GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[DTES]

What I've been pointing out, is that when you go to a local social doctor's surgery, they aren't telling you to use ANY herbal cures, they will prescribe engineered drugs that are only available through a prescription. When a herbal remedy, or available assistant non-prescription treatment may be efficacious they can only say "there aren't studies to prove it will work". That's part of the point.

To be honest though, I do believe that a doctor should only tell you to use drugs that have been proven in large scale tests. Unproven (in the sense that I used originally) drugs - whether chemical, herbal, whatever - should not be made available on the NHS, and should not be encouraged by doctors. This is mainly a moral point, but there would also be lawsuits left right and centre if patients suffered/died after taking unproven drugs that their doctors advised.

That American Indians, and other native cultures are known to have comparatively shortened lifespans is of course down to their lack of contact with modern medicine - what they know about the ancient remedies might be brilliant, and putting dock leaves on stings or chanting incantations with burning sticks might have some good effect - but it's not enough to save them from regular maladies they will get 'in the wilds'. That for sure. That's an alternative way of looking at their culture vs ours - they are the other extreme. No money is spent on medicine there, and the result is that they mostly are old-aged by 40!

Yep, fair enough. No argument from me here.

What your suggestion about herb/placebo suggests, is that more attention could be applied by science, to holistic remedies. If no tests are done, then nothing is found to suggest something can work.

Not really. My point is that science does pay holistic remedies attention. I'm not saying no-one has tested echinacea using large scale, properly double-blinded trials - I'm saying that no-one has done so and had positive results.

Simple fact that you agree with, and so I don't know quite why it's "nonsense" to realize when something does work "A caused B to happen", and it's worth looking into. If glucosamine and condroitin, or shark cartilage were found to assist greatly in the healing from a hip replacement for instance, then it's not ridiculous at all.

With all due respect, I think you've missed my point here. The logic that "A happened then B happened therefore A caused B" is fundamentally flawed. It is no more true to say "I took herbs then my cold went therefore herbs cured my cold" than it is to say "I wore my lucky boxers today then Brighton beat Sunderland therefore my lucky boxers caused Brighton to beat Sunderland", yet people do have superstitions about both.

Of course, herbs may have cured the cold (I am not meaning you personally here), the same as someone's "lucky boxers" may have influenced the Sunderland result. If you (anyone) wants to investigate further, they can do so. Compare Albion results to one person's boxer short choice over a long period of time and I'm pretty sure you'll realise that, actually, there is no correlation - it's just a perfectly normal (but illogical) human reaction to draw conclusions. Similarly, I am just as certain that comparing herbs to colds would reveal that people recover just as quickly whether or not they take herbs (or any particular herb).

I do agree though, that if a proper large scale trial gave solid evidence that glucosamine and condroitin, or shark cartilage helped with the healing you suggest, then they work. But it needs to be tested, and one example does not a test make.

(Sorry if the boxers analogy offends you as much as the cornflakes one. That isn't my intention, it's just used as a comparison)

 

[One Love]

"I wore my lucky boxers today then Brighton beat Sunderland therefore my lucky boxers caused Brighton to beat Sunderland"

That did actually happen.

 

[HovaGirl]

A figure which probably includes me, as I was baptised as a child, before I had the choice. Kind of brings us whole circle really to the "Is it right to indoctrinate a child" debate. Right or wrong though, I'm on the church's books as a christian, counting towards their figures, and there is nothing I can do about it.

I wouldn't trust that figure for a second.

It's the result of the section of the census form which people filled in themselves in 2001.

 

[HovaGirl]

Did you? Judging comments he was spuing last night, its clear what he means.

If those children die, they will be reborn into a different life. So he IS saying they will be lucky to die. He is not saying he would rather they were born into better surroundings. Rather that if they are lucky enough die in this life, jesus/god/whoever will grant them rebirth into another life.

That's not how I read it at all.

 

[HovaGirl]

God in human form. An extension of god.

No, Jesus was neither God nor an extension of God. The core belief in the Christian faith is that He was the Son of God. But not God himself.

 

[DTES]

It's the result of the section of the census form which people filled in themselves in 2001.

Aha. Ok, fair enough then! I apologise and take it back.

Will be interesting to see this year's results!

 

[One Love]

No, Jesus was neither God nor an extension of God. The core belief in the Christian faith is that He was the Son of God. But not God himself.

Wasn't he supposed to have said "I and the father are one" ?

 

[HovaGirl]

Please explain why you think it is strange.

You said: "There is nothing wrong with sin. You just have to accept their will be consequences."

I can't imagine how anyone can think there is nothing wrong with sin. The word "sin" doesn't just pertain to behaviour in a religious context.

I'm quoting from an online dictionary: "SIN: any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offence."

 

[HovaGirl]

DTES, I wish i knew enough to answer you. The old testament is full of people sacrificing things to god, apparently he needs a sacrifice in order to forgive?!

That's where a Religious Education might have come in handy when you were at school.

 

[HovaGirl]

I'm confused as to what you mean here. I realise that we (either NSC or the world as a whole) are never going to agree on whether a god exists or not. However, irrespective of whether we know which it is, it does have to be one of those options. Either there is a god, or there is not. If there is not, all faiths are wrong.

Exactly. And if there is a God, all faiths are right! But we'll never know!

 

[HovaGirl]

W
But you said they can't all be right.
Never mind.

I know at least one person who ticked the christian box on that census, despite never going to church and not even believing in god. Seems totally bizarre to me but it's apparently fairly common. Also I know a lot of people who are obviously not religious but have the wishy washy desire to believe in 'something' and I would guess people like that did the same thing. It's hard to believe that there are that many christians in the country given how few people ever attend church.

Meaning, they can't all be right in the detail. Jews and Muslims both acknowledge the existence of Jesus, but only as yet another prophet. Etc.

 

[One Love]

You said: "There is nothing wrong with sin. You just have to accept their will be consequences."

I can't imagine how anyone can think there is nothing wrong with sin. The word "sin" doesn't just pertain to behaviour in a religious context.

I'm quoting from an online dictionary: "SIN: any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offence."

Because you can't have light without there being dark, geez we're starting to get too heavy on a football forum.

If no-one did anything wrong to you how would you discover the concept of forgiveness?

 

[NMH]

"I wore my lucky boxers today then Brighton beat Sunderland therefore my lucky boxers caused Brighton to beat Sunderland"

That did actually happen.

Then that's a FACT!

 

[HovaGirl]

Aha. Ok, fair enough then! I apologise and take it back.

Will be interesting to see this year's results!

I looked, but they're not up yet.

 

[HovaGirl]

Wasn't he supposed to have said "I and the father are one" ?

Yes, but not in the sense he was the same being as God, or that he was God. Jesus taught that he was the Son of God and also the son of man. In a way, he was the representative of both and saw himself as the link between one and the other.

 

[NMH]

To be honest though, I do believe that a doctor should only tell you to use drugs that have been proven in large scale tests. Unproven (in the sense that I used originally) drugs - whether chemical, herbal, whatever - should not be made available on the NHS, and should not be encouraged by doctors. This is mainly a moral point, but there would also be lawsuits left right and centre if patients suffered/died after taking unproven drugs that their doctors advised.



Yep, fair enough. No argument from me here.



Not really. My point is that science does pay holistic remedies attention. I'm not saying no-one has tested echinacea using large scale, properly double-blinded trials - I'm saying that no-one has done so and had positive results.



With all due respect, I think you've missed my point here. The logic that "A happened then B happened therefore A caused B" is fundamentally flawed. It is no more true to say "I took herbs then my cold went therefore herbs cured my cold" than it is to say "I wore my lucky boxers today then Brighton beat Sunderland therefore my lucky boxers caused Brighton to beat Sunderland", yet people do have superstitions about both.

Of course, herbs may have cured the cold (I am not meaning you personally here), the same as someone's "lucky boxers" may have influenced the Sunderland result. If you (anyone) wants to investigate further, they can do so. Compare Albion results to one person's boxer short choice over a long period of time and I'm pretty sure you'll realise that, actually, there is no correlation - it's just a perfectly normal (but illogical) human reaction to draw conclusions. Similarly, I am just as certain that comparing herbs to colds would reveal that people recover just as quickly whether or not they take herbs (or any particular herb).

I do agree though, that if a proper large scale trial gave solid evidence that glucosamine and condroitin, or shark cartilage helped with the healing you suggest, then they work. But it needs to be tested, and one example does not a test make.

(Sorry if the boxers analogy offends you as much as the cornflakes one. That isn't my intention, it's just used as a comparison)

I didn't miss your point, but I believe you are stumbling roughshod through my points for the sake of making it.

