Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Roz]

DL, sorry to say but you and End3 are guilty of special pleading when you take so many christian concepts for granted in your arguments.  Even if it's not proven, just take it for granted?  Can't do that.

[Guest end3]

Let's take this conversation into a slightly different direction.  We know from the gospels that jesus cast out demons.  We know from history that what we now know to be schizophrenia was often attributed to demon possession.  If jesus were really god, then he would have known that the demons he cast out were actually NOT demons but imbalances of neuro-chemistry.

 

With this in mind, if there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and if jesus knew of this connection (which he must have, if he were truly god incarnate), then why would he cast out demons rather than simply saying, "Go and sin no more"?

Took a cursory look Prof....is there specific Scripture you had in mind? Interesting question.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Let's take this conversation into a slightly different direction.  We know from the gospels that jesus cast out demons.  We know from history that what we now know to be schizophrenia was often attributed to demon possession.  If jesus were really god, then he would have known that the demons he cast out were actually NOT demons but imbalances of neuro-chemistry.

 

With this in mind, if there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and if jesus knew of this connection (which he must have, if he were truly god incarnate), then why would he cast out demons rather than simply saying, "Go and sin no more"?

I think this an example of "begging the question"? I'll include the definition from wikipedia in case people aren't familiar. (The term is used to mean different things, and I wasn't aware of this definition until recently.)

Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

So this argument implicitly assumes that Jesus misdiagnosed schizophrenia as demon possession. I don't think that is a valid assumption, because demon possession might exist alongside schizophrenia. Also, demon possession might have a symbiotic relationship with schizophrenia - just like a weak animal attracts parasites and those parasites in turn make the animal even weaker. And also I don't think ancient people made such a distinction between physical and spiritual. Many of the early monk literature speaks of demons as though they are speaking about psychological weakness (demon of gluttony, demon of sleepiness, demon of vainglory, ...).

 

So it seems like you are assuming an aspect of Christian tradition is false (demons) in order to prove that another aspect of Christian tradition is false (wisdom of Jesus). Maybe that's not precisely like "begging the question" but it seems similar to me.

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on logic of course; I'm just giving an opinion.

 

DL, I assume nothing.  IF jesus was literally god incarnate (omniscient) and IF there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and IF jesus came to earth to rectify Original Sin, THEN:

 

 

1. jesus would have known that schizophrenics were NOT demon possessed.

2. jesus would have known that their condition was connected to their sin.

3. jesus would have sought to correct the sin behind the condition rather than casting out demons which he knew weren't the problem.

 

The claim of christ's divinity, taken at face value, is the basis of christian belief.  THAT is the assumption we are dealing with here.  jesus could NOT have misdiagnosed schizophrenia if he were, in fact, the omniscient god incarnate.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Before mental illnesses were described by science in the 19th century, people didn't know what caused them.  They assumed that the cause was supernatural, eg "demon possession".  Now that we have scientific explanations for mental illnesses like schizophrenia, there is no need to use "demon possession" as a way to explain them.

[directionless]

DL, I assume nothing.  IF jesus was literally god incarnate (omniscient) and IF there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and IF jesus came to earth to rectify Original Sin, THEN:

 

 

1. jesus would have known that schizophrenics were NOT demon possessed.

2. jesus would have known that their condition was connected to their sin.

3. jesus would have sought to correct the sin behind the condition rather than casting out demons which he knew weren't the problem.

 

The claim of christ's divinity, taken at face value, is the basis of christian belief.  THAT is the assumption we are dealing with here.  jesus could NOT have misdiagnosed schizophrenia if he were, in fact, the omniscient god incarnate.

Aren't you assuming that the cases where Jesus exorcised demons in the gospels were actually schizophrenia? Why can't both demon possession and schizophrenia be distinct things with similar symptoms? In that case Jesus could have exorcised demons and there was no resulting contradiction.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok End,

 

I've looked at the Templeton-sponsored study and I'm satisfied that those involved did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to make this study as scientifically valid as possible.  I've also compared the definition of prayer you cited and I think it fits well enough with their definition and they way prayer was used in that study.  The intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, 1 to 4 times a day.  They agreed to add the phrase, "...for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" to their usual prayers.

