That was interesting, and just what I expected. I've always heard about studies of prayer's effects on patients who knew they were being prayed for, and I understand why the mind would respond to that. And I've heard anecdotal evidence (the fundy's best friend) about intercessary prayer, but this is the first study I've heard of. As expected, no effect.
Posts by Seeker
-
1"Without a Prayer" (Mayo Clinic study...
by sf in< http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/prayer24.htm
-
-
-
15
Harry Potter vs. The Wizard of Oz
by LDH inperhaps some here would like to expound on why it is ok for witness kids to watch the classic film "wizard of oz" but harry potter is out?.
aren't the two the same thing?
a fantasy about another realm?
-
-
Seeker
p.s. to all you yanks, philosiphers stone is the title of the film over here. Not sure why?
Because literacy rates are so appalling in America they were afraid we wouldn't understand what was meant by "philosopher."
-
77
open marriages, anyone have experience?
by Pierced Angel inwell, my husband found out about my affair (yes, i gave in to the temptation with the soccer player and while it was fantastic, it's over now) and it's been a devestating time, we almost got divorced, but we're working through it.
i knew telling friends and this board wasn't going to help me fight his romantic advances, but i tried.
it was a one time thing that would have continued, but i wasn't too careful about the clues (guilty conscience i think).
-
-
Seeker
I have no personal experience with open marriages, though I am not against the concept as long as both partners are in agreement 100% about it (a very rare thing, I would think). However, from the way you describe your situation, I have my doubts that your attempts at this will be successful. Here's why: Even though you had talked about having an open marriage before, you didn't actually do it until your affair came to light. In other words, it is a reaction, not pro-action. Instead of planning this calmly, rationally, and without outside emotional attachments when you made the decision to try it, you did it after emotions came powerfully into play.
There is no way your husband isn't viewing this as an opportunity for "revenge," and that lays a very bad foundation for this process. You will always view the beginnings of this experiment in hurtful terms. So I suspect it won't work out in the long-run.
An open marriage can work, but it's very, very tricky, requires two people who can handle jealousy and understand the difference between love and sex, and probably requires a foundation of trust upon which to build.
As I said, I have no personal experience, so this is just my guess based on my understanding of human nature. I wish you well, in any case.
-
15
Harry Potter vs. The Wizard of Oz
by LDH inperhaps some here would like to expound on why it is ok for witness kids to watch the classic film "wizard of oz" but harry potter is out?.
aren't the two the same thing?
a fantasy about another realm?
-
-
Seeker
Double standards, of course, and shallow thinking. Potter is overt in its wizardry. Wizard of Oz has very few scenes of the wizard himself.
It's like why JWs can see a movie about the spirit world -- as long as it's a comedy, like Heaven Can Wait, or even Ghostbusters. But if it's serious, Ghost (which is basically Heaven Can Wait in many ways), or Poltergeist (like Ghostbuster, but deadly serious), they can't go.
-
10
The WTC in the Bible
by RickA inis this world in trouble or what?
wait till you see what's coming next!.
isa 30:25 and there shall be upon every high mountain, and upon every high hill, rivers and streams of waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall.. 26 moreover the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day that the lord bindeth up the breach of his people, and healeth the stroke of their wound.
-
-
Seeker
s this world in trouble or what?
Or what.
-
30
Whitewater=Enron???
by Julie insince we have so many right-leaning politically speaking posters, i was wondering what comments they might be willing to offer up on this column i caught this morning.. http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp.
i am sure most of those who are quick to criticize anything that even remotely relates to clinton are all whitewater experts by now.
i would enjoy reading what thoughts you may have on the parallels and even how enron makes whitewater look like a trip to the penny candy store.. hoping some conservative can help me feel less screwed by my republican administration,.
-
-
Seeker
Amazing, I really must disagree with your views.
The Difference: between Conservatives and Liberals is that Conservative admit when their party needs to be investigated and if found guilty, prosecuted. This was true when Republican Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign and was prosecuted; and then then later President Nixon was forced to resign. Republicans, Conservatives would not tolerate it, and joined Democrats in bringing down the Republican Administration by 1974.
Only when the evidence, i.e. the tapes, was so overwhelming of criminal misconduct that there was no way out. Until then, conservatives absolutely did stand with Nixon while liberals went rabid.Both sides fight for their man and demonize the opposition. That's politics, and it's univesal.
Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, live in constant denial, and that is why they stood by thier man, Bill Clinton, as he lied in court, allowed national security information to be heard, documented, and spread by an Intern, allowed communist Chinese to illegally donate to his campaign, and then allowed the communists Chinese steal nuclear secrets in return, and spent more time haveing his penis sucked and spreading his semen on Monica than doing the people's business. Instead, Liberals whinned and bled their hearts for their man, making excuses for thier leader, and fought it all tooth and nail.
That's a laughably one-sided view of the matter. Clinton "spent more time" with Monica than being president? That's absurd on the face of it, and the kind of rhetoric that is said to inflame an argument.Clinton wasn't Nixon. Nixon committed crimes. Clinton lied about his personal life. That's why Nixon was going to be impeached, and Clinton shouldn't have even been mentioned in the same sentence as 'impeachment.' This isn't denial, it's reality. Simple fact is, all politicians do corrupt things. Not all of them break the law. Bush Jr. has shown himself to be a liar, but that's not impeachable. Heck, that's practically a job description for politicians.
The difference between conservatives and liberals? Not much, any more. Both groups are just taking sides, viewing the world through us-versus-them glasses, and that does more harm than good as any glance on Capital Hill shows us.
Issues, not sides, is what should be taken. And to comment on this thread, if it were Clinton involved with Enron, the conservatives would already have a commission investigating. There wasn't much more to Whitewater than this, and they hung on that for years. So there is a double-standard at work.
-
251
space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.
by aChristian inthe watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
-
-
Seeker
anewperson,
Most of you are falling into the trap of assuming "earth" and "world" always refer to the entire planet. When that misconception is straightened out, science and the Bible tend to meld.
Did you read the linked article by JanH on whether the Genesis flood could have been local? -
251
space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.
by aChristian inthe watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
-
-
Seeker
D Wiltshire
Well Seeker I can see that your view point is set in stone.
That's because the evidence is rock solid. It's as simple as that. I used to believe in the Flood, and read lots of material to support that view. Then I left the WTS, began to read both sides of the issue, and was shocked to see that the other side actually had the evidence. So I researched again, and read everything I could, from all sides and angles. During that time, my viewpoint was NOT set in stone. I was open to any conclusion.
What do you say to a guy who veiwpoint is set in stone?
He know it all already!The evidence overwhelmingly pointed to a global flood being impossible. Not just unlikely, but impossible, unless you posit God miraculously made the Flood, and simultaneously miraculously erased all the evidence of the flood to fool us. I suppose that's possible, but then why bother even investigating?
There is a reason why my viewpoint is set in stone, for the evidence is conclusive. This is not Cross versus Stake here, or Trinity versus non-Trinity, where you could go back and forth a while. On this issue, there is no argument. And as you do your research, you'll come to the same conclusion that has been reached by everybody else that has looked at all sides, not just the side that supports their preconceived conclusion (as I used to do back when I was a Witness)
-
251
space.com dates Noah's flood to 2350 B.C.
by aChristian inthe watchtower society dates noah's flood to 2370 b.c.e.
they do this by following bible chronology quite closely, counting backwards from 607 b.c.e., their date for babylon's destruction of jerusalem.
however, as we know, the society's date for that event is in error.
-
-
Seeker
You have to understand something when atheists dogmatically state there was no global flood, and that the Genesis account does not allow for only a local flood: over the years, so much evidence has been presented on boards such as this, and so many excellent articles and books and web sites have provided such solid evidence, to prove these points that no matter what believers bring forward we know it will never prove a global flood. The evidence is rock solid (geologic pun intended) -- there was not a global flood.
There were local floods, to be sure. There were sudden disasters, of course. Flood myths came from something, after all. But we know there was no global flood because we have opened our minds and our eyes and read everything on the subject, from all sides, and saw which side lacked evidence and which side had evidence. Believers who feel otherwise have never yet been able to face the evidence against a global flood and come out with a credible explanation for how a global flood could have occurred and left zero evidence.
Is this dogmatic? Yes. Just as dogmatic as stating if you jump off a building gravity will make you fall. The geologic evidence against a global flood is just that strong. And as JanH posted, the evidence against Genesis referring to a local flood is also overwhelming. Don't agree? Present your credible evidence. No one has managed yet, but maybe you'll be the lucky first.
Not trying to be dismissive or rude, but I've seen this conversation over and over and over again. I know how it will play out.
-
10
Spoiler Alert--Help w/Planet of the Apes
by patio34 ini just saw the new planet of the apes.
if anyone has seen this, did you understand the ending?
how did the situation end up as it was?
-
-
Seeker
Thanks for the confirmation. I appreciate knowing that.