WTF is this forum coming to? Awesome discussions on life, the universe & everything!

How did he manage to reproduce without a dong?

I thought you said you can't / shouldn't do that, since that is not what prayer is for essentially?

I totally agree about prayer being a good way to verbalise ones thoughts- heck, I talk to myself all the time; sometimes myself talks back...

That's what you've been taught to believe- if you were taught that you had to do x,y & z to achieve eternal life I'm sure you'd do that to.

What exactly is divine about humanity again?

Nope, it is something written in a book, by people- how'd you know they didn't insert that little clause in there themselves ( after maybe misinterpreting or perverting Jesussususs teachings to suit their own ends etc )?

 

Implying there aren't scientists who agree with FRC. Leading on from the first, your second sentence is a non-sequitur. Furthermore, what scientific research in or before 1973 lead to the removal of Homosexuality from the list of pathological disorders by the APA?

I have no choice but to use this study as there wasn't any other that I could see that was done on a larger scale, the articles all seemed to be related to the same paper from 2007. Besides all that I still oppose small sample sizes.

Nope don't agree. I agree with you on homosexuals living in fear of social stigma, marrying, having kids etc. as that is undeniable. I would consider someone who commits an homosexual act of molestation an homosexual, just as I would consider someone who steals or lies a thief or a liar.

My gripe with self-statements is that they're accepted if someone professes to not be homosexual and rejected if that person says they've changed sexual orientation.

Oops you're right here, I read it wrong.

If you read the entire paragraph relating to reference 17 you'd see.

That could have possibly happened, the graphs plotted in the study use the average age of all 3 faces for each group, not indivual faces. If you have e.g. a 15,18 and 20 year old in that group and they're each rated accurately you end up with an average about 18, this could be done with other combinations too.

It wasn't linked in that way, that quote comes from the first part of reference 17. This study we're discussing was linked because it did follow up research relating to the first.

My brain switched off for a moment while I typed that gem >.<.

Yup that would be the correct statement(s), so why was that not placed clearly in the abstract?

Maybe because this is when women begin to be and are most physically attractive?

They do explain their reasoning behind this later down. Link (Search:"ARE MEN WHO MOLEST BOYS REALLY 'HOMOSEXUALS'? Gay Apologists Insist on a Simplistic Stereotype of Pedophilia")

They're not pushing exclusivity simply stating the statistics. The above section on the FRC article addresses the rest of your post, you're looking for biases and finding stuff that even isn't there.

Notice I said in this respect, meaning in this study. All they needed were the exact ages, how tricky is that?

Is discussing science on which you base your beliefs and on which I base part of mine is not related in any way to our beliefs?

 

Sheesh, I play a game for a while and look how many requests I have.

All right, the triune nature of God. I'm wondering if it's not a way to explain an unexplainable being (because we can't deal with that concept.) Though there is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, the three can also simply be seen as three personalities made manifest of God. God the Father is the generative force, as well as the base of justice and the punisher of sin. Jesus is the human qualities of God made real, the Man that lived a life just like ours and became the only possible perfect sacrifice to end the old treaty of yearly sacrifice and imperfect atonement. That they are separate is most exemplified in the Crucifixion, when Jesus cries out, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"-my God, my God, why do you forsake me? As Jesus was the perfect sacrifice, He became sin for the world, and in doing so God could not look upon Him, because God cannot look upon sin. Do I know how Jesus could be 100% God but 100% man as well? Nope. There are no real experts in trinity theology. (Mine is linguistics and eschatology, if you wonder my emphasis of study.) But the story of Christ fulfills many roles. God didn't understand what it's like, some said. So God became one of us. God, why won't this end? Where is our go'el (best translated as kinsman-redeemer, it's the next of kin who is charged with restoring rights and avenging wrongs. But what we got was not a kingly mashiach, but a priestly one-one who came to restore both right worship and a right relationship to God, not an avenger of the political wrongs done to Israel. And so the Jews missed Him, for the most part, because they were sure that Messiah was going to come with the armies of God and free them. He came eating and drinking with sinners, and not beating his enemies before Him. Surprised a lot of people.

