| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/12/2007 12:14:13 PM · #401 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It's not a coincidence; Judaism, Christianity, and the Muslims all trace their origins back to the same ancient peoples and traditions. The Muslims are the youngest of the three, and they actually share prophets witht he Jews and the Christians. |
I would go further and say all three are offshoots of Judaism. They are Rabbinic Judaism, Messianic Judaism and Mohammedan Judaism. I like these terms because a) they put things in perspective and b) they blow the minds of anti-Semites. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 12:31:05 PM · #402 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though the question was what would the devout say the message of Christianity was, not what would God say it was. |
Seems I was brought up on a heretical bible. Might explain a lot.
//www.wayoflife.org/articles/tev.htm |
Unfortunately this example shows the merit of the critique (by non-believers) that the translations cannot be trusted. One must, imo, remember that the protesting catholics (aka protestants) protested for a reason, then the subsequent schisms of the protesters, until today where we have hundreds of denominations each claiming "devive rights", when the truth is that they all (meaning christian denominations) were founded in catholicism. If a devine right exists, it is through the origins of catholicism. The fundementalists view posed in the article linked, is evidence of the low regard for catholic teaching, promoted in the circles of the protesters. Having specifically studied with many protesters, I concluded that their differences are not with Christ's teachings, but more with the application of religion on mankind. The references in the article of comparing the KJV with the GNB, and sepcifically the detailed argument about whether Christ was "with" God or "of" God, is a classic example of what Christ warned against. That of followers spending thier energy on minor disagreement, rather than on the worship of God. One reason I no longer study with the protesters. So much time was spent trying to convince me how evil catholicism was, that the real words of Christ were placed secondary. I really don't much care what you call me, Catholic, catholic, protestant, disciple, or follower; what I know for certain is that I fall short - every day.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 12:43:46 PM · #403 |
On another note, it seems to me that God has a LOT of former Catholics sitting in the wings. Due to their/your past teachings, I suspect that at some point coincidences will be too great to ignore, and a host of "calvarymen" will be available for assignment.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 12:48:20 PM · #404 |
Originally posted by Flash:
On another note, it seems to me that God has a LOT of former Catholics sitting in the wings. Due to their/your past teachings, I suspect that at some point coincidences will be too great to ignore, and a host of "calvarymen" will be available for assignment. |
If you are referring to those "coincidences" you've pointed out in this thread, you would be wrong. It's already been shown that they are nothing but wish fulfillment on your part, and indicative of your intractable refusal to apply logic, reason, and observation of fact to events viewed through the lens of your belief. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 12:52:40 PM · #405 |
Originally posted by Flash:
On another note, it seems to me that God has a LOT of former Catholics sitting in the wings. Due to their/your past teachings, I suspect that at some point coincidences will be too great to ignore, and a host of "calvarymen" will be available for assignment. |
If that was directed towards me, then no, I wasn't raised a Catholic and a misdirected comment like that where I was raised would tend to lead to a quite heated discussion, often involving knives and smashed bottles, amongst the faithful.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:07:33 PM · #406 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
On another note, it seems to me that God has a LOT of former Catholics sitting in the wings. Due to their/your past teachings, I suspect that at some point coincidences will be too great to ignore, and a host of "calvarymen" will be available for assignment. |
If you are referring to those "coincidences" you've pointed out in this thread, you would be wrong. It's already been shown that they are nothing but wish fulfillment on your part, and indicative of your intractable refusal to apply logic, reason, and observation of fact to events viewed through the lens of your belief. |
Do you deny the power of prayer? Do you deny that seemingly unexplained cures happen to some people? If that is the logic, reason and observation of fact you are referring to, then yes, I will remain intractable and continue with my review of coincidences.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:13:11 PM · #407 |
...
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 13:31:27.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:38:24 PM · #408 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though the question was what would the devout say the message of Christianity was, not what would God say it was. |
Seems I was brought up on a heretical bible. Might explain a lot.
//www.wayoflife.org/articles/tev.htm |
Please explain this post. What do you mean by "being brought up on a heretical bible"? Your link compares the the KJV and the GNB (aka TEH). Your link reads like the only true Bible was the KJV. You have posted elsewhere references to King James and posted questions in that regard. Please explain.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:45:54 PM · #409 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though the question was what would the devout say the message of Christianity was, not what would God say it was. |
Seems I was brought up on a heretical bible. Might explain a lot.
//www.wayoflife.org/articles/tev.htm |
Please explain this post. What do you mean by "being brought up on a heretical bible"? Your link compares the the KJV and the GNB (aka TEH). Your link reads like the only true Bible was the KJV. You have posted elsewhere references to King James and posted questions in that regard. Please explain. |
Apparently Gordon was "brought up" on the GNB, which has been in common usage for over 40 years, and which has broad-based ecumenical approval, even by the Catholic hierarchy. The referenced link makes the claim that the GNB fosters heresy because it changes the meaning of some scripture.
What part of this is not clear?
R.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 01:54:42 PM · #410 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you deny the power of prayer? Do you deny that seemingly unexplained cures happen to some people? If that is the logic, reason and observation of fact you are referring to, then yes, I will remain intractable and continue with my review of coincidences. |
I know you weren't asking me, but I don't deny or confirm the power of prayer. I do deny, however, that just because the prayer of a particular person has power does NOT mean that he knows where the power came from and can explain it.
The main problem I personally have with atheistic rational atomism, i.e. this notion that we are all just combinations of atoms behaving according to certain laws, is my own awareness. Awareness cannot be explained by paricles (or waves, for that matter, or even strings). However, there is no logical reason to assume that the people who have this mysterious awareness would also have the explanation of that awareness "revealed" to them. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:11:37 PM · #411 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What part of this is not clear?
R. |
The part where he says he was not catholic (a couple of posts up) and that being referred to as such would warrant knives/broken bottles to defend the faithful. Thus, if he would explain what he meant in his KJV/GNB post, as requested, then I would have a bit more information. Further, Gordon has posted previously about the KJV and seems to be familiar with its history, origin, reason for commission, etc. Thus, again my interest for an explaination of his KJV/GNB post.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:49:41 PM · #412 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you deny the power of prayer? Do you deny that seemingly unexplained cures happen to some people? If that is the logic, reason and observation of fact you are referring to, then yes, I will remain intractable and continue with my review of coincidences. |
There have also been numerous "miraculous cures" (or "spontaneous remissions" as they are known in the medical industry) without prayer being involved.
And just a couple of years ago there was an actual scientific study conducted where the hypothesis of prayer improving medical outcomes was tested, and there was no measurable difference in the cure rate among those prayed-for and those not. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 02:56:31 PM · #413 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
Do you deny the power of prayer? Do you deny that seemingly unexplained cures happen to some people? If that is the logic, reason and observation of fact you are referring to, then yes, I will remain intractable and continue with my review of coincidences. |
There have also been numerous "miraculous cures" (or "spontaneous remissions" as they are known in the medical industry) without prayer being involved.
And just a couple of years ago there was an actual scientific study conducted where the hypothesis of prayer improving medical outcomes was tested, and there was no measurable difference in the cure rate among those prayed-for and those not. |
GeneralE - I agree with your post. I did not meant to imply that the two were necessarily causily related. Thus my reason for separating them into 2 separate questions.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:05:15 PM · #414 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And just a couple of years ago there was an actual scientific study conducted where the hypothesis of prayer improving medical outcomes was tested, and there was no measurable difference in the cure rate among those prayed-for and those not. |
Here it is. Those who knew they were being prayed for fared worse. And those who believe prayer works apparently feel it's quantity, not quality, that makes God listen (which also correlates with Flash's previous apparent assertion that the number of adherents is more important than the type of religion): "But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying." |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:35:10 PM · #415 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And just a couple of years ago there was an actual scientific study conducted where the hypothesis of prayer improving medical outcomes was tested, and there was no measurable difference in the cure rate among those prayed-for and those not. |
Here it is. Those who knew they were being prayed for fared worse. And those who believe prayer works apparently feel it's quantity, not quality, that makes God listen (which also correlates with Flash's previous apparent assertion that the number of adherents is more important than the type of religion): "But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying." |
Do I take that your position (since those who were prayed for fared worse) is that prayer has no power or even negative power?
If you are going to reference my "assertions", then please be a bit more accurate. I did not say that numbers were MORE important, however I did say that they needed to be considered, when comparing your example of aboriginals in your province and making a comparison to the plight of the Jewish people.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 03:43:52 PM · #416 |
I do find it ironic that earlier you went to great lengths to point out how the archeologist in a find I linked, even said it was not "proof". Yet you post a link to prove prayer is ineffective while "In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer."
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:38:54 PM · #417 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Apparently Gordon was "brought up" on the GNB, which has been in common usage for over 40 years, and which has broad-based ecumenical approval, even by the Catholic hierarchy. The referenced link makes the claim that the GNB fosters heresy because it changes the meaning of some scripture.
What part of this is not clear? |
yup
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:43:10 PM · #418 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
What part of this is not clear?
R. |
The part where he says he was not catholic (a couple of posts up) and that being referred to as such would warrant knives/broken bottles to defend the faithful. Thus, if he would explain what he meant in his KJV/GNB post, as requested, then I would have a bit more information. Further, Gordon has posted previously about the KJV and seems to be familiar with its history, origin, reason for commission, etc. Thus, again my interest for an explaination of his KJV/GNB post. |
I'm not a Catholic. I never was a Catholic. Calling someone from my background a Catholic, where I was brought up, would tend to lead to violence. Typically this would involve the weapons at hand (smashed bottles, knives, feet, fists, bricks, occasional train doors etc). This happens on a fairly daily basis, to this day. Mixed religion relationships were frowned upon and quite often condemned more forcefully.
The church I attended used (and may well still use if it still exists) a GNB. Apparently that's a heretical bible, according to some sources. I was noodling around on the notion that the 'message' was clearly understood to all Christian sub-divisions and happened to look into the history of the bible I was originally taught from.
As to the history of other bibles, particularly the history of King James - I studied history in school, which tended to go back to pre-Roman empire times - not sure what the breadth of historical teaching is like in the US, so I can't compare. I listened to a podcast on the Divine Right of Kings a few weeks ago (radio 4 'In Our Time' - covers a lot of interesting topics //www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/ philosophy, science, literature, religion, history). I also studied a variety of other religions in school, attended Synagogue on occasion, took philosophy classes, studied Plato, was taught Latin and a variety of other things that have popped up in this and other rant threads. I think we even read Through the Looking Glass too.
Also, its a subtle point, but I didn't say anything about 'to defend the faithful' I said 'amongst the faithful'. Sectarian violence was and is a daily fact of life, between various Christian groups there.
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 18:52:19.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:49:41 PM · #419 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Do I take that your position (since those who were prayed for fared worse) is that prayer has no power or even negative power? |
I don't know. Do you?
Originally posted by Flash:
If you are going to reference my "assertions", then please be a bit more accurate. I did not say that numbers were MORE important... |
Well, you may as well have, especially considering the high-handed delivery. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 04:53:19 PM · #420 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I do find it ironic that earlier you went to great lengths to point out how the archeologist in a find I linked, even said it was not "proof". Yet you post a link to prove prayer is ineffective while "In a hurriedly convened news conference, the study's authors, led by Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston, said that the findings were not the last word on the effects of so-called intercessory prayer." |
Yeah, so? You didn't prove by any of your links anything about any of the positions you've taken. In fact, in one link you posted, the gist of the article exactly countered your position. And the fact that this study's authors had to scramble to make excuses for their own scientific findings does not negate that scientifically acquired data.
Message edited by author 2007-12-12 16:55:06. |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 06:05:35 PM · #421 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And just a couple of years ago there was an actual scientific study conducted where the hypothesis of prayer improving medical outcomes was tested, and there was no measurable difference in the cure rate among those prayed-for and those not. |
Here it is. Those who knew they were being prayed for fared worse. And those who believe prayer works apparently feel it's quantity, not quality, that makes God listen (which also correlates with Flash's previous apparent assertion that the number of adherents is more important than the type of religion): "But experts said the study could not overcome perhaps the largest obstacle to prayer study: the unknown amount of prayer each person received from friends, families, and congregations around the world who pray daily for the sick and dying." |
Maybe they just didn't pray hard enough... ;)
Positive therapuetic effects of intercessory prayer in a cardiac care unit population
|
|
|
|
12/12/2007 11:12:52 PM · #422 |
...or maybe it really doesn't work at all. The study you linked didn't even have a real control: 3-7 intercessors were asked to pray daily for one group, but there could have been an equal number (or more) of family or friends praying for the control group. Note that there was no statistical difference between the number of deaths, days in CCU, days in hospital, and number of discharge medications despite explicit prayers for prevention of death and a rapid recovery. Note also that all prior studies mentioned in Byrd's work failed to find any positive effect from prayer. You would think any omniscient being who values having his creations believe in him so much would see this as a great PR opportunity. 100% of that prayer group should have jumped up in the OR and performed River Dance for the study authors. Now THAT would have been some evidence! ;-) |
|
|
|
12/12/2007 11:26:16 PM · #423 |
Maybe these medical prayers don't work because God is too busy making sure celebrities and athletes get their awards. Speaking of which, did anybody catch the Heisman Trophy presentation? I lost count how many times Tim Tebow thanked God in his acceptance speech. :P
|
|
|
|
12/13/2007 12:40:20 AM · #424 |
| Not surprising since Tebow's parents were both missionaries. From the AP press story: "Tebow has worked and preached at his parents' orphanage since he was 15. He regularly speaks at schools and delivered his message of faith at a prison in Florida earlier this year." |
|
|
|
12/13/2007 12:54:24 AM · #425 |
I don't follow this thread regularly (and am still a bit confused as to how religious debate equates to photography, but that's neither here nor there) but I do have a question for all ye learned ones... I've never quite figured how to categorize myself - what do you call someone who doesn't "have a personal relationship with Christ" (or any other deity/religious figurehead) but has no problem that others do, and also feels that personal relationships with Buddha, Mohammed, Allah, whomever are cool, too. I see a place for religion - any religion - in the world, but don't participate in any of 'em. (And as an added aside, the Muslims in Kuwait - the men, anyway - carry prayer beads which remind me a great deal of rosary beads carried by Catholics.)
Just curious. |
|
