Priest is Father, Padre. Really?

Page 1 of 3123>
April 5th, 2015 at 3:50:58 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
"Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9)

Man O Man, do they ever dance their way
out of this one. Priests demand to be called
'father', even when Jesus didn't like the idea.
This sticks in the craw of Protestants like
you wouldn't believe. Talk about hubris..
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 5th, 2015 at 6:10:25 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Any serious student of Scripture would not have this 'stick in their craw'. Again I am sorry to say this, but I think you are just making these people up.

First of all throughout the Bible the use of father is used in a biological sense and to describe our ancestors; it is also used as a sign of respect or to describe someone with whom we have a special relationship. There are literally two many examples to cite but here is one, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). It is actually a biblical tradition to call our spiritual guides, fathers.

Secondly you could of course use common sense, which isn't all that common, and wonder did Jesus really mean that we should not call our fathers father? In the same verses he says not to call another person teacher or master? Do these Protestants you speak of never call someone doctor, which means teacher or never call someone mister, which comes from master? Do they not call their dad their father?

Finally, that means we are left with asking what Jesus meant by this teaching? I will let you discover that on your own if you are really interested, because it is a really great point. Remember that Jesus often uses hyperbole in His teaching to drive home something important. If you don't take it literally you will I think be edified.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
April 5th, 2015 at 7:34:52 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
Jesus never means what it looks like he
means, oh no. There are 14 different
ways to look at it, very entertaining.
And they're all right, just ask the people
spouting them. I knew this was a messed
up religion, but I really had no idea it
was this messed up.

I don't think there's even the kernel
of a religion in any of it. Jesus said
some nice things, that's about it.
All you can do is if you must be a
Christian, pick a version and hold
your nose and plug your ears and
hope for the best. Insanity.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 5th, 2015 at 8:41:39 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Or you might try to really discover through study and prayer what is the correct interpretation. Obviously, they can't all be right. Was there anything you disagreed with in my explanation or were you just ignoring my answer to make a point and really have no desire to enter into a discussion about this?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
April 6th, 2015 at 1:20:42 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
Quote: FrGamble
Or you might try to really discover through study and prayer


Anything I come up with thru study
is always wrong, according to you.
And prayer is a vast waste of time.
That's a proven fact. But you know
that, don't you.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 6th, 2015 at 2:14:53 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Getting the wrong answer is part of studying and learning. If you disagree with what I've said let me know. If not we learn something and that is a great thing. What worries me about you is that you have no interest in learning or studying these things about which you are so often confused. You have made up your mind and it is a mind that is horribly negative towards the Catholic Church.

It is a good thing you are wrong again about prayer. I will continue to pray for you.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
April 6th, 2015 at 8:42:45 AM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 239
Posts: 6095
Quote: Evenbob
That's a proven fact.


May I see the proof of that?
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
April 6th, 2015 at 9:17:52 AM permalink
reno
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 58
Posts: 1384
Quote: Wizard
May I see the proof of that?


In randomized controlled blind trials, the results are mixed. Depending on the ailment, sometimes prayer works; sometimes it doesn't.


Quote: National Institute of Health
Cha et al.[32] studied 219 consecutive infertile women, aged 26-46 years, who were treated with in vitro fertilization embryo transfer in Seoul, South Korea. These women were randomized into distant prayer and control groups. Prayer was conducted by prayer groups in the USA, Canada and Australia. The patients and their providers were not informed about the intervention. The investigators, and even the statisticians, did not know the group allocations until all the data had been collected. Thus, the study was randomized, triple-blind, controlled and prospective in design.

Cha et al.[32] found that the women who had been prayed for had nearly twice as high a pregnancy rate as those who had not been prayed for (50 vs. 26%; P <0.005). Furthermore, the women who had been prayed for showed a higher implantation rate than those who had not been prayed for (16.3 vs. 8%; P <0.001). Finally, the benefits of prayer were independent of clinical or laboratory providers and clinical variables. Thus, this study showed that distant prayer facilitates implantation and pregnancy.

Lesniak[33] described a study on the effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in a nonhuman primate species. The sample comprised 22 bush babies (Otolemur garnettii) with wounds resulting from chronic self-injurious behavior. These animals were randomized into prayer and control groups that were similar at baseline. Prayer was conducted for 4 weeks. Both groups of bush babies additionally received L-tryptophan. Lesniak[33] found that the prayer group animals had a greater reduction in wound size and a greater improvement in hematological parameters than the control animals. This study is important because it was conducted in a nonhuman species; therefore, the likelihood of a placebo effect was removed.


On the other hand...

Quote: National Institute of Health
Benson et al.[37] described a triple-blind, randomized controlled study that examined whether remote intercessory prayer influenced recovery after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and whether the certainty of being prayed for was associated with better outcomes. The sample comprised 1,802 patients in six hospitals in the USA. These patients were randomized into three groups: 604 were prayed for after being informed that they may or may not be prayed for, 597 were not prayed for after similarly being informed that they may or may not be prayed for and 601 were prayed for after being informed they would definitely be prayed for.

Prayer commenced one day before the surgery and continued for 14 days. Three mainstream religious sites prayed daily for patients assigned to receive prayer. Assessment of outcomes was made by nurses who were blind to the group assignments. The primary outcome was the presence of any complication within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes were any major event, including death. The study sought to examine the efficacy of intercessory prayer and not to test the presence of God. The design was described by Dusek et al.[38]

In the two groups that did not know for certain whether or not they were being prayed for, complications occurred in 52% of patients who received intercessory prayer and in 51% of those who did not. In contrast, complications occurred in a significantly larger proportion of patients (59%) who knew for certain that they were being prayed for. Major events and 30-day mortality rates, however, were similar across the three groups.

This study therefore showed that remote intercessory prayer did not improve outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In fact, the knowledge of being prayed for was associated with a slightly but significantly higher rate of postsurgical complications.


Prayer sometimes works to cure cancer. It absolutely never works to help an amputee grow a lost limb.
April 6th, 2015 at 11:34:34 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
Quote: Wizard
May I see the proof of that?


They've done study after study on people
who are on prayer lists. People who are sick
and get on lists where groups of people
pray for their recovery every day. The results
are always the same. The people on the lists
have exactly the same recovery rate as those
not on the list.

The people doing the praying laugh and laugh
when they see results like this. They wink and
nod at each other with knowing looks. They
know god 'chose' the ones who would live on
the prayer lists and those who lived on the non
prayer lists died randomly.

There is a name for this kind of thinking.
Circular reasoning. It's the opposite of scientific
method. You go into it knowing what the
result will be, so you twist whatever result you
get to fit your original premise. It's how most
religions work. I don't mean this as a personal
insult, but it's also what people in mental
institutions do.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 6th, 2015 at 11:41:23 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25013
Quote: FrGamble
you have no interest in learning or studying these things .


You mean I have zero interest in drinking
the Church Kool Aid, which is correct. The
institution that didn't apologize till 2000
for crimes it committed against Galileo
500 years ago. Organizations with that
much arrogance and hubris should never
be listened to on any subject.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
Page 1 of 3123>