Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Apostolic church on Pearse Street??

  • 31-03-2008 11:57am
    #1
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭


    Ok. I've never heard of them before yesterday, but i was wondering has anyone had any dealings with them? the reason I ask is this.
    A very close family friends daughter was diagnosed with the big C some time back. Basically started in her shoulder but spread into to a few places. She Finally got the death nell a couple of months ago when she was told it had masticised (no longer a tumour but systemic in her body) and was in her lungs. She went to the aforementioned church and where there was a laying on of hands for healing in faith.

    The doctors are now baffled! Not only is there no Cancer left, but also no scar tissue. I may be a christian, but I am still always sceptical with these things. However, there is no doubt something out of the ordinary heppened here! Do any of the non-christians here know if this can happen, from a medical perspective?

    So, anybody know about this apostolic church?


Comments

  • #2
    crotalus667
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭crotalus667


    JimiTime wrote: »
    The doctors are now baffled! Not only is there no Cancer left, but also no scar tissue. I may be a christian, but I am still always sceptical with these things. However, there is no doubt something out of the ordinary heppened here! Do any of the non-christians here know if this can happen, from a medical perspective?
    ?


    I have studied in hypnosis / psychotherapy to cut a long story short it does happen but is far less common than some people (faith healers , hypnotists and the like) would have you believe , it is nothing to do with religion however it is to do with faith the mind is a very powerful thing and a strong enough belief/will in getting better has been known to cause spontaneous remission, it’s a one in a million type thing statistically it is as likely to happen as often with faith healers or hypnotists as it does with doctors the bottom line is , it’s all down to psychology and it’s effect on the human body


  • #3
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    The Apostolic Church is one of the older mainstream Pentecostal denominations (with Pentecostals 'older' only means it was founded a century or so ago). The Apostolic Church began in Wales but has congregations around the world (I've preached in some of their churches in Africa).

    I've seen these "one-in-a-million things" happen a number of times. Of course they are rare, and are certainly not the norm. Most people who have terminal cancer will die, even after we pray for them.

    It is easy to characterise them as coincidences - but my experience is that the more we pray then the more such coincidences happen. :) Either way, I'm absolutely delighted for this girl, and I pray that the cancer remains in remission.


  • #4
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    crotalus667 wrote: »
    it’s all down to psychology and it’s effect on the human body


    Is there any evidence you could provide for this conclusion?


  • #5
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    JimiTime wrote: »
    The doctors are now baffled! Not only is there no Cancer left, but also no scar tissue. [...] Do any of the non-christians here know if this can happen, from a medical perspective?
    Back in the 19th century, cancer was incurable and suspected of being contagious, so when cancer was diagnosed, people were sent to sanitoriums. A few of these places kept reliable statistics of who was admitted, how long they lived, and whether or not they recovered. These records indicate that between one and two percent of patients recovered from cancer without any form of treatment.

    From this, it seems safe to conclude that cancer is not incurable (or more correctly, that cancer is not 'terminal' up until the point at which one dies of it), and that remissions do seem to occur without treatment in a small number of cases. Since all, or almost all, cancers are given some form of treatment these days, it's difficult to establish general-case baseline remission rates when no treatment occurs, hence the Victorian figures are still used.

    FYI - research has been done into the effects of hypnosis, but other than reducing the pain that some types of cancer causes, it has not been shown to have any effect upon the cancer itself -- see here, for example. These results are consistent with what was found from other research projects into hypnosis.

    Solid research has also been done into whether or not prayer helps recovery from heart operations -- the results were that patients who were not prayed for had the same overall rate of post-op problems as patients who were prayed for; while patients who were being prayed for (and knew it) had statistically significantly higher rates of post-op complications than patients who were prayed for (and didn't know it); so my advice in this case, is if you're praying for somebody's well-being, then do so if you like, but don't tell them that you're doing so.


  • #6
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    The Apostolic Church is one of the older mainstream Pentecostal denominations (with Pentecostals 'older' only means it was founded a century or so ago). The Apostolic Church began in Wales but has congregations around the world (I've preached in some of their churches in Africa).

    I've seen these "one-in-a-million things" happen a number of times. Of course they are rare, and are certainly not the norm. Most people who have terminal cancer will die, even after we pray for them.

    It is easy to characterise them as coincidences - but my experience is that the more we pray then the more such coincidences happen. :) Either way, I'm absolutely delighted for this girl, and I pray that the cancer remains in remission.

    Cheers PDN. Tell me, when you have seen these 'coincidences':) happening, have you witnessed them happening in various denominations?


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    but my experience is that the more we pray then the more such coincidences happen.
    Good research shows that this is not the case, unfortunately.


  • #8
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Back in the 19th century, cancer was incurable and suspected of being contagious, so when cancer was diagnosed, people were sent to sanitoriums. A few of these places kept reliable statistics of who was admitted, how long they lived, and whether or not they recovered. These records indicate that between one and two percent of patients recovered from cancer without any form of treatment.

    From this, it seems safe to conclude that cancer is not incurable (or more correctly, that cancer is not 'terminal' up until the point at which one dies of it), and that remissions do seem to occur without treatment in a small number of cases. Since all, or almost all, cancers are given some form of treatment these days, it's difficult to establish general-case baseline remission rates when no treatment occurs, hence the Victorian figures are still used.

    FYI - research has been done into the effects of hypnosis, but other than reducing the pain that some types of cancer causes, it has not been shown to have any effect upon the cancer itself -- see here, for example. These results are consistent with what was found from other research projects into hypnosis.

    Solid research has also been done into whether or not prayer helps recovery from heart operations -- the results were that patients who were not prayed for had the same overall rate of post-op problems as patients who were prayed for; while patients who were being prayed for (and knew it) had statistically significantly higher rates of post-op complications than patients who were prayed for (and didn't know it); so my advice in this case, is if you're praying for somebody's well-being, then do so if you like, but don't tell them that you're doing so.

    Thanks for the info.


  • #9
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Solid research has also been done into whether or not prayer helps recovery from heart operations -- the results were that patients who were not prayed for had the same overall rate of post-op problems as patients who were prayed for; while patients who were being prayed for (and knew it) had statistically significantly higher rates of post-op complications than patients who were prayed for (and didn't know it); so my advice in this case, is if you're praying for somebody's well-being, then do so if you like, but don't tell them that you're doing so.

    Possibly the most confusing post I’ve ever read on any forum ever. Where do you get this stuff from Rob? I noticed no hyperlink to this research?

    When the researchers were doing this research, how did they know who wasn’t being prayed for? Who did they ask in order to find out? Did they conduct some sort of experiment?

    How did these post Heart OP patients (who knew) they were being prayed for actually know that they where being prayed for? Who told them? The researchers? How did they know?

    And when conducting this research what must have been even harder for the researchers to find out was who wasn’t being prayed for? I’m sure they wouldn’t seriously ask relatives to not pray for their sick loved ones in order to participate in such research, so who did they ask to ‘not pray’ in order that they might see if prayer really helps? People in other hospital beds? The one’s on trolleys in the corridor? Visitors of other patients? Or Hospital staff maybe? Assuming any of these people would have prayed for the subjects of this experiment, would their prayers hold much weight if they didn’t really care? And if they really didn’t care then would they pray in the first place? And if they did care enough to pray for the subject, then they too would most likely decline the request to 'not pray' by the researchers who are only interested in testing to see whether praying helps or not..

    But assuming there were people who actually carried out an experiment to see if prayer actually works, and that there was people who submitted to being involved in such an experiment. Who was able to make sure that their prayers where genuine or not? Were the praying guinea pigs actually praying in true faith and in expectation of the desired outcome as is required for true prayer in such circumstances? Or just mouthing words into the air not really believing that the desired outcome would come to pass, which would not qualify as prayer in the first place?

    I’m merely pointing out that ‘Solid Research’ (as you put it) into this area is highly unlikely isn’t it? Prayer is supposed to be done by people who actually care about family members or friends who need it, such people would not participate in an experiment had they been asked to in such circumstances. I know I wouldn’t.


  • #10
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Cheers PDN. Tell me, when you have seen these 'coincidences':) happening, have you witnessed them happening in various denominations?

    Yes, I've seen them happening in various denominations including Pentecostal, Baptist, Methodist and the Salvation Army. I've also seen similar things occurring in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.


  • #11
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Good research shows that this is not the case, unfortunately.

    Maybe you could provide some links? You have in the past, over on the A&A forum, cited some studies that appeared to be pretty flawed. Hardly good research, in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    keano_afc
    Registered Users Posts: 8,711 ✭✭✭keano_afc


    Do you believe the laying of hands on the sick should only occur if the illness is a result of sin in the person's life?


  • #13
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Do you believe the laying of hands on the sick should only occur if the illness is a result of sin in the person's life?

    No. I don't see any such restriction in Scripture.


  • #14
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Possibly the most confusing post I’ve ever read on any forum ever. Where do you get this stuff from Rob? I noticed no hyperlink to this research?
    Hmmm... I thought it was quite straightforward. Can you tell me exactly what part you find unclear?

    I didn't link to the research since I've quoted this perhaps five or ten times over the last year, linking to the home page and final report each time -- despite this, I don't recall either much serious debate, or even much interest, from the religious side about the uncomfortable conclusion that was reached.

    Perhaps if people are interested in debating this research specifically, then it's probably worth spinning a separate thread out from here.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    I’m merely pointing out that ‘Solid Research’ (as you put it) into this area is highly unlikely isn’t it?
    On the contrary, the research was meticulously done and good on the Templeton Foundation for stumping up what was probably a seven-digit sum to fund a project of this quality. You can find the pubmed entry for the final published paper in the American Heart Journal here, or you can download what I think is the same text from the Templeton Foundation's website here and judge the quality of what was done for yourself.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Prayer is supposed to be done by people who actually care about family members or friends who need it
    Good heavens, are you seriously saying that the people who were doing this praying didn't care about who they were praying for? And if so, how do you know that they didn't?


  • #15
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    Maybe you could provide some links?
    See the post above for links to the STEP research.

    Perhaps you could give us an idea of a few of these "one-in-a-million things" that you mentioned happened "a number of times"?

    And could you also say how you were able to establish (beyond what seems like much serious doubt) that they were not the result of co-incidence or some other natural factor, and that prayer was actually the causal agent?


  • #16
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    And could you also say how you were able to establish (beyond what seems like much serious doubt) that they were not the result of co-incidence or some other natural factor, and that prayer was actually the causal agent?

    TBH robin, In the case i mentioned, in the space of a month All cancer was 'gone'. however, the doctors main bafflement was the lack of any scars or evidence that she had it in the first place. I'll keep you all posted, as the friend in question wishes to get the medical reports and before and after x-rays of his daughter etc. Although I'm not like some atheists here who like to jump to the conclusion that its anything but a medically explainable anomily, I am always quite sceptical about these things and don't like to hastily conclude either way.


  • #17
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    PDN wrote: »
    I've also seen similar things occurring in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal.

    What is that? i must say that makes me so sceptical. I find catholocism to be very ungodly to say the least, so I can't see why God would grant his spirit to reinforce such an institution (not intended to inflame. just an opinion based on what i see). Open to correction though.


  • #18
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Hmmm... I thought it was quite straightforward. Can you tell me exactly what part you find unclear?

    All of it. But when I read the part in the report where it states that the research was only done to measure the effects of intercessory prayer (IP), as apposed to the private personal kind, the effects of which they say they had no data relating to either its effects or outcome whatsoever.
    robindch wrote: »
    I didn't link to the research since I've quoted this perhaps five or ten times over the last year, linking to the home page and final report each time -- despite this, I don't recall either much serious debate, or even much interest, from the religious side about the uncomfortable conclusion that was reached.

    I must have missed those earlier posts.
    robindch wrote: »
    Perhaps if people are interested in debating this research specifically, then it's probably worth spinning a separate thread out from here.

    I doubt it will get many response, seeing that your prior efforts to draw attention to this report had fallen foul of the uninterested poster.
    robindch wrote: »
    Good heavens, are you seriously saying that the people who were doing this praying didn't care about who they were praying for? And if so, how do you know that they didn't?

    God forbid, I would never say such an awful thing. But do you believe that these same praying people could pray for the post CABG patients in question as earnestly and with as much intensity as they would for, say, one of their own family members or close friends if they were unfortunate to find themselves in such circumstances?

    When praying for something, the things being prayed for call for the utmost earnest of supplication. IP like this hardly qualifies as effective prayer in this regard because it is done by people taking part in a study, so their motives for praying in the first place are based on a faulty foundation. Someone somewhere knew that this praying was being done in order to fill out a statistics chart. The God of the New Testament is revealed as not responding to such requests, i.e. un-earnest requests. He looks at the heart and knows if the thing being prayed for is truly what the praying person truly wants or needs.

    So I return your question back on you. Are you seriously saying that the people who were doing this praying did care about who they were praying for? And if so, how do you know that they did?

    Also do their prayers meet the requirements of true prayer as outlined in the Bible? One of which was that it must be private. And if their prayers were in fact private then how can the researchers be sure that the people who said they prayed in private actually prayed in private?

    Another requirement for true prayer was that you must not use vain repetitions? Did the researchers have proof that the people praying did not use vain repetitions when they prayed in private?

    Again all I’m pointing out is that a study of this kind is very shaky ground to base any conclusion on in relation to whether prayer helps in such circumstances or not. I noticed that in two out of four reports in question they found that prayer did have positive affects but even then you cannot, based on that, assume that prayer actually does help. Prayer is personnel, it cannot be subjected to this kind of research without changing its essence and if you do change it ceases to be true prayer.

    It would be like testing whether or not dynamite would have any affect on a crash test dummy if said dynamite were set to go off while strapped to the dummy's chest. But before you test the dynamite you change the chemical make up of it by introducing an alien element into its compound that neutralises its explosiveness.


  • #19
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    JimiTime wrote: »
    ...so I can't see why God would grant his spirit to reinforce such an institution (not intended to inflame. just an opinion based on what i see). Open to correction though.

    Correction:

    God responds to faith no matter where he finds it JT.

    Read what Jesus in Luke 4 says about the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the leper. Both would have been considered unworthy of any favour form God in Israel at the time.

    "But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." Luke 4:25-27


  • #20
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Soul Winner wrote:
    God forbid, I would never say such an awful thing. But do you believe that these same praying people could pray for the post CABG patients in question as earnestly and with as much intensity as they would for, say, one of their own family members or close friends if they were unfortunate to find themselves in such circumstances?

    So if your pastor or other leader asked you to pray for someone you did not know, you would, but you would not pray earnestly?
    Soul Winner wrote:
    So I return your question back on you. Are you seriously saying that the people who were doing this praying did care about who they were praying for? And if so, how do you know that they did?

    Same again. You only pray for people you care for? Two issues with this:
    1. You are limiting yourself to praying for people. What about for good weather or a safe journey etc. The are not scriptures limiting prayers to people.
    2. You are limiting yourself to praying for people you care for. So no praying for leaders of nations, institutions, other peoples friends etc.
    Soul Winner wrote:
    Also do their prayers meet the requirements of true prayer as outlined in the Bible? One of which was that it must be private. And if their prayers were in fact private then how can the researchers be sure that the people who said they prayed in private actually prayed in private?

    This is a ridiculous argument. Even is only prayers in private were effective (this is NOT what the scriptures actually say), the experiment has a large sample size. This means that even is some of the prayers (say 50%) were not in private, this effect would be statisically nullified.

    Soul Winner wrote:
    Another requirement for true prayer was that you must not use vain repetitions? Did the researchers have proof that the people praying did not use vain repetitions when they prayed in private?

    Again all I’m pointing out is that a study of this kind is very shaky ground to base any conclusion on in relation to whether prayer helps in such circumstances or not. I noticed that in two out of four reports in question they found that prayer did have positive affects but even then you cannot, based on that, assume that prayer actually does help. Prayer is personnel, it cannot be subjected to this kind of research without changing its essence and if you do change it ceases to be true prayer.

    If the study had presented evidence that prayer actually works, you would jump on it in a second.
    You are looking for any possible loop holes to support your assumption that prayer works. It reeks of desperation.
    Soul Winner wrote:
    It would be like testing whether or not dynamite would have any affect on a crash test dummy if said dynamite were set to go off while strapped to the dummy's chest. But before you test the dynamite you change the chemical make up of it by introducing an alien element into its compound that neutralises its explosiveness.

    I don't see any analogy here? What is the 'alien compound'?


  • #21
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    crotalus667 wrote: »
    it is nothing to do with religion however it is to do with faith
    ?
    JimiTime wrote:
    What is that? i must say that makes me so sceptical. I find catholocism to be very ungodly to say the least, so I can't see why God would grant his spirit to reinforce such an institution (not intended to inflame. just an opinion based on what i see). Open to correction though.
    Although not a Catholic I find this kind of sectarianism to be outrageously offensive. The Catholic church does preach the gospels of Jesus Christ, and they do worship the true God. There are some theological differences between me and them but to call them "ungodly" is a step way too arrogant.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Húrin wrote: »
    Although not a Catholic I find this kind of sectarianism to be outrageously offensive. The Catholic church does preach the gospels of Jesus Christ, and they do worship the true God. There are some theological differences between me and them but to call them "ungodly" is a step way too arrogant.
    Sectarianism?? When you get off your moral high horse, could you please look up the meaning of the word and take back your silly accusation please. Also, when you fling in words like arrogant etc, you may as well be shouting racist etc. why not just ask why i think the way i do then with the info at hand draw your conclusions? Anyway, this is off topic.


  • #23
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Correction:

    God responds to faith no matter where he finds it JT.

    Read what Jesus in Luke 4 says about the widow of Sarepta and Naaman the leper. Both would have been considered unworthy of any favour form God in Israel at the time.

    "But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian." Luke 4:25-27

    cheers Soul Winner. I take the point.


  • #24
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    iUseVi wrote: »
    So if your pastor or other leader asked you to pray for someone you did not know, you would, but you would not pray earnestly?

    I would, but certainly not 'AS' earnest as I would if, say, one of my kids was really sick, or if my Pastor was really sick. Would you?
    iUseVi wrote: »
    Same again. You only pray for people you care for? Two issues with this:
    1. You are limiting yourself to praying for people. What about for good weather or a safe journey etc. The are not scriptures limiting prayers to people.

    I never said there was. But what we are discussing is a report that is limited to prayers for people, not prayer per se.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    2. You are limiting yourself to praying for people you care for. So no praying for leaders of nations, institutions, other peoples friends etc.

    How so? All I said was that my prayers for family members and close friends would have more weight because there would be more intensity in those prayers than for someone who, say a work colleague, who asked my to pray for their friend’s sister's brother in law's mother. Surely you can see the difference???
    iUseVi wrote: »
    This is a ridiculous argument. Even is only prayers in private were effective (this is NOT what the scriptures actually say),

    "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Matthew 6:6

    Looks like it says that to me.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    the experiment has a large sample size. This means that even is some of the prayers (say 50%) were not in private, this effect would be statisically nullified.

    But there is no way to tell for sure is there?
    iUseVi wrote: »
    If the study had presented evidence that prayer actually works, you would jump on it in a second.

    The report does present evidence that in some case IP did help. I cited that in my post and said the following about it:
    Soul Winner wrote:
    ...I noticed that in two out of four reports in question they found that prayer did have positive affects but even then you cannot, based on that, assume that prayer actually does help...
    iUseVi wrote: »
    You are looking for any possible loop holes to support your assumption that prayer works. It reeks of desperation.

    As I just showed above, you are wrong about that. You should actually read people's posts before launching into attacks like that.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    I don't see any analogy here? What is the 'alien compound'?

    Does it really matter?


  • #25
    crotalus667
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,900 ✭✭✭crotalus667


    Húrin wrote: »
    ?
    .


    Put in simple terms , most cases of spontaneous remission involve a basic belief/faith that said person will be healed , the mind usually requires a vessel to take it to the point of healing the body , the vessel being , religion , medicine, hypnosis it doesn’t rely matter as long as that vessel is there for the mind latch onto ,


  • #26
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Soul Winner wrote:
    I would, but certainly not 'AS' earnest as I would if, say, one of my kids was really sick, or if my Pastor was really sick. Would you?

    This is a fairly shocking confession. I don't pray, I am an atheist, but when I was a "Christian" I would of prayed with the same earnest in all situations.

    Also I think this verse is pertinent:

    "In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26).

    Soul Winner wrote:
    "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Matthew 6:6

    Looks like it says that to me.
    Yup sure, but it never says: "only prayers in private are effective", or anything like that.

    "This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him" (1 John 5:14-15).
    "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints" (Ephesians 6:18).
    "Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus" (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18).

    Some verses to back me up! :D

    Soul Winner wrote:
    As I just showed above, you are wrong about that. You should actually read people's posts before launching into attacks like that.

    I was not attacking, merely pointing out the errors/differences of opinion.

    Soul Winner wrote:
    Does it really matter?

    No. It does not!


  • #27
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    iUseVi wrote: »
    This is a fairly shocking confession. I don't pray, I am an atheist, but when I was a "Christian" I would of prayed with the same earnest in all situations.

    Soulwinner is simply being real. There are thousands, probably millions, of people around the world who are suffering from cancer right now. However, if my daughter was diagnosed with cancer I would spend more time praying for her, and pray more fervently, than I currently do for all those unnamed people that I've never met.


  • #28
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    iUseVi wrote: »
    This is a fairly shocking confession.

    Honesty tends to do that.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    You are limiting yourself to praying for people. What about for good weather or a safe journey etc. The are not scriptures limiting prayers to people.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    I don't pray, I am an atheist, but when I was a "Christian" I would of prayed with the same earnest in all situations.

    Would the 'all situations' in which you used to pray include praying for good weather, and a safe journey as referred to by yourself in your other post?

    If so how could you possibly have prayed with equal earnest for things like having a nice sunny day along with praying that your kid who is dying of cancer might get healing? I find that a fairly shocking confession.
    iUseVi wrote: »
    I don't pray, I am an atheist, but when I was a "Christian"...

    What converted you to atheism?


  • #29
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    What converted you to atheism?
    Just a small point -- it's more accurate to say that one "reverts" to the natural atheism that we all had as children. One doesn't "convert" to it.


  • #30
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    Just a small point -- it's more accurate to say that one "reverts" to the natural atheism that we all had as children. One doesn't "convert" to it.

    I would see 'atheism' as the doctrine that there is no God. To be an atheist would mean, in my opinion, that one is aware of the concept of God but has rejected that concept.

    If we apply the label of 'atheism' to children on the grounds that they have not yet heard of the concept of God then may we not equally describe dogs, stick insects, and even trees as 'atheists'?


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    robindch wrote: »
    Just a small point -- it's more accurate to say that one "reverts" to the natural atheism that we all had as children. One doesn't "convert" to it.


    LOL:D:D:D LOL. My word, I hope this is a tongue in cheek reference to Islam or something. If not, well, LOL.


  • #32
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Just a small point -- it's more accurate to say that one "reverts" to the natural atheism that we all had as children. One doesn't "convert" to it.

    The word 'convert' simply means 'to turn with' ‘con’ meaning ‘with’ and ‘vert’ meaning ‘turn’. If iUseVi used to be a Christian (someone who believed in Christ and who prayed as admitted) then to change from that belief system to atheism (not believing in God) something must have happened to 'turn' him/her. Your point can only be made if in fact iUseVi used to be an atheist before becoming a Christian. You assume this is the case looking through the spectacles of your own experience but you don’t know that it applies to iUseVi. I used the word ‘convert’ on the same basis.

    BTW I don't recall ever having any ‘natural’ atheism as a child. I think this is an over generalisation on your part and IMO would only include those who had no religious instruction in their early years, which might make someone of that non-persuasions think that it applies to every child. It doesn’t. Any slips into agnosticism and doubt that I have had in my life have come more frequently the older I get. I was brought up Catholic and always believed that there was a God. Only later on when I abandoned Catholicism did my simple childlike faith become more solidified the more I learned, as it continues to do the more I challenge and have challenged my beliefs. Which is one of the reasons I use this forum. If Christianity isn't true then I want to know about it. I don't need Christianity if Christ did not raise from the dead as a fact of history. I’ve yet to be convinced that He didn’t with solid evidence. Saying that it is merely implausible that He didn’t doesn’t cut it for me. I have found no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the reports. But this and other forums are great for researching things atheists have raised in relation to the Christian faith, things that I would never have thought of myself. Once they are resolved for me they have only served to strengthen my faith even more. I love you guys, thanks :D


  • #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    I would see 'atheism' as the doctrine that there is no God. To be an atheist would mean, in my opinion, that one is aware of the concept of God but has rejected that concept.
    An unusual definition, I must say. I go for the much simpler intent-free definition that an atheist is somebody who doesn't believe that a god or gods exist.
    PDN wrote: »
    If we apply the label of 'atheism' to children on the grounds that they have not yet heard of the concept of God then may we not equally describe dogs, stick insects, and even trees as 'atheists'?
    If you really wanted to call a tree an atheist, then I certainly won't mind. I doubt the tree would either.


  • #34
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    But this and other forums are great for researching things atheists have raised in relation to the Christian faith, things that I would never have thought of myself. Once they are resolved for me they have only served to strengthen my faith even more. I love you guys, thanks
    Indeed, and I find it fascinating to see how religion works in practice -- how it makes its way from mind to mind, adapting and changing as it goes, appealing to different things in different people, ensuring that it stays "alive" at any cost. The forum here is a real-life research lab -- thanks in return!
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    BTW I don't recall ever having any ‘natural’ atheism as a child.
    Before you ever heard of god, before you read your first bible, or even perhaps, before you said your first word? You were an atheist then, my friend :)


  • #35
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    An unusual definition, I must say. I go for the much simpler intent-free definition that an atheist is somebody who doesn't believe that a god or gods exist.If you really wanted to call a tree an atheist, then I certainly won't mind. I doubt the tree would either.

    I don't think it's unusual at all. According to Anthony Flew. in the days when he was an atheist, mine is the usual meaning in English. Flew wanted to change our language, as apparently you do also, but I don't think either of you have proved successful in so doing.
    Anthony Flew wrote:
    The word 'atheism,' however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.


  • #36
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    mine is the usual meaning in English. Flew wanted to change our language, as apparently you do also, but I don't think either of you have proved successful in so doing.
    You mustn't be very familiar with atheism to say something like this. FYI, here's Wikipedia's opening two sentences on atheism:
    Wikipedia wrote:
    Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism.
    The second sentence is the one which describes my general understanding of atheism as an implicit position, and that's the one that you were apparently unaware was in common usage.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    mossieh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 436 ✭✭mossieh


    robindch wrote: »
    If you really wanted to call a tree an atheist, then I certainly won't mind. I doubt the tree would either.

    If a tree falls in the forest and it hasn't been baptised does it go to 'purgatree'?

    My coat I am getting.


  • #38
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    robindch wrote: »
    Indeed, and I find it fascinating to see how religion works in practice -- how it makes its way from mind to mind, adapting and changing as it goes, appealing to different things in different people, ensuring that it stays "alive" at any cost. The forum here is a real-life research lab -- thanks in return!

    Well if it all came as a by product of random mutations coupled with natural selection as the evolutionist believe then what harm is there in it? Evolution, as has been pointed out again and again in these forums has no ultimate goal or purpose so why hate religion so much? Even if it was proven that evolution was right and that religion was wrong then having religion shouldn't really matter because evolution is going nowhere anyway.

    In any case has the basic claims of Christianity on the whole changed since New Testament times in order to adopt to be more acceptable to modernity? Has Christianity decided that miracles cannot happen in order to be accepted by this scientific age? Any Christian organisation that does this is not Christian. And for those who do do it you still hate anyway. You admit that you would like to get rid of religion and even when it changes to appease you, you still hate it. It can’t win.

    robindch wrote: »
    Before you ever heard of god, before you read your first bible, or even perhaps, before you said your first word? You were an atheist then, my friend :)

    Before I said my first word I was eeehhhmmm let me think about 2 to 6 months old, before I heard of God, oh that must have been when I was about 1 to 2 years old, and before I read my first Bible I must have been 9 years old (I got a children’s illustrated Bible when I was 10 off my aunty for Christmas) so if I go back to the earliest one which is 2 to 6 months old then I doubt very much that I could have been an atheist by your definition. Why? Because to be an atheist by your definition would have meant that at 2 to 6 months old I'd have to have been somebody who doesn't believe that a god or gods exist. Concepts I couldn’t possibly have envisage in my then undeveloped mind let alone decide I don’t believe in.


  • #39
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    You mustn't be very familiar with atheism to say something like this. FYI, here's Wikipedia's opening two sentences on atheism:The second sentence is the one which describes my general understanding of atheism as an implicit position, and that's the one that you were apparently unaware was in common usage.

    So, given that the context of this was a poster turning away from theism to atheism - you are stating that he embraced an implicit, rather than an explicit, position.

    Any other implicit atheists out there?


  • #40
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    So, given that the context of this was a poster turning away from theism to atheism - you are stating that he embraced an implicit, rather than an explicit, position.
    It hardly matters, since implicit atheism includes explicit atheism.

    Capeesh?


  • #41
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    You admit that you would like to get rid of religion and even when it changes to appease you, you still hate it. It can’t win.
    I detest religion because it demands that people look at the world back-to-front, with an intellectual position which starts off with a conclusion (or an interpretation of a conclusion), then permits the evidence of the world gained through one's senses, and processed, to be mashed and squeezed until the evidence fits the conclusion. The creationism thread is a sad example of this, but to a greater or lesser extent, the same back-to-front conclusion-first view informs all of religious thought.

    Consequently, religion, a virtually infinitely malleable social construct, is most unlikely to be able to evolve into something that I can accept. And I certainly don't want it to "win" either!
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Because to be an atheist by your definition would have meant that at 2 to 6 months old I'd have to have been somebody who doesn't believe that a god or gods exist. Concepts I couldn’t possibly have envisage in my then undeveloped mind let alone decide I don’t believe in.
    I think you may have missed the point about implicit atheism in this post. As a 6-month old, I agree that you weren't capable of being an "explicit" atheist, but you certainly were an "implicit" atheist at the time, hence the comment :)


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    iUseVi
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭iUseVi


    Soul Winner wrote:
    Honesty tends to do that.

    Would the 'all situations' in which you used to pray include praying for good weather, and a safe journey as referred to by yourself in your other post?

    If so how could you possibly have prayed with equal earnest for things like having a nice sunny day along with praying that your kid who is dying of cancer might get healing? I find that a fairly shocking confession.

    What converted you to atheism?

    My "conversion" to atheism was certainly not some sort of sudden over night thing. In my heart I don't think I ever believed there was a God. I grew up in a entirely Christian, and quite honestly fundy family. I did and said everything any other Christian says and does. I even used to defend creationism because that was what I was taught to do! :confused::rolleyes:

    However, no amount of peer pressure or "teaching" can make someone believe. God never spoke to me or did any miracles, even though I repeatedly asked, and I really was quite earnest at that time, really, no faking!

    After I went to college and began reading a few science/philosophy books, I began to think for myself. I realised that I only said I believed in God because that is what other people told me to! I had in fact no more evidence of Gods existence than I did of Santa Clauses existence.

    The more I thought and more I learnt, the clearer the flaws and inconsistencies in Christianity, and religion in general became to me. (imo, no insult intended!)

    So in a sense, I was always an atheist, but only had the courage to "come out" recently.

    Hope I didn't bore you. :rolleyes:

    As an aside, I am sure there are loads of people in a similar position to what I was, but fear of what families and Christian friends would say might hold them back. I would encourage people to be honest, I know for me I was walking on air for weeks after I "came out", such was the relief.


Advertisement