New news?

MDX · Post by **MDX** » Sat May 07, 2005 10:06 am

I was listening to Paul Harvey the other day, and he mentioned something that caught my interest.

He said that a scientific study had concluded that attending weekly church services promoted good health. The study also showed that the mortality rating for churchgoers was drastically less than that of nonchurchgoers, and that those who go to church had greater self-esteem, better mental health, etc.

Now, while I think this is all well and good, I just have to ask: how long were PASTORS of those churches saying those same things? How long was this WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF? Why did it take over 2000 years for "the experts" to realize that spirituality is directly linked to physical wellbeing? I'm not saying they're wrong or they're stupid (or the same about any of y'all), but I just can't understand how something that obvious could go unnoticed for that long.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat May 07, 2005 10:28 am

There's a difference between proving a statistical trend (churchgoes live longer than non-churchgoers) and providing a causal relationship (a scientific reason for why going to church makes one live longer). This distinction is lost on your simple mind.

Long story short, the experts don't recognize that "spritituality is directly linked to physical wellbeing." It's not obvious at all, because there's no cause and effect relationship to go along with it.

Paul Harvey is a doddering old fool. And I'd like to see this "study".

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat May 07, 2005 10:49 am

"Among all my patients in the second half of life -- that is to say, over thirty-five -- there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. This of course has nothing to do with a particular creed or membership of a church. "
- psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961)

it is recognised DCrazy. a spiritual outlet is a known requirement for good mental health.
not nessesariliy christianity of course, but a form of spirituality none the less.

also it should be noted that religious wars are not that great either. i'm sure the many tribal religions that christianity CONVERTED to itself were quite mentally healthy - and likely even of GREATER health - when they followed their own relative cultural religions.

my point is that various religions all seem to specialise in certain aspects of mental health. yet the definition of what is good mental health has always been entirely dependant on the culture defining it. without a universal definition of mental health, judgements are meaningless.

christians oft think pagans are mentally unhealthy (immoral), and likewise pagans oft think christians are mentally unhealthy (disconnected).
interestingly a lot of religions have aspects of hypnosis within (even christianity with it's song and dance). hypnosis is all about connecting with your subconscious. and something important to Carl Jung's definition of mental health was "how we deal with our subconscious".

so basically, our respective cultural religions are very often our most accessable connection to our subconscious - and therefore intrinsicly connected to our MENTAL HEALTH. just as much as your kitchen and cooking habits are directly connected to your nutritional health.

not to mention the social "community" factor involved with most churches - which is probabaly very important as well, sociologically.

lol, i manage to entwine 2 passions of mine, psychology and sociology.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sat May 07, 2005 12:07 pm

DCrazy wrote:There's a difference between proving a statistical trend (churchgoes live longer than non-churchgoers) and providing a causal relationship (a scientific reason for why going to church makes one live longer). This distinction is lost on your simple mind.

Long story short, the experts don't recognize that "spritituality is directly linked to physical wellbeing." It's not obvious at all, because there's no cause and effect relationship to go along with it.

Paul Harvey is a doddering old fool. And I'd like to see this "study".

completely agree with DCrazy. Correlational data ==> no information about cause and effect. And I also would like to see the study.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sat May 07, 2005 1:03 pm

People who eat Ice Cream are far more likely to commit murder then people who dont, this is a fact.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat May 07, 2005 9:29 pm

DCrazy wrote:This distinction is lost on your simple mind.

Was this comment necessary? Let's try to keep things civil here.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue May 10, 2005 3:39 am

ahh that complete jung quote was actually:

Among all my patients in the second half of life -- that is to say, over thirty-five -- there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. It is safe to say that every one of them fell ill because he had lost what the living religions of every age have given to their followers, and none of them has really been healed who did not regain his religious outlook. This of course has nothing to do with a particular creed or membership of a church.

-Carl G. Jung

(bold bit new)

Cuda68-2 · Post by **Cuda68-2** » Tue May 10, 2005 4:30 am

WOW - Paul Harvey is still alive!!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue May 10, 2005 11:47 am

roid, that's an awesome example of context... the meaning of the quote changes entirely when you add in the second half of the quote.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue May 10, 2005 12:02 pm

meh, i read the full quote first a few weeks back. i couldn't find it again (until my 2nd post) and google came up with the shorter quote so i just used that in the meantime.

they both hold the same meaning in my "i know the full quote anyway" 4am eyes.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue May 10, 2005 11:29 pm

I think especially as one gets older, it's only natural to sometimes fixate on death. It's really hard to come to grips with something like that, no matter what your creed is. It's a very unknown thing, and religion or spirituality is just how some people deal with it.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed May 11, 2005 8:10 pm

oh, and lothar the 2 quotes may seem different because of the ambiguity of definitional difference between the words "spirituality" and "religiousness".
(the first quote seeming to talk about religiousness, the 2nd quote seems to talk more about spirituality)

see how these 2 expressions conjure up different images:

- religiousness is important.

- spirituality is important.

where really the definitions are almost identical, our perceieved difference between them is mostly cultural and social stigma.

TheCops · Post by **TheCops** » Wed May 11, 2005 8:39 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:I think especially as one gets older, it's only natural to sometimes fixate on death. It's really hard to come to grips with something like that, no matter what your creed is. It's a very unknown thing, and religion or spirituality is just how some people deal with it.

Actually, it plays out kind of weird. When I was 29 I really freaked out because I could no longer vomit on a cop and chalk it off to youth.

But now I don't care at all. Maybe it would be nice to be married and whatever. Responsibilities come with that direction. But as far as mortality I could care more, Iâ??m not worried. What is â??hellâ?? going to be, a golf course with rich blue-eyed alcoholics?

Oh geez.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:56 pm

roid, if you summarize the quote it's easy to see why the two are so different. Here it is, sentence by sentence, summarized:

"All my older patients' problems have related to religion. Their illnesses were all due to losing what religion gave them, and none ever healed without regaining that. It didn't matter what religion."

If you just take the first sentence, it seems like he's saying "everyone's problems are because religions have bad effects." But if you read the whole quote, it's clear he's saying their problem wasn't that they were religious, but that they somehow lost some of the (possibly psychological) benefits of their religion, in other words, that those religions had good effects. It sounds completely opposite.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu May 12, 2005 12:04 am

ah. ok i'll change the original quote to the full quote so no-one else misunderstands.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Mon May 16, 2005 5:36 pm

MDX, it is likely that our species has been an "expert" in spirituality since at least the past 100,000 years, with or without organized religions to shepherd those who don't or can't realize what we are. Religions are tools to control the masses; some or most instil guilt, shame and the fear of God into followers... How "good for you" is that ..? Many religions don't offer spirituality; they require adherance to the script in order for one to feel "good" or "saved" or "not in trouble with God".

...Yay Roid ! .. Certainly there are many people to quote, but Carl Jung is a prime source to go to when trying to explain spirituality, or synchronicity, and God, vs Religion ... ...

Here's a "Spirituality 101" movie:

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

.. it also covers mechanisms to explain the apparent peculiarity of synchronicity. The movie is a little cheesy perhaps, but to explain this amount of a spiritual gestalt all at once, the film has to resort to a few 'tricks' or gimicks ( like the props of the IV-drip-emotional-squeeze-bags with coloured liquids in them...)

I personally would be a disfunctional, unfulfilled, depressed person if I didn't have a 'spiritual' sense of awareness, or consciousness through which I can experience what God is. I never went to any church to get this sense of self, I've derived it through experience.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:32 pm

that seems like an excelent movie, i'll try to see it this week.

1ACE1 · Post by **1ACE1** » Mon May 16, 2005 9:46 pm

also it should be noted that religious wars are not that great either. i'm sure the many tribal religions that christianity CONVERTED to itself were quite mentally healthy - and likely even of GREATER health - when they followed their own relative cultural religions.

You really should research that before stating somethings like that. There are plenty of examples of people who have been converted. Christianity isn't forced upon them. They end up being better than before because of them being losed from the bondage of their former tribal religions. Then try to see how many leave Christinity that obviously never were if you know what to look for. These people, once they belive in God, and Jesus, have a huge hunger for the Bible, and fervency to tell others. This is because of mans sin issue. God has provided the cure for something far worse than cancer through His Son, freedom from being in bondage to sin, and being bound for hell.

Any of you want to talk about experiential knowlege? Try comparing what has happened to people at their conversions. Its far more dramatic than any new years resolution you have made. This is not always the case, but you see the true believers turn from what they were, and become renewed.

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Tue May 17, 2005 6:14 pm

..This is what I mean: religion might predispose one to, as 1ACE1 puts it, believe that:

"God has provided the... freedom from being in bondage to sin, and being bound for hell" ...

.. I must be one of the lucky ones, since I was never bound for hell, and although my conscious experience is "bound" by an ego, it certainly isn't wrapped in sin. Lucky me .. !

1ACE1, Religion has you "bound" by a doctrine, that is inaccurate, old and foosty, and certainly not to be interpreted literally. In that other thread started by The Cops, Biblical scholars to me sound like some endless philosophy club that rehash and reinterpret the Bible, argue and defend parables and gospel and the books. In that way you could still go and argue how many angels will fit in the head of a pin ! That is, if you didn't have any more "data" to rely on other than a > 2000 year old book...

1ACE1 .. why don't you try to watch this movie; see if it introduces any more "data" to add to your world view... ( I chuckled when you said the Bible offers "data" in that other thread.)

http://www.whatthebleep.com/

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue May 17, 2005 8:45 pm

1ACE1, don't pay too much attention to El Ka Bong. He also believes the Bible is a book about mushrooms.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue May 17, 2005 11:00 pm

paul harvey is a crock of ★■◆●. he also claims certain brands of vitamin C will cure cancer. go PH

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Wed May 18, 2005 12:33 am

..yes ACE1.. just let me spew ! .. (powerups preferrably)... ! And regarding that other thread, jusy let my convulsive contributions be just a few grains to crunch on as we chew through those biblical length threads...!

and, Lothar, don't forget the Secret Fertility Cult part, ... I'm in for that ! mushrooms or not !..

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Wed May 18, 2005 6:45 am

I saw that "What the Bleep Do We Know" movie on the recommendation of some friends.

It made me mad. It starts out posing as a science movie, with a lot of physicists and doctors saying some pretty cool things. Then they extrapolate those things into impossiblilities, and by the end you realize it's a crystal-worshipper movie. At the ending credits you realize they weren't scientists and doctors, but just crazy people, one of whom was actually "channeling" someone else. Or something.

Now, if you approach it as an "alternative spirituality" movie maybe you can take something away from it. But I think you'd have to be pretty far out there.

No offense intended, Ka Bong!

El Ka Bong · Post by **El Ka Bong** » Wed May 18, 2005 12:52 pm

... NO offence taken Genghis... That movie does resort to cheesy gimicks to convey its message, which is one that we are used to hearing from the crystal gazer-types, I agree. ..Nothing about String Theory either... which makes it appear dated, or incomplete as far as the physics that's 'covered' by the movie...

However in my life recently, and for about 25 years I have had many synchronistics events occurr that are absolutely astounding. Actually when my father died in 1977 is when these kinds of synchronicities started to happen in a big way. The probablilty of events happening as the do, in the order they do is what has begun to amaze me more and more.

I may sound like a far out crystal gazer in trying to say these things, to those who have not found reality to be this way. "Coincidence" and fluke events, even those involving the death of people are not random events.

I have also had other experiences that show up just how much our psyche's have evolved to make us have a sense of separateness from our entire environment, or from the universe, and each other. These experiences have included the ones derived from chemical amusement aids, where my ego has dissolved a bit while "under the influence".

But the most astounding 'coincidnces' have occurred to me all on their own, with no prior mind altering pursuits. These synchronistic events suggest to me that the way we think, act, or just "show up" in reality very much affects evrything; I can conjure my fate by tuning into this connectedness.

The movie What the Bleep... attempts to give a model of how this is, or comes about once the "separateness" we all are stuck in gets broken through... And the barriers to this are our emotional states we depend on, our societal beliefs and values, indoctrinations etc etc...

So as an example of a non-religious way to address the cosmos, as Crystal Gazing as it might sound, What The Bleep does a fair job at making a movie or pseudo-documentary about this.