 

Additional points worth mentioning are as follows;

 

*   The Templeton study took place within a strictly Christian context. 

 

*   It had two main findings.

First, intercessory prayer had no effect on whether complications occurred after surgery. 

Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did not receive intercessory prayer.

 

*  The conclusion drawn from the study was that intercessory prayer had no measurable physical effects.

.

.

.

Therefore, I can now supply some answers to your questions, End.

 

You wrote...

"I'm asking if scientists, as per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the method by publishing results, given they followed the method correctly."

 

My answer...

As regards ONLY the Templeton study, Yes.  As I said above, I'm now satisfied that they conducted the test properly, in accordance with proper professional scientific standards of inquiry.

 

You wrote...

"Do you think prayer testing is valid?  And if so, why?"

 

My answer...

Please note End that I'm referring ONLY to the Templeton study, when I answer in the affirmative and say, Yes.

As per my words in post # 429, I can only comment on studies that I've examined and this is the only one I've examined.  Therefore, I can't say if any other example of prayer testing studies are valid or not.  I consider this study to be valid and I've also given my reasoning why.

 

You wrote...

"Basically, what I'm asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided?"

 

My answer...

Referring ONLY to the Templeton study, my answer is, Yes.

In the context of that study, I'm satisfied that the two conditions you've listed have been met.  That the scientific method was properly used.  That the wording and meaning of the intercessory prayers used (see first paragraph, above) do indeed fall within the definition you gave.

 

.

.

.

Now, as per the content of # 409, I've reckon that I've fulfilled my part, End.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt and trusted you that the issue of prayer testing was related to the original topic of this thread - original sin.  I've taken the time and put in the effort to carefully and meticulously check the Templeton study of prayer testing and I've also answered your questions about prayer testing.  My answers have been a qualified 'Yes'.  The qualification being that... when it comes to the issue of prayer-testing, I can ONLY comment about that particular test. 

 

Therefore...

Assuming you're ok with this post, assuming that you're satisfied that I'm dealing with you fairly and assuming that there's no other unfinished business between us...

 

...I now hand over to you.

.

.

.

 

Please make your argument about original sin.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Demon possession isn't a thing.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

DL, I assume nothing.  IF jesus was literally god incarnate (omniscient) and IF there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and IF jesus came to earth to rectify Original Sin, THEN:

 

 

1. jesus would have known that schizophrenics were NOT demon possessed.

2. jesus would have known that their condition was connected to their sin.

3. jesus would have sought to correct the sin behind the condition rather than casting out demons which he knew weren't the problem.

 

The claim of christ's divinity, taken at face value, is the basis of christian belief.  THAT is the assumption we are dealing with here.  jesus could NOT have misdiagnosed schizophrenia if he were, in fact, the omniscient god incarnate.

Aren't you assuming that the cases where Jesus exorcised demons in the gospels were actually schizophrenia? Why can't both demon possession and schizophrenia be distinct things with similar symptoms? In that case Jesus could have exorcised demons and there was no resulting contradiction.

 

I see your point, DL and perhaps it is valid.  However, we see throughout history that schizophrenia has been believed to be the result of demon possession.  As FTNZ has pointed out, science finally clarified the issue for us.  Thus, I am forced to concede that, based on history, I did make the assumption that the demons jesus cast out were schizophrenic in nature.

 

However, if we know today that demon possession is not a reality, wouldn't an omniscient god have known it too?

[Guest end3]

Ok End,

 

I've looked at the Templeton-sponsored study and I'm satisfied that those involved did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to make this study as scientifically valid as possible.  I've also compared the definition of prayer you cited and I think it fits well enough with their definition and they way prayer was used in that study.  The intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, 1 to 4 times a day.  They agreed to add the phrase, "...for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" to their usual prayers.

 

Additional points worth mentioning are as follows;

 

*   The Templeton study took place within a strictly Christian context. 

