Can't display this module in this section.




Regarding our relationship to God, I have often wondered about what we ask for and why we seem to ask for what we already have, or at least are freely given.  I first thought about this when I became aware of how often Christian religions encourage their congregations to say prayers that ask for things that are already freely given.  So, why is this?  Is it a way of reminding people of what is being offered to them already?  Is it a way to strengthen someone's knowledge of doctrine so they will be more obedient? Or, is it a way of avoiding facing the responsibility that each person has [according to my understanding of the belief systems that represent Christianity today] to choose to accept what is offered freely to them. It appears that each person's choosing is critical to their opening thenselves up to receive what is freely offered.

In my work with people who come to me for help, they frequently avoid making choices that would help themselves and instead they take on responsibility for others. This taking on responsibility for others seems motivated by fears that things will get worse if they don't do this.  Their lives are then occupied with worries about what others will do that could end up making things worse.  This worry will then close them off from being able to choose to accept something for themselves, especially something that is freely given. If we live our lives feeling at the mercy of what others do, then we will not trust that anything can be freely given and we will believe that we are at the mercy of others [God?], and have to hope that what we need will be given to us, undeserving as we feel we are. Of course, since we only give to others as they are our responsibility, we can not have any needs ourselves.  So, forget having your needs recognized and responded to.

You might be able to tell now why I am concerned about how we pray as it seems that often we pray not that we will make the right choice and choose to accept and embrace what is offered to us, but instead pray to be given what we already have as if our choosing will do nothing.

It did occur to me that it might be hard to come up with ways to pray that focuses on our choosing and accepting what is freely given to us.  Of course, one prayer could be simply "please help me to choose what is offered to me." Another could be "open my heart to choose and accept what is offered to me and share this with others."  Another could be "help me to set aside my worries and fears that I might choose to accept what you offer to me and become stronger in my faith and hope and love."

In my work with people who come to me for help, I encourage them to choose to accept themselves and their strengths and then share these with others. You could say that their abilities are freely given to them and that choosing to see those abilties and then use them is similar to the prayers I have written above.  To be able to care about and love others, it seems that you have to be accepting and loving towards yourself first.

Therefore, how someone prays can make a big difference in how they feel about themselves and their fellow homo sapien sapiens, [and really all living things]. What do you think?




Is it fair or reasonable to judge what we do or say by the standard of whether or not it was based on love for the other?  How would that work?  Would we be able to say anything? Maybe the problem is the definition of love.  Love is..."an intense feeling of affection, fondness, tenderness, attachment, endearment, worship, adoration, passion."  There must be other definitions of love...such as from "A Literate Passion: Letters from Anis Nin and Henry Miller, 1932-1953:  "what is love but the acceptance of the other, whatever he is." Or what we can learn from music such as "What I Did For Love" from the musical "A Chorus Line."  This song seems to honor love as the reason that we have meaning in our lives. Or what about the bible such as "1 Corinthians 13: 4-8. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; were there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away."  

So, a lot of good things connected to loving. St. Augustine is reported to have summarized his faith by saying that all you need is to "love and do what you will." The bible repeatedly refers to "what is in your heart" as what is important in our relationship to God. This might also be referring to love. But what does it mean to say and do things out of love? Does it refer to our intention in what we say or do? Does it refer to our feeling and being empathic towards others? If we are all connected and as some believe all God's children. Then should we act in a loving way towards everyone? Does that really mean everyone? Does that mean not judging others? Does it mean not isolating others? 

I know that I have experienced over and over again in my work with people who come to me for help, that we are meant to be with each other and that our happiness seems directly related to how we treat other people.  What do you think?



I think that the joke ends with "just one, but the lightbulb really has to want to change."  Get it?  I actually do not recall what the joke was supposed to be.  I recall it now because I believe that it contains an important truth.  When we are offering our medical skills to help another human being, the outcome does depend significantly on how much the person wants to change.  Wanting to change can mean: a desire to feel differently; to cope in a different way; to be more hopeful; to understand what is influencing their lives; etc.  Changing seems to require that someone chooses to seek help and chooses to try to make a significant change in their life.  Clearly choosing to start this process of changing one's life seems to be necessary.  This choosing helps our brains recognize that we are serious about a significant [big? major?] change and our brain will be more likely to help us.  If we are not clearly choosing to make a significant change then our brain will very efficiently maintain the old pattern of functioning and ignore our meek attempts to make a change. So, it helps to have big goals like zero stress as our brains recognize that as a different pattern and will work with us to achieve this goal. I have blogged about "baby steps," pointing out that when a baby starts to walk [starts taking baby steps] they are thrilled and it is a big change with everything seeming to be different. That is what we need to do to make changes in our lives, take those huge baby steps. What do you think?



Many of us [all of us?] have experienced a time when we want to change what we are doing but don't seem to be able to change our behaviors or thoughts. It can feel like our brain's are working against us...therefore the question of "whose side our brain's are on."  So what is up with our brains? William James stated that: " In most of us, by the age of  thirty, the character has set like plaster, and will never soften again." [from The Principles of Psychology, 1890, by James]. A summary of years of research regarding personality [How Much Can You Really Change After You Turn 30? by Melissa Dahl from the New York Magazine; 2014/11] indicates that by 30-35 years of age it is set and not likely to change much after that. This seems to mean that behavior patterns are stable and more resistant to change as well.  Paul Costa, Jr scientist emeritus at the laboratory of behavioral science at the National Institutes of Health is reported to have indicated that changes in personality come much more slowly in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. Now Brian Little, a lecturer in Psychology at the University of Cambridge [England] indicates that even though up to 50% of our personality is genetically derrived, we can still choose how we behave even if it is at odds with our core personality traits. However, Little believes that we will feel anxiety if we deviate from our core personality traits and will feel depleted and need to return to our "real selves" to let go of the anxiety.  

So, does any of this apply to patterns of behavior that are caused by traumatic events and become part of our daily coping with life?  It does seem that the patterns that we establish as children at harder to modify compared to later ones. These patterns related to traumatic events don't seem to be part of our core personality traits although those core traits must influence how we cope and what patterns that we establish. This may be why some people who are traumatized develop obsessive coping patterns while others are irritable and others over think and others are people pleasers, etc.  

So, does this mean that traumatic experiences can cause us to cope and develop stable coping patterns that are difficult to change but are not part of our core personalities and not really who we are? And why does our brain resist changing patterns?  Well, some of those patterns are essential for sustaining our lives in the next few minutes like body temperature, respirations, heart functioning, etc. Maybe this is why our brains are cautious about changing patterns.  In addition, when we are traumatized and learn to cope to reduce the liklihood of being traumatized again, our brains are going to want to be sure that it is ok to change this coping and that we will not be overwhelmed like before. 

Therefore, it is a good thing that our brains maintain patterns and our brains really are on our side.




There is research evidence [Kelleher et.al; American Journal of Psychiatry Vol 70: Issue 7: Pages. 734-741]that adolescents who are assaulted or bullied are significantly more likely to experience psychotic symptoms. They also noted that adolescents with psychotic symptoms were significantly more likely to be assaulted and more likely to be bullied.  So, they found a bidirectional relationship between psychotic symptoms and trauma for adolescents.  If you have psychotic symptoms you are significantly more likely to be traumatized and if you are traumatized you are significantly more likely to have psychotic symptoms. Also of significance is the finding that the more an adolescent is traumatized the more likely to have psychotic symptoms.  Importantly, they also found that if trauma was reduced the psychotic symptoms were also reduced. 

The above highlights the severe stress that adolescents experience when they are traumatized including leading to psychotic symptoms that are directly related to the traumas and will be reduced [go away completely?] when traumas are reduced.  Also, it is important to realize that adolescents with psychotic symptoms are more likely to be traumatized and hopefully can be protected from this happening. 

I have seen psychotic symptoms in traumatized adolescents and adults that can be successfully treated by stopping the trauma and reducing or eliminating flashback experiences related to the traumas.

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 30 Next 5 Entries »