Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[KWED]

True on the various account IMO.

Glad you have changed your position on this.

But don't blame the bible for 'endorsing' animal abuse because Mary and Joseph might have used to donkey.

I didn't. Using animals for transport was a necessity then.

There is a UNIVERSAL TRUTH in scripture, it's best presented in the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 5,6,7. Love God, love your brother, be kind, forgive, don't be greedy, show fidelity to your partner, don't worry about everything, what you have done to others will be done to you etc..

1. You don't need god to acknowledge those things.
2. You have to cherry-pick to filter out the violence and intolerance and discrimination.

 

[sojourner]

Gosh!
Gosh!
Smart time to withdraw, I agree.

Your snark is duly noted. Glad you’re bowing out.

 

[sojourner]

Most counselors will deal with issues of feeling connected or disconnected, of goals and how to achieve them, of relationships and how to work with them, etc.

Exactly what 'spiritual' things do they not address? Communication with an invisible friend?

But not many will entertain them from a spiritual point of view.

I guess it’s beyond the skeptics here to respect the viewpoints of others with some measure of maturity. Just because God has no meaning for you doesn’t mean that God has no meaning for someone else.

I’ve been a part of this forum for over 16 years. It used to be a fun place. You’ve been here what? Five? Several of you newcomer skeptics seem to enjoy trying to feel superior by subtly hinting that the rest of us are not rational. Like with your inane “invisible friend” comment above. Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? What insecurity or just plain poor manners would compel you to make such a statement — especially since I never alluded to such an “invisible friend.”

I should think that otherwise good-natured people might refrain from that sort of puerile nonsense. Is it a poor attempt to dishearten me? Or perhaps you simply enjoy bullying others? Ah! But bullying is against forum rules, so it couldn’t be that. Maybe you’re just too self-absorbed, or just naturally mean-spirited.

Whatever your little socialization problems, your snark isn’t appreciated here. Whether you care or not. If you don’t, well… so much for your moral superiority.

This has nothing to do with “an invisible friend.” It has everything to do with recognizing and working with the divine nature of the human being. If you can’t recognize such a dimension, perhaps you’d do well to admit that you’re over your head here.

 

[sojourner]

Promise!

I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to keep that promise.

 

[Polymath257]

This has nothing to do with “an invisible friend.” It has everything to do with recognizing and working with the divine nature of the human being. If you can’t recognize such a dimension, perhaps you’d do well to admit that you’re over your head here.

Can you demonstrate a 'divine nature of the human being'? If not, is it possible you are in over your head in claiming there is one?

Sorry, i should not have been so snarky. But the whole thing does come across as a nice imaginary world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But not many will entertain them from a spiritual point of view.

I guess it’s beyond the skeptics here to respect the viewpoints of others with some measure of maturity. Just because God has no meaning for you doesn’t mean that God has no meaning for someone else.

I’ve been a part of this forum for over 16 years. It used to be a fun place. You’ve been here what? Five? Several of you newcomer skeptics seem to enjoy trying to feel superior by subtly hinting that the rest of us are not rational. Like with your inane “invisible friend” comment above. Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? What insecurity or just plain poor manners would compel you to make such a statement — especially since I never alluded to such an “invisible friend.”

I should think that otherwise good-natured people might refrain from that sort of puerile nonsense. Is it a poor attempt to dishearten me? Or perhaps you simply enjoy bullying others? Ah! But bullying is against forum rules, so it couldn’t be that. Maybe you’re just too self-absorbed, or just naturally mean-spirited.

Whatever your little socialization problems, your snark isn’t appreciated here. Whether you care or not. If you don’t, well… so much for your moral superiority.

This has nothing to do with “an invisible friend.” It has everything to do with recognizing and working with the divine nature of the human being. If you can’t recognize such a dimension, perhaps you’d do well to admit that you’re over your head here.

No one disrespected your views, well except for the ones that are not of spiritual matters. You tried to claim of the ability to cause physical changes in others. You resented Reiki being refuted. And you did not seem to understand that when you claim that it is real you took on a burden of proof. That bit of hypocrisy where you tried to make claims of the physical and then tried to hide behind the spiritual is what you were called out for.

Your viewpoint was respected here until you crossed the line and stated a belief which put a burden of proof upon you and then you refused to support it. Stick to the spiritual and do not advocate for the woo woo and people will respect you once again.

