Re: Please Help with Diagnosis

From: Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (andrew_at_heartmdphd.com)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 08:25:18 -0400

Bob (this one) wrote:
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> In alt.support.diabetes Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >> <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" wrote:
> >>
> >>>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote
> >>>> in message news:<411768B0.42F7@heartmdphd.com>...
> >>
> >>>>>> Let me be specific. Person A is sick. Do you think god is
> >>>>>> more likely to make person A better if person B prays for
> >>>>>> him to?
> >>
> >> There is also the possibility that prayer might work without God
> >> needing to take an active hand in it. Do we have any indications
> >> that payer to the Christian God is more effective than prayer
> >> directed to some heathen alternative?
> >>
> > No.
>
> This appears to be the end of the story. All the rest below is
> rationalization using invented logic and crippled reasoning, and,
> therefore, easily dismissed.

Be my guest.

> >>>>> Depends on person A and person B.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If person A believes in God and wants God's help and person
> >>>>> B believes in God and wants God to help person A, then my
> >>>>> answer to your question is "yes." The citations I have
> >>>>> provided seem to support my answer.
> >>
> >>>> Actually, meta-analysis of available published studies does
> >>>> not.
> >>
> >>> A meta-analysis is of limited usefulness (if it is even useful)
> >>> when it is believed that all the studies are equivocal because
> >>> they have been underpowered and then only as a justification
> >>> for funding a larger study that will have enough power to
> >>> detect what is presumably a small effect and will have the
> >>> necessary matched controls to validate the findings. A
> >>> meta-analysis has *no* usefulness in invalidating statistically
> >>> significant findings of individual studies.
>
> But meta-analyses are just fine for macro correlations of data. Like
> the one cited.

"Macro correlations" have the same usefulness (i.e. none).
 
> >> What about praying for harm to come to folk? Or cursing? Should
> >> we expect that to work as well as praying for good results? I
> >> can't see any reason why not, unless we make a lot of dubious
> >> theological assumptions, such as that God's idea of good
> >> corresponds to our own, that the Devil is prevented from taking a
> >> hand in things, etc..
> >>
> > Christ teaches us to love our enemies as we would love ourselves.
> > So a Christian praying for harm to come to others does not happen
> > with any expectation that Christ would help to bring about such
> > harm.
>
> This simply doesn't follow. Particularly given Chung's actions and
> words towards those he clearly hates.

It would seem that you are prone to imagining hate where there is none.
 
> How about all those people who pray during wartime. Who are convinced
> that God's on their side and that there will be divine assistance in
> routing the evil opponents. That their artillery will be well-aimed.
> That their bullets will hit home. That their bombs will reduce the
> resistance.

Depends on the people and their prayers.

> >> My own scepticism on this issue derives from the simple
> >> observation that most of our most savagely ruthless and cruel
> >> dictators, such as Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, seem to have
> >> enjoyed good health, despite the large number of anguished people
> >> that must have been praying hard to the contrary.
> >
> > I do not believe the latter happened among those who follow Christ.
>
> Right. Chung being the finest example of how the followers of Christ
> should act. And what he believes based on his so desperately flawed
> understanding of *everything* religious is the determinant. Like he
> and his equally wacko friend MU_cus don't wish malice on people and do
> things to make it happen. So they don't pray for harm to come to
> others, they *do* things themselves to make it happen. The difference
> is more apparent than real.

Sorry you believe that my prayers have caused you harm.

> >> Indeed, given the passions that even our democratically elected
> >> leaders arouse, were prayer effective even their health should be
> >> noticeably affected.
> >>
> > Perhaps you are then correct that only prayers by Christians are
> > actually "heard" by God.
> >
> > If God "heard" the hateful prayers of non-Christians who are
> > praying for the harm of all whom they dislike, I probably would not
> > be here to type and post this message on Usenet for you to read.
>
> Or perhaps Chris has it right above with less convolution and forcing
> of concept with assumptions nowhere in evidence. And only cranks like
> Chung pray for things to happen to people. But not by name, he says,
> only by other descriptions. He makes God guess what he means just like
> he does here. <LOL>

You would be wise to realize that God doesn't have to guess because He
always knows.

>
> Occam's razor cuts deep...

Occam is dead.
 
It seems that Christ's truth is hurting you...

> > Servant to the
>
> Yadda, yadda...

...deeply.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, someday, so that
you too will have eternal life and the unimaginable riches of His
everlasting kingdom.

 
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew 

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
Quantcast