[ Is the lack of religion bad for your health? In a large survey of over 600,000 people Frank Newport and colleagues showed that the very religious not only report higher levels of overall wellbeing they are also more likely to have healthy eating and exercise habits. ]
I agree with this although it depends on the religion. Members of Christian denominations has this kind of effect on them. Maybe because they have a peace of mind that whatever happened, their God will save them in the end long as they trust and fear Him.
Topic: Health and Religion - page 50. (Read 210900 times)
i dont see any health threat from religion. i know that every religion care about its followers. im sure if we study a bit more about any religion, we'll find the teachings about food, health ant so on.
almost all religions disapprove smoking, alcohol, drugs and etc. isnt it a care about health ? almost all religions postulate careness about health as body and mental.
Religion affects the way in which people present symptoms to the doctor and the types of treatment they will accept. Because some religions place restrictions on certain behaviours, religious beliefs may also influence a person's risk of illness in the first place. So it can say that health and religion are company to each other. One can cure by others help.
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Mental and physical health are the two major type of health.
Unless it's bad health, of course.Religion is a specific elements of a community of believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worship, sacrament, moral prescription, interdicts, organization. The majority of religions have developed starting from a revelation based on the exemplary history of a nation, of a prophet or a wise man who taught an ideal of life.
Number 6 of "religion" at Dictionary.com says:
Quote from: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
Doesn't sound like your definition is complete.
if there is any there is anything anybody will ever wish for is be in health because they say health is wealth as for that of religion i think it all about family background because it what one was bone into that what he or she will want to follow when he or she grow up the family has a great role to play in the life a child.
No Children!
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/
What to make of this pattern? It is significant, for sure - not a coincidence.
...
And this is just the tip of an iceberg of chosen sub-fertility - implicitly willed extinction - which affects almost the entirety of Western populations (apart from a few traditionally religious subgroups).
It is also just the tip of an iceberg of anti-real-marriage, anti-family, anti-biology - pro-extra-marital promiscuity, pro-sexual revolution, pro-hedonism...
It is decadence, it is nihilism, it is despair. It is positive, deliberate, strategic evil.
We knew all this already - and we know the cause; but demographics provides the most objective data that illustrates it.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
- Emmanuel Macron, the newly elected French President, has no children.
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel has no children.
- Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has no children.
- British Prime Minister Theresa May has no children.
- Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni has no children.
- Holland’s Mark Rutte - no children
- Sweden’s Stefan Löfven - no children
- Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel - no children
- Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon - no children
- Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission - no children.
What to make of this pattern? It is significant, for sure - not a coincidence.
...
And this is just the tip of an iceberg of chosen sub-fertility - implicitly willed extinction - which affects almost the entirety of Western populations (apart from a few traditionally religious subgroups).
It is also just the tip of an iceberg of anti-real-marriage, anti-family, anti-biology - pro-extra-marital promiscuity, pro-sexual revolution, pro-hedonism...
It is decadence, it is nihilism, it is despair. It is positive, deliberate, strategic evil.
We knew all this already - and we know the cause; but demographics provides the most objective data that illustrates it.
Vatican Cardinal Says the West Is ‘Committing Suicide’ by Forgetting Its Christian Roots
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/02/vatican-cardinal-says-the-west-is-committing-suicide-by-forgetting-its-christian-roots/
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/02/vatican-cardinal-says-the-west-is-committing-suicide-by-forgetting-its-christian-roots/
Quote
The prominent African Cardinal Robert Sarah said in a recent address in Belgium that by forgetting its Christian roots the West is committing suicide, “because a tree without roots is condemned to death.”
In his meeting in Brussels in early February, the outspoken prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments had strong words both for the leaders of European nations and for certain cardinals and bishops who distort the Catholic faith.
“Not only is the West losing its soul, but it is committing suicide, because a tree without roots is condemned to death,” Sarah said. “I think the West cannot renounce its roots, which have created its culture, its values.”
The signs of this suicide are everywhere, the Guinean cardinal declared, and all boil down to a loss of the sense of the dignity of the person as well as a loss of respect for God and his laws.
“There are chilling things happening in the West,” he said. “I think that a parliament that authorizes the death of an innocent, defenseless child commits a serious act of violence against the human person.”
“When abortion is imposed, especially in developing countries, saying that if they do not accept it, they will receive any more aid, it is violence,” he continued.
This is all to be expected, he said, since the West has also lost its sense of the divine.
“When one has abandoned God, one abandons man, one no longer has a clear vision of man,” he said. “There is a great anthropological crisis in the West today. And this leads to treating people as objects.”
The cardinal said that some Church leaders are also at fault in this suicide of the West, accusing certain high-ranking prelates from “opulent nations” of perverting Christian doctrine regarding life and marriage.
“High-ranking prelates, especially from opulent nations, are working to bring about changes in Christian morality concerning absolute respect for life from conception to natural death, the problem of the divorced and civilly remarried, and other problematic situations,” he said.
“The great drift became evident when some prelates or Catholic intellectuals began to give ‘a green light for abortion’ or ‘a green light for euthanasia’ I their speeches and writings. Now, from the moment that Catholics abandon the teaching of Jesus and the Magisterium of the Church, they contribute to the destruction of the natural institution of marriage as well as the family and it is now the entire human family that finds itself fractured by this new betrayal on the part of priests,” he said.
Cardinal Sarah has been called the “standard bearer for Catholic orthodoxy” and was the world’s youngest bishop in 1979, when Pope John Paul II summoned him for episcopal ordination at only 34 years of age.
He is now one of the most important cardinals in the Church, and his name often comes up on the short list of “papabili”—or papal candidates to eventually succeed Pope Francis.
In his meeting in Brussels in early February, the outspoken prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments had strong words both for the leaders of European nations and for certain cardinals and bishops who distort the Catholic faith.
“Not only is the West losing its soul, but it is committing suicide, because a tree without roots is condemned to death,” Sarah said. “I think the West cannot renounce its roots, which have created its culture, its values.”
The signs of this suicide are everywhere, the Guinean cardinal declared, and all boil down to a loss of the sense of the dignity of the person as well as a loss of respect for God and his laws.
“There are chilling things happening in the West,” he said. “I think that a parliament that authorizes the death of an innocent, defenseless child commits a serious act of violence against the human person.”
“When abortion is imposed, especially in developing countries, saying that if they do not accept it, they will receive any more aid, it is violence,” he continued.
This is all to be expected, he said, since the West has also lost its sense of the divine.
“When one has abandoned God, one abandons man, one no longer has a clear vision of man,” he said. “There is a great anthropological crisis in the West today. And this leads to treating people as objects.”
The cardinal said that some Church leaders are also at fault in this suicide of the West, accusing certain high-ranking prelates from “opulent nations” of perverting Christian doctrine regarding life and marriage.
“High-ranking prelates, especially from opulent nations, are working to bring about changes in Christian morality concerning absolute respect for life from conception to natural death, the problem of the divorced and civilly remarried, and other problematic situations,” he said.
“The great drift became evident when some prelates or Catholic intellectuals began to give ‘a green light for abortion’ or ‘a green light for euthanasia’ I their speeches and writings. Now, from the moment that Catholics abandon the teaching of Jesus and the Magisterium of the Church, they contribute to the destruction of the natural institution of marriage as well as the family and it is now the entire human family that finds itself fractured by this new betrayal on the part of priests,” he said.
Cardinal Sarah has been called the “standard bearer for Catholic orthodoxy” and was the world’s youngest bishop in 1979, when Pope John Paul II summoned him for episcopal ordination at only 34 years of age.
He is now one of the most important cardinals in the Church, and his name often comes up on the short list of “papabili”—or papal candidates to eventually succeed Pope Francis.
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Mental and physical health are the two major type of health.
Religion is a specific elements of a community of believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worship, sacrament, moral prescription, interdicts, organization. The majority of religions have developed starting from a revelation based on the exemplary history of a nation, of a prophet or a wise man who taught an ideal of life.
Religion is a specific elements of a community of believers: dogmas, sacred books, rites, worship, sacrament, moral prescription, interdicts, organization. The majority of religions have developed starting from a revelation based on the exemplary history of a nation, of a prophet or a wise man who taught an ideal of life.
My grandma is an adventist and she couldn't eat pig, rabbit most sea food and a few more. In all honesty, those are quite stupid rules, you either meat or you don't, those seemingly random chosen animals make no sense to me. That's why I can't take the bible seriously. Not even believers of the bible come to an agreement, you have christians, adventists, orthodox and many more.
There are two issues here that are worth exploring.
1) Can costly ritual create purpose in and of itself?
Ritual requires sacrifice of material, time, or behavioral modification. Participating in ritual does several things. First it reinforces to the participant that he or she is serious about his belief structure. One paying only lip service to a concept would not undertake a hardship in its service especially if he did not fully understand the reason for the hardship.
Aesop's Fables were colllected and written 620 and 564 BC. One of the most famous is the story of the farmer and the viper. We know the story is at least 2500 years old and as an oral story it could be far older. The story concerns a farmer who finds a viper freezing in the snow. Taking pity on it, he picks it up and places it within his coat. The viper, revived by the warmth, bites his rescuer. The farmer dies reproaching himself "for pitying a scoundrel,".
One of the transformative elements of religion is the fostering of reciprocal altruism among strangers. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This principle if widely adhered to is fundamentally transformative. The world, however, is full of vipers and behaving altruistically with a viper is dangerous at best. It is not advisable for example to take a homeless person into your home to help him "get back in his feet" until you learn quite a bit more about him and the reasons for his homelessness.
So how do we determine who is a viper and who is not. If we are serious about the principle of mutual altruistic reciprocity we have to make this determination. One of the most powerful ways is to determine if the individual in question has committed themselves to a set of known core beliefs. It is very easy for a sociopath to lie. It is incredibly difficult for a sociopath to participate in costly rituals expressing allegiance to concepts they distain especially over prolonged periods of time.
Participation in voluntary ritual thus serves not only to reinforce internal commitment but also as external signaling informing others who you are. It's not a perfect source of information but actions always speak louder then words.
2) Is it possible that the Bible could be true but our understanding is simply lacking or our interpretation overly simplified?
This at least warrants consideration. Humans have a general tendency towards arrogance unwarranted extrapolation and overstating both our knowledge of the world and the reliability of that knowledge.
In recent years there has been a growing body of data indicating that eating pork might be actually unhealthy and we are better off with alternative sources of meat. I am unaware of similar data on shellfish or if it has been studied.
See:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17257930
For these reasons I don't think we can conclude that these rules and rituals are stupid. At most we can say that we do not understand their purpose and question their value.
Morality is tricky. There was a time where I thought everything was pretty meaningless, a bit of a nihilistic view, and that nothing really was bad or good, everything was simply pointless. However I still couldn't force myself to do what I considered bad things even though I knew it didn't really matter. There is definitely some genetic factor at work, I get angry very quickly for example, I can control it but I still can't avoid getting angry in the first place. I'm personally struggling right now to decide whether eating animals is good or bad, I'm thinking it is morally wrong but I'm still debating it with myself.
Vegetarianism and the morality of eating meat is a difficult one. There is not a single tribal society that is known to be vegetarian so it is reasonable to infer from this that eating meat provided a historical competitive advantage. Thus eating meat likely kept our ancient ancestors alive and without meat they would have perished. It is problematic to classify something as immoral when it was necessary to ensure our current existence.
There are also some poorly understood downsides to a vegan diet.
See:
Vegan diet increases the risk of birth defects
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/4902648/Vegan-diet-increases-the-risk-of-birth-defects-scientists-warn.html
Vegetarian diet linked to lower sperm count
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/vegetarian-diet-linked-to-lower-sperm-count
On the other hand there appear to be significant health benefits to giving up meat later in life. Several studies suggest that vegetarians live many years longer then their meat eating counterparts.
Given this juxtaposition my personal opinion is that the best course is to eat meat until one is finished having children and then work towards minimizing it as one becomes older. However, I claim no special insight on this issue.
Below is the Jewish view on eating meat. Judaism places stress on the proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty is forbidden.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/animals.htm
The Seven-day Adventist a Christian denomination known for their health and longevity strongly favor vegetarianism but do not require it. The Seven-day Adventist who choose to eat meat are supposed to follow the health laws of Leviticus which makes their very diet similar to that of the Jews.
The sensation that everything feels meaningless is part of the crisis of nihilism. Once you no longer have up or down you are in a very bad place. Jordan Peterson describes this place as chaos in the short video clip below.
Jordan Peterson | What Nietzsche's "God is dead" means
My grandma is an adventist and she couldn't eat pig, rabbit most sea food and a few more. In all honesty, those are quite stupid rules, you either meat or you don't, those seemingly random chosen animals make no sense to me. That's why I can't take the bible seriously. Not even believers of the bible come to an agreement, you have christians, adventists, orthodox and many more.
Religion affects the way in which people present symptoms to the doctor and the types of treatment they will accept. Because some religions place restrictions on certain behaviours, religious beliefs may also influence a person's risk of illness in the first place
Morality is tricky. There was a time where I thought everything was pretty meaningless, a bit of a nihilistic view, and that nothing really was bad or good, everything was simply pointless. However I still couldn't force myself to do what I considered bad things even though I knew it didn't really matter. There is definitely some genetic factor at work, I get angry very quickly for example, I can control it but I still can't avoid getting angry in the first place. I'm personally struggling right now to decide whether eating animals is good or bad, I'm thinking it is morally wrong but I'm still debating it with myself.
Vegetarianism and the morality of eating meat is a difficult one. There is not a single tribal society that is known to be vegetarian so it is reasonable to infer from this that eating meat provided a historical competitive advantage. Thus eating meat likely kept our ancient ancestors alive and without meat they would have perished. It is problematic to classify something as immoral when it was necessary to ensure our current existence.
There are also some poorly understood downsides to a vegan diet.
See:
Vegan diet increases the risk of birth defects
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/4902648/Vegan-diet-increases-the-risk-of-birth-defects-scientists-warn.html
Vegetarian diet linked to lower sperm count
http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/vegetarian-diet-linked-to-lower-sperm-count
On the other hand there appear to be significant health benefits to giving up meat later in life. Several studies suggest that vegetarians live many years longer then their meat eating counterparts.
Given this juxtaposition my personal opinion is that the best course is to eat meat until one is finished having children and then work towards minimizing it as one becomes older. However, I claim no special insight on this issue.
Below is the Jewish view on eating meat. Judaism places stress on the proper treatment of animals. Unnecessary cruelty is forbidden.
http://www.jewfaq.org/m/animals.htm
The Seven-day Adventist a Christian denomination known for their health and longevity strongly favor vegetarianism but do not require it. The Seven-day Adventist who choose to eat meat are supposed to follow the health laws of Leviticus which makes their very diet similar to that of the Jews.
The sensation that everything feels meaningless is part of the crisis of nihilism. Once you no longer have up or down you are in a very bad place. Jordan Peterson describes this place as chaos in the short video clip below.
Jordan Peterson | What Nietzsche's "God is dead" means
Health and religion
the man can by medicine, but God alone give you Health.
the man can by medicine, but God alone give you Health.
God gives the ability for us to make medicine. But medicine that does not work according to nature is not health.
Health and religion
the man can by medicine, but God alone give you Health.
the man can by medicine, but God alone give you Health.
Thank you for your response. At least you are not totally insane to claim is a hoax. It's true that we are still very limited but we can't just dismiss scientific theories as hoaxes. I also personally cannot just believe in god and I have read your links. I also think that if a god is real and he is truly benevolent I shouldn't need to believe or even acknowledge him as long as I'm a good person.
You are welcome.
Here are some questions that I have found interesting to ponder.
We all like to say we are good people but are we really or do we just tell that to ourselves that so we don't have to think about our many flaws? Does the fact that we can point to others more evil and malevolent then ourselves really make us good?
Much of our inherited goodness comes from our parents and our society. We as individuals can claim only very partial credit for it. Perhaps what matters more is not what we were gifted but what we choose to do with the gift. Do we point ourselves at an ideal and struggle towards it? Do we strive towards reducing evil (especially in ourselves) or do we squander our gifts?
If we set ourselves toward the ideal how do we even define it or for that matter define good and evil? The alternative of course is the dark and nihilistic claim that there is no good and evil and that the ideal is untrue.
Don't feel obligated to actually respond to any of these questions unless you really want to. They are most useful as reflective exercises.
Morality is tricky. There was a time where I thought everything was pretty meaningless, a bit of a nihilistic view, and that nothing really was bad or good, everything was simply pointless. However I still couldn't force myself to do what I considered bad things even though I knew it didn't really matter. There is definitely some genetic factor at work, I get angry very quickly for example, I can control it but I still can't avoid getting angry in the first place. I'm personally struggling right now to decide whether eating animals is good or bad, I'm thinking it is morally wrong but I'm still debating it with myself.
I am not sure that religion and health can be associated like that. Any harm or maybe positive impact of religion on health is minimal at my opinion because everything in our head.
But, for example, it is the things in our head that make us able to produce cars. Then people use cars, and become healthier because they don't get tired from walking all over the place, or they become unhealthier from using cars and not getting exercise.
The head... the same place that houses and defines our religion(s). Health and Religion.
I am not sure that religion and health can be associated like that. Any harm or maybe positive impact of religion on health is minimal at my opinion because everything in our head.
The Power of Religion
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/the-power-of-religion.html?
The results: Six months later, those who received the religious education indeed reported feeling more guided by religion. They were also earning more money, largely by shifting from agricultural work to higher-paying jobs, such as fishing or self-employment. And even small pay increases can be a big deal for people living in extreme poverty.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/the-power-of-religion.html?
Quote from: David Leonhardt
The results: Six months later, those who received the religious education indeed reported feeling more guided by religion. They were also earning more money, largely by shifting from agricultural work to higher-paying jobs, such as fishing or self-employment. And even small pay increases can be a big deal for people living in extreme poverty.
An interesting "side" point of this is, if people can get jobs other than agriculture and make more money, why can't they add the part-time job of personal family agriculture to their more-money, full-time job? This would mean better health for them, from growing their own vegetables. And it would be easier for them because they already have experience in agriculture.
Better health from religion in an additional way.
The Power of Religion
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/the-power-of-religion.html?
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/opinion/the-power-of-religion.html?
Quote from: David Leonhardt
The benefits of faith. In his Sunday column this week, Ross Douthat issued something of a challenge to secular liberals. They think of themselves as empiricists, Ross wrote, but they’re actually close-minded about several powerful forces for good, starting with religion.
“When people and societies are genuinely curious,” he continued, “they are very reasonably curious about everything, including things happening in their bodies and their consciousness and more speculative realms.”
The column reminded me of a pattern that, as a secular liberal myself, I’ve long found inconvenient: Religion is correlated with a lot of healthy behaviors and positive outcomes. All else equal, religious people have higher educational attainment, earn more money, use drugs and alcohol less and commit fewer crimes, according to a long line of social-science studies (that have frequently been done by secular liberals).
The question about these findings is the old correlation-causation question: Does religious faith lead to these healthy behaviors? Or is something else, independent of faith, causing them?
A clever new study tries to offer some answers. It’s not anywhere near the last word on the matter, obviously, but it is intriguing.
The three economists who conducted the study sound like something out of a bad bar joke, as one of them, Dean Karlan, remarked to me: “an atheist, an evangelical Christian and an agnostic Jew.” To do the research, they partnered with an evangelical anti-poverty group, International Care Ministries, in the Philippines.
The group taught 15 weeks of classes to more than 6,000 very poor Filipinos. Some of the students received a version that combined religious teachings with advice on health and employment. Others received only the nonreligious parts. By comparing the different batches of students, the economists hoped to isolate the effect of religion.
The results: Six months later, those who received the religious education indeed reported feeling more guided by religion. They were also earning more money, largely by shifting from agricultural work to higher-paying jobs, such as fishing or self-employment. And even small pay increases can be a big deal for people living in extreme poverty.
The results did come with some contradictions. Several other measures of well-being, like food consumption, didn’t change. A few measures, like the frequency of arguments with relatives, looked worse for the religious group. But crosscurrents like these are normal in academic work. Overall, the findings are “cautiously positive” for the power of religion, said Karlan, a professor at Northwestern (and the self-identified agnostic Jew).
No study is definitive. But I do find the overall evidence of religion’s ancillary benefits to be strong. That evidence hasn’t made me personally religious. I’m still quite comfortable with my secularism. But the evidence has made me more humble and open-minded about how the world can go about solving some of its problems.
You can read more about the study at the Innovations for Poverty Action website.
In addition to Karlan, the researchers are James Choi of Yale and Gharad Bryan of the London School of Economics. The researchers are continuing to follow the people in the study.
“When people and societies are genuinely curious,” he continued, “they are very reasonably curious about everything, including things happening in their bodies and their consciousness and more speculative realms.”
The column reminded me of a pattern that, as a secular liberal myself, I’ve long found inconvenient: Religion is correlated with a lot of healthy behaviors and positive outcomes. All else equal, religious people have higher educational attainment, earn more money, use drugs and alcohol less and commit fewer crimes, according to a long line of social-science studies (that have frequently been done by secular liberals).
The question about these findings is the old correlation-causation question: Does religious faith lead to these healthy behaviors? Or is something else, independent of faith, causing them?
A clever new study tries to offer some answers. It’s not anywhere near the last word on the matter, obviously, but it is intriguing.
The three economists who conducted the study sound like something out of a bad bar joke, as one of them, Dean Karlan, remarked to me: “an atheist, an evangelical Christian and an agnostic Jew.” To do the research, they partnered with an evangelical anti-poverty group, International Care Ministries, in the Philippines.
The group taught 15 weeks of classes to more than 6,000 very poor Filipinos. Some of the students received a version that combined religious teachings with advice on health and employment. Others received only the nonreligious parts. By comparing the different batches of students, the economists hoped to isolate the effect of religion.
The results: Six months later, those who received the religious education indeed reported feeling more guided by religion. They were also earning more money, largely by shifting from agricultural work to higher-paying jobs, such as fishing or self-employment. And even small pay increases can be a big deal for people living in extreme poverty.
The results did come with some contradictions. Several other measures of well-being, like food consumption, didn’t change. A few measures, like the frequency of arguments with relatives, looked worse for the religious group. But crosscurrents like these are normal in academic work. Overall, the findings are “cautiously positive” for the power of religion, said Karlan, a professor at Northwestern (and the self-identified agnostic Jew).
No study is definitive. But I do find the overall evidence of religion’s ancillary benefits to be strong. That evidence hasn’t made me personally religious. I’m still quite comfortable with my secularism. But the evidence has made me more humble and open-minded about how the world can go about solving some of its problems.
You can read more about the study at the Innovations for Poverty Action website.
In addition to Karlan, the researchers are James Choi of Yale and Gharad Bryan of the London School of Economics. The researchers are continuing to follow the people in the study.
Jump to: