Topic: Health and Religion - page 36. (Read 210871 times)

God gave mankind the freedom to do all kinds of things. The fact that mankind decided to use their freedom to corrupt God's creation for them, doesn't have anything to do with God.

In fact, God has gone about saving people through Jesus salvation. Such still doesn't force any people back into perfection. Many of them still corrupt God's creation, and ignore God's salvation.

Part of your personal desire for flaws is that you would deny God rather than see His salvation for yourself. You are doing it, not God.

That's only when you define religions as everything, my definition of religions is different, I'm obviously talking about christianity mostly but all the others too. We do not need the bible to understand morality.

A false assertion.

Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.

See this excellent essay on this topic by John C. Wright.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/


Also untrue. We lack any form of viable replacement. Without religion all that exists are arbitrary beliefs. Subjective choices not grounded in objective reality. This was highlighted well by an earlier poster.

''and no I do not approve of slavery. '' There you go, you don't need the bible for that, the bible never says slavery is bad and in fact seems to support it yet you know slavery is wrong. The bible is meaningless and not divinely inspired.

For someone who claims to dislike the liberal SJW movement you sure sound a lot like them. Your statement about the founding fathers is misleading and no I do not approve of slavery.

The founding fathers were great men but they were still men and living in a society they inherited. That society was full of men and evil. As a group their actions were consistent with a desire to restrict slavery to keep it from spreading with the long term goal of eliminating it. This was well highlighted by Abraham Lincoln who finishing the job of cutting out the cancer.

https://www.npr.org/2011/07/06/137647715/weekly-standard-founding-fathers-opposed-slavery

The founding fathers, said Lincoln, had opposed slavery. They adopted a Declaration of Independence that pronounced all men created equal. They enacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banning slavery from the vast Northwest Territory. To be sure, many of the founders owned slaves. But they asserted their hostility to slavery in principle while tolerating it temporarily (as they hoped) in practice. That was why they did not mention the words "slave" or "slavery" in the Constitution, but referred only to "persons held to service." "Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution," said Lincoln, "just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time." The first step was to prevent the spread of this cancer, which the fathers took with the Northwest Ordinance, the prohibition of the African slave trade in 1807, and the Missouri Compromise restriction of 1820. The second was to begin a process of gradual emancipation, which the generation of the fathers had accomplished in the states north of Maryland.



Agreed that is why the US constitution invests the power to declare war not in the presidency but in congress. Another smart move by the founding fathers.

Dangerously congress has started to neglect it's duties in recent years and allowed the executive branch to engage in combat operations aka war without its approval. That is unconstitutional but a manifestation of corruption in the US government and the failure of the legislature to fulfill its duties.


The protest you highlight are just another manifestation of the human desire to use violence and power to force conformity to ones beliefs. Having proclaimed their the "truths" of microaggression, hate speech, racism, etcetera as a highest moral cause it is not at all surprising that attempts are then made to capture the mechanism of governance be it university administration or city governance and use violence or even better state sanctioned violence to eliminate the their ideological opposition.

Its not really all that different then your own desires to brand your ideological opponents as criminals and use the might of the state against them. Different truth same fundamental motivation.

I think this whole thread comes down to ''do we really need religion or religious books to have morals'' and then answer is pretty simple, we don't. We only need reason and logic and to be able to debate freely about it. That's why we are here, religion morals are outdated, that's why we know slavery is wrong, not because it's in the bible written. We know witches aren't real or demonic possessions aren't really demonic at all. If we lived exactly by the bible morals or any other religious book, society would be radically different. For a book that's claimed to be divinely inspired and the absolute moral, it's not that great. What about homosexuals? What about working on the sabbath and getting killed for it? We are not doing that, are we?

Ok well at least you are honest and upfront in your desire for tyranny.

Fortunately I live in a country founded by far wiser men then you.

Bill of Rights:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I agree with you that anyone promoting traditional religious or even mainstream conservative views on a college campus these days is probably in for a chilly reception at best.

Report: 39% of Top Liberal Arts Colleges Have No Republican Professors
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/05/07/report-39-of-top-liberal-arts-colleges-have-no-republican-professors/

Christian group at Oxford University banned from fair out of fear it would 'alienate' students
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/10/11/christian-group-at-oxford-university-banned-from-fair-out-fear-it-would-alienate-students.html

Stephen hawking suffered from ALS a horrible and progressive motor neuron disease.

