Answers to prayers?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people. 

So has does this work in the case of surgeons who have given up on patients who have then recovered as you like point out?

Did they performed some procedure that they wouldn't normally have considered if prayers had not been said?

I mean did they turn up at the hospital one day and say "I wouldn't normally do this to a terminally ill patient but I have a strange desire to do it now" ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

As has been pointed out in the past, God works through people.

Just to note that "pointed out" implies that something is actually verifiably true. What you meant to say there I think was something like "asserted" or "claimed".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

His kids went to the Oratory from what I remember and that's probably his idea of a faith school, or was.  I expect he knows different now.  Indeed, when I first heard talk about 'faith schools' I assumed they were like the innocuous girls' convent school in Bromley, the 'Christ the King' comprehensive sixth form college at Sidcup and the CofE primary near where my mum lived.  I was naive and, of course, quite wrong.  A faith school is often a place where very narrow views are indoctrinated into kids, evolution didn't happen, anyone on the outside is spawn of the devil, goodness knows what else.  Scary.  I know I exaggerate here but all sorts go on behind closed doors, despite OFSTED.

It'd be wrong to tarnish them all with the same brush I think - presumably there are degrees of religiosity between them - but yes, a faith school is a very different set up to a school that happens to have "St." in front of its name. Clearly teaching nonsense to children is a bad idea, but they foster too a "now let's be all inclusive, but we really know don't we children that we're right, the chosen ones whereas those heathens over there, well, you know bless 'em they do their best but they're never going to get the rewards coming our way in the hereafter now are they?" type attitude that's bad for society as a whole, and for that matter for the pupils who believe it.

That's why I think they're one of the crappier parts of TB's legacy.

[Owlswing]

Brownie,

It'd be wrong to tarnish them all with the same brush I think - presumably there are degrees of religiosity between them - but yes, a faith school is a very different set up to a school that happens to have "St." in front of its name. Clearly teaching nonsense to children is a bad idea, but they foster too a "now let's be all inclusive, but we really know don't we children that we're right, the chosen ones whereas those heathens over there, well, you know bless 'em they do their best but they're never going to get the rewards coming our way in the hereafter now are they?" type attitude that's bad for society as a whole, and for that matter for the pupils who believe it.

That's why I think they're one of the crappier parts of TB's legacy.

TB is, after all, a convert to Catholicism and thus appears to suffer from the rather higher level of fanaticism of the convert, whether it be to Catholicism or non-smoking. Converts seem to be far more veherment in their attachment to and support of whatever they convert to than those brought up with the subject

[Brownie]

That's true of some Owlswing though he had been around Catholicism all his married life and I would think Cherie is fairly mainstream. 

My idea of a fanatical convert is one who embraces all the "frills" of Catholicism, eg shrines, relics, Opus Dei, penance.  I am a convert too, a very long time ago, but now lapsed though I still retain an affection for the fairly liberal, post-Vat ll Church that I joined.  However I came across others who wanted to be more Catholic than established Catholics:) like the types of convert described above (& found them disconcerting and rather embarrassing to be honest).

I wouldn't have put Tony Blair in that category but I suppose we don't know much about his personal faith, it is his private business after all, so you may be right.

(Nice to see you still here btw, hope you stay because you see things from different angles to many of us; no flattery intended, just how I view your posts.)

[Spud]

His kids went to the Oratory from what I remember and that's probably his idea of a faith school, or was.  I expect he knows different now.  Indeed, when I first heard talk about 'faith schools' I assumed they were like the innocuous girls' convent school in Bromley, the 'Christ the King' comprehensive sixth form college at Sidcup and the CofE primary near where my mum lived.  I was naive and, of course, quite wrong.  A faith school is often a place where very narrow views are indoctrinated into kids, evolution didn't happen, anyone on the outside is spawn of the devil, goodness knows what else.  Scary.  I know I exaggerate here but all sorts go on behind closed doors, despite OFSTED.

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

[Gordon]

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?

No - it would be a good thing to encourage children to question.

So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Based on well-founded knowledge regarding evolution this would be a bad thing, since creationism is nonsense and no competent teacher would teach it: an incompetent teacher might, which is why we need to keep these teachers away from the education of our children.

I suspect most parents would share my view.

[floo]

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Children should be taught to question everything. We brought our kids up to do that.

[Owlswing]

That's true of some Owlswing though he had been around Catholicism all his married life and I would think Cherie is fairly mainstream. 

My idea of a fanatical convert is one who embraces all the "frills" of Catholicism, eg shrines, relics, Opus Dei, penance.  I am a convert too, a very long time ago, but now lapsed though I still retain an affection for the fairly liberal, post-Vat ll Church that I joined.  However I came across others who wanted to be more Catholic than established Catholics:) like the types of convert described above (& found them disconcerting and rather embarrassing to be honest).

I wouldn't have put Tony Blair in that category but I suppose we don't know much about his personal faith, it is his private business after all, so you may be right.

(Nice to see you still here btw, hope you stay because you see things from different angles to many of us; no flattery intended, just how I view your posts.)

O K DA

I did not say ALL converts - but is certainly a symptom of MANY converts!

[Owlswing]

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Some people could read posts on this forum and assume that some posters have passed from ignorance to stupidity without passing through intelligence.

[Owlswing]

No - it would be a good thing to encourage children to question.

Based on well-founded knowledge regarding evolution this would be a bad thing, since creationism is nonsense and no competent teacher would teach it: an incompetent teacher might, which is why we need to keep these teachers away from the education of our children.

I suspect most parents would share my view.

Totally agreed!

This is why teachers of Creationism are not employed as such if they are circumcised - they have to be complete pricks!

[Brownie]

Some people could read posts on this forum and assume that some posters have passed from ignorance to stupidity without passing through intelligence.

 

------------------
Spud:  "If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?"

No, children should challenge everything they are taught.   However there are undoubtedly some teachers who would teach creationism as fact.  I knew some, a few years ago, actually.  One taught biology and gave it up because the National Curriculum required evolution to be taught.  The other two did not teach biology so carried on, not mentioning their personal beliefs in class, but had they been required to do so they'd have had no hesitation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?

No. Children should be taught to question everything, just as you too should question your belief in creationism. Sceptical enquiry is a good and useful thing in all fields.

So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Yes they might conclude that, but only if they'd been comprehensively and persuasively lied to about the facts of evolution and flight.

Questioning and being lied to are not however the same thing. 

[Enki]

If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing? So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Spud,

First of all, evolution is a part of science and therefore discussion of aerodynamics, bird flight, the anatomy of a wing and its evolutionary origins would be part of science lessons. Within that format, it might be quite sensible and appropriate to refer to such things as punctuated equilibrium or  aspects of Lamarckism. Questioning should of course be encouraged, and evidence and argument should be presented.

However, the idea that birds were simply created(presumably by some sort of 'god') would be an adulteration of any science lesson as this would not involve any scientific approach whatever. The only way in which it could be presented within a science lesson, I suggest, would be to discuss how people approached such questions in the absence or ignorance of scientific knowledge.

The proper place to approach such subjects in this way, however, would be within Religious Education lessons which should, of course, deal with a whole range of religions and religious ideas, and where questioning should,  indeed,  be the order of the day. 

[Owlswing]

------------------
Spud:  "If a faith school taught pupils to question evolution, would that be a bad thing?"

No, children should challenge everything they are taught.   However there are undoubtedly some teachers who would teach creationism as fact.  I knew some, a few years ago, actually.  One taught biology and gave it up because the National Curriculum required evolution to be taught.  The other two did not teach biology so carried on, not mentioning their personal beliefs in class, but had they been required to do so they'd have had no hesitation.

OK DA

[Brownie]

D'accord.

(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence.  Will let you know if things change.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence.  Will let you know if things change.)

I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?

[Owlswing]

Brownie,

I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?

Brownie

Ditto the above from me!

[BeRational]

D'accord.

(I am praying for some things atm without a lot of hope, I feel a bit depressed and resigned actually but have asked for prayers from others who have more confidence.  Will let you know if things change.)

Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!

[Owlswing]

Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!

Yeah - and not always for the better! Dammit!

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

Don't worry. Things will change, they always do!

Indeed, but the problem is that - for the Hopes of this world - if they change as he wants them to then that's God exercising his beneficence, and if they don't, well, God knows best in any case.

And the trouble with that of course is that it's indistinguishable from there being no God at all.

[Brownie]

Brownie,

I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling that way. Just out of interest though, if things do change as you'd like them to what conclusion would you draw about role of prayer?

Let's wait and see.  I am certainly very grateful for prayers and mindful of the Biblical story of the sick man lowered through the roof so that Jesus could see him;  Jesus took note of the prayers of those who helped the man, we don't hear of the man's prayers.

However I do apologise for mentioning something personal on this thread.  It seemed relevant but I know it can be annoying when a subject is being discussed and a poster jumps in with "I".  Best to keep things general.  Still I'm not going to delete it, no point in that now.
Thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Brownie,

Let's wait and see.  I am certainly very grateful for prayers and mindful of the Biblical story of the sick man lowered through the roof so that Jesus could see him;  Jesus took note of the prayers of those who helped the man, we don't hear of the man's prayers.

However I do apologise for mentioning something personal on this thread.  It seemed relevant but I know it can be annoying when a subject is being discussed and a poster jumps in with "I".  Best to keep things general.  Still I'm not going to delete it, no point in that now.

Thanks.

No need to apologise, and you didn't mention something personal in any case - just that you were concerned about something.

The question though doesn't relate to that "something" specifically, and nor for that matter to waiting to see what happens. Rather I was interested to know what conclusion you would draw about the effect of prayer if the things prayed for happened, and indeed if they did not.   

[floo]

BR,

Indeed, but the problem is that - for the Hopes of this world - if they change as he wants them to then that's God exercising his beneficence, and if they don't, well, God knows best in any case.

And the trouble with that of course is that it's indistinguishable from there being no God at all.

Exactly.

[jeremyp]

So they might have a module on flight, for example. First they would learn about aerodynamics and aircraft wings, then they could do birds, study the anatomy of a flight feather, look at the evidence for its evolution and conclude that no, birds were created and didn't go through millions of years of evolution.

Except that they wouldn't if they were presented the evidence honestly and they studied it with an open mind.