Posted on 05/07/2002 8:48:34 AM PDT by liberallarry
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I am a very simple and naive man. But, as for not biblical, well my being naive and simple does not make me a buffon or fool, and the Lord Himself tells us that unless a man is born again, he will not see the inside of heaven. Paul, Peter, James and John make it very clear that to be born again, one must have his or her sins washed clean by the Blood of the Lamb, hence: A Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christian.
But, if you can refute me using Scripture, go for it, I am always open to being corrected through the use of Scripture, Scripture.
As for the good samaritan, well, remeber, he did not have the option of being a Born Again Washed in the Blood of the Lamb Christian, for the Lord had not sacrificed Himself for us at that time, but what about you? Have you availed yourself of the cleansing power of the Blood of the Lamb? Have you read the word of God? Do you know the differance between the word of God and the Word of God? Are you Saved? Do you know what Saved means?
Alas
Your comments are worth noting. I agree with you. BTW, in Biblical days, there was no such thing as processed sugar as we know it. And they did not have tooth decay like we do now.
Bad philosophy results in bad science. The human soul cannot be reduced to the body and the human mind cannot be reduced to the brain. Depression can be a spiritual problem, a physical problem or a combination of both.
The Word of God motivated and compelled the Samaritan to help the injured man. "Alas" is corrrect.
and smash it.........then I go ahead and take the trash out like she asked me to.
My wife adores chocolate also and hits it harder when she's worried. She doesn't get fat, though.
'Every one is nuts except thou and me, and sometimes I have my doubts about thee?'
It seems like for most of humanities existence, we did with very little sugar and probably not much starch, either since bread wasn't invented until the advent of civilization.
The implication is that all that stuff isn't too good for us.
Also the patients themselves push them that way. You see people believing that a little pill will cure everything. Mothers bring children in with a virus and demand some kind of antibiotic, if a doctor did the right thing, prescribed a healthy diet and one hour of exercise a day, he'd lose most of his patients.
In a study published last week in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Mayberg evaluated brain changes during trials using a sophisticated brain imaging technique.
Of course she would say that. Her study was funded by Eli Lilly. She got unexpected results, then spends half of her report trying to explain them away. What's amazing is that this study even got published, since drug companies often write contracts with researchers that preclude them from publishing stuff that's negative for the company.
I get a big kick out of psychiatric drug proponents praising the state of mental health science and preaching to me about MY biases.
FYI, here's the cite for the AJP article:
Mayberg, H. et al., "The Functional Neuroanatomy of the Placebo Effect," American Journal of Psychiatry, 159:728-737, May 2002
1. Recently: A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as -- or better than -- antidepressants.
2. Prior to this new analysis: The makers of Prozac had to run five trials to obtain two that were positive, and the makers of Paxil and Zoloft had to run even more. (note that these trials were prior to, and therefore independent of, the "new analysis")
3. We have, therefore, both the new analysis AND the fact that the majority of the trials (3 out of 5) show the placebo to be more effective.
4. Against this scientific research you want to present your "first-hand experience", which is totally subjective, to prove the drugs really work.
5. I have consistently appealed to the results of the research - the latest analysis as well as the trials run by the drug companies themselves. You have consistently appealed to "first-hand experience" and what you believe to be true in spite of the research.
6. You then accuse me of bias. That's almost too absurd for a good laugh.
I do think that I tend to be high strung. However, on thinking it over, I am still fairly sure that sugar raises anxiety in general and makes everyone a little hyper. Just look at how small children go crazy when they get too much soda or candy. Considering the amount of sugar in the modern Western diet, you'd think that removing it might actually have a beneficial effect on all the anti social, weird and criminal behavior that goes on. Then, perhaps, the liberals would have less of an excuse to keep ramming their totalitarian ideas down our throats...
Our founders considered that a free country would not be successful without a "virtuous people." There were no coke machines in colonial days and sugar consumption is known to have been drastically less. Could this have contributed to the greater personal responsibility that existed in the dawn of America?
James 2:15-16 says that "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" You don't think that we should withold medication from someone who needs it, do you?
Not every answer is in scripture. You wouldn't consult the Bible when you need to change the spark plugs in your call, and you probably wouldn't call the local Baptist church when your hard drive crashes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.