 

[sojourner]

Can you demonstrate a 'divine nature of the human being'? If not, is it possible you are in over your head in claiming there is one?

Sorry, i should not have been so snarky. But the whole thing does come across as a nice imaginary world.

Thank you for the apology. Let’s tie in your first question with your last statement. I can see how, on the surface, it seems a little like Santa Claus, that is, something imaginary. But consider that there’s a difference between “imaginary” and imagination. There’s a bona fide term in theology called “the theological imagination.”

Leland Ryken states of the literary imagination (which is closely tied to the theological imagination: “The function of the literary imagination is to incarnate meaning in concrete images, characters, events, and settings rather than abstract or propositional arguments.” Dorothy Sayers posits that the imagination “images forth” its subject, and in turn it is a commonplace that what literature “images forth” is human experience.

There is an “interior world” to the human psyche; we all know that. It’s a part of us that digs deeper than simple stimulus of the senses. Internal experience is assigned meaning. That meaning is often expressed imaginatively, rather than formulaically, because doing so helps us to tell our story. In the many images imagined is a divine nature (larger or deeper than our sensory perceptions). Often, that nature is given a “character” in the story. We call it “God.” Mind you, many religious would disagree with me; this is simply how I see it. For me, life, itself, is divine, because life is larger than me, and I am beholden to life for my existence. Additionally, I perceive that life also encompasses all other beings. Therefore, there is something larger than us, that remains a mystery. We don’t understand what lies beyond the Standard Model.

What this all boils down to (for me) is that there is this larger sense that we call the “divine nature.” I am divine. So are you. So is everything. The character of “God” is simply an anthropomorphic “place holder” that characterizes Being itself (as opposed to God as A being — an object). Spirituality is a very subjective thing.

Not very many therapists will do their work within the framework of the theological imagination.

It has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, and everything to do with the perception that life is deeper and bigger than we understand. THAT, for me, is spirituality.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you for the apology. Let’s tie in your first question with your last statement. I can see how, on the surface, it seems a little like Santa Claus, that is, something imaginary. But consider that there’s a difference between “imaginary” and imagination. There’s a bona fide term in theology called “the theological imagination.”

Leland Ryken states of the literary imagination (which is closely tied to the theological imagination: “The function of the literary imagination is to incarnate meaning in concrete images, characters, events, and settings rather than abstract or propositional arguments.” Dorothy Sayers posits that the imagination “images forth” its subject, and in turn it is a commonplace that what literature “images forth” is human experience.

There is an “interior world” to the human psyche; we all know that. It’s a part of us that digs deeper than simple stimulus of the senses. Internal experience is assigned meaning. That meaning is often expressed imaginatively, rather than formulaically, because doing so helps us to tell our story. In the many images imagined is a divine nature (larger or deeper than our sensory perceptions). Often, that nature is given a “character” in the story. We call it “God.” Mind you, many religious would disagree with me; this is simply how I see it. For me, life, itself, is divine, because life is larger than me, and I am beholden to life for my existence. Additionally, I perceive that life also encompasses all other beings. Therefore, there is something larger than us, that remains a mystery. We don’t understand what lies beyond the Standard Model.

What this all boils down to (for me) is that there is this larger sense that we call the “divine nature.” I am divine. So are you. So is everything. The character of “God” is simply an anthropomorphic “place holder” that characterizes Being itself (as opposed to God as A being — an object). Spirituality is a very subjective thing.

Not very many therapists will do their work within the framework of the theological imagination.

It has nothing to do with an imaginary friend, and everything to do with the perception that life is deeper and bigger than we understand. THAT, for me, is spirituality.

Thank you for that. But, for me, that doesn't help. Literary imagination still is about fiction. The characters and/or actions are fictional.

The fact that it is called theological imagination shows, to me, that this is also fictional. Now, fiction can still be incredibly *meaningful*. And all good literature has more than one level of meaning. But it is still fiction.

And, as a literary device, I have no problems with God, the Devil, Thor, or any other special characters. They convey their literary meaning by making the abstract personal. It is also a great basis for jokes and other forms of humor.

And, again, if God is simply a literary placeholder for 'existence itself' to make it into a character, then I don't have a problem (unless the writing itself is bad).

For me, if everything is 'divine', then 'divine' loses meaning because 'divine' is supposed to be special. But I can take it as 'always see the universe around you as special', which works well for me.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you for that. But, for me, that doesn't help. Literary imagination still is about fiction. The characters and/or actions are fictional.

The fact that it is called theological imagination shows, to me, that this is also fictional. Now, fiction can still be incredibly *meaningful*. And all good literature has more than one level of meaning. But it is still fiction.

And, as a literary device, I have no problems with God, the Devil, Thor, or any other special characters. They convey their literary meaning by making the abstract personal. It is also a great basis for jokes and other forms of humor.

And, again, if God is simply a literary placeholder for 'existence itself' to make it into a character, then I don't have a problem (unless the writing itself is bad).

For me, if everything is 'divine', then 'divine' loses meaning because 'divine' is supposed to be special. But I can take it as 'always see the universe around you as special', which works well for me.

Mmm… not quite, as I see it. The imaginative world is fiction. (I prefer the literary term “myth,” because the facts of the stories are fiction, but the truths they convey are not, and are often “larger than life.”) “Zeus” is fictional. But what the stories of Zeus tell is, as Ryken says, human experience, (which is real) writ large.

And who said that “divine” is “special?” Or is “special” just another term for “beyond our understanding?” Perhaps what’s “special” about the divine is the depth of its mystery to us? We can’t fully understand “being” itself, so does that make being “special” or “divine?” Or are you maybe confusing “divine” with “holy?” Because “holy” literally means “set apart from the usual.”

 

[Polymath257]

Mmm… not quite, as I see it. The imaginative world is fiction. (I prefer the literary term “myth,” because the facts of the stories are fiction, but the truths they convey are not, and are often “larger than life.”) “Zeus” is fictional. But what the stories of Zeus tell is, as Ryken says, human experience, (which is real) writ large.

I don't see that as an issue of 'truth' so much as 'utility'. The myths give prototypes about suggested ways to act and stories about what can happen when one acts that way. They are not truths so much as morality tales.

And who said that “divine” is “special?” Or is “special” just another term for “beyond our understanding?” Perhaps what’s “special” about the divine is the depth of its mystery to us? We can’t fully understand “being” itself, so does that make being “special” or “divine?” Or are you maybe confusing “divine” with “holy?” Because “holy” literally means “set apart from the usual.”

Yes, I usually see 'divine' and 'holy' as the same thing.

As for 'beyond our understanding', do you mean permanently or just for right now? We learn over time and now understand things that were beyond our understanding in the past. But I don't see that as representing anything 'divine'. It is just our ignorance.

If something is *permanently* beyond our understanding, then it is sort of pointless to discuss it, isn't it? All we would have is untestable guesses, so it is a matter of opinion, not of knowledge; of desires not of truths.

 

[blü 2]

Your snark is duly noted. Glad you’re bowing out.

Next time, try to address the questions. Start by providing reasoned arguments against the dozen or so expert modern translators who disagree with you and write 'sick'.

Make a reasoned case from evidence if you want to displace my accurate observation that 'sick' is a perfectly valid translation of the Greek.

Provide a clear example from history where ἀσθενέω means 'I am depressed', the meaning you argue for.

That might work. Telling me you're right because you said so will not.

 

[sojourner]

I don't see that as an issue of 'truth' so much as 'utility'. The myths give prototypes about suggested ways to act and stories about what can happen when one acts that way. They are not truths so much as morality tales.



Yes, I usually see 'divine' and 'holy' as the same thing.

As for 'beyond our understanding', do you mean permanently or just for right now? We learn over time and now understand things that were beyond our understanding in the past. But I don't see that as representing anything 'divine'. It is just our ignorance.

If something is *permanently* beyond our understanding, then it is sort of pointless to discuss it, isn't it? All we would have is untestable guesses, so it is a matter of opinion, not of knowledge; of desires not of truths.

Ok. So that’s part of the problem. Terms are being conflated.

No, just for now. Mystery is mystery until it isn’t.

And yet we seem to intuit that there’s more out there. And so we talk about it, wonder, imagine, and stretch ourselves. At least that’s religion to ME.

 

[PruePhillip]

Glad you have changed your position on this.

I didn't. Using animals for transport was a necessity then.

1. You don't need god to acknowledge those things.
2. You have to cherry-pick to filter out the violence and intolerance and discrimination.

I don't 'cherry pick', if you are a Christian then this is the doctrine. What I love is its UNIVERSALISM, ie contrary to what modernists think, Christianity is not about poor and rich, Jew and Gentile, men and women, slave and freeman etc.. We are all the same before God.
Saying that beasts of burden was 'necessary' is fine, but so too was killing your rivals if you were a king, exiling diseased people, driving out your enemies, having a ton of kids etc..