The Holy Spirit is the last of these, and it is both the easiest to understand and the hardest to grasp. (Not that any of this is easy, mind you.) When Christ ascended (Christ means messiah, by the way) He said He would leave, but He was going to make a place for them with His Father, but that He would send a comforter for the, a spirit of peace to help support them and guide their steps. We hold that the Holy Spirit is that which dwells within a believer (in purely scientific terms, it is to this that people would attribute the numinous response) and guides them, helping them subtly in their lives, translating for us before God when we simply don't know what to say, and inspiring us to greater things in our lives. Is this really what happens? Dunno. See, there is a real concept of ecstatic response, and then there is that feeling of shock and awe we sometimes get-a sunset, a particularly moving sermon, a sudden display of overwhelming power-that we term the numinous response (defining my terms here.) As Christians, we attribute it to a situation in which we grow closer to the Lord, and we experience for a brief interlude a bit of the massive power of God. We also tend to believe that the fact that people other than Christians experience these same moments is because we all have the pull of the Divine within us, and that these times are His attempts to call us into a relationship with Him.

Someone asked earlier about the female role in all this-it's the church. The church is also referred to the as the Bride of Christ, and we await the bridegroom's arrival. When He comes, we will be joined to Him as a husband is to a wife, bound together inseparable for all time, our faith made sight. And there are statements throughout the NT that talk about the basis for this being partly in imitation of the first marriage, that of Adam and Eve.

God didn't need a dong to reproduce. When God made man in His image, he made him a thinking creature, one with its own wants, needs and drives. A companion, someone to talk to and enjoy their company. It is this image that we are made, not the concept of an old man sitting on two duffel bags. We ascribe to God the attributes of a male because these are the qualities He shows-a fierce protectiveness of His own, and yet a strong urge to see them succeed and help them grow. A mother may birth a child, but a father spends his whole life trying to both protect and at the same time stay hands off enough that they learn on their own. It is this that we attribute to God-the fatherly tendencies He shows, not the genitalia He may or may not have.

I do not mind these explanations for those that don't know or don't understand. I ask questions when I don't get something, too.

 

Scientists can be biased (humans are fallible, after all); science as a discipline (done correctly) is not. How is it a non-sequitor? It's like saying that maths is flawed because mathematicians can make calculation errors. Or that Christianity is flawed because its followers (being fallible humans) are.

As to your second question, If you are referring to the American Psychiatric Association, probably the realisation that it was included without any basis in research in the first place.

You had several choices: to ignore the research as too small to be conclusive, to mention it but point out the same caveat that you pointed out with Jenny et al.'s research, or, measuring both articles by the same yardstick, accept both as they are. But why were you critical of the sample size a study that disagrees with you, but accepted the sample size of a study that supports your view?

Indeed, the FRC says:

But by that reasoning, if even a single homosexual molestation defines you as homosexual, then to establish the proportion of homosexuals in the general population, should you not include anyone who has had even a single homosexual experience?

In which case the statistics rise above 2%. For instance the FRC says:

But when we look at Fay et al. (1989) they say:

Note how this does not support FRC's 2-4% figure. Moreover, if we go back to Erickson's (1988) paper, in which 21% of 229 child sex offenders considered themselves homosexual, and compare it to 20.3% of males in the general population reporting at least one homosexual contact, then suddenly the alleged massive over-representation of homosexuals in the child sex-offending population disappears. Foot all better now?

Johnson et. al.'s (1992) study was not referenced by the FRC (sloppy), but I found it anyway (Johnson, A.M. et al. (1992). Sexual lifestyles and HIV risk. Nature, 360(3), Dec. 3, 1992, 410-412) and this study of 8,337 British men found that 6.1% had had "any homosexual experience" and 3.6% had "1+ homosexual partner ever." Note that this again does not support FRC's 2-4% figure.

In fact, neither survey makes a statement about sexual partner preference at all. You know, I'm not sure they actually read those surveys --or else they are misrepresenting the facts again (like they do with Kinsey, who they state "claimed" that 10% of the population is gay. In fact, Kinsey stated that 4% of males are exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives; 8% exclusively so for at least 3 years of their lives and 10% more or less so for at least 3 years of their lives. Incidentally, add them together and what do you get? 22%, a figure very much like Fay's et. al. (1989) 20.3%. Just sayin').

The largest survey to date was conducted in Australia by telephone interview with 19,307 respondents between the ages of 16 and 59 in 2001/2002. The study found that 97.4% of men identified as heterosexual, 1.6% as gay and 0.9% as bisexual. For women 97.7% identified as heterosexual, 0.8% as lesbian and 1.4% as bisexual. Nevertheless, 8.6% of men and 15.1% of women reported either feelings of attraction to the same gender or some sexual experience with the same gender. Interestingly, half of the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex sexual experience regarded themselves as heterosexual rather than homosexual. As you say, the trouble with self-reports... Especially when it concerns socially stigmatised behaviour.

But the FRC is happy to base their argument on a lot of research that is essentially self-reports, and actually criticises Jenny's et al. (1994) study for not doing so.

Sorry, I don't. Please explain it to me.

So let me recap: Silverthorne put three faces with (according to independent raters) apparent ages of 15, 18 and 20 in the same group because he judged their mean apparent age as "15"? That's a huge discrepancy between his subjective judgement and that of the other raters, especially for the face that they (hypothetically) rated as a 20-year old. You see my problem here.

How was it linked, then? And just to remind you, they still misrepresented the results of the study.

Again, good question. Now you are starting to think like a researcher. But why did the FRC not point out this obvious problem, given that it is central to their argument?

But if this is the age at which adult sexual attractiveness manifests, couldn't the same then be said for 15-year old men?

In which case, if heterosexual men finding 15-year old girls sexually attractive is just a normal reaction to their burgeoning adult sexual attractiveness (not paedophiliac attraction), is homosexual men finding 15-year old boys sexually attractive not just a normal reaction to their burgeoning adult sexual attractiveness also?

Can you explain then, why in establishing the proportion of homosexuals in sex offenders they count homosexual molestation even if the offender leads an otherwise heterosexual lifestyle, but when they establish the proportion of homosexuals in the general population, they refer to figures for exclusive homosexual activity only? It seems to me that they are measuring with two different yardsticks. The reason why I suspect them of bias is because doing so skews the figures in favour of their argument. Would you disagree?

And can you explain how they got the 2-4% figure from the articles by Fay et al. (1989) and Johnson et al. (1992) that they reference in support of it?

But we are not discussing our beliefs. We are discussing the science you brought to the discussion to support yours.

 

You don't believe in a God who reproduces? Me neither.

Nope, never did - in fact I cited Jesus' example of prayer which demonstrates that we can ask God for things, but we must accept the answer that he gives us.

That we are made in God's image and are like God in many ways - able to create, love, be moral etc.

 

It is always easy to "talk" to yourself and reason with yourself because you're allowed to finish your thoughts without interruption. Often times when you're involved in a discussion with someone you're interrupted simply because the person interrupting you is so eager to give his opinion, or don't have the patience to let you finish, or perhaps aren't interested in what you have to say to begin with. Either way that's not prayer, I don't think.

 

Do you know what a non-sequitur is? You're making an equivocation of ideal Science and practiced Science. Mathematics can be done and produce the wrong results, Christianity isn't practised perfectly by Christians and science as well produces flawed results.

Like with Christianity, when it's not put into practice perfectly, that doesn't invalidate the beliefs themselves, therefore the Ideal Scientific method is not proven wrong when scientists don't carry out research and experiments correctly. I never said they were doing this anyway, I was just questioning the results of their research.

