^“15 This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. ¹⁶ For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. ¹⁷ But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.” – James 3:15-17

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” – 1 Cor. 3:19

“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.” – Psalms 1:1

Christian Psychology?

I often wonder why would a true believer of Jesus Christ go to any psychologist or to a psychiatrist when we believe in the ultimate Healer, especially when it comes to issues pertaining to the mind? Doesn’t God and His word provide all of our needs? As far as I have gathered, most of the “masters” of Psychology were Jesus-rejectors. Does relying on these godless heathens show a lack of faith in Jesus?

From the late Dave Hunt:

The only possible justification for the existence of “Christian” psychology in the church would be if the Bible did not contain all of the counsel, wisdom, and guidance that Christians need for living sanctified lives pleasing to God in today’s modern world. For thousands of years, both Old and New Testament believers found God and His Word more than sufficient in every way. At least this is what the Bible tells us of those who triumphed by faith over every trial and circumstance that Satan could bring against them. Some of their lives are summarized briefly in Hebrews 11.

The heroes and heroines of Bible history all triumphed by faith in God and in His promises. They neither had nor needed any help whatsoever from “Christian psychology”, which didn’t even exist in their day. Wouldn’t faith in God and His Word, which has been proved thousands of times through the ages to be more than sufficient in every conceivable circumstance and in the deepest trials, be sufficient for Christians today, no matter what their trials and challenges might be? What could possibly persuade a Christian to look to psychology, invented by anti-Christians, for help in living a life pleasing to God?

Of course, [some] Christian psychologists claim to have a firm faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. But no matter how firmly a psychologist adheres to inerrancy of Scripture, they all must deny its sufficiency. This is the only way to justify their profession. If any part of the Bible is in error, however, then where can the line be drawn? If the Bible has not given us all we need to live the Christian life, that fact alone would be enough to make all of it suspect in view of the many places where it claims to be sufficient for living triumphant lives pleasing to God.

How and why would psychology, invented by atheists and anti-Christians as a substitute for God, the Bible, and Christianity, provide new insights into the Bible unknown to (and obviously unneeded by) millions of believers over the last four thousand years or more? And why would we need it now? There is neither a biblical nor rational answer to that logical question.

“Christian” psychology is not a recognized classification in this field. Textbooks and reference manuals list hundreds of psychologies (Freudian, Jungian, Rogerian, humanistic, etc.), each named after its founder or its founder’s chief theory. But there is no school of psychology that was founded by a Christian and is therefore called “Christian” and recognized as such in university libraries. Psychology is in fact anti-Christian. It doesn’t come from the Bible but is simply an attempt to integrate the theories of atheists into the Bible in order to supply missing essentials for daily living that the Holy Spirit apparently failed to include. Does that sound reasonable?

Here is what two leading Christian psychologists had to say in a paper delivered at a convention of Christian psychologists:

We are often asked if we are “Christian psychologists” and find it difficult to answer since we don’t know what the question implies. We are Christians who are psychologists, but at the present time there is no acceptable Christian psychology that is markedly different from non-Christian psychology.

Psychology wasn’t even well known in the secular world until after Freud and Jung popularized it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Nor did it enter the evangelical church until after World War II. For nearly nineteen hundred years, Christians triumphed over the world, the flesh, and the devil by faith in Christ alone and obedience to His Word. If great men and women of God throughout history didn’t need psychology, why would anyone need it today?

How did psychology get into the church? The man most responsible for the intrusion of that Trojan Horse was none other than arch heretic Norman Vincent Peale. Peale declared on national TV on the Phil Donahue show, “It’s not necessary to be born again. You have your way to God; I have mine. I found eternal peace in a Shinto shrine…God is everywhere.” Shocked, Donahue responded, “But you’re a Christian minister; you’re supposed to tell me that Christ is the way and the truth and the life, aren’t you?” Peale replied, “Christ is one of the ways.” Among his many other heresies were the following:

Who is God? Some theological being…? God is energy. As you breathe God in, as you visualize His energy, you will be reenergized! Prayer power is a manifestation of energy. Just as there exist scientific techniques for the release of atomic energy, so are there scientific procedures for the release of spiritual energy through the mechanism of prayer….
Prayer…is a procedure by which spiritual power flows from God…releases forces and energies…one must learn step by step the formula for opening the circuit and receiving this power. Any method through which you can stimulate the power of God to flow into your mind is legitimate…