 

*   It had two main findings.

First, intercessory prayer had no effect on whether complications occurred after surgery. 

Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did not receive intercessory prayer.

 

*  The conclusion drawn from the study was that intercessory prayer had no measurable physical effects.

.

.

.

Therefore, I can now supply some answers to your questions, End.

 

You wrote...

"I'm asking if scientists, as per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the method by publishing results, given they followed the method correctly."

 

My answer...

As regards ONLY the Templeton study, Yes.  As I said above, I'm now satisfied that they conducted the test properly, in accordance with proper professional scientific standards of inquiry.

 

You wrote...

"Do you think prayer testing is valid?  And if so, why?"

 

My answer...

Please note End that I'm referring ONLY to the Templeton study, when I answer in the affirmative and say, Yes.

As per my words in post # 429, I can only comment on studies that I've examined and this is the only one I've examined.  Therefore, I can't say if any other example of prayer testing studies are valid or not.  I consider this study to be valid and I've also given my reasoning why.

 

You wrote...

"Basically, what I'm asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided?"

 

My answer...

Referring ONLY to the Templeton study, my answer is, Yes.

In the context of that study, I'm satisfied that the two conditions you've listed have been met.  That the scientific method was properly used.  That the wording and meaning of the intercessory prayers used (see first paragraph, above) do indeed fall within the definition you gave.

 

.

.

.

Now, as per the content of # 409, I've reckon that I've fulfilled my part, End.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt and trusted you that the issue of prayer testing was related to the original topic of this thread - original sin.  I've taken the time and put in the effort to carefully and meticulously check the Templeton study of prayer testing and I've also answered your questions about prayer testing.  My answers have been a qualified 'Yes'.  The qualification being that... when it comes to the issue of prayer-testing, I can ONLY comment about that particular test. 

 

Therefore...

Assuming you're ok with this post, assuming that you're satisfied that I'm dealing with you fairly and assuming that there's no other unfinished business between us...

 

...I now hand over to you.

.

.

.

 

Please make your argument about original sin.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Sure, and I appreciate your effort. Thank you very much for taking the time.

 

If we may have a scientific study that studies something arguably religious and invokes as part of the study, an unknown or possibly unreal part of the mechanism like "God", then how may we not duplicate a study with "sin" as part of the mechanism.

 

To clarify, here is how I see it in my mind:

 

Humanity prays (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

Humanity sins (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

[Roz]

From the templeton study: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf

 

Background: Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but

claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. 

 

Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from

CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of

complications.

 

No effect to worse complications.

 

So what does the christian do?  Insert yet another untestable component into the mix.  God's will.  Whose god?  Well his of course.  Then he's going to excuse the higher number of complications of those being prayed for as 'it is god's will.'

 

Christians making stupid leaps of faith (ie: gullability)?  You must be joking... /sarcasm.

[midniterider]

 

Let's take this conversation into a slightly different direction.  We know from the gospels that jesus cast out demons.  We know from history that what we now know to be schizophrenia was often attributed to demon possession.  If jesus were really god, then he would have known that the demons he cast out were actually NOT demons but imbalances of neuro-chemistry.

 

With this in mind, if there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and if jesus knew of this connection (which he must have, if he were truly god incarnate), then why would he cast out demons rather than simply saying, "Go and sin no more"?

I think this an example of "begging the question"? I'll include the definition from wikipedia in case people aren't familiar. (The term is used to mean different things, and I wasn't aware of this definition until recently.)

Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

So this argument implicitly assumes that Jesus misdiagnosed schizophrenia as demon possession. I don't think that is a valid assumption, because demon possession might exist alongside schizophrenia. Also, demon possession might have a symbiotic relationship with schizophrenia - just like a weak animal attracts parasites and those parasites in turn make the animal even weaker. And also I don't think ancient people made such a distinction between physical and spiritual. Many of the early monk literature speaks of demons as though they are speaking about psychological weakness (demon of gluttony, demon of sleepiness, demon of vainglory, ...).

