Sunday, June 28, 2009

Brent, responding to your many posts:

Brent, responding to your many posts:

1-Your comment: "in no way does faith contradict science or vice-versa" is an admission of your lack of understanding of either faith, science or both! i.e. the creation story, the flood story, etc.

I've made no comment on what good stuff you do although I may question your motivation; but please don't try comparing acts of service and generosity with Rob and I.

-First, it sounds like much of that was your job and what you are paid to do if not all of it.

-Second, that sounds like our life - except for the preaching part. I will tell you much of it in person if you would like but I won't post it here.

-Third, you're using the church's money, know that we use our own.

-Fourth, and most important in my thinking, is that nothing you mentioned requires a belief in any god. Good people do good things. Rob and I do things to help people because we care and that's it, you also care but you're using this as an opportunity to proselytize, attempting to convert/secure devotees (and getting paid for it).

2- You said and asked: "This [woman] was in no way following the teachings of Christ. Which brings me to the question: What teaching of Jesus Christ was evil?"

Try reading Luke 11:1-13 and in particular verse 10"For everyone who asks, receives;...." and then Matthew 21:22 "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive" These are quotes of Jesus so she was definitely following Jesus' teachings!

And I'll stick with those same passages as examples of how Jesus lied about the validity of prayer and as an proof of how some of Jesus' teachings were evil.

3- You claimed of evolution "this is how the Holocaust happened." Wrong again! That was called Eugenics, and it was even practiced here in the US and touted by our politicians as a good thing too. But it didn't turn into a massacre.

Evolution is only related to eugenics the same way evolution is related to horse breeding. You can argue the ethics when applied to humans, but it does actually work.

You also call evolution " just random happeing[s]" Please find and read a biology book and familiarize yourself with the theory before you make such absurd comments. There are random gene mutations but evolution is anything but random.

4- You say Rob is wrong to connect ID with this woman's belief. But all Rob said was they are promoted by the same people, and that is 100% true. You call this woman unusual and that may be true because she actually believed what the bible and the church teaches and acted on it. Most Christians don't; they side with science and take their children to the doctor.

You tell Rob that he doesn't "know what [he's] talking about" saying that Christians can't agree with each other. Now if you honestly think there are little to no differences between what Christians believe then you aren't paying attention. Just off the top of my head we have:

-the Bible is the holy, inerrant, word of God to it's a book of traditions.

-Jesus was the son of God to he was just a character in a story.

-predestination to free will,

-once-saved-always-saved to barely being able to be saved.

-salvation requiring only belief to requiring water baptism to requiring baptism in the holy spirit.

-speaking in tongues being the highest spiritual goal to it as evidence that you're filled with demons.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. If there were not many differences then why is it that according to the Dictionary of Christianity in America [Protestant] (ISBN: 083081776X): "As of 1980 David B. Barrett identified 20,800 Christian denominations worldwide..."? That says to me that there are at least that many differences.

5- you called Rob's 5:09 post frustrating, I guess the truth would be frustrating to a person trying to hold opposing ground, LOL. You seem to be backing away from saying that the Bible is true but you cannot deny (nah, I bet you could) that this woman acted according to the Bible. Read #2 above . We've cited the examples of the church going against science ,yet you claim that doesn't happen. What do you think the ID movement is? I'd say it is Christians keeping the "gaps open so that their god will have a place to continue to exist."

Now on to me. Yeah!

6- We've covered evolution above, and it has nothing to do with the Nazi's.

7- Then you say that I "have no right to call anything Evil since you don't believe in anything perfectly good to judge it by." Hmm.. I have no right? Sounds like you give me no value. That's your opinion and your welcome to it. However, it sounds like you agree with me in that the woman should have taken her child to the doctor; you just don't believe the Bible enough to do what it says. I applaud you!

8- I also said "You can feed and clothe everyone but when you teach them that they are worthless (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:23) it is psychological abuse. Of course you have to strip them of any value to convince them they need salvation. Sick unmitigated evil, that's what it is." and you bring up the Nazi's. You are better than this, I'll give you a second chance to respond to that statement.

9- You say my prayer science is bad? Interesting. No less than 27 Dr's and scientists from medical centers like Harvard Medical School and the Mayo Clinic participated in this study that was reported in the American Heart Journal and you call it bad science. Now as if that isn't ridiculous enough you try to argue with me using studies that have nothing to do with prayer. When you finally get to an old study about prayer that seems to benefit your argument, you forget an important part of science: peer review and duplication of the study. The study you cite was done in 1987 with 393 patients and has since been redone (1999 with 990 patients and 2006 with 1802 patients). Each time with very different results. I have already cited and linked to this later study which even concludes the worst results were for patients that knew they were being prayed for.

But wait! I suspect, fearing you had not shown me up yet, you pulled out the big guns of pseudoscience. (Of course you know what the call pseudoscience if they prove it to be true.... Science LOL) You proudly tout Larry Dossey, M.D. whose latest book " The Power of Premonitions: How Knowing the Future Can Shape our Lives " is a fine example of his science.

10- I have to ask, why do you keep using things that you don't believe in yourself to argue against me? Parapsychology (ESP, mind reading, ching divination, spirit channeling, fortunetelling, etc) Do you believe in these things? The truth is, they are no different than religion in their belief of the paranormal. This is not just bad science, it's not science at all. None of this crap can get into a reputable peer reviewed journal because it's not science.

11- you say "Jesus fought adamantly against" belief not based in the bible. So what do you think? Should we believe and practice the teachings in the bible?

One last thing, you'll notice when I argue that one of your established beliefs is incorrect, I explain how and why I came to that conclusion. I also cite the resources I'm using and/or quoting and when possible even link to them and additional resources that may be helpful. Too often you make unsubstantiated claims like " Your intercessory prayer "evidence" is bad science" without citing any evidence for your claim. In this case you used logic which is good and acceptable in many cases, however this is a study that has perimeters and controls that would tell you if they controlled for the things you describe. My guess is you didn't check or you would have said so as opposed to using the logic approach.

Additionally, you chose an old 1987 study with a smaller sample size instead of one of the more recent and larger studies(1999 and 2006) that claimed their purpose was to test the 1987 study you are citing. Then you chose not to use the same logic on the 1987 study that you had used on the 2006 study. Nor did you check the controls of the 1987 study to see if it had any of the same issues. If you had you would have discovered that it suffered from the very problems that you claimed would plague the 2006 study I cited.

Now at this point I'm left wondering, are you being deliberately dishonest or is this an innocent oversight. Based on what I believe of your character I'm going to assume that it was an oversight. I know it takes time, and it's not always easy, but I have found if you do the work you can find the truth.

So when you are attempting to rebut what I have presented in these posts, would you please include references to your cited material so I can check it out for myself.

Thanks! Lewis