The basis of both though is inherently irrational yet we believe both because of a cultural basis and that we as humans are cultural beings. Further you are only looking at religion in terms of a very narrow Christian perspective regarding Heaven and Hell when this discussion is much broader than that. No one is saying she shouldn't also get that, just like I don't think anyone in this thread has been advocating praying instead of getting medical treatment or sending money and other aid to disaster victims. That said I don't see what is the harm in what the story you relate. Really you didn't make that claim? It sure sounds like you did, I have heard of it but don't recall it exactly. I will watch it later when I get the chance. That said I respect Carl Sagan's viewpoint and other people who argue against the idea of God from an empirical standpoint. I have done it myself in debates regarding Intelligent Design. That said what I am talking about isn't so much about whether prayer works or God(s) exist, as I have said repeatedly that isn't what is important, but why people pray and as an action there is nothing inherently wrong with praying. The attitude you seem to have is that there is something wrong with doing so.
I've noticed frequently that when it comes to holy books the ones who tend to read them the most literally are fundamentalist and harsh critics.
And with good reason: the Bible is the generally accepted text of the Christian faith. To argue otherwise is disingenuous. Now, do people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they will use in guiding their faith and day-to-day actions? Of course! The same can be said of the Muslims with the Quran, Jews with the Torah, etc. But people will still look at the Quran, the Torah, the Bible as the record of guiding principles of those faiths. It just seems to me too convenient to casually dismiss parts of the Bible because they don't appeal to one's sensibilities or they fly in the face of modern convention. I know FranchiseBlade posted earlier today to focus on the message and not the details, but the details matter. They give the message context. They define the difference between Christianity and deism. If a person says they're a Christian because they believe in the central message of Christ (to "love one another") while at the same time dismissing the bulk of the Bible as allegory and fiction, then does that mean an atheist who loves his fellow man/woman is a Christian? Of course not. This loose definition of Christianity seems counter-intuitive, and contrary to beliefs that the vast majority of Christians espouse.
I don't feel I am picking and choosing. I may have a different less fundamentalist interpretation of what I read in the bible, based on the bible as a whole, but I don't really think I'm tossing any of it out. But perhaps you might want to think about taking a less dogmatic approach. You certainly don't have to. But to claim that someone is really just writing their own book because they read the bible differently than you do seems quite harsh. My understanding of the bible is incredibly far from perfect and doesn't really even approach the realm of knowledgeable. But I take my faith seriously. I've been serious enough about it to study it, do research, try and understand as much context and culture in order to get even more meaning out of it. I'm not discarding any of it, because I do that. My idea is not to throw out parts of the bible, but to actually get more from what's there. When I learn things that affect the way I read or understand the bible I love it. When I learned that the creation story in the bible was a poem, it didn't mean that I was tossing away that story because I didn't believe it was talking about a literal 7 day process in which everything was created. Instead it gave me a different and better understanding. Understanding that the story of Noah is older than the Torah doesn't mean that I'm throwing that story out. It helps me understand it more and get more out of it(As Max said whether it really happened or didn't isn't what's important about that story. The message is.). I just find it odd when someone claims that having more information and context about the stories of the bible means you are following the bible in less whole kind of way. Yet that seems to be what you are saying.
Please don't take me that seriously. I wasn't bashing it...I just saw 10 minutes and didn't click play given where I was in the day....didn't meant to step on toes.
did we get in a religious argument?? i don't remember if we did. been pretty busy with life/work...but i'm open for some of the ensalada del rio at Guadalajara!!!
...or they're atheists. Seriously, the people I know who read it the most literally are those who are must "fundamentalist" (as that term has come to be used) and those who disbelieve entirely and are trying to mock it. Suggested reading: "The Last Word" and "Scripture and the Authority of God" both written by an Anglican named N. T. Wright.
To read the OT and to practice old covenant law from a literal interpretation is to miss the NT entirely...to ignore Jesus. The point of including the OT is to give context to the NT...and the early Church argued over whether it should be included at all. The point is only that each book needs to be read in context...in terms of scope, purpose, intended audience, etc. Paul, whose letters comprise much of the NT, repeatedly says that the Christian faith is no longer to be shaped by the old law....Jesus says the Temple (and thus, all its structures of sacrificial worship) are coming down and are to be replaced with him. You can't read the OT literally and ignore the very context of the message that the NEW Testament arrives in delivering the NEW covenant.
This is EXACTLY what Wright says in one of his books (can't remember which). that when he has discussions with those who insist on literal interpretation they suggest he's doing something evil by asking that people consider the historical context (for instance) to understand better. Who of us grew up around mustard seeds? Jesus uses mustard seeds as a metaphor that goes entirely missed without an understanding of agrarian culture...he's speaking to a group of farmers using farming metaphor the same way we might use sports and analogy in a Rockets messageboard. But if you miss that context, you're left reading words that really don't carry the depth of the meaning he's trying to illustrate.
Exactly. Reading the bible taken in context of the whole is something different, and doing so doesn't mean part of it is being tossed out, but taken in a larger more informed context.
I need to read more Wright. I actually haven't read any, but my brother and his family talked so much about with me about some of it, that I feel I have. It sounds like I would get a lot out of it.
YOu talk about context but As MadMax points out though understanding the context of when what was written in the Bible is important. For instance looking at Dueteronomy a lot of the proscriptions need to be understood in light of an ancient tribal society. So if you are obsessed with the details without the understanding of the historical context of how that was written in. In other words the message is lost essentially in failing to interpret the meaning of the story while focusing on the details. Besides that it strikes me as somewhat arrogant for someone who isn't a believer to tell a believer how they should be interpreting their Holy Book.
I read through the study and its interesting but there are a lot of factors that they couldn't control about the study that it is far from definitive. http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html For example [rquoter]Unlike traditional intercessory prayers, STEP investigators imposed limitations on the usual way prayer-givers would normally provide prayer. The researchers standardized the start and duration of prayers and provided only the patients' first name and last initial. Prayers began on the eve or day of surgery and continued daily for 14 days. Everyone prayed for received the same standardized prayer. Providing the names of patients directed prayer-givers away from a desire to pray for everyone participating in the study. Because the study was designed to investigate intercessory prayer, the results cannot be extrapolated to other types of prayer.[/rquoter] If a generic prayer for someone who the prayor has no idea is for may have a different than a personalized prayer who the prayor know its for. This is particularly important if we are talking about psychological benefit as a prayer from some random individual might not carry the same weight as prayer from someone who is known to the subject. Another factor not accounted for in this study is also if there is any benefit from the patient praying. [rquoter]"One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer," said co-author Manoj Jain, Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.[/rquoter] In that sense they weren't able to create a true control group since there is no way to account for whether people not involved in the study were praying for subjects. Anyway while it does show a slight statistical increase in complications following bypass surgery, a procedure that the study acknowledges is known for complications, the mortality rate doesn't seem affected. [rquoter]Some patients were told they may or may not receive intercessory prayer: complications occurred in 52 percent of those who received prayer (Group 1) versus 51 percent of those who did not receive prayer (Group 2). Complications occurred in 59 percent of patients who were told they would receive prayer (Group 3) versus 52 percent, who also received prayer, but were uncertain of receiving it (Group 1). Major complications and thirty-day mortality were similar across the three groups.[/rquoter] Its interesting and it does provide some limited evidence for prayer not having a physical benefit versus not praying but as I said before whether it actually works or not isn't that important.
I think (the second half of) this video expresses what BetterThanI is trying to say in terms of Christians trimming the fat out of the Bible. <iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EqH9My-RhLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
no, I don't think we argued, I sent a couple emails and thought I must of got on a high horse or somthing since I didn't hear back, or it could have been me ranting about 'your turn to buy' I wanted to tell you about alot of people following Jesus, buying a church building (never planned that) and other assorted tales of God answering prayers.
