Peter's Denial Quotes

I wasn't crying about mothers," he said rather indignantly. "I was crying because I can't get my shadow to stick on. Besides, I wasn't crying.

I didn't want to kill them all. I didn't want to kill anybody! I'm not a killer! You didn't want me, you bastards, you wanted Peter, but you made me do it, you tricked me into it!

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself." The disciple must say to himself the same words Peter said of Christ when he denied him: "I know not this man." Self-denial is never just a series of isolated acts of mortification or asceticism. It is not suicide, for there is an element of self-will even in that. To deny oneself is to be aware only of Christ and no more of self, to see only him who goes before and no more the road which is too hard for us. Once more, all that self denial can say is: "He leads the way, keep close to him.

There's no I in denial

In his treatise on the battles between the gods underlying ancient Dionysian theatre, the young Nietzsche notes: 'Alas! The magic of these struggles is such, that he who sees them must also take part in them.' Similarly, an anthropology of the practising life is infected by its subject. Dealing with practices, asceticisms and exercises, whether or not they are declared as such, the theorist inevitably encounters his own inner constitution, beyond affirmation and denial.

We should all let our inner voices take control from time to time. Let them have their say. We let them take control when we're driving down the motorway sometimes, and they don't do a bad job. Maybe we all need to have a little more faith in ourselves.

A 2013 study by Riley Dunlap and political scientist Peter Jacques found that a striking 72 percent of climate denial books, mostly published since the 1990s, were linked to right-wing think tanks, a figure that rises to 87 percent if self-published books (increasingly common) are excluded.23

Because the symptoms and emotions associated with trauma can be extreme, most of us (and those close to us) will recoil and attempt to repress these intense reactions. Unfortunately, this mutual denial can prevent us from healing. In our culture there is a lack of tolerance for the emotional vulnerability that traumatized people experience. Little time is allotted for the working through of emotional events. We are routinely pressured into adjusting too quickly in the aftermath of an overwhelming situation. Denial is so common in our culture that it has become a cliché.

There is a known correlation between denial of one’s sexuality and a propensity to self-destructive behaviour.

At times I am flabbergasted that my memory is considered false and my alcoholic father's memory is considered rational and sane. Am I not believed because I am a woman? If Peter Freyd were a man who lived in my neighborhood during my childhood instead of my father, would he and his wife be so believable? If not, what is it about his status as my father that makes him more credible?

Teach me your way of looking at people: as you glanced at Peter after his denial, as you penetrated the heart of the rich young man and the hearts of your disciples. I would like to meet you as you really are, since your image changes those with whom you come into contact. Remember John the Baptist’s first meeting with you? And the centurion’s feeling of unworthiness? And the amazement of all those who saw miracles and other wonders? How you impressed your disciples, the rabble in the Garden of Olives, Pilate and his wife and the centurion at the foot of the cross. . . . I would like to hear and be impressed by your manner of speaking, listening, for example, to your discourse in the synagogue in Capharnaum or the Sermon on the Mount where your audience felt you “taught as one who has authority.

Archdeacon Peter's face was like stone. He was the worst kind of Christian, Philip realized: he embraced all of the negatives, enforced every proscription, insisted on all forms of denial, and demanded strict punishment for every offense; yet he ignored all the compassion of Christianity, denied its mercy, flagrantly disobeyed its ethic of love, and openly flouted the gentle laws of Jesus. That's what the Pharisees were like, Philip thought; no wonder the Lord preferred to eat with publicans and sinners.

Peter H. Wood wrote in a 1999 paper on slavery and denial, "After all, as several eminent academics have recently reminded us, 'nations need to control their national memory, because nations keep their shape by shaping their citizens' understanding of the past.

In moving through apprehensive chills to mounting excitement and waves of moist tingling warmth, the body, with its innate capacity to heal, melts the iceberg created by deeply frozen trauma. Anxiety and despair can become creative wellspring when we allow ourselves to experience bodily sensations, such as trembling, that stem from traumatic symptoms. Held within the symptoms of trauma are the very energies, potentials, and resources necessary for their constructive transformation. The creative healing process can be blocked in a number of ways—by using drugs to suppress symptoms, by overemphasizing adjustment or control, or by denial or invalidation of feelings and sensations.

Was Superstorm Sandy caused by greenhouse warming of the planet? In a word, no. Individual storms arise from specific conditions in the atmosphere. Since records have been kept, hurricanes have varied in number and intensity each season with cycles going up and coming down. The temptation to attribute any specific weather event to global warming distracts us from considering and adopting adaptive strategies, such as improving and expanding irrigation for agriculture and the water supply for cities, that will serve us well when climate changes inevitably arrives on our doorstep.

The problem with the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah - or any sacred text - as an authority is that so much depends on how the text is read and the interests of the reader. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, apartheid, the suppression of women, the 'evils' of sexuality, the 'evils' of homosexuality, a male-only priesthood, the denial of any priests at all, the supremacy of the Pope, the irrelevance of the Pope, the authority of the Church, a denial of the authority of the Church, a feminist agenda, war, pacifism and almost every other position that people may wish to hold.

denial – is common. Most of us ignore reality in some facet of our lives. It’s often easier to believe things will somehow solve themselves,

But self-care also involves a thoughtful denial of excesses.

in some half-forgotten pesthole of twentieth-century case studies—filed under Cotard’s syndrome—I found Amanda Bates and others of her kind, their brains torqued into denial of the very self.