 

So it seems like you are assuming an aspect of Christian tradition is false (demons) in order to prove that another aspect of Christian tradition is false (wisdom of Jesus). Maybe that's not precisely like "begging the question" but it seems similar to me.

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on logic of course; I'm just giving an opinion.

 

 

If Jesus were really God incarnate then demons and demon possession could be real as well. :-) One extraordinary claim deserves another. :-) Though I understand what you're getting at, Prof.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Ok End,

 

I've looked at the Templeton-sponsored study and I'm satisfied that those involved did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to make this study as scientifically valid as possible.  I've also compared the definition of prayer you cited and I think it fits well enough with their definition and they way prayer was used in that study.  The intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, 1 to 4 times a day.  They agreed to add the phrase, "...for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" to their usual prayers.

 

Additional points worth mentioning are as follows;

 

*   The Templeton study took place within a strictly Christian context. 

 

*   It had two main findings.

First, intercessory prayer had no effect on whether complications occurred after surgery. 

Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did not receive intercessory prayer.

 

*  The conclusion drawn from the study was that intercessory prayer had no measurable physical effects.

.

.

.

Therefore, I can now supply some answers to your questions, End.

 

You wrote...

"I'm asking if scientists, as per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the method by publishing results, given they followed the method correctly."

 

My answer...

As regards ONLY the Templeton study, Yes.  As I said above, I'm now satisfied that they conducted the test properly, in accordance with proper professional scientific standards of inquiry.

 

You wrote...

"Do you think prayer testing is valid?  And if so, why?"

 

My answer...

Please note End that I'm referring ONLY to the Templeton study, when I answer in the affirmative and say, Yes.

As per my words in post # 429, I can only comment on studies that I've examined and this is the only one I've examined.  Therefore, I can't say if any other example of prayer testing studies are valid or not.  I consider this study to be valid and I've also given my reasoning why.

 

You wrote...

"Basically, what I'm asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided?"

 

My answer...

Referring ONLY to the Templeton study, my answer is, Yes.

In the context of that study, I'm satisfied that the two conditions you've listed have been met.  That the scientific method was properly used.  That the wording and meaning of the intercessory prayers used (see first paragraph, above) do indeed fall within the definition you gave.

 

.

.

.

Now, as per the content of # 409, I've reckon that I've fulfilled my part, End.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt and trusted you that the issue of prayer testing was related to the original topic of this thread - original sin.  I've taken the time and put in the effort to carefully and meticulously check the Templeton study of prayer testing and I've also answered your questions about prayer testing.  My answers have been a qualified 'Yes'.  The qualification being that... when it comes to the issue of prayer-testing, I can ONLY comment about that particular test. 

 

Therefore...

Assuming you're ok with this post, assuming that you're satisfied that I'm dealing with you fairly and assuming that there's no other unfinished business between us...

 

...I now hand over to you.

.

.

.

 

Please make your argument about original sin.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Sure, and I appreciate your effort. Thank you very much for taking the time.

 

Not at all, End

Like you I want to thoroughly investigate and resolve this issue.

 

If we may have a scientific study that studies something arguably religious and invokes as part of the study, an unknown or possibly unreal part of the mechanism like "God", then how may we not duplicate a study with "sin" as part of the mechanism.

 

Ok, now I need to say something about the highlighted part of the above sentence.

Once again, this isn't being picky - it's being meticulous, painstaking and paying attention to every detail.  So, Yes, we certainly do have a proper scientific study and it's subject matter can certainly be argued to be religious.  

 

But I think what's being described here isn't an argument, so much as an interpretation 

If the study had found that intercessory prayer did have a measurable and positive effect, then the doctors involved would have been entirely justified in concluding that they had measured a significant and positive physical effect.  That's what science measures - physical effects.  Science will have shown us something inexplicable by science.  So, if you want to explain the scientifically-inexplicable, you have to interpret it using something other than science.  To science, it's inexplicable.  To religion, it's entirely explicable.  