Your indications that Doctors "should only prescribe where proven" medications have been recommended, are the way things are.
Why don't they ever advocate regular across the counter products?
Is it purely COINCIDENCE that there's nothing on the shelf that will work, therefore only prescribed, unavailable in the marketplace drugs will work?
A bit strange don't you think?
You will say they "haven't been proven to work" - but there's the rub, the suppliers of prescription haven't dedicated funds to testing them.

Actually I mentioned glucosamine and condroitin because they HAVE been found to work!
Will your doctor advise you to take them, for help in healing of joints? Maybe there ARE the odd ones who might stray outside the glaxo/merck/pfizer market and mention them.
You will find that they are also found in pet stores, for aging pets that can benefit from them. Shark cartilage also has been found to work well, but it's more expensive.
Apart from the claims legally made on the box of G&C, I gave my own dog some pills I had for humans over a long period of about 3 months, and it worked really well for him.
So, why doesn't your local doctor mention it, if it's known to work?

It isn't all that hard for 'clinical studies' to be undertaken on holistic medicines - but since the authorities won't/can't exclude them from easy general sale availability - there's no MONEY to be made from positive findings! Guess what the point I've been making is about that - it's about MONEY, not simply using the best items available in this world to cure your ills.
So, I keep the inhaler only as a symbol of my malady, one where I shrugged away the best doctoral advice and found a lasting, more convenient result without caring what underpants I wear.

Harking way back to a previous post; A surgery could best include a modern medicinal Dr, a herbalist, an acupuncturist and - take a deep breath now....a spiritual healer.
As long as they could all get along and credit each others' (tangible, no cornflake quacks) learned methods - then that could be a very effective place to go when you're sick.

 

[One Love]

Yes, but not in the sense he was the same being as God, or that he was God. Jesus taught that he was the Son of God and also the son of man. In a way, he was the representative of both and saw himself as the link between one and the other.

Hmm. Not sure really. I don't think anyone can know for sure what Jesus meant.

Understanding some bona fide teachings is like pealing an onion, you think you understand something fully then you read/hear it again and a realisation comes to you instantly that there is a hidden meaning that you were completely unaware of before.

I remember looking at the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and wondering at how they took some of the Bible literally and some of it symbolically and picked and chose which was which.

 

[Steve Foster]

And what happens in a court of law when witnesses each have directly contradicting testimonies? The analogy can be continued by introducing a second witness who testifies as to the literal truth of the Sikh holy book. Or that of Hinduism. Or... [repeat ad nauseum].

How does that work?

The Rabbis tell us that the stand at Sinai was necessary because if the revelation had been only to one man - Moses - it would have been disputed. Imagine Moses returning to Egypt and telling the Jews that the time for their redemption had arrived. At first they would have doubted him, but once he begins to bring about the 10 plagues they realise that there are supernatural powers at work. Moses outwits the Egyptian magicians and performs plagues they cannot reproduce. Even they admit that this is the 'finger of God' at work.

Moses, in the name of God, constantly gives a warning followed by a plague. After the 10 plagues and the Exodus and especially the splitting of the sea, the Torah attests to the fact that the people 'believed in God and in Moses His servant'

The people all 3 million of them then went to witness Gods voice and the giving of the 10 Commandments.

Sorry You tube wasn't around then for our generation to witness this event.

 

[Acker79]

Good question. Since he was god it seems impossible. Even when fasting in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights he didn't give into the devils temptations. He couldn't have died for us if he was a sinner.

Of course he did. He was human.

Jesus wasn't God. He was human, but the son of God.

According to the Bible, you're both right, and both wrong.

Yes - "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
No - "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

Does the bible say he sinned?
1001 bible contradictions (number 655)

And this bit about the adulteress (let he who is without sin cast the first stone - then everyone else can join in)
Contradictions Ask an Atheist

There are 42 million people in the UK who consider themselves to be Christians. They're not all stupid or indoctrinated.

According to the 2001 census, 42 million people classed themselves as Christian. As to faiths not being wrong, they're not wrong to the people who believe in them. (I repeat, I'm not religious myself.)

There was a new census this year.
Religion and belief: some surveys and statistics
In a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’.
When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

Less than half (48%) of those who ticked ‘Christian’ said they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God.

Asked when they had last attended a place of worship for religious reasons, most people in England and Wales (63%) had not attended in the past year, 43% of people last attended over a year ago and 20% of people had never attended. Only 9% of people had attended a place of worship within the last week.

As of the 1st of January this year, the population of the UK was estimated at 62,435,709.
53.48% of that = 33,390,617(.1732)

 

[HovaGirl]

Just want to say, this has been a fantastic thread. So interesting to hear everyone's views.