Pagan mythical parallels can be found for almost every item in the New Testament: the Last Supper, Peter’s denial, Pilate’s wife’s dream, the crown of thorns, the vinegar and gall at the crucifixion, the mocking inscription over the cross, the Passion, the trial, Pilate’s washing of hands, the carrying of the cross, the talk between the two thieves hanging beside Jesus, and so on.

Ignoring our emotions is turning our back on reality; listening to our emotions ushers us into reality. And reality is where we meet God … Emotions are the language of the soul. They are the cry that gives the heart a voice … However, we often turn a deaf ear — through emotional denial, distortion, or disengagement. We strain out anything disturbing in order to gain tenuous control of our inner world. We are frightened and ashamed of what leaks into our consciousness.

The root reason for this is the denial of the human essence, the human equality, the human family—judging people’s worth only by how efficiently or intelligently or quickly they function. This is confusing the essence with the nonessential.

[consciousness] Maybe you think it gives you free will. Maybe you've forgotten that sleepwalkers converse, drive vehicles, commit crimes and clean up afterward, unconscious the whole time. Maybe nobody's told you that waking souls are only slaves in denial.

Peter H. Wood wrote in a 1999 paper on slavery and denial. “After all, as several eminent academics have recently reminded us, ‘nations need to control national memory, because nations keep their shape by shaping their citizens’ understanding of the past.’ ”26

Peter's denial was not just a personal weakness. He was in a leadership position, honored as the one who spoke for the group, and was second in command (when Jesus wasn't around). But his choice to publicly deny his place in the community at the side of Jesus had massive repercussions for the other disciples. They ran and hid, and from this point on in the Way of the Cross there is no mention of the disciples again in the Passion narrative. The sheep are scattered, routed, and demoralized. Peter's sin tore open the seems that held them together.

The first truth, Buddha taught his disciples, is that suffering is part of the human condition. If we simply try to avoid confronting painful experiences, there is no way to begin the healing process. In fact, this denial creates the very conditions that promote and prolong unnecessary suffering.

PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel has recently confessed that he aims to live for ever. ‘I think there are probably three main modes of approaching [death],’ he explained. ‘You can accept it, you can deny it or you can fight it. I think our society is dominated by people who are into denial or acceptance, and I prefer to fight it.

Luke 22:60-62. “This was after his third denial. ‘Peter replied, ‘Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about!’ Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him, ‘Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times. And he went outside and wept bitterly.

The top eight coal power financiers were Citigroup, Barclays, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Royal Bank, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. In 2016, JPMorgan Chase, while paying lip service to the Paris climate accord, poured $6.9 billion into the dirtiest fossil fuels on earth, and was top banker on Wall Street in tar sands oil, Arctic oil, ultra-deep water oil, coal power, and LNG

Why would we expect the nation’s power structure even to acknowledge, much less come to terms with, such a dark and formative chapter in our collective family history?” the renowned historian Peter H. Wood wrote in a 1999 paper on slavery and denial. “After all, as several eminent academics have recently reminded us, ‘nations need to control national memory, because nations keep their shape by shaping their citizens’ understanding of the past.’ 

As for the coronavirus, Trump remained in denial mode. The president repeatedly told the public that the outbreak was “totally under control,” that it would “miraculously” disappear on its own with warmer weather, that it “will go away,” that it was comparable to the ordinary flu, that the number of cases would go “down close to zero,” that a vaccine would be available soon, and that anyone who wanted to be tested could get a test.[21] None of it was true.

We can “forget” about ourselves because Christ never forgets us. We can afford to be less important to ourselves because we are vastly important to God. We can willingly be crucified with Christ because we are raised to walk in resurrection life. Biblical self-denial will never fail to be for us rather than against us, whether here or in eternity. When Peter chose to deny Christ rather than himself, he really chose human limitations over divine intervention.

It was after a Frontline television documentary screened in the US in 1995 that the Freyds' public profile as aggrieved parents provoked another rupture within the Freyd family, when William Freyd made public his own discomfort. 'Peter Freyd is my brother, Pamela Freyd is both my stepsister and sister-in-law,' he explained. Peter and Pamela had grown up together as step-siblings. 'There is no doubt in my mind that there was severe abuse in the home of Peter and Pam, while they were raising their daughters,' he wrote. He challenged Peter Freyd's claims that he had been misunderstood, that he merely had a 'ribald' sense of humour. 'Those of us who had to endure it, remember it as abusive at best and viciously sadistic at worst.' He added that, in his view, 'The False memory Syndrome Foundation is designed to deny a reality that Peter and Pam have spent most of their lives trying to escape.' He felt that there is no such thing as a false memory syndrome.' Criticising the media for its uncritical embrace of the Freyds' campaign, he cautioned: That the False Memory Syndrome Foundation has been able to excite so much media attention has been a great surprise to those of us who would like to admire and respect the objectivity and motive of people in the media. Neither Peter's mother nor his daughters, nor I have wanted anything to do with Peter and Pam for periods of time ranging up to two decades. We do not understand why you would 'buy' into such an obviously flawed story. But buy it you did, based on the severely biased presentation of the memory issue that Peter and Pam created to deny their own difficult reality. p14-14 Stolen Voices: An Exposure of the Campaign to Discredit Childhood Testimony

