?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

01/20/2009 02:41:06 PM · #227

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In other words, if you ask for things consistent with God's character, they will be given to you, but if you ask for things outside God's character, they will not. To me this rules out lots of the things we ask for.

Fair enough, but I referring specifically to the most devout, "correct" group you can find, asking for very basic things like medical help (perhaps even for others). Note also that nearly all of the disciples died horribly...

Personally, I can't find lots of promises for things like health and wealth. I'll admit, though, I'm in a bit of a different place on prayer than your typical Christian so perhaps I'm not the best to argue their position. So when something bad happens to you it isn't because you were bad (other than our actions do lead to consequences) or you weren't praying hard enough. Growth really only comes through adversity which is why I disagreed with Louis some time ago that suffering is categorically bad. Suffering encourages growth. Certainly the prosperity preachers of our day are neglecting the fact that pretty well everybody in the early days met nothing but trial and tribulation. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory (ie growth, not salvation) that far outweighs them all.

Sometimes it's important to realize momentary, in eternal terms, can be our whole lives.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/20/2009 02:45:59 PM · #228

Life is suffering.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/20/2009 02:46:55 PM · #229

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dahkota: You make the division sound far too large and important. The doctrine of the Trinity, as presented by the Nicene Creed, is nearly universally accepted. Only fringe groups deny it and do so usually for the purpose of disagreeing with Christ's divinity (which, for the vast majority of Christians excludes them from the Christian umbrella in the first place). These groups, in no way, represent a significant proportion of Christianity as a whole, either by numbers of adherents or numbers of various competing creeds. I welcome evidence presented to the opposite.

I don't know if I would put Christian Science in a fringe category or dismiss their numbers. It is a well established religion with literally hundreds if not thousands of Christian Science reading rooms around the world. They also have a multi-Pulitzer prize winning newspaper publication, The Christian Science Monitor. The paper is fully accepted as a legitimate news agency dispite its ties to a religious organization.

If you are ever in Boston, check out the "Mother Chruch". It rivals anything in the Christian world except the Vatican.

I do think they are out of the mainstream of Christain thinking, but hardly insignificant.

Hundreds of thousands as a part of 2.1 billion? We're talking thousandths of a percent. I know it's not insignificant to you, being married to one, but in the big scheme, it's small.

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/20/2009 02:52:06 PM · #230

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Dahkota: You make the division sound far too large and important. The doctrine of the Trinity, as presented by the Nicene Creed, is nearly universally accepted. Only fringe groups deny it and do so usually for the purpose of disagreeing with Christ's divinity (which, for the vast majority of Christians excludes them from the Christian umbrella in the first place). These groups, in no way, represent a significant proportion of Christianity as a whole, either by numbers of adherents or numbers of various competing creeds. I welcome evidence presented to the opposite.

I don't know if I would put Christian Science in a fringe category or dismiss their numbers. It is a well established religion with literally hundreds if not thousands of Christian Science reading rooms around the world. They also have a multi-Pulitzer prize winning newspaper publication, The Christian Science Monitor. The paper is fully accepted as a legitimate news agency dispite its ties to a religious organization.

If you are ever in Boston, check out the "Mother Chruch". It rivals anything in the Christian world except the Vatican.

I do think they are out of the mainstream of Christain thinking, but hardly insignificant.

Hundreds of thousands as a part of 2.1 billion? We're talking thousandths of a percent. I know it's not insignificant to you, being married to one, but in the big scheme, it's small.

Actually my wife is no longer Christian Scientist. But man her mother still is! ;-)

I'm just saying they aren't some far flung religion without a structure, philosphy backed by Scripture, or dogma. They are accountable to a church authority as are all the other major Christian religions.

01/20/2009 02:55:53 PM · #231

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
Now granted, every quote attributed to Jesus is hearsay

While you are entitled to your opinion to that effect, there are many who are more scholarly than you who would disagree...

The only Biblical contemporary of Jesus was Paul/Saul, and most scholars agree that they never met while Jesus was alive. Therefore all quotes must be hearsay by definition.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:
but the "pray and you'll receive" theme is both widespread in the Bible and obviously widely held by the clergy and the faithful who pray for all manner of help for themselves and others.

