Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,245 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

shealynne19

 

Blog Traffic: 16846

Posts: 58

My Comments: 125

User Comments: 292

Photos: 6

Friends: 40

Following: 0

Followers: 6

Points: 1195

Last Online: 1902 days ago


 
 

Visitors

No Recent Visitors
 

Question of the Day

Added: Wednesday, January 25th 2012 at 12:42am by shealynne19
Related Tags: christianity, god, belief
 
 
 

First: If you're not a believer, you don't have to answer. Q: Why is it so difficult for people to believe in God? There are signs he exists everywhere. He has helped me even without my realizing it. So, why is it so hard?

Please post your answers below. Thank you. (:

User Comments

"Why is it so difficult for people to believe in God?"

imo- Because with belief, comes a responsibility. 

If you can broadly observe America (the land) and America (the citizens) over the last 50 yrs for ex.  You can see the decline of individuals accepting responsibility for themselves.  And with that, you see a drifting away in a very open (in your face), from belief in God, and the drifting away of the land being used for producing food, and minerals, and oil.  As well as God opening his treasuries of strange weather upon the land. And an increase of material things waning and people going slowly into poverty.

Those "signs" and coincidences depend on the interpretation. If you're looking for a mystical explanation, then you accept things that support that. "Sickness is caused by demons. Let us pray." If you look skeptically and logically, they patterns emerge that give simple explanations. "Sickness is caused by bacteria and viruses. Let's treat that."

brad- Sickness certainly shows signs of bacteria and viruses - as you pointed out, they are the cause.  What caused bacteria and viruses?

Do not presume that God did not provide ALL things, including those things which scientists discover and doctors use and prescribe and pharmacies produce and dole out. It's a balancing act. Scientists, Doctors & Pharmacies have gained a historical reputation for their title alone to mean for a good purpose. But many things scientists have discovered, and things doctors have practiced, and pharmaceuticals have been USED for things which are NOT GOOD.  And if an individual can not understand the difference, they suffer the consequence.

God provided all things, and instructed to use discoveries for good. That included, not ONLY material things for the body and flesh to use, but also His spiritual provisions for discovery and use.

She asked why it is difficult for people to believe in God. I am an unbeliever and gave an answer. (Though she apparently was only interested in responses from believers, which biases the responses and is asking for a second-hand opinion.)

Bacteria evolved a long time ago and are successful in filling a niche in the web of Earth's life. If you want to ignore science and scientific explanations, that is up to you.

There is no point in discussion with you.

The post was asking an opinion, there was no bias pretense. (you don't have to answer, is not the same as, you can't or don't.)

Your comment implied that if someone is a believer in God....they ignore science....and simply rely on prayer for healing.("Sickness is caused by demons. Let us pray.")

I tried to give you information, that your presumption is WRONG.  Believers in the broad spectrum are not against scientific discoveries or uses for things discovered, nor are they against doctors and their practices, nor are they against pharmaceuticals.  I am a believer, and that is my perspective...

You have chosen to be a unbeliever....no problem to me....until you presume to incorrectly speak on behalf of a broad spectrum of believers....

Believers don't have to answer either, but non-believers were discouraged.

My comment was based on the origin of praying for cures of illness: superstitious beliefs in evil spirits/demons and asking for additional supernatural intervention to remove those and that people continue to pray today to cure an illness even when that sickness is caused by something that has an effective medical treatment. I did not write that believers do not seek medical help. I was not speaking for believers, but was implying that prayer is ineffective, as has been shown statistically.

Discouraged?  Apparently your common sense got the better of you, since you responded!

"I was not speaking for believers, but was implying that prayer is ineffective, as has been shown statistically."

I noticed you didn't provide your source of your statistical evidence.

I personally know many doctors who have experience unexplainable healing, and quicker recovery, with the common factor being the patient had prayed or prayers for them.

The Journal of the AMA, will not emphatically say God healed, but they do acknowledge the same, in that, patients who pray or have prayers for them have an unexplainable marked improvement over those who do not.

"A revealing study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported on doctors' renewed interest in spirituality's role in health. In a review of 27 studies, one researcher reported that in 22 of them, religious involvement had a positive effect on good health, including cases of cancer. In another massive study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers showed that heart patients who had someone praying for them suffered fewer complications than other patients. Whether it's God at work or just a good attitude, patients with rich spiritual lives may have a better chance of recovering from serious illness. Scientists tread lightly when offering explanations -- they shy away from attributing anything to a supernatural force. But they say that, for certain diseases, religious activity does seem to be associated with better health."

By PARKER LEE NASH, Staff Writer News and Record online. 

"Just a few years ago, medical researchers who hinted about supernatural influences in their work risked being branded loons. That's changing quickly as scientists at highly regarded institutions like Duke and Harvard University are linking prayer and health through scientific tests."

Hope your faith in Science, does not waver, knowing that  SCIENCE, has conducted, scientific tests, and found, that PRAYER is a contributor to healing.

Yes, it did.

As I wrote before, there is no point discussing this with you. I could take the time to provide relevent research citations, but you will dismiss them anyway. One that I have read is "Efficacy of Prayer: A Critical Examination of Claims," Skeptical Inquirer , March/April 2000. There is a placebo effect where people who know they are being prayed for have better outcomes and, of course, stress management also has a role in health, so prayer is a contributor to health, but not due to supernatural influence. The "Annals of Internal Medicine" study you're referring to is Harris et al.'s, but reviews of those findings show that the results were of questionable significance, and probably chance.

I do not have faith in science. I have some understanding of it and the thought processes that lead to its conclusions.

brad...."so prayer is a contributor to health, but not due to supernatural influence."

I just thought you might enjoy knowing the fact, that Christians as a whole do recognize science as acceptable, just as it was taught in the Bible.  I thought you might enjoy the good news, that modern science; (has figured out what ancient Bible scholars have know for centuries)... through their conducted studies, have shown a relationship between prayer and healing.

Prayer IS, a petition to a higher power, but I would not expect you to have ever experienced the effect; so your belief that prayer does not result in a higher power influencing a favorable result, is expected from an unbeliever.

God Bless you. 

 

Hi Brad, Shea here.

I specifically said that if you are not a believer you don't HAVE to answer. I'm not biased in any ways. Thank you. (:

One of the most reproduced film clips on the end of the holocaust is of a half starved Jewish man being carried out of a death camp on a stretcher. His hands are folded in prayer and he is no doubt thanking his merciful God for saving him. It is evident to him that he has seen "evidence of God's existence". Yet that same God allowed 6 million of this man's fellow believers to be murdered. Not to mention that more than ten times that many victims perished in WWII. It seems to me that the only time we see "evidence of God's existence" is when something good happens.

A better question would be, "Why have people all over the world and throughout history always invented gods?"

nbt -

"It seems to me that the only time we see "evidence of God's existence" is when something good happens"

Thanks for your personal verification that,  you have witnessed, that, GOOD evidences GOOD....{#basic-smile.gif}

Psalms 25: [8] Good and upright is the LORD:.....

You're welcome. Also, blue evidences blue. Water evidences water. A cow evidences a cow. Very logical starting point for a better understanding of life. In fact I wrote a post on that subject a couple weeks ago. I said, "it is what it is".

nbt- right, right.....all the things we can see, blue, water, cows.....we logically in our fleshly mind, and with our fleshly eyes determine they are evidence of existence.

Historical humans have given us testimony of their spirit existance.  Even God Himself used Himself as a witness, to men, of the existance of spirit,  via Christ.  Good News for all!!  They even refer to it as the Good News!

Yep, God is Good! Amen.

Yes, that's a better question.

"A better question would be, "Why have people all over the world and throughout history always invented gods?""

There is an answer to your question, but that is not the question shealynne 19 decided to post on her blog.

Why are you primarily interested in responses from believers instead of the non-believers themselves?

I know I caused some digression on this post, but did you get responses that answered your question as you intended?

I did get very well written responses from rachel but you were just shutting her down and complaining about me being biased. I do appreciate your opinions though, so thank you. Have a great and wonderful day.

It wasn't a complaint.

I thought about your reply that I was "just shutting her down" today.

You asked an opinion question. My response was my opinion about why unbelievers don't believe in gods. As someone who doesn't believe, I (foolishly it turns out) thought I was in a position to provide such an answer. During the above exchange Rachel questioned me to clarify my opinion and I responded by giving further explanations. I don't understand why you think my defending my opinion was "shutting her down", but I can deal with it.

Hope you had a good day too, Shea.

I understand what you mean now. Sorry for falsely accusing you of shutting her down. I see now that you were just giving your own opinion on the matter. Thank you and I hope you look forward to my next question of the day.

Hi, All!

Any claim, any claim whatsoever presupposes God! Nietzsche - he who claimed 'God is dead, and I have killed him' was not making a claim that "existence" is without a transcendent organizing principle/entity, he was making the claim that modern humans are no longer restrained by the fear of eternal punishment, and Nietzsche was asserting believers place their "faith" in a reified (conceptual) existence; imposing upon that which is such conceptions as the believers find amenable to themselves, wherein Nietzsche intimates the faithful reduce God to self... Nietzsche advocates ignoring reified realities and ordering society in accordance with what the ubermenschean think best... That said, the perspective from whence Nietzsche argued was from the option to favor pragmatic nihilism over a theistic view of existence. Classical philosophy - because God was not bracketed - was philosophy; modern philosophy - because metaphysics is reduced to a prescinding epistemology (i.e., theory of knowledge) i.e., reduced to the material/quantifiable, God and all that which may not be quantified is bracketed (set-aside, as objectively meaningless) all which renders modern 'philosophy' ideology. Modern philosophy is not philosophy, and modern science is predicated upon the very immeasurable reality that such disciplines hold to be meaningless; this renders science - and all knowledge - as absurd i.e., meaningless. The human mind - takes for granted i.e., presupposes - the correlation between mind and that which is other - such correlation is predicated upon God i.e., the objective/transcendent ordering principle...

Cordially, tjd

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.