So how did secular, anti-Christian psychology metamorphose into Christian psychology? It doesn’t come from the Bible and was unknown in the church until Peale brought it in. As reported on Peale’s home page, here is how “Operation Trojan Horse in the Church” began:

In 1937, Peale established a clinic with Freudian psychiatrist Dr. Smiley Blanton in the basement of the Marble Collegiate Church…. The clinic was described as having “a theoretical base that was Jungian, with a strong evidence of neo- and post-Freudianism.”
It subsequently grew to an operation with more than 20 psychiatric doctors and psychologically-trained “ministers,” and in 1951 became known as the American Foundation for Religion and Psychiatry. In 1972, it merged with the Academy of Religion and Mental Health to form the Institutes of Religion and Health (IRH)…. Indeed, Peale pioneered the merger of theology and psychology which became known as Christian Psychology. [Emphasis added]
Peale said, “through prayer you . . . make use of the great factor within yourself, the deep subconscious mind… [which Jesus called] the kingdom of God within you….Positive thinking is just another term for faith.”

According to J. Harold Ellens, author of a section on Peale in the Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, “Dr. Peale…had the courage to stand pat on this position in spite of the opposition of the entire Christian church for nearly half a century [emphasis added].”

So the “entire Christian church” opposed “Christian psychology” for decades. Eventually, not only liberals but evangelicals succumbed to this appealing delusion that theology could be made “scientific” by merging it with psychology – though the latter is not a science and never could be. Peale was not only a master of heresies by the dozens but a master of persuasion. Much of that can be credited to Billy Graham, who repeatedly praised Peale and endorsed his writings.

Christian psychology is an attempted marriage of the Bible to theories of the atheistic inventors of psychology. It is worse than trying to mix oil and water; it is the attempt to blend the Word of God with atheism and occultism. This is impossible to do honestly. Even “Christian psychologists” themselves admit they can’t quite find a way to put that mixture together. After trying for decades to mix this devil’s brew, Gary Collins admitted: “It is too early to answer decisively if psychology and Christianity can be integrated.”

Then why keep trying? Why is anyone attempting this impossible and incompatible partnership? It has succeeded because those who call themselves Christian psychologists and promote it in the evangelical church want legitimacy and respect both in the world and in the church. But Scripture declares, “whosoever . . . will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (James 4:4).

The very foundation of Christian psychology is the belief that the Bible is insufficient to deal with the traumas and challenges of modern life: we need something more than the counsel God gives in His Word. Although one of Christ’s names is Counselor (Isaiah 9:6), we supposedly need more today than His counsel alone. The atheistic founders of psychology’s various schools presumably offer part of “God’s truth” that either isn’t included in Scripture or isn’t explained there as well as psychology expresses it. This is the sand upon which Christian psychology is founded. It is not the kind of ground upon which one would want to build anything.

(Source)

I can’t say I disagree with Mr. Hunt.

Another wrote:

Psychology literally means “the study of the soul.” The questions psychology answers are the same ones answered by Christianity and the Bible: Why am I here? What is my purpose? Why do I suffer? How can I be happy? How should I live?

Since God has already given us everything in the Bible for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), why would we need to have those same questions answered by psychology, whose founders sought to answer life’s most important questions apart from God?

Christians don’t need Christ plus psychology. He alone is sufficient. But as “me too” Christians, we are constantly craving what the world has, and we somehow think putting a Christian spin on psychological theories will make our idols pleasing to God.

Instead of ministering to our Christian brothers and sisters, as every believer is called to do, we send them out to “professionals.” In some cases, our Christian psychologists are more revered than our pastors — and in all cases the false prophets preach another gospel than we have received from God in His Word.

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. … As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

—Galatians 1:6-9

Psychology could easily be called the Religion of Self, because it teaches that the way to right living and happiness is to:

• find yourself,
• believe in yourself,
• love yourself,
• be proud of yourself,
• stand up for yourself, and even
• forgive yourself.

God’s Word however, teaches that the way to right living and true joy is through relationship with God, which means to:

• seek God (not self),
• believe in Christ (not self),
• love others (for “no one ever hated himself”),
• humble ourselves (not be proud of ourselves),
• die to self, and
• forgive others while repenting of our own sins.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that standing up for myself, esteeming myself, setting boundaries for myself as to how much of my time and attention I will give, and having “me time” is exactly the opposite of dying to myself. And yet Christians daily embrace this kind of language and incorporate it into our hearts and lifestyles as if it were true. As with any sin, it certainly feels good for the moment to stand up for ourselves, but God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” I myself have fallen into the trap of thinking I need “me time,” yet in fact when I yield to God, the blessings of giving up that time to do the good works He has prepared for me (Ephesians 2:10) are beyond anything I could have imagined. (For an inspirational story of a young woman’s obedience to God and sacrificial living, read Kisses from Katie by Katie Davis.)

The Bible says, “In the last days, men will be lovers of themselves…” (2 Timothy 3:2). I can think of no other time in history when this is more true than today, even in the Church. I truly believe psychology’s stealth entry into our belief system plays a large part in the fulfillment of this prophecy.

When it comes to pride vs. humility, the correct attitude is so simple even a child can see it: You can be proud of yourself, or you can humble yourself, but you cannot do both because they are polar opposites. God Himself says He “opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). And yet we teach our children to embrace the very attitude that God opposes!

God’s Word says, “I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength” (Philippians 4:13). Psychology says, “I can do all things” (through belief in myself), or “If I can imagine it, I can achieve it.” But God’s Word says, “Nothing is impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). God can do infinitely more than we can ever ask or imagine, but first we have to stop relying on ourselves and surrender completely to God’s plans for our lives.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.”

—Proverbs 3:5-6

Even though we give lip service to this verse, the language of psychology is so deeply ingrained in our culture that most of us simply accept the diametrically opposed beliefs of psychology without holding them up against the light of Scripture, as we are commanded to do.

God’s voice says repent and turn to God alone. But we make excuses and look for reasons for our sin: our past, our circumstances, our genes, our brain chemistry.

God’s Word says confess our sins and pray for each other so that we may be healed. But we go to professionals (the secular priesthood, the religion of the state), instead of to one another, the body of Christ, as God commands.

We take to heart the wisdom of man and confess not our own sins but the sins of others! Even “Christian counseling” often leads eventually to gossip, bearing false witness, and dishonoring parents.

And we can be sure any time we pay for counseling services, it is not God’s way, for God’s Word is free to all:

“Unlike so many, we do not peddle the Word of God for profit.”

—2 Corinthians 2:17

God says He has given us everything we need for life and godliness in His Word. Do we believe Him? As believers encouraging and ministering to one another (for free!), led by the Holy Spirit, we have such an opportunity to change lives. Instead, we have set up a false religious system in the Church that insidiously undermines God’s one way of sanctification.

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

—John 17:17

I have wondered many times if one of the reasons we can see God removing His protective hand from our nation is because we have not humbled ourselves and repented of the sin of bringing this idolatry of psychology into our churches, nor have we made any effort to cast it out. We do many things in the name of Jesus, but our hearts are divided; we have a form of godliness but deny its true power to save and deliver (2 Timothy 3:5).

“He sent His Word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”

—Psalm 107:20

We need to repent and turn to God with our whole hearts, and He will deliver us, never with the philosophies of men, but by the truth of His Word!

The demonic origins of psychology

Carl Jung (1875-1961) 

Jung was the founder of analytical psychology. I won’t get into details how but Jung had an enormous influence on New Age thinking – greater, perhaps, than most realize. Jung was deeply interested in psychical research and the paranormal. I won’t bore you with detailing his theories but instead, provide interesting facts with his involvement with the occult. This alone should make anyone (or at least a Christian) be vigilant about Psychology.

There is absolutely no doubt to me Jung was possessed. He wrote:

“While I am writing this I observe a little demon trying to abscond my words and even my thoughts and turning them over into the rapidly flowing river of images, surging from the mists of the past, portraits of a little boy, bewildered and wondering at an incomprehensibly beautiful and hideously profane and deceitful world.” source

Carl became consumed purportedly by demonic spirits ended up an incoherent shell of a man. He required delilverance or exorcism and 11 months of hospitalization for recovery. Carl said:

“Solemnly and of my own free will I wish to acknowledge that knowingly and freely I entered into possession by an evil spirit. And, although that spirit came to me under the guise of saving me, perfecting me, helping me to help others, I knew all along it was evil.”

Jung was involved with seances and used the ouija board.

One author wrote:

Jung’s involvement with occult ideas and practices is well documented by his biographers, and his occult activities began to germinate after many séances with his cousin Helene Preiswerk. He was so steeped in magic that he used to tell friends, “They would have burned me as a heretic in the Middle Ages.”[38] Biographer Frank McLynn writes:

“At the 1895 séances…Helene communicated with Jung’s paternal and maternal grandfathers and produced a remarkable impersonation of Samuel Preiswerk’s voice and lecturing style.

“While ‘possessed’ she spoke in High German instead of her usual Basel dialect and afterwards could remember little of what she had said during the session, except that she was convinced the spirits of the dead had spoken through her mouth.

“When the coven of spiritualists regrouped in 1897—Jung was by now coming to the end of his second year in medical school—Samuel Preiswerk “came through” again, this time with a proselytizing message, in which he urged Helene to set up a national home for Jews in Palestine and then to convert them to Christianity.

“This puzzled the listeners, for in his lifetime Samuel Preiswerk had been an ardent Zionist but not a convertor. After about a month, however, Helene fell into a different sort of trance, which Jung described as ‘semi-somnambulic,’ in which she remained aware of her surroundings while making contact with the spirits.

“In this state she revealed a secondary personality in herself and said that her name was “Ivenes.” This new personality was dignified, ladylike, calm, poised and serious, in contrast with Helene herself, who was inclined to giddiness and instability; Helene tended to go in for table turning and automatic writing, Ivenes for revelations about the past.”[39]

Jung’s maternal grandfather, Samuel Preiswerk, was chief of the Protestant clergy of Basel and a professor of the Old Testament at the Evangelical Institution in Geneva. Although he was known to be well-trained, Preiswerk, like many others before and after him,

“would talk to the spirit of his deceased first wife in weekly séances while locked in his study, much to the dismay of his second wife and the fascination of his children, including his favorite, Emilie.”

Emilie herself, the youngest of the twelve children, had paranormal experiences with the dead. After a crisis at the age of twenty, she began to fall into regular trances, an occurrence that continued throughout her life.[40]

But it was the séances in 1895 that proved to be a key point in Jung’s life. Jung wrote of this experience,

“For myself I found such possibilities extremely interesting and attractive. They added another dimension to my life; the world gained depth and background.”[41]

The following year, Jung plunged into occult reading while he was going to medical school. His goal, as Noll puts it, was to put “the mediumistic henomenal” which he had learned through the séances with Helene “into a wider intellectual context outside traditional Christianity thought.”[42]

The massive information he had accumulated through his reading helped him understand the spirit world better when he later again began to get involved in séances with Helene in 1897. By that time, Jung had already

“turned the séances from a parlor game into a more serious affair, at times inviting his medical-student colleagues to witness [Helene’s] phenomena and to make their own judgments.”[43]

The lessons which Jung learned from the séances had a profound influence on him, much more than “most of the instruction he received in medical school.”[44]

In the process, when many occultists and spiritualists would call the spirit entities Jung encountered through the séances as demonic, Jung called them “complexes,” “unconscious personalities,” or “splinter personalities.”[45] But as Noll puts it, it was ultimately “the realm of the gods.”[46] This terminology became the primary basis of Jung’s life, and eventually his doctoral thesis.[47]

By that time, Jung was no longer a novice in the occult. Famed psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor (who was at one time Sigmund Freud’s associate) wrote that Jung’s home became

“a haunted house. It seemed to be filled with ghostly entities. His eldest daughter saw a white figure, snatched off her bed at night. His nine-year-old son dreamed of a fisherman and drew his picture.

“The head was a chimney from which flames were leaping up and smoke was rising. From the other side of the river where he was fishing, the Devil came flying through the air cursing that his fish had been stolen.

“Above the fisherman an angel was hovering and answered the Devil: You cannot do anything to him; he only catches bad fish.”[48]

At one point,

“the front doorbell began ringing frantically. Several people could see the doorbell as it rang, but no one was ringing it. The ringing of the bell by unseen hands occurred in the afternoon on a bright summer day.

“As the poltergeist operates in daylight, we may suspect the young daughter as the focal center of this disturbance. However, Jung assumed full responsibility for these happenings, even though he could not understand how the dead were involved.”[49]

During that time, Jung declared that

“the whole house was filled as if it were a crowd present, crammed full of spirits. They were packed deep right up to the door…

“As for myself, I was all a-quiver with the question, ‘For God’s sake, what in the world is thing?’ Then they cried out in chorus, ‘We have come back from Jerusalem where we found not what we sought.’

“That is the beginning of the Seven Sermons. Then it began to flow out of me, and in the course of three evenings the thing was written. As soon as I took up the pen, the whole ghostly assemblage evaporated…The hunting was over.

“These conversations with the dead formed a kind of prelude to what I had to communicate to the world about the unconscious: a kind of pattern of order and interpretation of its general contents.”[50]

The eventual product of those three nights was Jung’s book Seven Sermons to the Dead.[51] Stephan A. Hoeller and others also mention that Jung was involved in automatic writing,[52] a purely occult technique which was practiced by nineteenth-century occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky[53] and which later became quite common among some writers such as William Butler Yeats.[54]

This is reminiscent of how several Hollywood actors, actresses and “musicians” who received information through automatic writing or channeling. Celebrities such as Rudolf Valentino (and his wife Natasha), Greta Garbo, Mae West, Joan Crawford, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, Rosanne Barr, Shirley MacLaine, Carlos Santana, Robert Plant, etc. were known to be involved with occult practices and got their “inspiration” from the spirit world.

You can watch this video exposing the occult practices in Hollywood click HERE.

For the occult practices in the music industry, you can click HERE.

More about Jung:

Jung found in the occult not only a supernatural power that seeks to destroy the foundations of Christendom, but also a power that guaranteed that occult ideas in the name of “science” or “psychology” would spread far and wide.

“By 1916, in ‘The Structure of the Unconscious,’ Jung attacks the scientific worldview and defends the validity of occult movements like Theosophy, Christian Science, the Rosicrucians, and those who practice ‘folk magic’ and astrology by arguing that, ‘No one who is concerned with psychology should blind himself to the fact that besides principles and techniques, humanity fairly swarms with adherents of quite another nature.’”[61]

Following his predecessors, like Friedrich Nietzsche, Jung’s analysis, Noll tells us, was an attempt to destroy Christendom and its influential power over the individual.[62] Noll goes on to say:

“Jung was waging war against Christianity and its distant, absolute, unreachable God and was training his disciples to listen to the voices of the dead and to become gods themselves.”[63]

Jung continued: “We are cut off from our earth through more than two thousand years of Christian training.”[64]

For Jung, the time to break with the “Christian training” had come, and the age of a new religion had arisen. Jung believed that Western culture had suffered much under the wings of Christianity, and that the time for a new revelation was long overdue.

He repeatedly stated that Christianity failed to answer life’s fundamental questions and man’s bold quest for knowledge and for penetrating the mysteries of life.[65]

Moreover, Christianity emphatically condemned occult divinations and pagan practices. It was not long before Jung found himself in constant battle with Orthodox Christianity.[66]

Hence, psychoanalysis, Jung’s archetypal image, and new terminology such as “unconscious” had to be introduced into mainstream thought in order to properly seduce the masses into the new religion. These terms did not have their development out of a scientific need, but because people like Jung wanted to rationalize the occult and indeed sexual liberation. Jung, along with Freud, became one of the noted figures to merge occultism with modern psychology.[67]

This became clear when Jung moved to other points in his covertly occult system. In fact, he made repeated references to the occult and Gnosticism throughout his writings and lectures.[68]

Source

Carl Jung even had spirit guides, which are really demons, he named as Philemon and Ka. Jung wrote:

“Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself…

“It was he who taught me psychic objectivity, the reality of the psyche…I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know and do not intend…Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight…To me it was what the Indians call a guru…

“And the fact was that he conveyed to me many an illuminating idea. I did a painting of [Ka, another demonic figure], showing him in his earth-bound form, as a herm with base of stone and upper part of bronze…Ka’s expression has something demonic about it…

“Philemon has a lame foot, but was a winged spirit, whereas Ka represented a kind of earth demon…Philemon was the spiritual aspect, or “meaning.” Ka…was a spirit of nature…In time I was able to integrate both figures through the study of alchemy.”[76]

(Source)

So, it was by the demonic realm Jung received his information. Jung also was experienced “induced a dissociative altered state of conscious and made a visionary ‘descent’ into the unconscious,” and this world was named the Land of the Dead. It sounds like some sort of astral projection.

Carl Jung was also into astrology:

He wrote to Freud,

“I made horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth…I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge which has been intuitively projected into the heavens (Source).”

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) 

Considered to be the Father of psychoanalysis, Freud himself used to take drugs as a form of spiritual enlightenment, and even one of his famous disciples, Ernest Jones, was quite surprised that Freud would abandon the scientific enterprise and went into magic through strange drugs. Freud was known as a Cocaine addict and one who rejected Christianity. Freud is described as a “convinced, consistent, aggressive atheist” who considered himself as “godless Jew.”

Interesting information on his occult activities:

He was involved with the occult. He was a member of the Society of Psychical Research London and the American Society for Psychical Research in New York City. Freud had experiences with clairaudience (the supposed power to hear things outside the range of normal perception), telepathy (communication through means other than the senses, as by the exercise of an occult power), dreams of premonition as well as hearing voices (Harpers’s Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experiences by Rosemary Guiley). Further, he rejected the truth that man was a sinner and that sin was at the root of man’s problems. As a result of that, he developed his own theory called the psychoanalytic theory. He said that man’s problems stem from repressed desires. He supposed that the unconscious was a vast reservoir of forgotten experiences and repressed desires primarily sexual in nature. In light of this people are not really responsible for their actions. Those who follow Freud say that the only way to resolve our problems is to go on an archaeological dig into your subconscious mind and see what you can dredge up from the reservoir of your unconsciousness. How did Freud attempt to get the repressed information to the surface? First, by hypnotism. “As a young physician, Freud had observed that hysterical patients seemed to lose their symptoms after being under hypnosis and recalling material which, apparently had been completely forgotten. From this, he developed the concept of an unconscious which dominates the activities of a person, and is motivated by forgotten experiences, forgotten by means of repression, and kept submerged by means of resistance”5

(Source)

Hypnotism is truly an occult practice. For more information, you may want to watch this video. I have no doubt Freud picked up demons involved with drug use and the occult.

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)

He is most well known for his hierarchy-of-needs theory, with all needs centered around the self.

Maslow believed that man was basically good. “Maslow rejected the Lord and His Word … and even blamed Christianity, with its doctrines of the fall and sin, for preventing the natural development of humanity and for thus being a major source of evil (source).”

As far as I know, Maslow wasn’t involved with the occult but was he was involved with someone who seemed to be.

Maslow was an associate of Alfred Kinsey, the sex guru and part-time disciple of Satanist Aleister Crowley:

“In 1945, returning to his earlier interest in human sexuality, Maslow agreed to help Alfred Kinsey recruit subjects on the Brooklyn College campus.

“Kinsey took his fellow sex researcher on a walking tour through Times Square, pointing out the pimps and prostitutes plying their trade—an eye-opening experience for Maslow…Maslow kept his promise to help Kinsey find subjects.” [Joyce Milton, The Road to Malpsychia: Humanistic Psychology and our Discontents (New York: Encounter Books, 2002), 52]

Click here for more information about Crowley and Kinsey and their demonic influence over the culture through the sexual revolution.

Carl Rogers (1902-1987)

Carl Rogers was known for his Humanistic Theory of Psychology which emphasizes to love ourselves and accept ourselves because self-love and self-acceptance is the key to solving our problems. Yeah, right. Carl “contacted” the spirit of his dead wife, Helen, through an Ouija board—one of the easiest ways to open oneself to the demons in my opinion (source). He rejected the biblical view of man. 1 Samuel 15:23 says, “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…” so it is little wonder that later in his life when he came face to face with eternity that he resorted to séances and looked to the Ouija board for answers about the hereafter.

What does the Bible read about contacting familiar spirits and the occult?

Leviticus 19:31 “Regard not them that have FAMILIAR SPIRITS, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.”

Deut. 18: 9 – 12 “When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a CONSULTER OF FAMILIAR SPIRITS, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.”

Leviticus 20:6 – “And the soul that turneth after such as have FAMILIAR SPIRITS, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.”

Leviticus 20:27 -“A MAN ALSO OR A WOMAN THAT HATH A FAMILIAR SPIRIT, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.”

But isn’t psychology and psychiatry a real scientific enterprise that truly helps people with “mental illness”?

Research shows that psychology is not doing such a good job of resolving the issues at life. The Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health did a survey and this is what they found: “of those persons who actively sought help for personal problems, the vast majority contacted persons other than mental health professionals, and generally they were more satisfied with the help they received than were those who chose psychiatrists and psychologists.” (source)

Here are more interesting quotes:

In Psychology: A Study of a Science, Dr. Sigmund Koch, of the American Psychological Association, concluded that it is now “utterly and finally clear that psychology cannot be a coherent science.”

Dr. Lawrence LaShan, former president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, concurred: “Psychotherapy may be known in the future as the greatest hoax of the twentieth century.”

And R. Christopher Barden, a psychologist and lawyer, stated, “It is indeed shocking that many if not most forms of psychotherapy currently offered to consumers are not supported by credible scientific evidence. … Too many Americans do not realize that much of the mental health industry is little more than a national consumer fraud.”⁷

Indeed, most people do not know that every single diagnosis listed in psychiatry’s “bible,” the DSM-IV, was voted into existence by committee.⁸

“It is important to understand clearly that modern psychiatry … began not by identifying such diseases by means of established methods of pathology, but by creating a new criterion of what constitutes a disease. Thus, whereas in modern medicine new diseases were discovered, in modern psychiatry, they were invented.”

—Dr. Thomas Szasz, M.D.

Not only is psychology without merit, but psychiatry defrauds the public as well. Medical psychiatrists have been trying for years to validate their biochemical theory of mental illness, but “after decades of research that has yielded not a single definitive biological marker connecting brain dysfunction to mental disorders,” we are letting doctors evaluate and treat us as if such diseases exist.⁹ To put it more loosely, making a diagnosis of mental illness is “a near mindless act where you can speculate whatever you want and never be ‘wrong’ (if any new or unrelated symptoms emerge just add another diagnosis).”¹⁰

In fact, there is not a single scientific study that shows prescription psychotropic drug users suffer from an objective, confirmable abnormality of the brain.

I am going to share with you just a few quotes from the experts themselves (not the ones getting paid by drug companies). These people have risked their reputations to speak out against the sacred cow of psychiatry, many because they understand the true dangers of the psychotropic drugs being hoisted on the public and know the risk-benefit ratio is in nobody’s favor.

“There’s no biological imbalance. When people come to me and they say, ‘I have a biochemical imbalance,’ I say, ‘Show me your lab tests.’ There are no lab tests. So what’s the biochemical imbalance?”

—Dr. Ron Leifer, psychiatrist

“All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, abrogating [revoking] the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal.”

—Dr. Fred Baughman Jr., Pediatric Neurologist

Sadly, many if not most patients accept their doctor’s reassurances that psychiatric drugs are safe. And few doctors have the time or inclination to understand the side effects and dangers of the psychotropic drugs they prescribe, other than the information provided by the drug companies themselves. As a result, most of the American public routinely elects to take psychotropic drugs without true informed consent.

“Until the psychiatric community is called upon to provide conclusive evidence that the nearly 400 disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) are not merely subjective clinical diagnosis but rather objective, confirmable abnormalities of the brain, the debate surrounding the benefit or risk of psychotropic drugs seems moot.”

—O’Meara, Psyched Out, p. 4

“Psychiatry makes unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin. … Modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness.”

—Dr. David Kaiser, psychiatrist

While “there has been no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions … not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false.”

—Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard Medical School psychiatrist

“There is no blood or other biological test to ascertain the presence or absence of a mental illness, as there is for most bodily diseases. If such a test were developed … then the condition would cease to be a mental illness and would be classified, instead, as a symptom of a bodily disease.”

—Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry,
New York University Medical School, Syracuse

“The FDA’s data reveal that sugar pills were as effective as the drugs in a majority of clinical trials.”

—O’Meara, Psyched Out, p. 17
(See this video for more on the placebo effect.)

“Biological psychiatry is a total fraud.”

—Fred Baughman, as quoted by Dr. Timothy Scott,
America Fooled: The Truth about Antidepressants,
Antipsychotics and How We’ve Been Deceived

(source)

Other sources read:

The American Psychiatric Association indicates that a definite answer to the question, “Is psychotherapy effective?” may be unattainable. Their 1982 research book, Psychotherapy Research: Methodological and Efficacy Issues, concludes: “Unequivocal conclusions about casual connections between treatment and outcome may never be possible in psychotherapy research.” In its review of this book, the Brain/Mind Bulletin says, “Research often fails to demonstrate an unequivocal advantage from psychotherapy.” The following is an interesting example from the book:

..”. an experiment at the All-India Institute of Mental Health in Bangalore found that Western-trained psychiatrists and native healers had a comparable recovery rate. The most notable difference was that the so-called ‘witch doctors’ released their patients sooner.”

(source)

The cure for the sinful soul and the problems of life was the vital ministry of the church, using the Word of God, for more than 1900 years: