A Parable about Age

[sandwiches]

Nice try, seriously. There is no way to employ the scientific concept of "control" to the subject of whether prayers might be in accordance with the Father's will, (the first Scriptural criteria that I see as being paramount to such a study) or fervent, effectual and done by a righteous person. (3 other criteria clearly given in Scripture)

Now let's consider the design of a research study that could, at least potentially, yield effective results: (and btw yes I do pick apart many studies, especially in medical related fitness, to expose basic flaws resulting in their conclusions being meaningless)

1) Include only those petitions that are known to be in accord with the will of the Father, but also have a control group that violates this precept;

2) Create a subset of each category above and the second list of criterion, that the prayer be fervent, "effectual" (a most interesting concept!) and done by righteous people, and also have a control group that violates this.

And what you have is 5,000 + years of Judeo-Christian heritage, doing exactly that.

And greatly to the chagrin of both atheists and religionists who so love to proclaim how divided Christianity is, you see seamless unity in the results of this "research study," and one way of expressing those with the positive results is "the Body of Christ." Which, you'll note, is not exactly something science can study.

(Boy I never thought this thread would go in that direction, thanks for pressing me on this!)

I see... Now, based on what I highlighted, you seem to have already seen the results of this research. Got a link or is that what you think would happen?

A couple of other questions:
How would we be able to distinguish righteous from nonrighteous people?
How would we be able to include petitions that are "in accord with the will of the Father?"

 

[sandwiches]

I'm not sure how many little blue arrows by the quote one would have to click on to see the beginning of this particular off-topic de-rail, but you would see it starts with poe putting words in people's mouths, which is never a way to arrive at any valid point.

Regardless. He's got a point. Faith in one's interpretation of the Bible does not necessarily mean faith in God. That's all.

 

[razeontherock]

Regardless. He's got a point. Faith in one's interpretation of the Bible does not necessarily mean faith in God. That's all.

Yes, of course. Still, there is a relationship between the two, and again this regards the intents of a heart that is pure, which is something not subject to scientific scrutiny. So we can know with 100% certainty the research in question has not employed such controls as to be properly labeled as valid findings.

 

[sandwiches]

Yes, of course. Still, there is a relationship between the two, and again this regards the intents of a heart that is pure, which is something not subject to scientific scrutiny. So we can know with 100% certainty the research in question has not employed such controls as to be properly labeled as valid findings.

You're mixing two answers here. One is for Poe's point which you missed and the other is for the whole prayer study thing.

Now, regarding the study, you can know with "100% certainty" that it wasn't properly controlled? How? Because the results aren't what you think they should be?

Also, can you answer my questions from the last post regarding righteous people and the "will of the Father?"

Edit: Nevermind. I posted too quickly. =P

 

[razeontherock]

I see... Now, based on what I highlighted, you seem to have already seen the results of this research. Got a link or is that what you think would happen?

A couple of other questions:
How would we be able to distinguish righteous from nonrighteous people?
How would we be able to include petitions that are "in accord with the will of the Father?"

Reinforcing my last post, your questions here point to why I commented on this supposed "research" into prayer working or not in the first place. None of this is within the realm of science, but one might consider seeking God as some branch of sociology, where you can take note of those that exhibit the trait of answered prayer as being a trend of these variables you ask about being present. You still don't wind up with nice clearly defined distinctions though; just people. Observation can guide our next step on our Spiritual journey though, but you'll notice that's still quite removed from science.

 

[sandwiches]

Reinforcing my last post, your questions here point to why I commented on this supposed "research" into prayer working or not in the first place. None of this is within the realm of science, but one might consider seeking God as some branch of sociology, where you can take note of those that exhibit the trait of answered prayer as being a trend of these variables you ask about being present. You still don't wind up with nice clearly defined distinctions though; just people. Observation can guide our next step on our Spiritual journey though, but you'll notice that's still quite removed from science.

So, what you're saying is that a random selection of people being prayed for and another selection not being prayed for isn't enough? Not even one person in the prayer group was a righteous Christian prayer "in accord with the will of the Father" to affect the results positively?

And are you saying that to the best of our human abilities there is no way to distinguish between the truly righteous people acting "in accord with the will of the Father" and those who aren't? So, to the best of our abilities, there is really no unity, uniformity, or consistence between religious people as you claim, then? In other words, there is no way of testing your assertion, is that correct?

To summarize: To the best of our human abilities, prayer has no noticeable effect on reality. Correct?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

So, what you're saying is that a random selection of people being prayed for and another selection not being prayed for isn't enough? Not even one person in the prayer group was a righteous Christian prayer "in accord with the will of the Father" to affect the results positively?

And are you saying that to the best of our human abilities there is no way to distinguish between the truly righteous people acting "in accord with the will of the Father" and those who aren't? So, to the best of our abilities, there is really no unity, uniformity, or consistence between religious people as you claim, then? In other words, there is no way of testing your assertion, is that correct?

To summarize: To the best of our human abilities, prayer has no noticeable effect on reality. Correct?

Correct.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, of course. Still, there is a relationship between the two,

In the same sense that there is a relationship between training wheels on a bycycle and a 900cc Harley-Davidson.

By all means, continue to play with the training wheels.

and again this regards the intents of a heart that is pure, which is something not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Not really subject to theological scrunity, either. Only God knows whose hearts pass muster -- and He doesn't care one whit how many Bible stories you think are literal.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, when internet theologians are telling you that their book's target audience is 5-year-olds, that should tell you just about everything you need to know about that book and their beliefs.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To summarize: To the best of our human abilities, prayer has no noticeable effect on reality. Correct?

Only on perceptions of reality.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Nope -- more than that.

From reference.com:

1. Far advanced in the years of one's or its life.
2. Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing.
3. As if or appearing to be far advanced in years.
4. Having lived or existed for a specified time.
5. Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things.

I'm glad you didn't write the dictionary.

So based on number 3 you are finally admitting that your embedded age nonsense is just a version of the Omphalos hypothesis of apparent age. Thanks for finally making clear what most of us have know all along.

 

[razeontherock]

To summarize: To the best of our human abilities, prayer has no noticeable effect on reality. Correct?

I'm not sure how we got off onto this tangent so thoroughly, but hey, it seems interesting. Also, I skipped over a couple of your posts that while they were good, I think your content here really gets to the point very well.

In answer to your question, no.

Breaking that down:

So, what you're saying is that a random selection of people being prayed for and another selection not being prayed for isn't enough?

Please notice the assumptions that must be made in order to give a positive answer to this question. Then, compare that to the criteria I already gave, based on merely 2 Scriptures on prayer.

In short, no, that is not enough. And this is why I really expected everyone would recognize this particular study has no merit.

Not even one person in the prayer group was a righteous Christian prayer "in accord with the will of the Father" to affect the results positively?

Those conditions do not meet even the incredibly simplified and shortened list I furnished, but 2 out of 4 ain't bad right? Except this isn't meatloaf, horseshoes, or hand grenades. And a very basic premise here is that prayer does nothing; if anything is changed, it is the God we pray to that does the changing, which can only happen in accord with our own dominion. So usually prayer is not the only thing that needs to be done, but merely the first step.

In other words, you'd have to go back to my original statement and see that an understanding of prayer would be necessary, and the principles adhered to, before any study could be valid. And even the precursory level of understanding what's involved that I've already posted in this thread has quickly removed prayer from the realm of scientific study.

And are you saying that to the best of our human abilities there is no way to distinguish between the truly righteous people acting "in accord with the will of the Father" and those who aren't?

I haven't said that and right now I can't even wrap my head around these logistics, but you do make a great point. I think pretty soon anyone that sees my posts is going to become familiar with the concept that "all Judgment has been given to the Son," if there's anyone reading this that hasn't seen me post that enough to recognize it already, that is. And your question here frames that precept very well.

So in short, yes, we are in no position to make any determinations along the lines of who might or might not be "truly righteous." Or even just plain old vanilla righteous. I'll also point out the Bible distinguishes this from Holy, and Just, and filthy. (And by inference unrighteous as well) So an absolute minimum of such 4 distinctions, which I suspect is really a continuum. (And I myself see 3 distinct separations of those who "enter Eternal Life," so I think there are WAY more than 4 distinctions along these lines) So not to confuse the issue, but the whole "heaven or hell" thing is something you have probably seen me sorta decry, and this gives you just a bit more background about that.

Jesus says we are to let the tares grow up with the wheat, because we can't tell them apart.

So, to the best of our abilities, there is really no unity, uniformity, or consistence between religious people as you claim, then?

Now you're asking about "in the sight of men," which is 100% irrelevant! Esp wrt a (supposed) "research study" on prayer. In God's sight, He can see those whom He will listen to, embrace as His own, defend as the apple of His eye, and search to and fro throughout the Earth to show Himself strong on their behalf!

IOW, you've (collectively) come along too late to pretend God doesn't hear and answer prayer, and save, and deliver, and heal. We're discussing things I know via first-hand experience, while your side of the aisle is merely speculating. (Incidentally, this is the thrust of the story of Cain and Abel; the relationship with God made a REAL difference, it was not merely religious talk.)

 

[razeontherock]

Not really subject to theological scrunity, either. Only God knows whose hearts pass muster -- and He doesn't care one whit how many Bible stories you think are literal.

Hey, finally we find some common ground!

 

[razeontherock]

Well, when internet theologians are telling you that their book's target audience is 5-year-olds,

Let's take this tangent. You're good at picking up loose ends, so I trust we won't lose other matters in this thread. I happened to begin learning to read before that age, by reading the Bible. I happened to pretty instantly gain Orthodox understanding of some passages, and it was only this summer that I found out that understanding is what was taught by the early Church, which is what defines it as "Orthodox."

This is no way means that 5 years olds can understand much of the Bible, and even less the unheard of notion you assert here. I also had a reading level as high as the test could score (HS graduate) the first time I was ever tested for such a thing, in 2nd grade. That was 1972, before SAT scores and other academic standards went into decline. Even so, my understanding of the Bible at age 5 was minute compared to what I gleaned from reading it at age 20, so I think your little smart-aleck quip here is really out of place.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I'm not sure how we got off onto this tangent so thoroughly, but hey, it seems interesting. Also, I skipped over a couple of your posts that while they were good, I think your content here really gets to the point very well.

In answer to your question, no.

Breaking that down:



Please notice the assumptions that must be made in order to give a positive answer to this question. Then, compare that to the criteria I already gave, based on merely 2 Scriptures on prayer.

In short, no, that is not enough. And this is why I really expected everyone would recognize this particular study has no merit.



Those conditions do not meet even the incredibly simplified and shortened list I furnished, but 2 out of 4 ain't bad right? Except this isn't meatloaf, horseshoes, or hand grenades. And a very basic premise here is that prayer does nothing; if anything is changed, it is the God we pray to that does the changing, which can only happen in accord with our own dominion. So usually prayer is not the only thing that needs to be done, but merely the first step.

In other words, you'd have to go back to my original statement and see that an understanding of prayer would be necessary, and the principles adhered to, before any study could be valid. And even the precursory level of understanding what's involved that I've already posted in this thread has quickly removed prayer from the realm of scientific study.



I haven't said that and right now I can't even wrap my head around these logistics, but you do make a great point. I think pretty soon anyone that sees my posts is going to become familiar with the concept that "all Judgment has been given to the Son," if there's anyone reading this that hasn't seen me post that enough to recognize it already, that is. And your question here frames that precept very well.

So in short, yes, we are in no position to make any determinations along the lines of who might or might not be "truly righteous." Or even just plain old vanilla righteous. I'll also point out the Bible distinguishes this from Holy, and Just, and filthy. (And by inference unrighteous as well) So an absolute minimum of such 4 distinctions, which I suspect is really a continuum. (And I myself see 3 distinct separations of those who "enter Eternal Life," so I think there are WAY more than 4 distinctions along these lines) So not to confuse the issue, but the whole "heaven or hell" thing is something you have probably seen me sorta decry, and this gives you just a bit more background about that.

Jesus says we are to let the tares grow up with the wheat, because we can't tell them apart.



Now you're asking about "in the sight of men," which is 100% irrelevant! Esp wrt a (supposed) "research study" on prayer. In God's sight, He can see those whom He will listen to, embrace as His own, defend as the apple of His eye, and search to and fro throughout the Earth to show Himself strong on their behalf!

IOW, you've (collectively) come along too late to pretend God doesn't hear and answer prayer, and save, and deliver, and heal. We're discussing things I know via first-hand experience, while your side of the aisle is merely speculating. (Incidentally, this is the thrust of the story of Cain and Abel; the relationship with God made a REAL difference, it was not merely religious talk.)

Chomping through your word salad as best I could, it appears you've made the concept of prayer out to be of no significance or real discernable difference between normal occurrence of events. Kudos.

 

[Tiberius]

I agree.

I doubt it, but anyway...

We're not just talking the earth looking like it is 4.57 billion years old -- it is 4.57 billion years old.

How can it be billions of years old if it has only existed for 6000 years?

AV, please define AGE for us.

But an object that is a year old, but created 1 second ago, is a year old.

So you are saying that such an object 1 second old IS a year old?

That depends on what your definition of IS is, doesn't it?

Embedded Age does not 'accomplish' anything -- it is simply a state of existence, having maturity without a history.

So AGE is not the amount of history something has experienced? So I ask again, what is AGE according to you?

Ok, so you are unable to follow context.

Well, maybe if you;d respond in complete sentences...?

And this has nothing to do with attempting to study prayer, but of course you don't realize that because you ignore context. So now we know! Anything else you'd like to reveal while you're at it?

All I am saying there is that prayer can be studied even if there are parts of it that are not full understood. The Curies studied radioactivity without a full understanding of what it was - that's how they gained that understanding! Are you telling us that prayer only works if the person praying understands how prayer works?

Nope -- more than that.

From reference.com:

1. Far advanced in the years of one's or its life.
2. Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing.
3. As if or appearing to be far advanced in years.
4. Having lived or existed for a specified time.
5. Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things.

I'm glad you didn't write the dictionary.

Okay, let's see how this works...

Let us assume we have a table that was created ex nihilo with embedded age. The table was created five minutes ago, but it has an embedded age of 100 years. We will now apply each of the above definitions to our table...

Far advanced in the years of one's or its life. Well, the table isn't of advanced years. it's only existed for five minutes. So the first definition doesn't apply.
Of or pertaining to the latter part of the life or term of existence of a person or thing. Again, no. It's not in the later part of its existence. As we agree, it's only just come into existence.
As if or appearing to be far advanced in years. This one would apply.
Having lived or existed for a specified time. This applies, but only with regards to how long it has existed. So it has not existed very long.
Having lived or existed as specified with relation to younger or newer persons or things. Again, this only applies to how long the table has actually existed.

So, it seems that embedded age does nothing except make things look older than they actually are.

So, I agree that embedded age is real! Yes, AV has swayed me! I am now an embedded ager! I can prove it too! THIS website shows how to embed age into a piece of furniture! HERE as another age-embedding instructional page! And here is an instructional video on how to embed age into some furniture!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMzy7tDrZU

What's that, AV? This isn't embedded age? Well, it fits the only definition that you provided that doesn't eliminate embedded age, so this must be right!

 

[AV1611VET]

So I ask again, what is AGE according to you?

140

 

[Tiberius]

Nice try, seriously. There is no way to employ the scientific concept of "control" to the subject of whether prayers might be in accordance with the Father's will, (the first Scriptural criteria that I see as being paramount to such a study) or fervent, effectual and done by a righteous person. (3 other criteria clearly given in Scripture).

So if there's no way to detect a difference between praying and not praying, doesn't that mean that prayer makes no difference in reality? So why do it?

Now let's consider the design of a research study that could, at least potentially, yield effective results: (and btw yes I do pick apart many studies, especially in medical related fitness, to expose basic flaws resulting in their conclusions being meaningless)

1) Include only those petitions that are known to be in accord with the will of the Father, but also have a control group that violates this precept;

Okay, please show me how we determine the true will of the father. Objectively. Remember, we're sciencing here!

2) Create a subset of each category above and the second list of criterion, that the prayer be fervent, "effectual" (a most interesting concept!) and done by righteous people, and also have a control group that violates this.

How does one measure fervor? And how does one measure effectiveness? How does one eliminate other factors?

And what you have is 5,000 + years of Judeo-Christian heritage, doing exactly that.

With no way to see how accurate the data gathered is, unfortunately.

And greatly to the chagrin of both atheists and religionists who so love to proclaim how divided Christianity is, you see seamless unity in the results of this "research study," and one way of expressing those with the positive results is "the Body of Christ." Which, you'll note, is not exactly something science can study.

I thought you said we were sciencing here. Now you are saying we aren't?

 

[AV1611VET]

What's that, AV? This isn't embedded age? Well, it fits the only definition that you provided that doesn't eliminate embedded age, so this must be right!

Excuse me -- you guys are asking me the definition of 'age' -- not 'embedded age'.

I'm giving you the definition of 'age', as you asked.

For embedded age, you have to drop the history (because there isn't any).

That's why I define embedded age as 'maturity without history'.

A tree is 500 years old because it grew for 500 years; but a tree created ex nihilo with embedded age is 500 years old because it was given 500 years of maturity without history.

 

[Tiberius]

140

So you proclaim that embedded age is real, when you don't even know what it means?

I cannot comprehend how anyone can live like that...