[Athos]

In fact, I read somewhere recently that people who are prayed for have faster and better recoveries. Would have to check that....

Several studies have, in fact, been done on this very topic. Athough there may be a placebo effect on people who are aware they are being prayed for, there is no evidence that prayer has any efficacy in scientifically-controlled studies.

The Mayo Clinic did a study in the 1990's and both Columbia University and the NIH have done prayer studies. All concluded prayer had no effect. Anecdotal evidence, of course, on the efficacy of prayer abounds.

[arcura]

Athos,
Thanks for that information.
I have had prayers answered so, of course, I believe in them.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

Wondergirl agrees: Perhaps the benefit is most of all to the pray-er...




Pray-ers benefitting from their own prayers is non-controversial. Just as meditation or a host of other practices can benefit an individual, so one's prayer can produce a beneficial effect on the psychological health of the pray-er. This effect HAS been scientifically proven but is attributed to alpha waves in the brain.

[arcura]

Athos,
Yes, that is how many scientists attribute it.
Some folks don't want to give God credit for anything good.
How sad that is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[DoulaLC]

Several studies have, in fact, been done on this very topic. Athough there may be a placebo effect on people who are aware they are being prayed for, there is no evidence that prayer has any efficacy in scientifically-controlled studies.

The Mayo Clinic did a study in the 1990's and both Columbia University and the NIH have done prayer studies. All concluded prayer had no effect. Anecdotal evidence, of course, on the efficacy of prayer abounds.

And yet... the research and studies have, and are, continuing... so a definitive answer has apparently not been determined...

[Capuchin]

Athos,
Yes, that is how many scientists attribute it.
Some folks don't want to give God credit for anything good.
How sad that is.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Why give God credit for something which is proven to be purely physiological??

[arcura]

Capucin,
What has been proven purely physical without God's involvement?
I have hear only opinions on that, not proof.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Athos]

And yet....the research and studies have, and are, continuing....so a definitive answer has apparently not been determined........

What continuing studies are you referring to?

[Athos]

Protestant seminaries taught their ministerial students that it was Mariolatry, etc., and when those students became ministers, they carried those ideas into congregations. There was no hate in any of it; that's just how it was. I never heard hate preached.

Hate can be preached in many ways. It doesn't have to be ranting and raving; it can simply be preaching untruth. Catholics have been explaining to Protestants for five hundred years that Mary is venerated (highly respected) not adored (worshipped), yet many Protestants continue to hang onto this old canard like a dog on a bone. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.

That ministerial students repeated what they were told in seminaries is understandable, but then one is forced to ask why were the seminaries passing on an obvious untruth.

On the other hand, it is not hard to see how Protestants can become confused over the issue. Especially when the Catholic Church declares Mary to be Queen of Heaven or titles her Co-Redemptrix or calls her Mother of God. To the uninformed, these are certainly god-like appellations and the real distinction can get lost. But a word or two of explanation should suffice to dispel the misunderstanding.

[jakester]

Okay, here goes.

1. Man and Woman are created.;)
2. Woman chose to disobey God and thus committed the first sin.:eek:
3. Because of her, the rest of us have to pay.:(
4. Animals had to be sacrificed in the OT to earn acceptance from God.:(
5. In the NT, Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. (Hey, I wasn't even born yet! ) The deal was, if you believe that Jesus died for your sake as a way to pay for your sins, THEN I (GOD) will accept you into my kingdom.:cool:

Why torture Jesus that way? Looks like a source as powerful as God could come up with a better plan wouldn't you think? As a parent, you don't punish child A when child B disobeyed do you. That would just be all kinds of wrong:mad:

My love for my children is unconditional and I would never ever turn them away. And I especially would never send them somewhere to be tortured! (Hell) NEVER, no matter what. They could have disobeyed me, not accepted my sacrifice made for them, or even cursed me.
Still, I'd never turn my back on them. In MY opinion, neither would God. This story just does not add up.

cozyk - I agree, the story as you have presented it wouldn't make sense because it would seem that each of God's children could be rejected arbitrarily and condemned. However, if the story were that not every single human being is a child of God but only those whom God chooses to save, then I think the idea of God's love being conditional makes more sense.

According to the bible, anyone who rejects the teaching of Jesus Christ is not following God but is following his father, the Devil. I reference John 8:

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, 'You will become free'?”

Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.” They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.” Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

The issue in this confrontation is that these people refused to believe the words of Christ. They rejected his teaching as one come from God. Jesus rebukes them and makes a clear statement to them that even though they think they are children of God, the fact is that they are not. God is not their father... the Devil is. Primarily because in their unbelief, they sought to kill him.

The question then becomes, how does God feel about these types of people—specifically those who reject the teaching of Jesus Christ for their own? Consider John 3 which lays it out a little more specifically:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should NOT PERISH but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever BELIEVES in him is NOT CONDEMNED, but whoever DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has NOT BELIEVED in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Now, either the bible I read is wrong and God would never condemn anyone or my bible has it right and those who are resistant to and hostile towards the truth will be condemned because of it. Cozyk, God is love... he evidenced it by sending Jesus Christ to pay for our sins. Yes, you weren't alive when Christ died but the offer stands on the table even for you. You can continue on in your unbelief that God would ever punish someone for his sin or you can humble yourself and see that you (just like me) are an unworthy and morally perverse creature. But the good news of the gospel is that though we are morally unworthy of God, he is willing to forgive us and cleanse us of our unrighteousness... we must repent and turn from our sin and unbelief.

[Wondergirl]

On the other hand, it is not hard to see how Protestants can become confused over the issue. Especially when the Catholic Church declares Mary to be Queen of Heaven or titles her Co-Redemptrix or calls her Mother of God. To the uninformed, these are certainly god-like appellations and the real distinction can get lost. But a word or two of explanation should suffice to dispel the misunderstanding.

Then what are the words of explanation?! Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix are heady titles to justify if Mary is not a god(dess) and worthy of worship.

[Akoue]

Then what are the words of explanation?!! Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix are heady titles to justify if Mary is not a god(dess) and worthy of worship.

Well, let's see, the title "Queen of Heaven" has been around since the Council of Ephesus, and Irenaeus had already described the view that she is co-Redemptrix. This is to say that any interested party could do a little reading on his or her own and readily discover plenty of "words of explanation". Those words shouldn't have to be delivered personally to each Protestant in order for the hyperbole to come to and end. The Catholic Church doesn't exactly keep this stuff a secret.

[Wondergirl]

Well, let's see, the title "Queen of Heaven" has been around since the Council of Ephesus, and Irenaeus had already described the view that she is co-Redemptrix. This is to say that any interested party could do a little reading on his or her own and readily discover plenty of "words of explanation". Those words shouldn't have to be delivered personally to each Protestant in order for the hyperbole to come to and end. The Catholic Church doesn't exactly keep this stuff a secret.

That avoidance to respond to an honest inquiry is probably why the continued confusion.

[arcura]

Wondergirl,
Mary is the Mother of Christ the King (God the Son) so the bible tell us.
Being the mother of a King she is a queen and the mother of God the Son.
It is a simple as that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

That avoidance to respond to an honest inquiry is probably why the continued confusion.

It's not avoidance. It's tired fingers: To expect a summary on an internet forum of the relevant features of Marian doctrine would be a preposterous demand. I don't know how to provide a course in Mariology in the space of an AMHD post. Maybe that's my failing; but it's not avoidance. (PM De Maria, he tends to be better at this than I.) As I say, a little initiative on anyone's part will readily yield all the "words of explanation" one wants. One can then, having done a modicum of research on one's own initiative, come to an informed opinion about the relevant doctrines of the Catholic Church. But to sling around terms like "Mariolatry", in preference to doing some work to inform oneself first, is not intellectually honest. By all means, make the case that Mary shouldn't be venerated. That's perfectly reasonable. But to assert that Catholics and Orthodox worship Mary is to show that one hasn't done that work first.

[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl,
Mary is the Mother of Christ the King (God the Son) so the bible tell us.
Being the mother of a King she is a queen and the mother of God the Son.
It is a simple as that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Actually, it's a lot more than that, especially the co-Redemptrix part. (I've spent the last fifteen minutes reading Catholic-approved and sponsored information on the Internet.)

[Akoue]

Actually, it's a lot more than that, especially the co-Redemptrix part. (I've spent the last fifteen minutes reading Catholic-approved and sponsored information on the Internet.)

There you go! It's not hard to find.

[arcura]

Wondergirl.
To me it IS as simple as that.
Thanks.
Fred

[Wondergirl]

Yeah, now I'm sorry I looked it up. What I've read supports Mary's vaulted status and makes it look like worshipping her is the obvious reaction to her position.

[Akoue]

Yeah, now I'm sorry I looked it up. What I've read supports Mary's vaulted status and makes it look like worshipping her is the obvious reaction to her position.

Wow, all that after a whole fifteen minutes!