Let me repeat: the stakes are high. We must confront one of the most massive pseudo-evidences in recent intellectual history: the belief, rampant in Europe since only two or three centuries ago, in the existence of 'religions' - and more than that, against the unverified faith in the existence of faith. Faith in the existence of 'religion' is the element that unites believers and non-believers, in the present as much as in the past. It displays a single-mindedness that would make any prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome green with envy. No one who overcame religion ever doubted its existence, even if they opposed every single one of its dogmas. No denial ever confronted the denier with the question of whether its name was justified, and whether it had any lasting value in such a form. It is only because society has grown accustomed to a comparatively recent fiction - it did not come into use until the seventeenth century - that one can speak today of a 'return of religion'.' It is the unbroken faith in religion as a constant and universal factor which can vanish and return that forms the foundation of the current legend.

For years, the suspicion that Mr. Putin has a secret fortune has intrigued scholars, industry analysts, opposition figures, journalists and intelligence agencies but defied their efforts to uncover it. Numbers are thrown around suggesting that Mr. Putin may control $40 billion or even $70 billion, in theory making him the richest head of state in world history. For all the rumors and speculation, though, there has been little if any hard evidence, and Gunvor has adamantly denied any financial ties to Mr. Putin and repeated that denial on Friday. But Mr. Obama’s response to the Ukraine crisis, while derided by critics as slow and weak, has reinvigorated a 15-year global hunt for Mr. Putin’s hidden wealth. Now, as the Obama administration prepares to announce another round of sanctions as early as Monday targeting Russians it considers part of Mr. Putin’s financial circle, it is sending a not-very-subtle message that it thinks it knows where the Russian leader has his money, and that he could ultimately be targeted directly or indirectly. “It’s something that could be done that would send a very clear signal of taking the gloves off and not just dance around it,” said Juan C. Zarate, a White House counterterrorism adviser to President George W. Bush who helped pioneer the government’s modern financial campaign techniques to choke off terrorist money.

Dissent, as a form of refusal, becomes authentic when it is a choice for its own sake. When it is an act of accountability. Authentic dissent is recognizable by the absence of blame, the absence of resignation. Blame, denial, rebellion, and resignation have no power to create. A simple no begins a larger conversation, or at least creates the space for one. This is most clearly embodied when we realize there is nothing to argue about. Once again, when faced with a no, or doubts, or authentic refusal, we move forward when we get interested and curious. The ultimate expression of useful power is a leader’s saying, “I must warn you that if you argue with me, I will likely be forced to take your side.

As with Isaiah’s vision in the Temple, and many other scenes both biblical and modern, Peter’s change from fisherman to shepherd comes through his facing of his own sin and his receiving of forgiveness, as Jesus with his three-times-repeated question goes back to Peter’s triple denial and then offers him forgiveness precisely in the form of a transformed and newly commissioned life. Those who don’t want to face that searching question and answer may remain content to help the world with its fishing. Those who find the risen Jesus going to the roots of their rebellion, denial, and sin and offering them love and forgiveness may well also find themselves sent off to be shepherds instead. Let those with ears listen.

But it was something else too, MacFarlane said. It was a denial, but it was also the truth. Peter really did not know who Jesus was, did not really know, and neither do any of us really know who Jesus is either. Beyond all we can find to say about him and believe about him, he remains always beyond our grasp, except maybe once in a while the hem of his garment. We should never forget that. We can love him, we can learn from him, but we can come to know him only by following him—by searching for him in his church, in his Gospels, in each other. That was the sermon I heard anyway, and I remember thinking that if it were not for all the reasons I have for living where I do, I could imagine moving a thousand miles just to be near where I could hear truth spoken like that.

When you are fully owned by your disbelief, then there is no further discussion that needs to be had between you and the God you once trusted. In fact, your very senses are numb to His presence, your eyes shut, your ears closed, and your body turned away. In this instance you have come to grips with the fact that, if need be, you would stand up in front of the world and say, “I deny Jesus is Lord,” and you would be content with that denial. But before you jump to your feet, first consider that this verbal rejection of Jesus comes with an effect, and that is that as you deny Him, so He denies you. As He said in the book of Matthew, “Whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 10:33 esv). So is it any wonder that in your denial of the One who was sent to save you, you have found more and more animosity toward God and His people? That your heart has hardened more with each passing day? This is the result of Jesus denying you more than it is of you denying Him. The truth is that you own your faith when and only when Christ owns you. William Barley, in The Letters of James and Peter, spoke this better than we ever could when he said, It frequently happens that the value of a thing lies in the fact that someone has possessed it. A very ordinary thing acquires a new value if it has been possessed by some famous person. In any museum we will find quite ordinary things—clothes, a walking-stick, a pen, pieces of furniture—which are only of value because they were possessed and used by some great person. It is the ownership which gives them worth. It is so with the Christian. The Christian may be a very ordinary person, but he acquires a new value and dignity and greatness because he belongs to God. The greatness of the Christian lies in the fact that he is God’s.

Some patients choose not to pursue treatment out of a sense of denial about the tumor. They may think, “Maybe they’re wrong. Why take these risks associated with treatment? I don’t want to put my family through this and my insurance won’t cover it.

Dissociation and denial. Woody Allen said, “I’m not afraid of dying. I just don’t want to be there when it happens.” This quip is a fairly accurate description of the role played by dissociation. It protects us from being overwhelmed by escalating arousal, fear, and pain. It “softens” the pain of severe injury by secreting nature’s internal opium, the endorphins. In trauma, dissociation seems to be a favored means of enabling a person to endure experiences that are at the moment beyond endurance. Denial is probably a lower-level energy form of dissociation.

Even Christ pleased not Himself: He bore the reproaches, with which men reproached and dishonoured God, so patiently, that He might glorify God and save man. Christ pleased not Himself: with reference both to God and man, this word is the key of His life. In this, too, His life is our rule and example; we who are strong ought not to please ourselves. To deny self-this is the opposite of pleasing self. When Peter denied Christ, he said: I know not the man; with Him and His interests I have nothing to do; I do not wish to be counted His friend. In the same way the true Christian denies himself, the old man: I do not know this old man; I will have nothing to do with him and his interests. And when shame and dishonour come upon him, or anything be exacted that is not pleasant to the old nature, be simply says: Do as you like with the old ties of the Adam, I will take no notice of it. Through the cross of Christ I am crucified to the world, and the flesh, and self: to the friendship and interest of this old man I am a stranger; I deny him to be my friend; I deny his every claim and wish; I know him not. The Christian who only thinks of his salvation from curse and condemnation cannot understand this; he finds it impossible to deny self. Although he may sometimes try to do so, his life mainly consists in pleasing himself. The Christian who has taken Christ as his pattern cannot be content with this. He has surrendered himself to seek the most complete fellowship with the cross of Christ. The Holy Spirit has taught him to say, I have been crucified with Christ, and so am dead to sin and self. In fellowship with Christ he sees the old man crucified, a condemned malefactor; he is ashamed to own him as a friend: it is his fixed purpose, and he has received the power for it too, no longer to please his old nature, but to deny it. Because the crucified Christ is his life, self-denial is the law of his life.

there were growing pains. Warren Harding addressed the unemployment and lack of growth with a response America would never see again. “We will attempt intelligent and courageous deflation,” he said at the 1920 Republican Convention, “and strike at government borrowing which enlarges the evil.” The rest of the passage is astounding to the modern ear: We promise that relief which will attend the halting of waste and extravagance, and the renewal of the practice of public economy, not alone because it will relieve tax burdens but because it will be an example to stimulate thrift and economy in private life. Let us call to all the people for thrift and economy, for denial and sacrifice if need be, for a nationwide drive against extravagance and luxury, to a recommitment to simplicity of living, to that prudent and normal plan of life which is the health of the republic. There hasn’t been a recovery from the waste and abnormalities of war since the story of mankind was first written, except through work and saving, through industry and denial, while needless spending and heedless extravagance have marked every decay in the history of nations.

So, interpretation must proceed wholly by fitting those authors into their social and historical environments. Anything else is alleged to be a denial of history or a denial of humanity.

The earliest Christians did not consider themselves followers of a new religion. All of their lives they had been Jews and they still were. This was true of Peter and the twelve, of the seven, and of Paul. Their faith was not a denial of Judaism but was rather the conviction that the messianic age had finally arrived.

They’re not gods,” Brüks reminded him softly. “Not yet.” “Not ever.” “That’s denial.” “Better than genuflection.

Nogle lægemidler kan være nyttige nogle gange for nogle patienter, især i den akutte fase, hvor en patient kan være så plaget af panik eller vrangforestillinger, at det kan være nyttigt at dæmpe følelserne med noget beroligende. Men medmindre lægerne bliver meget bedre til at bruge psykofarmaka - hvilket vil sige at bruge dem meget lidt, i lave doser og altid med en plan for udtrapning - så ville vore borgere være langt bedre stillet, hvis vi fjernede alle psykofarmaka fra markedet.

Dette illustrerer en vigtig skævhed i diagnosemageriet. Når en diagnose er stillet, er den svær at komme af med igen; den klistrer til dig.

Psykiatrien er radikalt forskellig fra andre områder af medicinen, fordi normale mennesker har lignende symptomer og følelser, som patienterne har; det er mest et spørgsmål om graden.

Når vi har stillet en diagnose, uanset om den er rigtig eller forkert, blæser vi liv i vores sociale konstruktion. [...] Patientens symptomer er reelle, men det diagnostiske begreb er ikkeeksisterende, idet det ikke definerer noget, der eksisterer uafhængigt af os.

Subtile forskelle kan være vigtige. Hvis hendes psykiater havde sagt: " Du er en person, der for tiden har symptomer, som vi normalt kalder skizofreni", ville det have indikeret, at personen stadig var der og var så meget andet end sine symptomer, og at sygdommen ikke nødvendigvis ville vare resten af livet, hvilket desværre ofte er psykiaternes opfattelse.

Den største ændring i DSM-III fra 1980 var indførelsen af en symptombaseret tilgang til diagnosen. Den er blevet kritiseret for at skabe sygdomme og for at klassificere normal modgang i livet og tristhed som psykisk sygdom, der skal behandles med medicin. Forventede reaktioner på en given situation, fx tabet af en elsket person, skilsmisse, alvorlig sygdom eller arbejdsløshed, nævnes ikke længere som udelukkelseskriterier, når man stiller diagnosen.

Patienterne er de bedste dommere til at afgøre, om en subjektiv effekt af et lægemiddel opvejer dets bivirkninger

The climate policies of the Trump administration, backed by many Republican leaders, are rooted in culpable ignorance and transparent corruption. And they place us all at risk on a scale that previous crimes against humanity never have.

If a citizen is asphyxiated by noxious gases emanating from a government-operated incinerator, she is equally dead as if she had been shot or beaten by government agents.

Tax and dividend is progressive. A person with several large cars and a large house will have a tax greatly exceeding the dividend. A family reducing its carbon footprint to less than average will make money...A carbon tax is honest, clear and effective.

In typical fashion, Peter jumps in and clarifies how much he and the disciples have given up to follow Jesus: “See, we have left everything and followed you” (Mark 10:28). Jesus responds with a significant explanation of self-denial and kingdom blessings: Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first. (Mark 10:29–31) Is Jesus teaching us a simple formula that if we give up our possessions, we can receive the kingdom? Is this a divine promise that if you forsake family and lands, God is obligated to restore family and lands, like he did at the end of Job? No. Jesus is applying a kingdom filter to his disciples’ understanding of blessing in the present age. As we saw in the Old Testament, a growing family and fertile land were both ideas frequently associated with divine blessing. However, Jesus redefines these very images based upon a transformed vision of blessing in Christ’s kingdom. “Jesus speaks of the extended family of his followers (cf. 3:34–35) with new familial relationship and the sharing of possessions (cf. Acts 2:44–45; 4:32–37)—a new reality whose value is far greater than the security that personal possessions can ever give.”23

of isolation.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

Each practical moral virtue has two opposed vices, a “too much” and a “too little” (e.g., cowardice and foolhardiness, or insensitivity and self-indulgence). Theoretical truth also usually contrasts with two opposite errors, e.g., angelism vs. animalism regarding human nature, or deism vs. pantheism in theology, or the denial of free will vs. the denial of predestination. And so too here, with the sacraments. On the one hand, superstition ascribes supernatural powers to the natural things themselves, not as instruments; and on the other hand, in the typically Muslim Ash’arite theology, God does everything Himself and acts not by using natural things as active instruments but only as accidental occasions. Thus the technical term “occasionalism”. In Catholic theology, grace is, on the one hand, absolutely sovereign and also, on the other hand, it uses, perfects, and respects nature. Thus divine grace comes to us through the sacraments in a way which perfects their natural matter in giving it the power to actually cause the increase of grace in souls. It

the resurrected Christ does such an unbearably loving and merciful thing. He does not rebuke Peter for failing him in his time of need. Instead he gives Peter breakfast, and then he gives Peter three chances to proclaim his love, one for each of  his denials. “Do you love me, Peter?

We numb our pain through denial, blaming, rationalizations, addictions, and avoidance.

Archdeacon Peter’s face was like stone. He was the worst kind of Christian, Philip realized: he embraced all of the negatives, enforced every proscription, insisted on all forms of denial, and demanded strict punishment for every offense; yet he ignored all the compassion of Christianity, denied its mercy, flagrantly disobeyed its ethic of love, and openly flouted the gentle laws of Jesus. That’s what the Pharisees were like, Philip thought; no wonder the Lord preferred to eat with publicans and sinners.

Veek popped another can of Diet Pepsi and took a sip. “I tried asking Oskar about it when I first saw it, during my denial week. He got annoyed and told me I was being foolish. So I tried to come up with a rational explanation and couldn’t. When I went back to him he gave me this whole spiel about what a great deal the apartments here are, how much the owners like it being a quiet place, can’t I just be happy with it, all that sort of stuff. Then he told me if I tried to make a fuss out of this and become a disruptive influence, he’d have to ask me to move out. With deductions to my deposit, of course.

på en måde, der lignende et akut anfald af industri-pompøsititis.

But such denial ignores that our instincts are those of an ancient brain that evolved over many thousands of years, and that the human body is tuned for optimum function under conditions radically different from those that we enjoy in America today. Hence, our ingenuity in creating novel environments—such as the competitive opportunities of a global commerce that never sleeps, or an infinite supply of high-calorie food—rather than enhancing well-being may actually disrupt the ancient mechanisms that sustain our physical and mental balance. Such is the potential danger of the social and economic environment developing in America today. The

This explains the vehemence of Paul's reaction to Peter when the latter refused to eat with Gentiles converts (Gal 2:11-21). To object to sharing the table of the Lord with fellow-believers is a denial of one's being justified by faith (cf Räisäinen 1983:259). Where this happens, people are trusting in some form of justification by works. The reconciliation with God is in jeopardy if Christians are not reconciled to each other but continue to separate at meals. The unity of the church—no, the church itself—is called in question when groups of Christians segregate themselves on the basis of such dubious distinctives as race, ethnicity, sex, or social status. God in Christ has accepted us unconditionally; we have to do likewise with regard to one another.

Some people are convinced that they have the truth and are anxious to ensure others have it. These are the fundamentalists. Some people spend their lives in distractions and activity and are indifferent to the truth. Some people deny there is any truth and devote their lives to this denial. Others construct their own truths or at least come to understand the forces that have constructed the truths by which they live. A few, however, seek the Truth and, knowing that they will never find it in its entirity, stake their lives on trying to live it.

DSM er imidlertid et konsensusdokument, og dets diagnoser er uvidenskabelige og vilkårlige.

Det er svært at vide, hvor meget overdiagnostik af depression der er, når vi ikke engang ved, hvad en sand diagnose er. Hvis vi tæller elefanter, beslutter vi ikke pludselig at tælle gnuerne med, bare fordi de også er grålige og har fire ben.

Vi skal give folk lov til at være ulykkelige en gang imellem - hvilket er helt normalt - uden at give dem en diagnose.

Det er dårlig lægegergning at komme med yderligere diagnoser, når en person er under indflydelse af et hjerne-aktivt kemikalie, idet symptomerne mest sandsynligt er lægemiddelfremkaldte.

Den bedre ro i klasseværelset har en høj pris i form af reduktion i nysgerrighed og sociale interaktioner. Børnene bliver mere isolerede, hvilket næppe er en god ting for en hjerne under udvikling

Medicinen kan løse problemer for skolerne, men ikke for børnene, der blot agerer på en måde, der generer de voksne, hvilket i høj grad er netop de 'symptomer', der definerer børne-ADHD.

Det er let at forstå, hvorfor patienterne ofte siger i undersøgelser, at medicinen er værre end sygdommen.

Jeg har et problem med at acceptere, at alder er en risikofaktor for noget som helst. Vi kan jo ikke sænke vores risiko ved at ændre vores dåbsattest, så det er ikke nogen modificerbar risikofaktor, men en uundgåelig konsekvens af at blive ved med at overleve. Hvis nogen insisterer på at kalde alder en risikofaktor, vil jeg insistere på, at fødslen er en risikofaktor, der med 100% sikkerhed fører til døden på et eller andet tidspunkt.

Psykiatriens nuværende tunnelsyn med dens ensidige fokus på lægemidler er utrolig dyr for vores nationaløkonomi, idet denne strategi har forårsaget en dramatisk stigning i antallet af kronisk syge mennesker og antallet af mennesker på førtidspension. Det ville være langt billigere og føre til betydelige forbedringer i den mentale sundhed, hvis vi brugte stofferne meget lidt og gav folk den psykoterapi, de har brug for.

På lang sigt overstiger de skadelige virkninger af psykofarmaka de gavnlige. Sådan er det ikke for psykoterapi. En god psykoterapeut kan undertiden opnå bemærkelsesværdige resultater, der kan holde resten af livet uden bivirkninger

Sæt folk på medicin, og de lærer ikke noget som helst om, hvordan de skal håndtere deres angst. I modsætning hertil har psykoterapi normalt varige virkninger.

da ADHD ikke er nogen sygdom, men blot nogle børn, der er mere aktive og irriterende end andre.

men som David Healey tørt har bemærket, så er der i modsætning til penicillin flere lig i lægemiddelgrupperne end i placebogrupperne i forsøg med psykofarmaka.

Vi har tilladt psykiatriens medico-industrielle kompleks at vokse som en ondartet svulst, der sender metastaser i alle retninger i vore samfund, og vi har tilladt de psykiatriske oligarker at medikalisere normaliteten -også hos vores børn helt ned til førskolealderen- og forvandle, hvad der tidligere var akutte tilstande, til kroniske. En anden lighed med maligne tumorer er, at psykofarmaka dræber et meget stort antal mennesker.

Det er meget mærkeligt, at vi har accepteret et system, hvor branchen er både dommer og part i sagen, idet det er en klar regel udlov om offentlig forvaltning, a ingen må være i en position hvor de skal vurdere sig selv.

Udtrykket behandlingsresistent burde forbydes, da det dækker over systemets egne fiaskoer. Hvis psykiaterne insisterer på at bruge dette udtryk, skal de også acceptere, at vi andre kunne finde på at kalde den faktaresistente. Psykologisk forskning har vist, at jo mere mennesker udsættes for fakta, der viser, at deres overbevisning er forkert, desto mere stædige bliver de ofte i deres fejlagtige tro. Det er der, psykiaterne er i dag. Faktaresistente psykiatere er også behandlingsresistente.

Hvad folk foretager sig i sundhedsvæsenet, handler ikke så meget om, hvad der er rigtigt eller forkert,men om, hvem der har magten. Der er stærke lavsinteresser at beskytte, og politikere og administratorer hader at gå imod magtfulde faggrupper, fordi det giver dem så meget besvær.

Hvis der ikke var læger som mellemled, med alle deres forsikringer om sikkerhed, helbredelse og forebyggelse af tilbagefald, ville mange patienter opgive at tage psykofarmaka meget hurtigt, da deres bivirkninger er så frygtelige.

Jeg er helt enig i, at psykofarmaka til børn er en form for børnemishandling, der skal forbydes, med meget få undtagelser. Vi må ikke slå vores børn, men vi må gerne ødelægge deres hjerner med medicin.

Ideen om, at det er tilladt at medicinere inkompetente menneske mod deres vilje, ender i den slags omgivelser med at blive begrundelsen for at medicinere alle, der ikke er enige. Det kan ikke forsvares ud fra et etisk perspektiv, da det -helt objektivt- som regel ikke er i personens bedste interesse. Desuden drejer det sig om patientens autonomi, hvilket ikke er en alt-eller intet-tilstand. Folk kan være inkompetente i nogle henseende og ikke i andre

Vi hjælper ikke folk ved at stigmatisere dem, låse dem inde og medicinere den, og det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at det er patienterne, der har forlangt medicinfri alternativer. At 'stabilisere' patienterne vil for lægerne sige at bruge medicin til at berolige dem, hvilket er meget anderledes end at møde patienterne med deres forvirrede tanker og sætte tid af til at arbejde dem igennem uden medicin.

St. John Chrysostom has the following beautiful simile in one of his homilies: " As a fire which has taken pos session of a forest, cleans it out thoroughly, so the fire of love, wheresoever it falls, takes away and blots out every thing that could injure the divine seed, and purges the earth for the reception of that seed. Where love is, there all evils are taken away." 7 St. Chrysologus says: " You wish to be absolved ? Then love! Charity covereth a multitude of sins. What is worse than the crime of denial? And yet Peter was able to expiate this [crime] solely by love." 8 Among the Schoolmen, Sylvius held a different view, which was, however, rejected by De Lugo and others. 9

You invest so much in it, don't you? It's what elevates you above the beasts of the field, it's what makes you special. Homo sapiens, you call yourself. Wise Man. Do you even know what it is, this consciousness you cite in your own exaltation? Do you even know what it's for? Maybe you think it gives you free will. Maybe you've forgotten that sleepwalkers converse, drive vehicles, commit crimes and clean up afterwards, unconscious the whole time. Maybe nobody's told you that even waking souls are only slaves in denial. Make a conscious choice. Decide to move your index finger. Too late! The electricity's already halfway down your arm. Your body began to act a full half-second before your conscious self 'chose' to, for the self chose nothing; something else set your body in motion, sent an executive summary—almost an afterthought— to the homunculus behind your eyes. That little man, that arrogant subroutine that thinks of itself as the person, mistakes correlation for causality: it reads the summary and it sees the hand move, and it thinks that one drove the other. But it's not in charge. You're not in charge. If free will even exists, it doesn't share living space with the likes of you. Insight, then. Wisdom. The quest for knowledge, the derivation of theorems, science and technology and all those exclusively human pursuits that must surely rest on a conscious foundation. Maybe that's what sentience would be for— if scientific breakthroughs didn't spring fully-formed from the subconscious mind, manifest themselves in dreams, as full-blown insights after a deep night's sleep. It's the most basic rule of the stymied researcher: stop thinking about the problem. Do something else. It will come to you if you just stop being conscious of it. Every concert pianist knows that the surest way to ruin a performance is to be aware of what the fingers are doing. Every dancer and acrobat knows enough to let the mind go, let the body run itself. Every driver of any manual vehicle arrives at destinations with no recollection of the stops and turns and roads traveled in getting there. You are all sleepwalkers, whether climbing creative peaks or slogging through some mundane routine for the thousandth time. You are all sleepwalkers. Don't even try to talk about the learning curve. Don't bother citing the months of deliberate practice that precede the unconscious performance, or the years of study and experiment leading up to the gift- wrapped Eureka moment. So what if your lessons are all learned consciously? Do you think that proves there's no other way? Heuristic software's been learning from experience for over a hundred years. Machines master chess, cars learn to drive themselves, statistical programs face problems and design the experiments to solve them and you think that the only path to learning leads through sentience? You're Stone-age nomads, eking out some marginal existence on the veldt—denying even the possibility of agriculture, because hunting and gathering was good enough for your parents. Do you want to know what consciousness is for? Do you want to know the only real purpose it serves? Training wheels. You can't see both aspects of the Necker Cube at once, so it lets you focus on one and dismiss the other. That's a pretty half-assed way to parse reality. You're always better off looking at more than one side of anything. Go on, try. Defocus. It's the next logical step. Oh, but you can't. There's something in the way. And it's fighting back.

Denial of Saint Peter. To say to Christ: ‘I will never deny Thee’ was to deny him already, for it was supposing the source of faithfulness to be in himself and not in grace.

It has always been interesting to me that all four Gospels include this story of Peter’s denial of Jesus. This was the most ignominious moment of his life. Why would they tell this story? Each of the Gospels was written after Peter’s death. It seems particularly surprising that they would tell this story about a man who would go on to be one of the heroes of the faith. Generally, after the death of someone who was highly revered, we don’t tell stories of their greatest failures. Which leads me to this thought: perhaps the reason they were comfortable telling this story is because Peter himself told this story as a part of his witness everywhere he preached in the years after Jesus’s death. It was so well known that even John, which often differs from Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is compelled to include it. And why would Peter tell this story wherever he preached? Perhaps he knew that we all have moments when, by our words and actions, we deny Jesus.

Oh yeah. All of us. Janie and Peter, too. But now I think it’s better that we did go through it, because before . . . it was almost like this state of denial. Like, ‘Sure, bad stuff happens, but it won’t happen to us.’ But this is different. This is something you do with your eyes open. You look at the world, see it for exactly what it is, and then make this conscious choice to be part of it. It’s a better deal, really. I like it. In a shaky, ambiguous sort of way.

Maybe nobody's told you that even waking souls are only slaves in denial.

Joseph Poe or Nolan?’ ‘No.’ ‘One of the Garvins or the Moynihans?’ ‘Not them.’ ‘Rosencranz O’Dowd?’ ‘No.’ ‘Would it be O’Benson?’ ‘Not O’Benson.’ ‘The Quigleys, The Mulrooneys or the Hounimen?’ ‘No.’ ‘The Hardimen or the Merrimen?’ ‘Not them.’ ‘Peter Dundy?’ ‘No.’ ‘Scrutch?’ ‘No.’ ‘Lord Brad?’ ‘Not him.’ ‘The O’Growneys, the O’Roartys or the Finnehys?’ ‘No.’ ‘That is an amazing piece of denial and denunciation,’ he said.

For the pastor has the responsibility to nurture the affirmative without encouraging the gullible; to keep people alert and prepared to say yes to every yes of God in every part of existence without at the same time being a patsy for every confidence game in town; to train people in robust acceptance of what God brings to us and not to passively submit to the trashy merchandising of religious salespeople. We must confront the breezy, irresponsible nonchalance that avoids hard difficulties and shuts its eyes to the worst suffering. We must demonstrate that the trumpet sentence "in him it is always Yes" can only be sounded in a world in which job's doubt and pain are affirmed, a world in which David's disintegrating family and harassed kingship are accepted, a world in which Peter's denials and bitter weeping are acknowledged - a world of shipwreck and rejection, famine and plague, a world in which Jesus Christ hangs on a cross feeling in every nerve-end the physical and spiritual disorder of a world that says no to God.

But memory isn’t what we think it is. Our normal memory is more like a denial of memory; it’s only a small selective recollection of a few items that our rationality and identity have chosen as their flag to rally around.

Now in this sense also, I take it, Peter affirms that believers have been begotten again unto a living hope. In all probability the representation, while applicable to all believers, was influenced to some extent by the apostle’s memory of his own experience. There had been a moment in his previous life when all at once, in the twinkling of an eye as it were, he had been translated from a world of despair into a world of hope. It was when the fact of the resurrection of Christ flashed upon him. Under the two-fold bitterness of his denial of the Lord and of the tragedy of the cross, utter darkness had settled down upon his soul. Everything he expected from the future in connection with Jesus had been completely blotted out. Perhaps he had even been in danger of losing the old hope which as a pious Israelite he cherished before he knew the Lord. And then suddenly, the whole aspect of things had been changed. The risen Christ appeared to him and by his appearance wrought the resurrection of everything that had gone down with him into the grave. No, there was far more here for Peter than a mere resurrection of what he had hoped in before. It was the birth of something new that now, for the first time, disclosed itself to his perception. His hope was not given back to him in its old form. It was regenerated in the act of restoration. Previously it had been dim, undefined, subject to fluctuations; sometimes eager and enthusiastic, sometimes cast down and languishing; in many respects earthly, carnal and incompletely spiritualized. Apart from all of these defects, his previous hope had been a bare one, which could only sustain itself by projection into the future, but which lacked that vital support and nourishment in a present substantial reality without which no religious hope can permanently subsist. Through the resurrection of Christ, all these faults were corrected; all these deficiencies supplied. For Peter looked upon the risen Christ as the beginning, the firstfruits of that new world of God in which the believer’s hope is anchored. Jesus did not rise as he had been before, but transformed, glorified, eternalized, the possessor and author of a transcendent heavenly life at one and the same time, the revealer, the sample and the pledge of the future realization of the true kingdom of God. No prolonged course of training could have been more effective for purifying and spiritualizing the apostle’s hope than this single, instantaneous experience; this bursting upon him of a new form of eternal life, concrete and yet all-comprehensive in its prophetic significance. Well might the apostle say that he himself had been begotten again unto a new hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead. And, of course, what was true of him was even more emphatically true of the readers of his epistle, who, if they were believers from the Gentiles, before their conversion had lived entirely without hope and without God in the world.

Archdeacon Peter’s face was like stone. He was the worst kind of Christian, Philip realized: he embraced all of the negatives, enforced every proscription, insisted on all forms of denial, and demanded strict punishment for every offense; yet he ignored all the compassion of Christianity, denied its mercy, flagrantly disobeyed its ethic of love, and openly flouted the gentle laws of Jesus.