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. So that’s part of the problem. Terms are being conflated.

No, just for now. Mystery is mystery until it isn’t.

And the goal is to learn enough so that it isn't a mystery, right? So something being a mystery isn't a good thing, but something we need to strive to change?

And yet we seem to intuit that there’s more out there. And so we talk about it, wonder, imagine, and stretch ourselves. At least that’s religion to ME.

Of course there is a LOT we don't understand. That is why we have science: to figure it out.

I guess I find much more awe and wonder in the things we *do* understand. Those we do not are intriguing--a puzzle that needs to be solved. But for me the wonder is in the knowing, not the ignorance.

What I'm not getting is the connection between this ignorance and 'spirituality'.

 

[PruePhillip]

So you agree that secular, liberal democracy is a better social system than your conservative religiosity.

But the US is probably the most religious of the developed nations.

Has it? In what way?

The Philippines has one of the highest rates of gun deaths in the world.

What is "social cohesion"?

The top 10 countries in the social capital rankings are all in Northern Europe. 14 of the next 20 are in "the west".
This is just another of your fantasies, isn't it?

(Philippines is 103rd out of 180, below every "western" nation - just in case you were wondering)

A nice balance is a liberal Western society with a good foundation in religion and strong community bonds. There's no ideal age for this, but now this has broken down. You see that in schools where they have to provide food and health services, remedial education to teach boy not to sexualize girls and counselling for family breakdowns for 5 and 6 year olds. This is seriously wrong. Broken isn't the word for this.
The article on the Phillipines was one I read last week. Wish I could find it.

... found it
One Surprising Theory Why the Philippines Has Very Few Mass Shootings—Despite Easy Access to Lots of Guns (yahoo.com)

 

[PruePhillip]

Pinker's assertions are well supported, his book very well researched. Though the US would do well to look closely at countries that focus on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism, as could the UK come to that.



Nope, that's just your unevidenced subjective opinion, and Pinker's book is very well researched, again he carefully fact checks his work, your posts suggest you don't.



In the US, you're kidding?

Yes, I think we are already there - American Christians are a minority.
Crime peaked USA about 1992 if I recall, but it seems to be rising back to those levels again.

 

[sojourner]

What I'm not getting is the connection between this ignorance and 'spirituality'

Because the universe is infinite; we will never understand it all. Spirituality lies not in embracing the ignorance, but in holding the space necessary to wonder, to dream, to make connections in places we have not dared — and finally, to discover that we, too, are inexorably part of that universe, made of the same stuff, throbbing with that same life — that same energy.

 

[Polymath257]

Because the universe is infinite; we will never understand it all. Spirituality lies not in embracing the ignorance, but in holding the space necessary to wonder, to dream, to make connections in places we have not dared — and finally, to discover that we, too, are inexorably part of that universe, made of the same stuff, throbbing with that same life — that same energy.

Interesting. For me, that is simply how I always see the universe. But then, I have been fascinated with science and the attempts to understand the universe around us. Trying to push that boundary of knowledge has always been part of who I am.

 

[Polymath257]

A nice balance is a liberal Western society with a good foundation in religion and strong community bonds. There's no ideal age for this, but now this has broken down. You see that in schools where they have to provide food and health services, remedial education to teach boy not to sexualize girls and counselling for family breakdowns for 5 and 6 year olds. This is seriously wrong. Broken isn't the word for this.

The funny thing is that all of this was a concern when I was growing up. I was a 'latch key child' since nobody was at home when I came home from school. Junior high and high school were always sexually charged and families were breaking down all around.

That makes me wonder if it was ever *really* that different. Divorces might not have been as easy to get, but that only meant *more* problems at home when parents hated each other and their situation. Religion was everywhere, but didn't seem to actually affect the bigotry and small mindedness of the adults. Community bonds only existed for those who went along with Mrs Grundy.

And this was in central Kansas during the 60's and 70's.

I'm wondering when you think that things were not 'broke'.

 

[sojourner]

Interesting. For me, that is simply how I always see the universe. But then, I have been fascinated with science and the attempts to understand the universe around us. Trying to push that boundary of knowledge has always been part of who I am.

I would call that “spirituality” — just using a different theological imagination. No invisible friend, just a vast universe with which I want to increasingly connect.