So a scientifically unbiased organisation is allowed to act without scientific evidence?

You do realise this is a terrible estimate? Considering "20.69% (300/1450) male respondents" didn't fully complete the survey. Assumptions were then made as to what their answers would be.

It's very interesting that 300/1450 is just over 20% and data had to be imputed for 15% on the majority of relevant questions and 77 more on 10C, I know,I know. This 20%+ group would also include men who were molested as boys and the data was collected by the widely discredited kinsey institute known for it's bias.

Even so this is a survey of 1450 men and is used to make an estimate for the entire US population in 1970 which was 203,392,031. Doesn't this sample of 1450 which is 0.000712908954% of the general population seem like a biased sample considering 15%+ of the relevant data was imputed? I find it amazing this survey is even quoted today by FRC or anyone at all for that matter.

If you're a male sexually molesting boys, you are by definiting a homosexual, since you are sexually attracted to them. Now using this definition in the way above completely ignores the persons who were homosexual and have changed orientation or were abused by a homosexual.

2-4% figure was obtained from the conclusion here end of page 10 into 11.

Here's pretty much the majority of surveys carried out organised onto a table.Feel free to post another from a supposedly unbiased source if there's a better one out there, and I haven't looked into all of these studies, just highlighting the table which supports the 2-4% estimate.

I'm not sure you actually read these surveys either apart from the abstract.

Feelings of attraction and experience lumped together to inflate statistics. Nevertheless this is a well done survey from what I've read so far.

We could bicker on about self reports forever, but if you really think about it all surveys depend on self reports. It's painfully clear both sides have biases to some degree when it comes to accepting them.

My problem with this is that he looked at the faces for three 18 year olds and categorized them as 15 years old. My understanding of the method section is that the categores ranged from 15-20, 20-30 and so on, as the first 4 persons asked to analyse the images were told to place them in 5 year intervals.

We are talking about paedophillia mainly here and where did the FRC draw the conclusion that you're implying they did on this study?

Because molestors seldom offend only once or twice. Even if figures were included for those with any experience whatsoever it still wouldn't favour homosexuals and wouldn't be very accurate as for reasons mentioned above. Furthermore wouldn't that person be a bi-sexual with a predominantly heterosexual attraction?

So the links to certain research papers are not scientific studies on which you base your beliefs? This is akin to destroying the foundation of a house and claiming not to be attacking the house.

The more I look into these studies the less esteemed "Science" as practised today is in my mind.

Now for some link listing since it's easy to lose track:
Silverthorne
Fay et al., 1989
FRC
Table from Exodus
Australian survey

 

can't believe I clicked that link xD.. that last survey seemed pretty in depth (australian) thing is the gay group covers every bad trait in the study like forced sex and butt sex.. and it seems to imply that gay men in the survey swing both ways- they just do whatever they want!

kind of over the top to be honest.. survey done over the phone about your sexual preferences.. you could make up anything- I mean you could be living in squaller and tell the interviewer you do bears and goats and sometimes prefer swingbars with midgets gliding like squirrel monkeys into your bedroom at night

who's going to verify these things.. think in a study it has to be done face to face- it's probably the only way you'll get accurate results.. I know if someone called me about my sexual preferences- by the end they would be scratching their head

 

I know the studies you are both referencing, but there's a portion of it you're missing as well, and it's a real issue-the fact that some molestation is not sexual in basis, even if it is in nature. Some people do these things because of a need to exert power over others, and sexual power is one of the strongest in our societies. They had access to boys, they would use boys. They had access to girls, they would use girls. It's an equal opportunity predation that's much more akin to the concept of rape as revenge than we'd like to admit. It's not always about sexual orientation or sexual gratification. There are those that havedone it just to get back at people, or because they can't control anyone else in their lives.

The well of human depravity is deep, and you don't want to try and find the bottom. But slanted science aside, you're ignoring a major motivator. And when you do that, your numbers skew. Doesn't even have to be intentional. I've seen experiments set up where there was no intentional bias but an incomplete understanding of the systems involved (these are mostly noticed in hindsight) and they give an incomplete result anyway.

I don't profess to have an opinion one way or another-generalizations are difficult in anything having to do with human behavior, and each case is unique. It's been my stance as a counselor to treat everything as it comes, and I try to do so without an idea of what it's similar to in my head so I can make sure to give the best individualized care I can. Sure, I know the numbers, but people are more than just statistics. I have to make sure I treat them that way.

All right, carry on.

 

Explain Jesus then.

Pray to a milk jug then, as the likelihood of you getting the same answers to your prayers is exactly the same...



Deny it, I dare you.

Just as we are able to destroy, hate & be immoral etc. It's such a steaming pile of crap that I find it hard to believe any intelligent person could swallow it as you are showing; you can take any set of values and apply them to your imaginary friend in the sky and say 'there, x, y & z happens therefore God is real because he stands for x, y & z too'; circular reasoning.

The fact that cruelty, great suffering & unanswered prayers are a fact of life is also rather conveniently what you say God stands for, therefore proving he also exists that way too. WAKE UP! Stop being so naive & gullible for once and start seeing the world for what it is- **** happens, and you either deal or don't deal with it- there is no invisible man in the sky pulling strings.

I know that's not prayer- the difference between prayer & talking to yourself is that prayer is directing your thoughts towards a ceiling and possibly expecting the ceiling to care, or respond- see: delusional.

 

Ah, gotcha. That is indeed true: the practice of science is vulnerable to all the usual biases. But isn't that just saying what I said in a different way?

In any case, bias also sneaks in when you only question the results that you don't like --which is what the FRC does.

Not at all. This is why the APA (or more specifically, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual) is under a lot of scientific criticism for many of their diagnostic categories, including schizophrenia, many child psychiatric disorders etc. But the take-home is: scientists are challenging scientists. In science such a debate is an intrinsic part of the process (I'll come back to that).

It is indeed very rough (although you can statistically correct for blank answers to some extent). So is Erickson's study looking at a sample of 229 convicted child sex offenders, picking out the 54 who molested males and asking them if they are bisexual or gay. Again a small sample size-- how do you know that is a representative sample of all sex offenders who molest males --including the ones not yet caught? How do you know they are telling the truth and not trying to rationalise their own behaviour after the fact?

This is all stuff that the FRC should have mentioned and examined: caveats about surveys, sample sizes, how you compare across different groups.

OK, so if you sexually molest animals, does the animal's gender define your orientation also? No, not being facetious; think about it. What is it that makes child sex offenders molest children rather than adults in the first place? Read Kayinblack's post and also think about psychological immaturity and abuse experiences. Is it really about sex, or sexual attraction in the first place?

But otherwise I get your point: I argue they cast the net too narrow; you argue they cast it too wide. So how would you look for the true prevalence of consensual homosexual acts in the general population?

You are right --my bad; should have read to the end of the conclusion. Although I see with mild amusement that it corroborates the figure stated by the much-maligned Kinsey.

The source is irrelevant as long as we can check the references themselves. Wikipedia does a similar table, by the way. Although I note that even your source mentions Fay et. al.'s estimate of 6.7% for any contact since age 20. What really strikes me is the wide variability between the different studies. I guess it's a lot harder to get precise data about the prevalence of homosexual behaviour in the general population than one would at face value assume.

Indeed, surveys are riddled with methodological problems. I don't pretend to know the true exact figures, nor that any study does. Neither do you. But the FRC does, and they shouldn't.

That's the problem. Either he saw three faces that other people would say look about 18 and he classified them as 15, or he saw three faces that other people would say look anything from 15 to 20 and he classified them as 15. Both scenarios are a bit weird. The 5-year interval method was later abandoned:

The FRC's entire article argues that homosexuals are prone to paedophilia. It is in that context that they mention:

We know that this is not what the study says. We also know that it is not what can be concluded from the study, given that the raw data are not available. Moreover, we know that the study mentions two studies stating that heterosexual men prefer 15-25 year old women, which would make the study's findings about homosexual men unremarkable in any case.

My argument is that the article is full of distortions and inaccuracies like that (as for instance when they overgeneralise Erickson's study).

But then wouldn't also be a molester of male children who is also married or has relationships with girlfriends, or who also has molested girls?

So you'd have to compare with people in the general population who have had any consensual homosexual contact. You cannot argue that this might catch people who have changed orientation, because you are not trying to exclude those amongst child sex offenders (if homosexuals can change orientation, so can they, right?). You cannot argue that they might have been the victim of homosexual child sex abuse and therefore are not "true" homosexuals, because child sex offenders often have been the subject of such abuse too. You have to compare like with like, include or exclude the same variables in both groups. The FRC does not do this; they conveniently compare two incompatible groups chosen in such a way that the results seem to support their hypothesis.

The only way you can reliably find out the real number is to do a longitudinal study in which you follow two large, matched samples of homosexuals and heterosexuals for a long period of time and see in which group more people get convicted for child sex offences --noting the gender of the victim too. Everything else is riddled with methodological bias.

No, they are studies which challenge the studies that the FRC raises in support of their argument.

Blame the FRC; these studies are the quality of the science on which they base their argument.

Don't let it dishearten you though, because think about it: here are you and I, not even professional researchers, having a scientific debate, in which we are challenging and exploring the evidence. Only science allows that to happen: only science has built within it protocols for challenging itself. And that is what protects science from bias: people like us being able to say: "Hey, wait a minute, that doesn't add up because..." and pulling in other research.

If you (or the FRC) say: "I believe homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible", then no debate would be possible. You believe this; I believe that. There is no way to objectively support or challenge that. There is no mutual learning or enlightenment or gradual uncovering of the real situation. But in a scientific framework we can pick over the research, challenge it, dispute it, rubbish it, or support it --with other research. And in doing so we are both finding just how complex and tricky this subject really is.

Because complex is what it is. Every time someone sells you an easy truth, be suspicious. The truth is never simple (Kayinblack has studied the Bible for years, in its original language(!) for a reason. Researchers go to University for years for a reason).

85% of diseases are not caused just by how we think. You cannot just lump paedophiles together with homosexuals --or indeed with heterosexuals. You cannot simply count how many child molesters there are in the population, how many homosexuals, and how much they overlap. You cannot even say very easily what makes someone "a paedophile" (does an 18-year old shagging a 15-year old count?) or what makes someone "a homosexual" or "a bi-sexual". You cannot drastically change someone's brain structures just by training them to think differently.

There are no simple, easy truths. Science proves that. But next time you fly on a plane, use electricity or indeed have your life saved in hospital please do not forget to wave hello to fallible, biased, subjective science.

Thanks. Good thinking.

 

probably best advice is look at the evidence and if it's not there, don't jump to conclusions.. like aliens or claims of 100% life on xx planet, clones running rampant under the mall.. groans coming from the earth xD you have to really look at anything with a open mind and heart, but also look at the evidence..

I like that childish meme when you see it, you will shat bricks.. because that's what it's like being homo erectus free

 

Nexxo, you've brought up an excellent point, and that is the concept of challenge in the church. We do have issues which come up and are challenged, and it's not always as simple as "well it's right there." The Mishna and the Gemara are the interpretations of the Jewish law, and they run to thousands of pages, attempting to ascertain the exact meaning of each law, and the right way to do everything. Rabbis are still arguing over these to this day. Or you could take denominational disputes-there's plenty out there that even in original languages is of obscure meaning, and it may even be intentional. There is a wide area of interpretation in some areas, and unfortunately it makes some things very difficult to sort. I publish papers just like those scientists do, though mine are on logical interpretations of ill-defined quotations. Fun thing, sometimes.

But let's have some fun here. Neil has posited the proof of suffering as a reason there can be no creator. I've countered that it's only by suffering that we learn (which can be seen as a scientific statement as well, it has no inviolate need to be tied to the concept of a divinity, sure) and he's posited that the power of prayer is null, as it accomplishes nothing. I've got a twofold answer to this, and one is a philosophical proof, the other is an observation made by others and is shown to be a scientific proof (of God? No, but of the benefits of prayer.) First, there is the appeal to miracles. Sure there's things we might figure out how it happened, but there may be things we never figure out.

Let's take the case of Padre Pio, a well known stigmatic and faith healer. He also happens to have been well studied by doctors, as well as his patients. First off, for explanations's sake, a stigmatic is one who displays the wounds of Christ spontaneously, having received no injuries corresponding to them beforehand. Stigmatics are used oftenties in the proof of miracles, though I'll go ahead and counter that argument with the fact that yes, people who can practice autohypnosis can will lesions to occur on themselves, but most stigmatics do not seem to be experiencing autohypnosis, but are fully cognizant and able to be questioned intensely.

But since that's a sticky subject, why not grab onto the concept of spontaneous remisson. Here is discussed scientific frequency of spontaneous remissions, with psychological phenomena posited as a possible cause. With such a concept being posited, it is evident that they're looking for an explanation and are unable to find a good one in the solely physical. Those of us who espouse Christianity would posit instead that there in the numbers of spontaneous remissions is a proof that there is an outside force altering in this situation the physical body of humans. There are other miracles that have been recorded by science-a statue was captured on Japanese television weeping Our Lady of Akita is a case with verified spontaneous remissions as well as a weeping statue broadcast on national television, and a prediction of an earthquake that did come to pass. There are no perfect proofs, but these had witnesses of a non-Christian nature, examinations by medical professionals, and most importantly photographic and video evidence.

But, ignoring all that, there is the idea that prayer in and of itself as a concept of meditation is beneficial. Ordering one's mind and being receptive to strange solutions are two ways in which prayer can both calm and assist in locating a proper resolution to a situation, and furthermore in times of peace it's an excellent way to maintain one's peace of mind. If we treat prayer as simply another form of meditation, well, meditation's psychological benefits are well proven in the clinical sense, as is the place of hope in medical treatment, especially ongoing or severe cases.

Now, I can empirically state that prayer is beneficial, and there is evidence of occurrences that seem to have no generative cause unless prayer was examined as being the basis for the action. Since you mentioned that nobody was taking your questions seriously, I did. It's more your phrasing that is offputting than the subject of the questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not appealing to us to give up our beliefs out of a personal belief that you're helping us? If so, then attempting to browbeat a person into change is exactly as the church has been accused (and rightly so in some cases.) The couching of what appears to be an earnest plea for our well-being in a message of utter distaste for the trappings of faith will zip right over most people's heads. A different approach may be necessary. I do, however, understand that you feel as though we've been misled and want to see us develop to the full potential of our mental faculties, which means you're not just doing this to be an asshole. You want to help, but your phrasing needs a bit of help.

As I do not believe that faith is harmful (and in fact, has shown clinical benefits in studies before) then I have to offer counterargument, and I will at every turn attempt to offer secular studies linking to why I hold that belief. I don't expect you to give up very easily, so bring it. I'll do what I can to show the thinking Christian's viewpoint, though in some actions of the church, I do agree that they've got it wrong. I could even see you having a general issue with the hypocrisy of the church. Because yes, they well do have a problem. But for those of us intelligent enough to do our own searching, we take offense to being called mindless. I'll deal with the other criticisms as they come (as I have been) but that one is undeserved.

I sure do wish my wife would pick up the phone so I could leave the doctor's office. But she's got the little one at an appointment of his own.

 

Good points. I agree that true faith questions and examines (paradoxically, true faith dares to question) --a philosophical process that also underpins the birth of science.

The problem with phenomena like stigmata is that we have no experts on stigmata --we only have experts on fake stigmata. It is important to formulate the research question in the right way like that. Doctors are ill-placed to examine the phenomenon and say whether it is real; investigation by James Randi would be a much better test to rule out whether it is faked.

Spontaneous remission of cancer is as poorly understood as what causes it in the first place and how to cure it. I am very loathe to attribute psychological factors, if only because I've talked to too many dying cancer patients in my job (some if which devout Christians) who really wanted to live, and really had faith. To tell them or their families that they are dying because they just didn't want to live badly enough, or just didn't have enough faith, or the 'right' mindset or whatever would be a cruelty unacceptable to me. Sorry, but there is some serious burden of proof required here.

I have no problem with faith or prayer. I think they are inevitable parts of what makes us human. Similarly I have a strong humanist faith based on logic and ongoing exploration of its philosophical foundations, so I can relate. I certainly would like there to be more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophy --and to an extent I believe there are. But wishful thinking is not enough, and fearful thinking is bad advice. Meanwhile what I am certain of is this life, here, and we have to make our strut and fret on the worldly stage the best performance possible, no matter what we think comes after the final act or who we think is directing the play.

Enough Shakespeare references now and off to bed.

 

I don't think it's because they don't want to live badly enough. Honestly, sometimes I think it's unfair myself. A lot of those times are when I'm coughing up blood, or finding a new part of my organ structure is either failing or absolutely missing (like I've just found about my kidneys. Missing parts of one kidney, the other is stunted and missing half of its blood flow.) But the doctors are learning from me. Maybe that's what I'm here for.

But you're 100% right in one regard. What's important is not what comes after. What's important is what we're doing here and now, to each other and for each other. And nobody gets that 100% right. We've all got something to work on there. Whether or not something comes on after this show, it's this show that counts. As Bill and Ted told us, "be excellent to each other."

 

Don't know but i'm thinking of leaving and deleating my account as i don't feel welcome of late...

 

It's already been explained - Jesus is the Incarnate God, the Son of Man. People often mistakenly think of the Trinity in human terms, eg. father/son being a generational relationship, which is incorrect (and illogical). Jesus was born, but the Son is eternal like the Father.

Praying to an inanimate object would be irrational. What's your point?

This has also already been explained - the Fall.

 

Fail- Mary gave birth to Jeus, but God is a non-phyiscal being. No sperm = no baby. Explain Jesus.

Praying to an invisible old man in the sky is irrational- you need to watch that video & open your mind to what it actually says; my point will become painfully clear. If you pray to God, you get a yes/no/wait answer ( if your prayer is a request ); if you pray to the milkjug, then you also get a yes/no/wait answer. A yes answer is nothing more than good timing / coincidence, a no answer is to be expected- a wait answer is a delayed yes/no answer. Spot the difference...

Nope, that has nothing to do with what God does / is & how mankind supposedly mimics him. God does all the bad things too, remember? We are merely copying him by your logic. To say mankind's bad traits are related only to the Fall implies that at some point humans were all wonderful and nice and never did or thought a bad thing until some random point in history.

When was this random point exactly, and how likely do you find it that before it came to pass, humans were all wonderful & nice moral beings? How can the Fall have occurred if we always mimicked God and done bad things too- that makes no sense at all?


When you understand how silly & without basis the propositions are that you put forward as being universal truths, then you'll understand why I laugh at them.

 

I well know how Christ was crucified, having written a 100 page dissertation on it. And yes, I know Padre Pio has his wounds in the wrong places. Furthermore, I admitted that there is the concept of unconsciously willing something like that to happen, and noted that the power of human suggestion is just that strong. I mentioned stigmatics not as a proof, I mentioned it for the people who have never heard of them. I mentioned Pio because of the scientifically documented cases of spontaneous remission that have occurred around him.

Penryn, I hope it's not me that makes you feel unwelcome. It's never my intent to do so.