...there is a HUGE difference between praying for what you HOPE God will grant, and praying for what you truly BELIEVE He has already granted in accordance with your prayer, though the fact of it's being granted may not be manifest for some time, often years.

You're essentially declaring that, "What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.. as long as they are what things soever you were already destineth to receive anyway." While it's a convenient excuse to avoid fulfilling any actual requests, this does nothing to address my original question about the power of prayer. It's plainly obvious that people of faith pray for help (medical, nutritional, security, etc.), either those pleas are useless per your argument or there must be a group of "true believers" somewhere with demonstrable success.

01/20/2009 03:05:03 PM · #232

Originally posted by scalvert:

In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal ( vol. 81 no. 7 ) Randolph C. Byrd, M.D. posted the results of a study on the Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. The abstract of that study follows:

"The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P < .01). Multivariate analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P < .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a
beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU."

01/20/2009 03:06:01 PM · #233

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In other words, if you ask for things consistent with God's character, they will be given to you, but if you ask for things outside God's character, they will not. To me this rules out lots of the things we ask for.

Fair enough, but I referring specifically to the most devout, "correct" group you can find, asking for very basic things like medical help (perhaps even for others). Note also that nearly all of the disciples died horribly...

In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal ( vol. 81 no. 7 ) Randolph C. Byrd, M.D. posted the results of a study on the Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. The abstract of that study follows:

"The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P < .01). Multivariate analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P < .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a
beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU."

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

01/20/2009 03:08:13 PM · #234

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In other words, if you ask for things consistent with God's character, they will be given to you, but if you ask for things outside God's character, they will not. To me this rules out lots of the things we ask for.

Fair enough, but I referring specifically to the most devout, "correct" group you can find, asking for very basic things like medical help (perhaps even for others). Note also that nearly all of the disciples died horribly...

In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal ( vol. 81 no. 7 ) Randolph C. Byrd, M.D. posted the results of a study on the Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. The abstract of that study follows:

"The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P < .01). Multivariate analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P < .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a
beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU."

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

God = sugar pills?

01/20/2009 03:13:16 PM · #235

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
In other words, if you ask for things consistent with God's character, they will be given to you, but if you ask for things outside God's character, they will not. To me this rules out lots of the things we ask for.

Fair enough, but I referring specifically to the most devout, "correct" group you can find, asking for very basic things like medical help (perhaps even for others). Note also that nearly all of the disciples died horribly...

In an article published in the Southern Medical Journal ( vol. 81 no. 7 ) Randolph C. Byrd, M.D. posted the results of a study on the Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. The abstract of that study follows:

"The therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God, one of the oldest forms of therapy, has had little attention in the medical literature. To evaluate the effects of IP in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). While hospitalized, the first group received IP by participating Christians praying outside the hospital; the control group did not. At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P < .01). Multivariate analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P < .0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a
beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU."

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

God = sugar pills?

Has nothing to do with god(s), but with faith. Have a strong enough faith in anything and your mind will give you miracles, if you allow it.

Message edited by author 2009-01-20 15:14:37.

01/20/2009 03:16:18 PM · #236

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play. That said, here's an even more interesting rebuttal.

01/20/2009 03:19:37 PM · #237

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play. That said, here's an even more interesting rebuttal.

Ah, heck, you're right, my mistake.

Message edited by author 2009-01-20 15:20:17.

01/20/2009 03:21:29 PM · #238

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play. That said, here's an even more interesting rebuttal.

Ah, heck, you're right, my mistake.

That's ok -- you've had a rough week. I'd pray for you and your new ride, but....

01/20/2009 03:21:48 PM · #239

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:

This is really no different than any other psychosomatic treatment. The power of the mind and all that.

Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play. That said, here's an even more interesting rebuttal.

Ah, heck, you're right, my mistake.

That's ok -- you've had a rough week. I'd pray for you and your new ride, but....

*snickers*

01/20/2009 03:25:00 PM · #240

Originally posted by eqsite:

Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play.

That study was debunked in depth here (and one of the points made is that it WASN'T actually double blind).

01/20/2009 03:27:31 PM · #241

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play.

That study was debunked in depth here (and one of the points made is that it WASN'T actually double blind).

Well, between that and the fact that they failed to control what they were studying (as shown in my link above), pretty much invalidates the results.

01/20/2009 03:28:59 PM · #242

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Now granted, every quote attributed to Jesus is hearsay

While you are entitled to your opinion to that effect, there are many who are more scholarly than you who would disagree...

The only Biblical contemporary of Jesus was Paul/Saul, and most scholars agree that they never met while Jesus was alive. Therefore all quotes must be hearsay by definition.

Hearsay: n. 1. Information heard from another. 2. Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus. John was a contemporary of Jesus. Both quote Jesus as speaking directly to them - not as information heard from another, and as personal knowledge - ergo - not hearsay.

01/20/2009 03:36:30 PM · #243

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play.

That study was debunked in depth here (and one of the points made is that it WASN'T actually double blind).

Well, between that and the fact that they failed to control what they were studying (as shown in my link above), pretty much invalidates the results.

I shall have to bookmark this post so that in future rants, when any scientific study is presented to support global warming, all I have to do is show one aspect of that study that is "questionable" and VOILA - the entire study is thereby invalidated. Thanks for making my future rebuttals easier.

01/20/2009 03:40:32 PM · #244

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play.

That study was debunked in depth here (and one of the points made is that it WASN'T actually double blind).

Well, between that and the fact that they failed to control what they were studying (as shown in my link above), pretty much invalidates the results.

I shall have to bookmark this post so that in future rants, when any scientific study is presented to support global warming, all I have to do is show one aspect of that study that is "questionable" and VOILA - the entire study is thereby invalidated. Thanks for making my future rebuttals easier.

It's not that one part is questionable, it's that they failed to conform to accepted standards when performing the study, and this can very clearly skew the results. If the study was not in fact double-blind, then psychosomatic effects (which have been demonstrated time and again) do come into play. And the fact that they failed to control who was being prayed for leaves us with no actual knowledge of whether the control was prayed for as much as the prayer group or not. There is nothing left to learn from this study if these problems are true.

01/20/2009 03:49:33 PM · #245

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by eqsite:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by eqsite:
Actually, if I interpret this correctly, neither group would have known which was in the control, so psychosomatic effects shouldn't come into play.

That study was debunked in depth here (and one of the points made is that it WASN'T actually double blind).

Well, between that and the fact that they failed to control what they were studying (as shown in my link above), pretty much invalidates the results.

I shall have to bookmark this post so that in future rants, when any scientific study is presented to support global warming, all I have to do is show one aspect of that study that is "questionable" and VOILA - the entire study is thereby invalidated. Thanks for making my future rebuttals easier.

It's not that one part is questionable, it's that they failed to conform to accepted standards when performing the study, and this can very clearly skew the results. If the study was not in fact double-blind, then psychosomatic effects (which have been demonstrated time and again) do come into play. And the fact that they failed to control who was being prayed for leaves us with no actual knowledge of whether the control was prayed for as much as the prayer group or not. There is nothing left to learn from this study if these problems are true.

There is nothing left to learn from this study if these problems are true.
Since you do not KNOW whether "these problems" are true or not, you cannot say with certainty that the study is invalid. But finding an excuse is like a witch hunt - it never ends until you find a witch, even if you have to invent one to "prove" that your hunt was justified.

01/20/2009 03:49:48 PM · #246

Originally posted by RonB:

Matthew was a contemporary of Jesus. John was a contemporary of Jesus. Both quote Jesus as speaking directly to them - not as information heard from another, and as personal knowledge - ergo - not hearsay.

That assumes the disciple Matthew was the author of the Gospel of Matthew. Most contemporary scholars disagree. The authorship of the Gospel of John is also open to considerable debate (as is the identity of John himself).

01/20/2009 03:53:26 PM · #247

Originally posted by RonB:

Actually, I do know that they failed to control who was being prayed for, because I do know that you can't control that. People pray for all sorts of random people on a daily basis, so there is no way to know who was being prayed for and how much. That alone is enough to call into question any results from the study.

You really need to stop falling into Shannon's trap of asking for scientific corroboration of your faith. Faith and science study separate realms.

Edit: mangled quote

Message edited by author 2009-01-20 15:53:51.

01/20/2009 03:53:45 PM · #248

Originally posted by RonB:

Since you do not KNOW whether "these problems" are true or not, you cannot say with certainty that the study is invalid.

Actually, that's precisely what invalidates it. You must know they are not true.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5