 

So, arguing that this effect has a religion-related cause... is a non-scientific interpretation. 

I therefore contend that you've introduced a non-scientific element into your argument, End.  You've done this by interpreting the subject matter of the study as something religion-related.  Technically speaking, within the confines of the scientific study itself, there is nothing religious or supernatural IN the study.  The study is looking for measurable physical effects.  It consists of statistics and case histories and medical data.  The effect of the intercessory prayers are taken to show up via the science.  But the science itself doesn't seek to explain HOW the prayers are working.  It can only report that there is an inexplicable physical effect.  This is what science does. It measures physical effects.  

 

When it finds something it can't explain, however, it doesn't draw a religious conclusion.  That's a different ball game.

 

Do you see the difference I'm trying to illustrate here, End?

The science tells you something is happening, but can't say what.

A religious interpretation CAN say what - but that interpretation isn't the science. 

See the line of division?

 

 

To clarify, here is how I see it in my mind:

Humanity prays (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

Humanity sins (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

 

Ok End,

 

I've looked at the Templeton-sponsored study and I'm satisfied that those involved did everything they could reasonably be expected to do to make this study as scientifically valid as possible.  I've also compared the definition of prayer you cited and I think it fits well enough with their definition and they way prayer was used in that study.  The intercessors reported praying from 30 seconds to several hours, 1 to 4 times a day.  They agreed to add the phrase, "...for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" to their usual prayers.

 

Additional points worth mentioning are as follows;

 

*   The Templeton study took place within a strictly Christian context. 

 

*   It had two main findings.

First, intercessory prayer had no effect on whether complications occurred after surgery. 

Second, patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did not receive intercessory prayer.

 

*  The conclusion drawn from the study was that intercessory prayer had no measurable physical effects.

.

.

.

Therefore, I can now supply some answers to your questions, End.

 

You wrote...

"I'm asking if scientists, as per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the method by publishing results, given they followed the method correctly."

 

My answer...

As regards ONLY the Templeton study, Yes.  As I said above, I'm now satisfied that they conducted the test properly, in accordance with proper professional scientific standards of inquiry.

 

You wrote...

"Do you think prayer testing is valid?  And if so, why?"

 

My answer...

Please note End that I'm referring ONLY to the Templeton study, when I answer in the affirmative and say, Yes.

As per my words in post # 429, I can only comment on studies that I've examined and this is the only one I've examined.  Therefore, I can't say if any other example of prayer testing studies are valid or not.  I consider this study to be valid and I've also given my reasoning why.

 

You wrote...

"Basically, what I'm asking is can science study the efficacy of prayer with the scientific method and the definition of prayer I have provided?"

 

My answer...

Referring ONLY to the Templeton study, my answer is, Yes.

In the context of that study, I'm satisfied that the two conditions you've listed have been met.  That the scientific method was properly used.  That the wording and meaning of the intercessory prayers used (see first paragraph, above) do indeed fall within the definition you gave.

 

.

.

.

Now, as per the content of # 409, I've reckon that I've fulfilled my part, End.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt and trusted you that the issue of prayer testing was related to the original topic of this thread - original sin.  I've taken the time and put in the effort to carefully and meticulously check the Templeton study of prayer testing and I've also answered your questions about prayer testing.  My answers have been a qualified 'Yes'.  The qualification being that... when it comes to the issue of prayer-testing, I can ONLY comment about that particular test. 

 

Therefore...

Assuming you're ok with this post, assuming that you're satisfied that I'm dealing with you fairly and assuming that there's no other unfinished business between us...

 

...I now hand over to you.

.

.

.

 

Please make your argument about original sin.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Sure, and I appreciate your effort. Thank you very much for taking the time.

 

Not at all, End

Like you I want to thoroughly investigate and resolve this issue.

 

If we may have a scientific study that studies something arguably religious and invokes as part of the study, an unknown or possibly unreal part of the mechanism like "God", then how may we not duplicate a study with "sin" as part of the mechanism.

 

Ok, now I need to say something about the highlighted part of the above sentence.

