from the illusions of the outside world. Buddhism does not require devotion to the Supreme Being, whereas the Yogic path does.

Nah.

There is a confusion between various CBT techniques and methods and CBT itself. CBT itself is always personal. It is a merely the concept of changing fundamental beliefs, behavior and thought patterns, not rocket science. That is the way it works. CBT techniques can be anything really, so long as there is a chance that it might work and you can asses that you can incorporate it.

Yes self-deception is a valid technique in mental health, many delusion are in fact more healthily. There isn't standard self worth, people create that themselves. Religion and spirituality don't have exclusive right to that.

Yes some CBT program do include mediation. My cousin is a neurologist that has studied mediation in Tibetan monks. It goes beyond mere behaviorism, it has been shown of scans to largely change the brains state.

As is religious belief/faith.


What makes you think that changing your own "fundamental beliefs, behaviour and thought patterns" is possible, let alone easy ( as your choice of the word "merely" implies) ?

I think that it is possible for someone to change someone else's fundamental beliefs etc, but I am not convinced that can do it to oneself.


What kind of "healthy" self-deceptive/delusional belief were you thinking of?

(The one you just outlined perhaps, that "you can change your own fundamental beliefs" ?)


Obviously not.

Christianity was just the first to preach what has become, since Darwin anyway, widespread; belief both in an inner mental life, that some of it is "good", some of it "bad", and that it is possible to discard/transform/reform the "bad": the foundations of CBT.

In Buddhism it is said that if keep going "right", end up going round in circles.

Religion and congregation is a group phenomena. It is not custom designed it is usually one size fit all to a large extent. There are CBT programs like that but it would be ineffective, because it was designed for one person yet used on many on the assumption that they would be the same.


Without delving into metaphysical discussion, which would be a red herring--I apologize if I implied it would be easy, however I found out a long time ago many things that people think they cannot change such as learnt behaviors can in fact change, and are changing all the time. This is not comparable with having something like a hole in your head, which will take a longer then a persons life time to figure out how to fix. I have experienced both sorts of dilemma so 'merely' in a relative sense is correct. I quite happlily put problem I can solve on my own on hold, to try and get people who can help me with my cognitive dysfunction, as I know changing emotional problems is both doable and feasible, so I give less of s**t about that right now. You just can't compare the two, they have a vasts difference in complexity, naturally CBT has its limits. It is not like it just as simple as being 'saved'


"Inner knowledge", "faith", "ego", "because your worth it", "yes I am pretty", "I empathise with her/him/it" many emotions are in fact delusions in the true sense of the word, but that not to say they are unhealthy. Self-deception is an important part of a healthy mind. A recent study showed that people that admit to being generally happy and settled are in fact less realistic about other peoples perceptions of them that those with common mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, who are surprisingly accurate. However those with these mental problems end up with a self fulfilling prophesy, so of course those that don't have less issue and feel better for it.


Actually this is a misconception on your part. Maybe because you don't really like CBT, or see it as a threat. The fundamentals of CBT are what I mention prior, and that you must have a clearly defined "problem" and are able or willing to try and work on it. This is very different from transforming "bad" into "good". Unlike many religions it is not absolutist in principal although you seem to thing it is. If it was it wouldn't be truly individual. Maybe some rogue practitioners think it is, as they want to sell their particular brand of CBT. But that is the danger of making a religion out of anything.

I think you have misunderstood what I mean about christianity preaching the earliest version of CBT. Obviously "...congregation" is a "group phenomena", but I am talking about religious belief/faith/experience, which is personal. If you don't understand that then you will obviously not see the connection.

You say CBT is not "absolutist". But having experienced CBT in in two very different settings, with a professionally qualified psychologist/therapist providing one-to-one counselling and support, and in a programme providing weekend-long "trainings" which catered for between 25 and 100 people at a time, I think that this is a delusion.

When are examining beliefs which might be causing one difficulty, both of the above CBT approaches used a "verification" process, in which decide if a belief is "True", "False" or "Don't know". The guidelines/clues for making this decision/evaluation were the same in both settings, and involved keeping an eye out for absolutes, ( always, never, etc), for future beliefs ( I will, they will... etc) , and a number of other things.

The option "I don't know" did mean that could avoid "True/False" judgements about one's thoughts some/much of the time if wished. But the rest of the time the process was no different from the Christian one of examining one's conscience, of judging ones own thoughts/desires as good or bad. It is like having the thought police in one's head, just like catholics often describe their experience of that religion.

The consequences of this surveillance, which decreed some thoughts true/good and others false/bad, was that if one were experiencing " painful feelings", which were described by the programme as "being below the line", like anger, fear, resentment, etc, it was like a stain/mark on one's clothing, which declared for all to see " False/bad thoughts here", and was unmistakeable proof that one "had not done the work"/been to church/confessed etc.

When you say people are "changing their beliefs all the time" that may be true, but that does not mean that they are changing them freely, of their own volition, from some privileged position of independence from the rest of their organism. Their beliefs may be changing because of hormones, experiences, people's influence on them, the environment generally, and always behind it all their genes through their body determining what they need, can tolerate, tend to "see"/hear/understand, etc.

The "you" that believes themself to be doing the "changing of a belief" is subject to other forces controlling it, which are themselves subject to other forces and so on.

What makes you think that "being saved" is "simple", as you put it? I am not sure what you mean by the word "saved" in this context, but I would equate "saved" with what the CBT programme called being "clear". ( like Scientology does too)

You say "Many emotions are in fact delusions, but that is not to say that they are unhealthy". I heartily disagree that emotions can ever be illusions. Thoughts/beliefs, all of them, but feelings/emotions , no. They are as real as our bodies.

The fact that depression has been found to be associated with lower levels of self delusion is not evidence that self-deception is healthy, but that our society is based on delusion/illusion, and people seeing clearly in it are in a minority, and unwelcome.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Jun 2008, 6:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

this is an interesting point. so according to this idea, much of what is considered mental illness may actually be a result of mental clarity. makes sense. sorry if this is not exactly pertinent to your topic, ouinon...

It's absurd to reason that self-consciousness, or an inner world, did not exist in humans before Christianity or Buddhism. Self-awareness is necessary to live as anything more than atavistic; it's a prerequisite to planning and long-term memory.

Self-consciousness is not the same thing as an inner mental world.

I am not suggesting that human beings did not have an inner world, of at least some thoughts and beliefs, before this, but that in the West, including the Middle East, they were mostly unconscious of its existence.

And perhaps in a way it did not exist as we experience it now. Because they had not the same framework/structure of words and concepts for things which we are used to; because, for example, they exteriorised it so that it was gods/oracles/religious laws which ( apparently/actually ) did the decision making.

What's so odd is why this hybrid was so explosive, the combination of recognising inner babble/thoughts/beliefs scurrying around, and the Ten Commandments of hebrew monotheism.

The idea of declaring certain thoughts crimes against the laws just as much as if acted on them, etc.

Buddhism didn't do that. It taught people to become aware of the thoughts and to ignore them/pay them no attention. They are supremely unimportant.

Why did Christianity pay attention to the thoughts? Why did it preach plucking them out?

The only one of the Ten Commandments which required mental "obedience" was "Love the Lord Thy God" ... . But under the new order thoughts were to be policed one by one . Why did it no longer suffice to teach "Love the Lord Thy God" in order to clear the mind of all the monkey chatter anymore.

Was it a good idea making thoughts seem like important things, as dangerous as actions?

It's possible that the people first exposed to the buddhist mindfulness exercises were so blown away by the discovery of this life in their head, as I remember being after the first CBT weekend course, so amazed to see/hear so clearly all this inner dialogue/commentary, which explained/revealed so much, which was such fun/fascinating to follow to its source, that became obsessed by it in itself.

( s**t... Gollum... tunnelling deeper and deeper into the mountain...)

And, dazzled by it, sought to purify themselves/their thoughts completely, throw out all the untruths, reach the truth at the heart behind all the false beliefs . But there was nothing but ...

What if Christianity was one of the worst aberrations of cultural evolution to have hit humanity? A cult as abominable as Scientology but far more successful .

I was thinking about that test for the real meaning/function of new systems; "Follow the money".

I was wondering who gained from thoughts supposedly becoming as important as actions in the general scheme of things?

What is the result of declaring that it is not just what you do but what you think/believe that counts? Well, perhaps the same thing as nowadays; CBT is a useful tool in the hands of conservatives/the right wing, because it is a way of accusing pissed-off people of playing victim, because "you just need to change the way you think and life will improve".

Christianity was an instrument of oppression from within a few decades of its inception, when the powers realised what a superb means it was to subdue people.

The effect is inherent in its fundamental belief/approach, so crucially, significantly, different from Buddhism, that the thought/beliefs that scurry in head are as important as actions, and that should root out those that one judge as negative ( false, obstructive, etc ) so that they do not poison your life.

Marx was almost right; but it is christianity, not religion as a whole, which is an opiate of people.

So is this thread anti-Christian enough for those of you usually laying into religion on here? I feel as if I am almost saying something taboo, especially as noone is posting. Is it too shocking?

Christianity is supposed to be gooooood, if take away the religious, god bit, of it, but I think that it took many of the best, most powerful, most "enrolling" ( another CBT-group term), parts from several different spiritual approaches/traditions and was a cult like Scientology, before being adopted by the state as powerful form of social control, useful for unifying outlying provinces, for colonisation, etc, like public school was for the Prussian Empire.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Jun 2008, 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Muslim religion doesn't have this CBT approach or does it? It's more like the Jewish religion for treating thoughts as irrelevant, I think. But do correct me if I'm wrong.

The parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind. I think that what this teaches is not that you should actively help all people whoever they, or you, are, but sells another idea, that we should change our beliefs about who is good and who is bad, ( samaritans were supposed to be bad, as were the romans... ) ,CBT again, on the back of an uplifting story. The fact that someone helped someone is irrelevant, except in so far as it sugars the idea of changing your beliefs.

A CBT teaching, that if a belief is not entirely true it is false, ( this despite the fact that exceptions usually prove a rule ), is a potent tool for diminishing people's capacity for judgement, because judgement does rely on making some generalisations. And it is also something often used in cults to disarm all criticism of the leaders. A very important tool.

Having looked at several more parables it is obvious that they are almost all CBT belief-challenging processes. Not belief-ignoring like in Buddhism, but actually persuading you to change your belief, as if you could, voluntarily, chose to do so.

In fact the parables are the influence that does it for you. And many/most of them propose changes in belief which would make many people very vulnerable to exploitation, for instance the workers in the vineyard, or tell stories which encourage a particular/precise use of money, in investment/capitalist venture, rather than careful saving, in the case of the ten coins ( NB: "talent" is a word for a coin, and has nothing to do with talent=skill ).

If stop imagining that the parables are spiritual lessons about one's relationship with god, it becomes obvious that they vehicule politically loaded attitudes/behaviours. It is incredible in fact, once have shaken off the miasma of religion associated with the stories, to see just how much they indoctrinate certain social/obedient citizen behaviours.

Water is wine if just look at it the right way.

Last edited by ouinon on 01 Jun 2008, 6:08 am, edited 2 times in total.