Sin?

[ianb321red]

Ian - the prayer was personal, but they all had to include a specific line as part of that prayer. This then allows you to test what they are praying for. If you didn't have this line in then you can't test the outcome so the study becomes invalid.

The guy running the study thought before the study thought that prayer would have a positive effect, which is quite unusual but adds more weight to the test. To call it dubious research is a bit insulting really, especially from a non scientist. They spent 2.4$million on it so it wasn't a small study and took years to complete.

This is what Richard Swinburne ( Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford) had to say on the STEP research:

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf...roversies/Response to a Statistical Study.pdf

Swinburne makes the following point:

"In the Benson prayer study, the people praying were NOT praying out of love and compassion for the particular sufferer for whom they were praying- they did not even know who that sufferer was"

...and then goes on to say:

"The negative result of the Benson study is entirely predictable on the hypothesis of a loving God who sometimes answers prayers of genuine compassion. "

Read his entire response as Swinburne makes some other useful points..

It may have cost $2.4 million, but I stand by my original claim that it is dubious research. In fact, I would further suggest the research design was poor and had bias. And it's not just me that is saying this.

 

[tonybeer]

In the study no God was shown to answer the prayers. I guess if there had been an effect then that would be a good question to ask. Ih there had been an effect follow up studies would have been conducted

Yes that is the heart of the issue. It is however entirely plausible God exists, but doesn't answer prayers.

 

[toLiJC]

What is sin, why does it exist and how do we respond to those who deny its existence?

Other questions on this subject later!

the very sin is the spiritual/religious iniquity, because exactly the spiritual is the basis of all things in the universe

Genesis 3:1-7 "Now the serpent(i.e. and lo, the devil came from the "darkness", and it) was more subtil than any beast(i.e. and it was guileful as opposed to the things) of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of(i.e. which is beyond) the garden(viz. the "tree" which to the humans is (the) occultism/esotericism), God hath said, Ye shall not eat of(i.e. you must not practise) it, neither shall ye touch(i.e. neither shall you explore) it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened(i.e. then occult/yogic perceptions/senses will appear in you), and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil(i.e. and you will be as the God Himself, viz. with omniscience and omnipotence like Him). And when the woman saw that the tree was(i.e. that the forbidden "tree" ostensibly looked) good for food, and that it was(i.e. and that it ostensibly looked) pleasant to the eyes(i.e. to the human mind), and a tree to be desired to make one wise(i.e. to make the human being omniscient and omnipotent), she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened(i.e. and occult/yogic perceptions/senses appeared in them both), and they knew that they were naked(i.e. and from that moment on they began to perceive the creature(-s)/creation(-s) of God as shameful/sinful); and they sewed fig leaves(i.e. and they found (great) false spiritual knowledge) together, and made themselves aprons(i.e. and made themselves human(666) spirituality/religion starting to defile the creature(-s)/creation(-s) of God via it).",

Romans 5:12-14 "by one man(i.e. by the generation of spiritual/religious violators/offenders) sin(i.e. the devil and its kingdom which is the system of spiritual/religious iniquity) entered into the world, and death(i.e. and the vitiation) by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned(i.e. and so many humans were overtaken by the "sin", some of them as its servants, while others as its victims): For until the law(i.e. for even before the entry of human religion) sin was in the world(i.e. the "darkness" was in the universe): but sin is not imputed when there is no law(i.e. but the appearance of the "darkness" cannot enter/reign in the world where there is no human(666) spirituality/religion). Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression(i.e. even over those who had not done the very sin which is the spiritual/religious iniquity)"

Blessings

 

[tonybeer]

Richard Swinburne is not a scientist but a theologian. He is also a Christian who has spent his life making arguments for God. He may be a very well respected Philosophy professor but he clearly has no clue about science. His argument for God from probability is terrible and shows how out of his depth he is when it comes to things outside his field.

I can see no bias in the study. Even if you claim it is flawed, it is not biased. The person running the study was known to think prayer did have an effect before the study was conducted.

 

[ianb321red]

Richard Swinburne is not a scientist but a theologian. He is also a Christian who has spent his life making arguments for God. He may be a very well respected Philosophy professor but he clearly has no clue about science. His argument for God from probability is terrible and shows how out of his depth he is when it comes to things outside his field.

Ok, so are you saying that scientific (medical) research can only be critiqued by scientists?

It would actually be better to address some of the points he raises in his analysis of the study, rather than simply assert that he is not qualified to analyse in the first place.

Just making the point to undermine his credentials (unsuccessfully as it happens) isn't really going to hold any water in terms of a convincing counter argument.

Furthermore it is completely relevant that Swinburne is theologian and NOT a scientist; this STEP research clearly steps heavily in to theological territory by the very nature of the subject matter it is investigating...

 

[Robban]

Deleted by Robban, will maybe repost if the thread ever gets on topic again.

 

[tonybeer]

Ok, so are you saying that scientific (medical) research can only be critiqued by scientists?

It would actually be better to address some of the points he raises in his analysis of the study, rather than simply assert that he is not qualified to analyse in the first place.

Just making the point to undermine his credentials (unsuccessfully as it happens) isn't really going to hold any water in terms of a convincing counter argument.

Furthermore it is completely relevant that Swinburne is theologian and NOT a scientist; this STEP research clearly steps heavily in to theological territory by the very nature of the subject matter it is investigating...

Ok, I should have just expanded on it. It's just it was so terrible and faulty and showed a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method I couldn't believe what I was reading!

The study was a scientific study. All it is concluding is that the type of prayer it used had no effect. Any theology you or he are applying to it, it is making no mention of theology.

His critique is incredibly un scientific. There is so much in it I can only pick a fraction or I'll be here all night.

Firstly he assumes God exists. In no scientific work is any such assumption made without scientific evidence. He also claims pain and disability can be good for people. Again no evidence only speculation. He is the one being biased, not the study.

He claims: "The negative result of the Benson study is entirely predictable on the hypothesis of a loving God who sometimes answers prayers of genuine compassion."

That is just one hypothesis to explain the result. You could think of thousands of other ones. The study doesn't say why prayer didn't work. It just said it didn't work. Both you and he are making conclusions way beyond what the study actually concludes.

Lastly all his sources are his own books. These are all books on theology. He even goes as far as to say "too much evidence might not be good for us". In science, there can never be too much evidence.

I'd love to go on but I'll waste even more time!

 

[ianb321red]

I can see no bias in the study. Even if you claim it is flawed, it is not biased. The person running the study was known to think prayer did have an effect before the study was conducted.

There's definitely bias in the study...(only theist prayers are used as intercessors). That's a design bias.
A methodologic flaw of the study was that it could not maintain the control group: There is no way to prevent a patient being prayed for, since prayer groups typically include a blanket prayer to provide assistance to all those in need.

And if you read this article below (on a Christian website, but written by people with medical credentials):

What Do Prayer Studies Prove? | Christianity Today

..then it's quite interesting because it echo's a couple of the points I made before in post #13 (If a prayer was answered how could you establish which god actually answered it? / How could you prove that an effect of non prayer was not actually a god or gods intervening anyway?)

"Did God answer the prayers of the study's official prayer teams? Yes. But more than that, he answered the prayers of the patients, of their friends and relatives, and perhaps even of those who may not have known they were praying."

I've now read the entire research paper in full (here http://www.mjainmd.com/spirituality/STEP.pdf) and another problem that appears (again, I've mentioned this is post #13) is that the sample was comprised of "men and women aged ≥18 years and nonbelievers and believers of different faith traditions" so again, with this potential/ likely range of gods to prayed to, which god or god(s) are being prayed to, how do we know which god or god(s) if any are responding to prayer, and so on..

I'm sorry, but this research as I've said before really doesn't answer or disprove anything - and again, it really points at the bigger picture of which of the god or god(s) that are worshiped is real?

 

[tonybeer]

Bias implies that the experiment was designed purposely to give a certain result. That implies fraud which is taken very very seriously in the scientific community.

I think an experiment like this would be almost impossible if you wanted to satisfy every criticism you as a theologian have. However it is still far better than personal testimony.

 

[lismore]

It depends what you mean by insult. Some Christians might say it is an insult to God, not to follow the Bible.

Some Christians might feel offended, but I would think shows a lack of faith. The more faith you have, the more likely you are to feel sorry for them, rather than offended.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember being offended by people like Dawkins when I was a Christian. I just thought they were silly and wrong.

Dawkins is rather a silly sounding man, always attacking peripherals. But there are more hardcore atheists who cause offence.

My point is that even if someone doesn't believe in God, they can still cause offence to his followers by being offensive about God.

Much better to be respectful to people of faith.

For example I'm not a Hindu but I wouldn't go and deface one of their statuettes. I don't believe the statuette divine, but I wouldn't want to upset the Hindu people who hold it in reverence.

People who are offensive have already defeated themselves.

 

[King Mob]

My point is that even if someone doesn't believe in God, they can still cause offence to his followers by being offensive about God.

People who are offensive have already defeated themselves.

Errr don't Christians upset gay people on a daily basis, or does that not count?

Why do you take offence? Walk on by. Isn't there a bit about turning the other cheek?

It's interesting that biblical quotes can be used to back up virtually any pov, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or indeed atheist.

 

[Genersis]

Errr don't Christians upset gay people on a daily basis, or does that not count?

Why do you take offence? Walk on by. Isn't there a bit about turning the other cheek?

It's interesting that biblical quotes can be used to back up virtually any pov, be they Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or indeed atheist.

Christians have no requirement to be polite in the face of such a persistent, and ergo, deadly sin!
One that is offensive to natures laws as well as God.(One need only look at the human anatomy!)
Endangering the traditional family.

It is homosexuals that offend Christians pushing for the right to same-sex "marriage" and to raise children.
Putting religious freedom and children at stake!

Worshipping other deities, Godless marriages, premarital sex ETC may all also be against God, but they are at least natural.

Homosexuals are unnatural sinners, and we should not be afraid to call them what they are.
Forces of Satan, disordered, perversions and sodomites.

Homosexuality is the only sin that, alone, caused God to destroy cities after all! It's only a matter of time before we suffer the same fate if we allow the sin to continue!

(Hmm, I wonder how convincing that was?...)

 

[savedbygrace05]

If anyone on here would deny the reality of 'sin' in the human condition I have only 2 words for you...Lance Armstrong!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...Lance-Armstrong-faces-Oprah-Winfrey-live.html

 

[savedbygrace05]

Gen 3:1, Now the serpent was cunning, more than all the beasts of the field that the Lord God had made........

We should know by now that listening to and sympaphizing with the wicked ends up with being wicked to the kind.

What were you pointing at in Psalms 51?

Did you read the whole of Gen 3? Ps 51 is a psalm of repentance in relation David and his sin with Bathsheba.

 

[Robban]

Did you read the whole of Gen 3? Ps 51 is a psalm of repentance in relation David and his sin with Bathsheba.

My o My, you don,t say, really?

 

[Genersis]

If anyone on here would deny the reality of 'sin' in the human condition I have only 2 words for you...Lance Armstrong!

Lance Armstrong faces Oprah Winfrey: live - Telegraph

Cheating at a sport.
Such a depraved sinner...

Bad action or no, sins and bad deeds are not synonymous to anyone beyond believers in Abrahamic religions.

 

[savedbygrace05]

Cheating at a sport.
Such a depraved sinner...

If only that was all it is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Paradoxum]

Dawkins is rather a silly sounding man, always attacking peripherals. But there are more hardcore atheists who cause offence.

My point is that even if someone doesn't believe in God, they can still cause offence to his followers by being offensive about God.

Much better to be respectful to people of faith.

For example I'm not a Hindu but I wouldn't go and deface one of their statuettes. I don't believe the statuette divine, but I wouldn't want to upset the Hindu people who hold it in reverence.

People who are offensive have already defeated themselves.

Obviously defacing a statue is wrong. Again, it depends what you mean by being offensive. If someone said your understanding of God is evil, is that offensive? And if so, is religion special or would you apply that to different beliefs.

eg: Is it wrong to say pro-choice people are baby murderers? Is it wrong to say homosexuality is an abomination?

 

[King Mob]

If anyone on here would deny the reality of 'sin' in the human condition I have only 2 words for you...Lance Armstrong!

Lance Armstrong faces Oprah Winfrey: live - Telegraph

Is he destined for Hell Saved??

 

[ianb321red]

If someone said your understanding of God is evil, is that offensive? And if so, is religion special or would you apply that to different beliefs.

I wouldn't be offended if someone thought that God was evil, but I would be curious to understand more about how someone reached certain conclusions about Him.

So, it depends on WHY someone thinks that God Himself is evil, and what evidence they have to support this belief? It depends whether they think God is ONLY evil i.e. do they think he is both evil AND good. It depends what someone thinks of the whole concept of good versus evil, and whether bad things should be punished at all? It depends on the persons perception of justice, and it depends on the persons understand of sufficient and insufficient punishment.
It depends on their definition of evil - and furthermore, the source of their definition of evil?