Yes he was a high IQ individual one with a terrible disease. What exactly is your point?

If you want to challenge my statement here is a discussion on my data source from page 2 of this thread. To the best of my knowledge this data has only been confirmed with follow up research.

''Every sixth death in the world is due to cancer, making it the second leading cause of death (second only to cardiovascular diseases'' Whether ''cancer'' helps at first is meaningless if it's going to kill you later randomly. Not to mention the ton of flaws  in the human body.

Yes you should teach your children truth but people disagree on what is true. People also disagree on what constitutes objective evidence. In the face of that disagreement a totalitarian fundamentalist turns to state violence and power to force conformity to his beliefs.

You are attempting to define people who disagree with your worldview as criminals. That is extraordinarily dangerous.

Believing in the literal existence of winged horses is a wild idea. However, as crazy as the idea of winged horses sounds it is much less crazy then the idea that people who teach their children their traditional religious beliefs are criminals.

Your idea is Orwellian. If you define religion as child abuse it logically follows that the state should intervene in the families of some 3.6 billion people and force parents to not share their beliefs with their children. If they refuse you rip the children from their parents and homes of course. That's what we do with people who repeatedly abuse children.

Your idea is so crazy so nightmarish that it makes believing in flying horses look totally sane.

Fundamentalist always justify their crimes as advancing the greater good.

You mean, like Stephen Hawking?
The point is that people with a high intellect usually have more interesting things to do than to spend the days doing sports.

You didn't look at the major benefit of cancer? You didn't look at what trophoblast does in the human system? When the embryo comes out of the fallopian tube into the uterus, it has to find a way to attach to the uterine wall. Part of the embryo becomes cancerous, and eats into the uterus. Then, at just the right time, the pancreas of the new fetus becomes active, and controls the cancer, turning it into the placenta.

In other words, without cancer, there wouldn't be any mammalian life on earth, and maybe no life at all.

The answer about cancer I just gave you is very simple. Yet it is way more complex than something as simple as "yes" or "no." Forget your simple y or n answer. Look at the answer that I gave, and realize that the universe is complex beyond belief. That's why Jesus did the difficult work for us, because we couldn't do it for ourselves because of the complexity involved. Because of Jesus, the only thing we need to do is believe.

Ah, Why do religious people eat food? Maybe to stay healthy like their religion wants them to.

Shouldn't they simply stay home and pray? They don't have enough faith in God to fill their bellies with food without eating.

Hospitals? Good question. While hospitals help a lot, and while they strengthen placebo-like actions, the drugs involved with them have gotten out of hand. People should be very cautious when going to a hospital.

For example. A friend of mine went to the hospital for a simple hernia operation. Success! After he got home, his wife found him dead, bleeding from the nose and mouth. Turns out he had had several operations for various things recently. It takes a couple of years for older folks (he was 74) to expel all the drugs from their systems. Hospital people forgot to take into account that he still had a lot of blood thinner in his system from the prior operations.

Too bad he wasn't that religious of a guy.


You missed the fact that your #3 is included in #1.

Besides, you don't know that the souls of dead people might be living. Science hasn't gotten far enough along to know one way or the other.

It seems that all people die, be it from cancer, or from something else. Once science gets to the point that it can track the soul, we might know scientifically if they are alive or not.


Cancer is healed in all people on a regular basis. It's just that some cancer in a weakened, unhealthy body, might destroy it. Especially if drugs are used to poison the cancer. 'Cause they poison the patient instead. Consider trophoblast http://newspringpress.com/troph.html and http://www.medicinacomplementar.com.br/biblioteca/pdfs/Cancer/ca-2336.pdf. This means that all the healings in the Bible are cancer healings at the same time they might be healing for something else.

So, now you see why God placed cancer into the design. He never meant us to be unhealthy. He always wanted us to use the benefits of cancer to enhance our lives.



But if many people saw many witches, you might at least question your belief a little. That's why the Bible is as big as it is, with as many witnesses and writers as there are. To give you an opportunity to question your false beliefs, so that you might have the chance to be saved.

That book is based on eye witness reports, something that is more important than evidence. You accept other eye witnesses, and you accept the fanciful ideals of others, why won't you accept Bible eye witness reports?

Be that as it may, this topic, Health and Religion, shows how a God religion gives better health than a non-God religion. The better health lies in the fact that people know how limited they are. If they didn't know this, they wouldn't go to the doctor?

What can a doctor do for people with cancer? The truth has come out, that more people who are treated with medical cancer treatments die from the treatment than from the cancer. Knowing this makes placebo-like effects not work so well.

On the other hand, knowing that God helps when one prays to Him, is beneficial in two ways:
1. The placebo-like effect has a greater chance of working;
2. God helps people who ask Him for help.

God-religion is far greater for health than non-God religions... religions like atheism.

Thanks for the +1. But would you be so kind as to give me some merit points?

My explanation of what is in the Bible, is there in the Bible, for anyone to read. It isn't my idea. Read it and see.

To see your silliness, all anybody has to do is go back and look at the proof I show here and there. You haven't been able to refute or rebut my proof. This shows that you are attempting to propagandize people. Doing such places you into the category of a troll.

Your world view is based on foolishness, because it leaves out the eye witness reports of the Bible. It also leaves out the reports of proof for the existence of God as shown by nature. Since your world view is false, you want children to learn a false religion, even though you call it lack of religion. You simply have a religion of non-religion, and that is what you want to have children learn.

Regardless of the relative merits or lack thereof you seem to be taking the position that teaching ones children one's historical and traditional faith say Judiasm, Islam, or Christianity in itself constitutes child abuse.

Child abuse by definition is an action that should be suppressed by state force once identified. Thus your position appears to be that we need the state to intervene in the families of these 3.6 billion people and if the parents refuse to stop teaching their religious beliefs we need to remove the children from their homes and place them under state care. That is after all what we do in cases of child abuse.

In my Argument for God I highlighted my belief that without God society will inevitably fall into totalitarianism. You are not doing the best job of convincing me I am wrong.

BADeckers philosophy appears to be a traditional Christian view of the world. Maybe his understanding is correct or maybe it is lacking but by throwing the charge of child abuse around gratuitously you detract from the very real abuse that can and does occur to children.

Child abuse is a crime. It is a violation of parental responsibility so severe that society must step in and interject itself into the family dynamics by force if necessary by removing the children from their parents if necessary.

You seem to be saying that it is a crime for Christian or Jewish parents to teach their faith to their children. Yet you admit that you teach your own non theistic beliefs to your own children.


So your position is that your atheists ideology represents absolute truth and that differing beliefs especially Christian beliefs must be suppressed by state force if necessary "to save the children"?

Atheists fundamentalist totalitarianism has been tried. It has not worked out so well.

Your imagination is truly amazing.

Straight out, Jesus is the witness. To understand, there needs to be a little explanation.

While the Bible never uses the term "Triune God," it shows us that God is One God made up of three Persons in a way that we can't understand clearly. The three Persons are the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Obviously, the HS is a spirit, so it is difficult for Him to directly express what He sees in human ways. In fact, this is why He uses Bible writers to express what God wants us to know.

The Father is God above all, and maintains all things through His great power. He doesn't come in human form. Rather, He expresses God through a voice in the air, or through thunder in nature, etc.

Jesus is a man as well as God. Because He is a man, He has flesh and blood just like people do. So, He can witness just like people do.

Now, look at Genesis 3:8
Does God walk? What part of God could walk? Certainly not the HS. He is a spirit, and spirits don't have bodies to walk with. Certainly not the Father. He is directing the affairs of the universe and beyond. It was Jesus, Who has a human body, so that He is able to walk.

But, but, but... you will say... Jesus wasn't born until 4,000 years later. How could He be walking at the Beginning?

There is a term found throughout the Old Testament. This term is "The Angel of the Lord." The Bible has expressed that this term is referring to Jesus, before He was born. Bible scholars have confirmed it. You can Internet search for it. After Jesus arose from the dead, His body was a glorified body, never able to die again. Also, the confines and limitations of space-time don't restrain this body. So, it can exist anywhere at any time.

The point? God is the witness to Adam and Eve. And He is witness in three Persons as well as God as a whole. And He has expressed what He has witnessed about people, through His prophets, throughout the Bible writings that He has authorized. And, He is expressing Himself to you, right now, through your reading of these words (not that I am Jesus or God). Wake up before it is too late for you.