Once again, this isn't being picky - it's being meticulous, painstaking and paying attention to every detail.  So, Yes, we certainly do have a proper scientific study and it's subject matter can certainly be argued to be religious.  

 

But I think what's being described here isn't an argument, so much as an interpretation 

If the study had found that intercessory prayer did have a measurable and positive effect, then the doctors involved would have been entirely justified in concluding that they had measured a significant and positive physical effect.  That's what science measures - physical effects.  Science will have shown us something inexplicable by science.  So, if you want to explain the scientifically-inexplicable, you have to interpret it using something other than science.  To science, it's inexplicable.  To religion, it's entirely explicable.  

 

So, arguing that this effect has a religion-related cause... is a non-scientific interpretation. 

I therefore contend that you've introduced a non-scientific element into your argument, End.  You've done this by interpreting the subject matter of the study as something religion-related.  Technically speaking, within the confines of the scientific study itself, there is nothing religious or supernatural IN the study.  The study is looking for measurable physical effects.  It consists of statistics and case histories and medical data.  The effect of the intercessory prayers are taken to show up via the science.  But the science itself doesn't seek to explain HOW the prayers are working.  It can only report that there is an inexplicable physical effect.  This is what science does. It measures physical effects.  

 

When it finds something it can't explain, however, it doesn't draw a religious conclusion.  That's a different ball game.

 

Do you see the difference I'm trying to illustrate here, End?

The science tells you something is happening, but can't say what.

A religious interpretation CAN say what - but that interpretation isn't the science. 

See the line of division?

 

 

To clarify, here is how I see it in my mind:

Humanity prays (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

Humanity sins (an action) > God's will > real-world consequences.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

OK, if I am interpreting your comments here correctly, then I may have a scientific study with "sin" as a potential mechanism, but the interpretation would be the measurement or qualification of something physical.....given the groups were all practicing the same "sin".

 

Are we on the same page now?

[Roz]

BAA, given that End3 is known for lying and intentionally substituting meanings of words with his own definitions, he will no doubt inject this little bit in that "study" he's going to present:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63786-schizophrenia-and-genetics/?p=975200

 

"Ok Roz, let's define what original sin is and I will attempt to proceed. I think it is those acts that lead to death, death being mental and physical disease."

 

But his bible says that sin is defined as: (1Jn 3:4)

4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

 

He will try to substitute his own personal non-biblical meaning of his religion's "sin" on you.  This is his MO, which is not unlike Ravi Z., WLC, and Josh McDowell.

[Ravenstar]

Sin means 'missing the mark'… so basically not living the laws (of Moses) perfectly. That's how I understand it.

[directionless]

BAA, given that End3 is known for lying and intentionally substituting meanings of words with his own definitions, he will no doubt inject this little bit in that "study" he's going to present:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63786-schizophrenia-and-genetics/?p=975200

 

"Ok Roz, let's define what original sin is and I will attempt to proceed. I think it is those acts that lead to death, death being mental and physical disease."

 

But his bible says that sin is defined as: (1Jn 3:4)

4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

 

He will try to substitute his own personal non-biblical meaning of his religion's "sin" on you.  This is his MO, which is not unlike Ravi Z., WLC, and Josh McDowell.

It might help if End3 clarifies what he means by sin.

There are lots of kinds of sin:

- the action of eating the fruit in the Garden of Eden

- the fallen state of nature (pain in child birth, difficult farming, ...)

- the fallen character of all humans (tendencies towards to be selfish, egotistical, gluttonous, ...)

- the bad actions of humans (selfishness, egotism, gluttony, ...)

- the death and sicknesses of humans

- the sin that is removed through baptism

 

I'm sure there are many other types of sins.

 

Also it might help if somebody described a specific experiment in detail.

[Roz]

DL, you contradict your own bible when you say:

- the fallen character of all humans (tendencies towards to be selfish, egotistical, gluttonous, ...)
- the bad actions of humans (selfishness, egotism, gluttony, ...)

 

Thus said your lord of hosts (that's yeshitwa).  Would these then be considered good actions?  Killing infants?  This is what the god of the bible told ordinary men to do.

 

1 Sam. 15

2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

[bornagainathiest]

BAA, given that End3 is known for lying and intentionally substituting meanings of words with his own definitions, he will no doubt inject this little bit in that "study" he's going to present:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63786-schizophrenia-and-genetics/?p=975200

 

"Ok Roz, let's define what original sin is and I will attempt to proceed. I think it is those acts that lead to death, death being mental and physical disease."

 

But his bible says that sin is defined as: (1Jn 3:4)

4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

 

He will try to substitute his own personal non-biblical meaning of his religion's "sin" on you.  This is his MO, which is not unlike Ravi Z., WLC, and Josh McDowell.

 

Roz,

 

Please back off.

I've asked you twice before to cut End some slack.  Now can you can ME some.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Roz]

I'll hold my say until he presents his 'study.'

Not going to be surprised when the word 'sin' takes on dozens of different meanings.  

[directionless]

DL, you contradict your own bible when you say:

- the fallen character of all humans (tendencies towards to be selfish, egotistical, gluttonous, ...)

- the bad actions of humans (selfishness, egotism, gluttony, ...)

 

Thus said your lord of hosts (that's yeshitwa).  Would these then be considered good actions?  Killing infants?  This is what the god of the bible told ordinary men to do.

 

1 Sam. 15

2 Thus saith the [/size]Lord[/size] of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.[/size]

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That reminds me of two more definitions of sin:

- not following the rules (Jewish Law)

- not obeying God's instructions (your example above)

 

It never bothered me to ignore parts of the Bible, because the Bible ignored parts of the Bible. What bothered me more was noticing gradual progressive changes to Judaism and Christianity as I read the Bible. That seemed to indicate that they were making up the religion as they went along with no divine guidance. Why would God reveal his religion progressively like that? I suppose somebody might argue that God customized the religion to the society at each point in history, but that never seemed very persuasive to me.

[Roz]

 

DL, you contradict your own bible when you say:

- the fallen character of all humans (tendencies towards to be selfish, egotistical, gluttonous, ...)

- the bad actions of humans (selfishness, egotism, gluttony, ...)

 

Thus said your lord of hosts (that's yeshitwa).  Would these then be considered good actions?  Killing infants?  This is what the god of the bible told ordinary men to do.

 

1 Sam. 15

2 Thus saith the [/size]Lord[/size] of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.[/size]

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

That reminds me of two more definitions of sin:

- not following the rules (Jewish Law)

- not obeying God's instructions (you example above)

 

It never bothered me to ignore parts of the Bible, because the Bible ignores parts of the Bible. What bothered me more was noticing gradual progressive changes to Judaism and Christianity as I read the Bible. That seemed to indicate that they were making up as they went with no diving guidance.

 

 

Forgot that you're not a christian, so I apologize for the previous statement implicating that you were.  You're entirely correct in that the religion evolved and took on different meanings up until the present day.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

OK, if I am interpreting your comments here correctly, then I may have a scientific study with "sin" as a potential mechanism, but the interpretation would be the measurement or qualification of something physical.....given the groups were all practicing the same "sin".

 

Are we on the same page now?

 

 

Not exactly, End.

The point I'm trying to convey here is that while the study is under way, no religious conclusions can be drawn about any of it's findings - because they aren't all in and collated.  So you can't really argue that the study is studying something "arguably religious" - while it's still going.

 

But let's suppose the study DID find something significant - a measurable physical effect.  

The key question is WHEN did this become apparent?  The answer is, right at the very end of the study, after all the statistics had been collated.  Only then did the presence of the physical effect become known.  Only then is it scientifically legitimate to say that a measurable physical effect has been found.

 

Do you see what I'm driving at here, End?

Once the science is finished and over, then and only then, can you begin to conclude and/or argue that there was something religious going on. Then it's ok to take the result and make the following scientific and non-scientific conclusions.

 

1.

The study detected a measurable physical effect.  (Legitimate scientific conclusion)

 

2.

This effect was not expected.  (Legitimate scientific conclusion)

 

3.

Science itself can find no natural, physical reason or cause for this effect.  (Legitimate scientific conclusion)

 

4.

Since the purpose of the study was to see if intercessory prayer would have any measurable effect on the health of CAGB patients, the positive result suggests (but doesn't prove) that this was so.  (Legitimate non-scientific conclusion)

 

Now, a legitimate non-scientific conclusion can be religious one.

That's fine.  No problem at all.  But if we make that conclusion, we're doing so by interpreting the result of the study in a religious (faith-based) way.  What we're doing is saying, "We believe (by faith) that this study has shown that intercessory prayer does work and helps CAGB patients to heal faster."  That's a faith-based (religious) conclusion, because the science involved cannot give a physical, natural reason for what has been measured.  We don't KNOW for sure what happened - but, we believe that God was working thru the intercessory prayers of his followers. 

.

.

.

So, while any study (prayer efficacy, sin, whatever) is underway, you can't argue that they are engaging in or revealing any religious / supernatural activity.  You can only do that afterward.  Retroactively, once the stats are all in and properly collated.  And then, your conclusions fall into two distinct groups - scientific ones and non-scientific ones.

 

Is that any help?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

So which is it Prof. BAA says I can investigate religious concepts with science. I don't think so because the definitions are unknown. But, per the OP what I am seeing points to violating these unknown definitions. And I guess if we were to make faithful decisions on what sin is, then we could derive a scientific investigation.

 

Think I am done atm. I did re-read some of you posts and see them in a different light. Communication is frustrating....or lack thereof.

[Roz]

BAA:  Once the science is finished and over, then and only then, can you begin to conclude and/or argue that there was something religious going on.

 

End3:  BAA says I can investigate religious concepts with science.

 

Can't do it BAA, he's a lying SoB and it shows

[bornagainathiest]

So which is it Prof. BAA says I can investigate religious concepts with science.

 

Please don't overlook my qualified agreement, End.

I haven't said that YOU can do this.  Nor have I said that ANYONE ELSE can do this.  I'm strictly confining myself ONLY to the workings of the Templeton study, remember?  I haven't yet said that anyone can investigate religious concepts with science.  All I've done is to comment on the Templeton study.  So, you're running ahead of where we are.  I haven't said that you or anyone else can investigate religious concepts with science.   No skipping ahead please.  Stay with me... where we're at.

 

I don't think so because the definitions are unknown.

 

You can't really say that YET, End.

You might suspect it or speculate that it might be so - but in this thread we're still looking ONLY at the Templeton study.  We HAVE to settle this first, before we can say what is or isn't possible re: original sin, ok?  Stick with the plan and stay in lock step with me on this, please.

 

But, per the OP what I am seeing points to violating these unknown definitions.

 

Ah... careful there!  What you think you're seeing is (at least) several steps down the road.

We're not there yet End.  Stay with the Templeton study.  That's the only concrete and reliable thing we've got to hand right now.

 

And I guess if we were to make faithful decisions on what sin is, then we could derive a scientific investigation.

 

Too soon to say.

 

Think I am done atm. I did re-read some of you posts and see them in a different light. Communication is frustrating....or lack thereof.

 

Yes.  It's slow and it's frustrating.

But we can't afford to make mental jumps to where we WANT to be.  We have to stick with it and get there step by step.

 

If it helps End, think of yourself as being in the lab.

You can't cut corners or leap ahead.  You have to follow set procedures and the strict, step-by-step protocols.  This is science.  The Templeton study is science.  The doctors who ran it and the scientists who drew up the protocols didn't skip ahead - they stuck with each and every step of the agreed procedures, all the way down the line.   For each and every patient.  

 

That's what we have to do here.

We have to get our understanding of HOW the Templeton study works right.  We have to do that first - before we go on to original sin.

 

Are you with me?

By this question I mean two things.  Do you understand me and are you shoulder-to-shoulder with me on this?

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA