Quotessence
Home / Quotes / Quote by Bahar Tezcan

Quote by Bahar Tezcan

“Oysa birinde kalmak bir niyet meselesiydi. Yürümeye yüz tutmamış ilişkiden, ihtiyaçları karşılamayan bir kişiden gitmek her ne kadar doğru seçenek gibi dursa da kimsede bağlanma ve yerleşme kucağı bulamamış olmak ancak kişinin kendisiyle ilgili olabilirdi.”

Quote by Bahar Tezcan

Work

Terapi Odasında İyileşen İlişkiler

Browse quotes and source details for this work. more

Author

Bahar Tezcan

Browse famous quotes and profile details for Bahar Tezcan. more

You May Also Like

“With "anything people do but shouldn't" labeled "disease," those who oppose Christianity may very well call prayer, worship, reading the Bible, faith in Jesus Christ, and obeying the Lord 'diseases" or symptoms of a religious "disease." The organization Fundamentalists Anonymous is based upon the idea that conservative Christianity (believing that Jesus is the only way and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God) is a serious, debilitating addiction. Unfortunately, the three Christian authors of 'Love Is a Choice' have listed this anti-Christian organization at the end of their book with this recommendation: "Seek them out locally.”

“... [I]nstead of taking this poor sinner to the cross to put self to death and to 1 John 1:9 for forgiveness and cleansing, Springle talks about how this poor codependent has been suffering from a lack of self-worth. In face, he declares that the codependent's sin is the idolatry of trying to "get his security and value from someone or something other than the Lord." Thus the answer is to get your self-worth from Jesus. This sounds more like the gospel of Adler, Maslow, and Rogers (with Jesus conveniently added to meet the hierarchy of needs) than the gospel Paul preached.”

“When we microdose bravery strategically and intentionally, we can experience the therapeutic benefits: fun, growth, freedom, and connection that makes discomfort worthwhile.”

“The organized lying practiced by totalitarian states is not, as is sometimes claimed, a temporary expedient of the same nature as military deception. It is something integral to totalitarianism, something that would still continue even if concentration camps and secret police forces had ceased to be necessary. Among intelligent Communists there is an underground legend to the effect that although the Russian government is obliged now to deal in lying propaganda, frame-up trials, and so forth, it is secretly recording the true facts and will publish them at some future time. We can, I believe, be quite certain that this is not the case, because the mentality implied by such an action is that of a liberal historian who believes that the past cannot be altered and that a correct knowledge of history is valuable as a matter of course. From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible. But since, in practice, no one is infallible, it is frequently necessary to rearrange past events in order to show that this or that mistake was not made, or that this or that imaginary triumph actually happened. Then again, every major change in policy demands a corresponding change of doctrine and a revelation of prominent historical figures. This kind of thing happens everywhere, but is clearly likelier to lead to outright falsification in societies where only one opinion is permissible at any given moment. Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. The friends of totalitarianism in this country usually tend to argue that since absolute truth is not attainable, a big lie is no worse than a little lie. It is pointed out that all historical records are biased and inaccurate, or on the other hand, that modern physics has proven that what seems to us the real world is an illusion, so that to believe in the evidence of one’s senses is simply vulgar philistinism. A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist.”