Should we be Christian Scientists? Are you asking me if it is possible for a non-believing scientist to make great discoveries about the world?

It's quite evident now that your condescension was highly unwarranted. Did you really not understand that I wasn't talking about scientists? Didn't the capital letters give it away?

The claim was made here that we are now better off (scientifically speaking) because of the casting off of religous shackles. Can you justify this and show a direct cause/effect relationship between rejection of religion and scientific breakthrough?

Easy. The adoption of the scientific method has led to more advances in science at a faster rate than when "scientists" were trying to study how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Also, you would have to show that no Christian scientist ever contributed anything of note to science. Kelvin.

It's only by separating science from their faith did they achieve what they achieved. So, sorry, but it doesn't matter if the scientist in question is Xian or not, it's how the achievements were made, and the method is non-religious and non-faith-based.

As a Christian I believe that I should pray for God to provide for all my needs. I also believe that I am responsible to work hard to earn a living. These are not contradictions.

Um, yeah, it kinda is.

What you are pushing here is a form of religion which has done much harm to legitimate faith.

Legitimate faith? Do real Scotsmen practice it?

In the same way; the Christian who claims to have God as their foundation, and yet stops living life there is like a man who builds a foundation for a home and nothing else, and just lives in the foundation.

So god is just a pile of cinder blocks in the basement? Hmmm, that's strange considering all the Xians who claim that god is everything.

I believe God to be the source of everything, therefore God should be our foundation in all things. Foundation does not equate to entirety as you have suggested.

Why not?

As for having it both ways. My reference to Psalms was clarifycation. Faith in God is the foundation of everything, including medicine. As a Christian I believe that I should pray for God to provide for all my needs. I also believe that I am responsible to work hard to earn a living. These are not contradictions. Can God meet my needs if I am unable to work? Can I, even with the best of planning, ever prepare for EVERY possible occurence which would threaten my financial security? What you are pushing here is a form of religion which has done much harm to legitimate faith.

If you were building a house, and you were intelligent about it, you would lay a solid foundation. No matter how solid your foundation is you would not live ONLY in the foundation. You would want the rest of the house complete with a roof and rooms and carpet, etc. In the same way; the Christian who claims to have God as their foundation, and yet stops living life there is like a man who builds a foundation for a home and nothing else, and just lives in the foundation.

I believe God to be the source of everything, therefore God should be our foundation in all things. Foundation does not equate to entirety as you have suggested.

When you posit that god asked us to pray for healing, but also to put oil on us because it heals (simplified paraphrase) and can't see that you are trying to have it both ways, well what can one do?

When you make an argument, and someone presents challenges, you must answer those challenges. You can not simply ignore them and then claim that I have to bring more evidence or else your statement holds, or is at least as good as any other. You must answer the challenges put forth, or else your statement is suspect at best. You obviously have no intention of doing this, and it probably makes you feel better to adapt a superior air and condescend towards me, but if YOU go back and read, you'll note that others have also noticed how you've dodged and evaded and not answered certain questions/challenges to your position. Would you like to also condescend to goyo and Ebon? When you write back to me more condescending carp about how I need to re-read the thread or apologize or grow-up or whatever, just remember you are doing it just to make yourself feel better, but should it really? Does it really make you feel better to have to lash out at others because you can't support your arguments?

Some of the Bible's premises are certainly not amenable to rational verification, others are.

That's convenient. Bagsy I get to decide which are and which are'nt.

You're assuming here that the Bible does not have definitive meaning, when your opponents do not share that assumption.

I accepted Pine's point that the authors of the Bible had particular intentions in mind when they wrote it. However they were subject to the limitations of contemporary knowledge and the same vagaries of language we are debating here,unless it was divinely inspired in which case we should expect less confusion.

The problem is that you offer your reality as the reality and that's what Fundies do.

Except my reality is independently verifiable by observation and measurement, fundamentalist reality isn't and in many cases is directly contradicted by the aforementioned evidence. However I'll take your bait and offer a definition of verifiable faith healing I would accept (can't speak for some of the more intellectually rigorous commenters here though):Either; a study of disease remission in a faith based group not treated by conventional medicine that demonstrated similar or better rates to a control group treated conventionally, or a single instance of an independently verifiable healing miracle such as the re-growth of an amputated limb.

Ebonmuse,

There is good reason you won't answer a simple "Yes" or "No" to my last question, and I think you might be onto it. Again, do you really believe that Jesus meant to imply we could pray God would die and it would be granted? Yes or no?

OMGF,

The only reason this life matters at all is because we need to go through it to reach the next.

How do you know? I have no problem with your sharing your subjective opinion, but I don't agree with it, and that's not what my original words entail, so again you misrepresent what I've said. You said my argument led to the conclusion that this life is not important. That X is more important than Y does not entail that X is not important.

If you meant to say that doing things that offend god can also have harmful side effects, then you should have said that. Offending god, however, does not cause sickness, unless you wish to contend that your god makes people sick.

I meant that sin does cause physical disease, and that's what I said. There's good reason you avoid Boolean logic in this case - again - is gluttony a sin? Yes or no? Does sin offend God? Yes or no? Does the sin of gluttony which offends God lead to objectively verifiable disease conditions? Yes or no? The answer is Yes, Yes, and Yes - hence, sin can and does cause physical disease, and offending God can and does cause sickness. And I'm not saying all sin causes physical disease, or that all physical disease is caused by sin. Lastly, none of this entails that the person who sins is made sick by God. In cases where sickness is the result of sin, the person who sins inflicts sickness upon themselves.

He succeeded, you simply laughed and decided not to answer the challenge.

Again, you refuse to answer a simple Yes or No - were internal emulsions the extent of my examples? Yes or no? Did Ebon respond to anything but one example of internal emulsion? Yes or no?

god gives strict orders on the procedure to heal sickness. If he meant that you should do that, or any number of other things, then the Bible is useless to us as a document. If you wish to argue that the Bible is useless, then I will withdraw my comments.

Again, if you are sick, and I suggest method X, does that entail that I've told you to deny method Y, especially if in the very same document I told you that method Y also works? Yes or no? (method X refers to faith healing, method Y refers to the strictly medical approach)

And, I've repeatedly pointed out the incredible lack of evidence that faith does anything.

No, you've repeated over and over an ignorant and biased subjective opinion that no evidence of a genuine faith healing exists, and when I asked for some definitions so I could offer some evidence, no definitions were forthcoming. If you are serious, provide the definitions and let's do this.

Pine,

I must be fair, and I would certainly accept the same criticism from you. As for your arguments, I concur that OMGF is missing your points and you are doing more than well IMO, but condescension will surely ruin it. I've learned this in life the hard way, through genuine personal losses, and I offer it only in good spirit and because I would hate to see valid points eschewed on account of a tendency that we all share as human beings. I also concede that OMGF's insulting reply was equally inappropriate.

goyo,

You're agreeing with me that the majority of the recipients really can't understand what they are reading.

Speak for yourself. Again you omit qualifiers, but in case this was for me, I don't agree with that.

Steve Bowen,

Furthermore the Bible is supposed to be divine revelation and is not subject to rational verification...

I disagree that the Bible is not or is not supposed to be subject to rational verification. Such a statement lacks appropriate scope. Some of the Bible's premises are certainly not amenable to rational verification, others are.

If you believe the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) is a revelation from God through human agency, it should have a definitive meaning and this sort of continual exegesis should be unnecessary.

You're assuming here that the Bible does not have definitive meaning, when your opponents do not share that assumption. Also note that the necessity of continual exegesis does not preclude definitive meaning. Science has definitive meaning and continual exegesis is essential to expand our horizon of life's penultimate truths.

James was saying faith and oil can heal, he may or may not have meant "shall" or "always".

While I agree James did not mean "always," I believe you partially misunderstood the passage. James was saying God can heal the person who's prayers are offered in faith. Faith itself is not doing the healing. Neither is oinos approached as a magical substance in scripture, and oinos is used for other purposes besides healing in scripture.

The reality is it never does, no evidence for it, zip, nada.

The problem is that you offer your reality as the reality and that's what Fundies do. Surely you don't want to be perceived as such, right? Not to be rude, but you show grave ignorance and bias here, as do all others who make such arguments. We cannot accept arguments from ignorance and bias in an ostensibly rational debate. As I said earlier, provide the definitions and let's do this.

Your argument suggests proper interpretation of the Bible does not exist.

It does rather doesn't it?
It depends on what you mean by "proper". if you believe the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) is a revelation from God through human agency, it should have a definitive meaning and this sort of continual exegesis should be unnecessary. If it doesn't we can either conclude that God is being deliberately obscure or that the author was writing without divine inspiration and subject to human limitation. No doubt the author of James was a literate, intelligent individual(s) with a message to convey, but the best of us can believe we are writing or arguing cogently whilst in fact mis-judging our audience. Ebon's original point was:

My question to modern believers who view this passage symbolically is, if you know this doesn't work, how do you know that - and do you apply that same standard to the rest of the Bible? And to those who still use faith healing and dabs of magical oil, in an age of genetic manipulation, transplant surgery and antibiotics, my question is: Do you really believe that?

James was saying faith and oil can heal, he may or may not have meant "shall" or "always". The reality is it never does, no evidence for it, zip, nada. So we should be able to apply the same critical thinking to any passage in scripture that says faith is a virtue and good for anything.

OMGF: No evidence from you yet for your position. You state it, I state mine. You say yours seems more correct. I state mine seems more correct. The difference between us? You claim the idiocy of those who cling to my position. I simply assert that I prefer my interpretation. You are making the bolder claim, therefore it is upon you to defend your ridiculous assertion. You're being a child now. Simply produce more evidence to support your claim of idiocy or do the right thing and admit that you were wrong to judge Christians based upon their acceptance of James 5 as scripture from God. If you can't follow this, then I suspect you may lack the capacity to understand anything.

In the OT the King of Israel was to write a copy of the scriptures and study them daily. The common man was instructed to always be talking about the Word of God as he carried out his daily tasks. In the NT Jesus claimed to speak in parables so those who were not legitimate followers would not understand. Paul wrote that we would have to study to show ourselves approved. The NT also claims that no scripture is for private interpreation. The NT also claims that the Bible is good for teaching, rebuking, correcting and instructing in all ways of righteousness. Why would you assume that it is offensive or de-valuing to the Bible to claim that one must STUDY it to understand it? Also, does the Bible provide for teachers and preachers to help others who might not be able to understand? How is this different that providing teachers for young students who ARE able to understand math or science however would NOT understand math or science on their own with just a textbook? Unless you wish to argue that students would walk away from reading a math or science textbook with a full understanding of the topic with no instruction. The false scenario for learning and strawman argument that the Bible teaches men will understand the Bible without effort should be abandoned as it does not hold up.

Goyo: So understanding the basic teaching of salvation is the same as understanding all the truth contained in the Bible? Why do you think that required study makes the truth contained within the Bible less valid? If study of the Bible is required to understand truth, then why should we not hand them out? Is there not a difference between possessing the ability to understand and taking the time to study so that you understand?
Your point is the equivalent to saying we should not hand out textbooks in math class because half the kids in the class won't understand unless they are taught by someone with more experience and are willing to study. Math is probably all bunk anyway.

It may be equivalent to handing a 3 year old a college level maths textbook and expecting them to derive the first principles, but nobody does that. Furthermore the Bible is supposed to be divine revelation and is not subject to rational verification, therefore people can and do interpret its intentions (regardless of translation) in any way they want. Maths and its predictive consequences can be taught from the bottom up, and shown to any child to be objectively true.