6 edits
For any seriously interested in helping to have a more effective prayer life.
Derek Prince - How To Get Your Prayers Answered Part 1.
Part 1
Part 2
There are SIX Parts to this message.
Scoffers will never make it through 5% of the lecture. Don't even bother listening. Don't bother listening until you find something to complain about. I'm not interested in your complaint.
Others who thirst for effective prayer life, this series of videos is pretty good.
Some things mentioned in Part 1 are clarified in latter Parts ( 6 in all).
Originally posted by sonshipYes Mr Infallible who can't handle anything that goes against his beliefs.
Scoffers will never make it through 5% of the lecture. Don't even bother listening. Don't bother listening until you find something to complain about. I'm not interested in your complaint.
I am not scoffing or complaining, I am asking what those that ask others to join in a prayer actually believe. Its just that they talk of prayer but don't seem to take it seriously. For example the OP of this thread seems like a roundabout way for the poster to complain about someone he doesn't like. He doesn't want to be accused of being unChristian or anything, so he tries to make himself look all righteous.
If people genuinely believe that prayer is efficacious then surely they would put all their efforts into dealing with some of the worlds major problems and saving lives, instead of wasting it all on petty grudges on internet forums.
3 edits
A very good systematic treatment of effective prayer in book form:
Lessons on Prayer Witness Lee
http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?id=22EACE
Opening Table of Contents:
1.The Meaning of Prayer
2.The Principles of Prayer
3.The Man of Prayer
4.The Life of Prayer
5.The Spirit of Prayer
6.The Mind of Prayer
7.The Emotion of Prayer
8.The Will and Prayer
9.The Conscience and Prayer
10.The Heart for Prayer
11.Prayer and Abiding in the Lord
12.Prayer and the Lord's Word
13.The Cross and Prayer
14.Life Supply and Prayer
15.Life Illumination and Prayer
16.The Necessity for Prayer to Be in Resurrection
17.Ascension and Prayer
18.The Prayer of Warfare
19.Fasting and Prayer
20.In the Lord's Name and Prayer
Also recommended, the biography of George Mueller. [edited]
Also recommend, "Christ in the School of Prayer" by Andrew Murray.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by twhiteheadand if its effective why is there no statistical evidence. shouldnt we find christians being less likely to die of cancer or less likely to have infant deaths or car accidents and so on.
Seriously, if prayer is effective, why aren't you asking us to end world hunger or cure AIDS. I have lost several friends to AIDS, yet you just stood by and let them die.
Originally posted by sonshipThese links are a waste of time.
Wikipedia on John Nelson Hyde alias "Praying Hyde"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Hyde
[b]Praying Hyde of India
http://gloryofhiscross.org/apostle4.HTM[/b]
Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific/medical journal papers (or meta-analyses) that you think support the idea that prayer is efficacious?
4 edits
Originally posted by sonshipHere's a meta-analytic review I found:
Wikipedia on John Nelson Hyde alias "Praying Hyde"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nelson_Hyde
Praying Hyde of India
http://gloryofhiscross.org/apostle4.HTM[
Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.
Masters KS, Spielmans GI, Goodson JT.
SourceDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, NY 13244-2340, USA. kemaster@syr.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of alternative treatments for illness is common in the United States. Practitioners of these interventions find them compatible with personal philosophies. Consequently, distant intercessory prayer (IP) for healing is one of the most commonly practiced alternative interventions and has recently become the topic of scientific scrutiny.
PURPOSE: This study was designed to provide a current meta-analytic review of the effects of IP and to assess the impact of potential moderator variables.
METHODS: A random effects model was adopted. Outcomes across dependent measures within each study were pooled to arrive at one omnibus effect size. These were combined to generate the overall effect size. A test of homogeneity and examination of several potential moderator variables was conducted.
RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.
EDIT: Ann Behav Med. 2006 Aug;32(1):21-6.
Originally posted by sonshipSo some peoples prayers are more powerful than others? But why hasn't a single one of them prayed for something really important like world peace, or a cure for AIDS? Instead, the best you can do is present someone who made 400 converts in India, and apparently killed himself with all that prayer.
Another man , a coal miner, of powerful prayers.
Originally posted by LemonJelloHere is another I found:
Here's a meta-analytic review I found:Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.
Masters KS, Spielmans GI, Goodson JT.
SourceDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, NY 13244-2340, USA. kemaster@syr.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of alternative treatments for illness is common in the Uni ...[text shortened]... not be allocated to this line of research.
EDIT: Ann Behav Med. 2006 Aug;32(1):21-6.
A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer
David R. Hodge (Arizona State University)
Research on Social Work Practice 2007; 17; 174
Quote from Abstract:
Perhaps surprisingly, many social workers appear to use intercessory prayer in direct practice settings. To help
inform practitioners’ use of this intervention, this article evaluates the empirical literature on the topic using the
following three methods: (a) an individual assessment of each study, (b) an evaluation of intercessory prayer as
an empirically supported intervention using criteria developed by Division 12 of the American Psychological
Association (APA), and (c) a meta-analysis. Based on the Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer was classified
as an experimental intervention. Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory
prayer (g = –.171, p = .015). The implications are discussed in light of the APA’s Presidential Task Force on
Evidence-based Practice.
Quote from Final Conclusion:
Practitioners who adhere to Division 12 criteria have
little basis for using intercessory prayer, in spite of
a meta-analysis indicating small, but significant, effect
sizes for the use of intercessory prayer. Most practitioners,
however, are likely to affirm the broader understanding
of evidence-based practice articulated in the
APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based
Practice (2006). Such practitioners may believe that the
best available evidence currently supports the use of
intercessory prayer as an intervention.
Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be
considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most certain
result stemming from this study is the following:
The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or
opponents of intercessory prayer.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYour meta analytical study is a waste of time.
Here's a meta-analytic review I found:Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review.
Masters KS, Spielmans GI, Goodson JT.
SourceDepartment of Psychology, Syracuse University, NY 13244-2340, USA. kemaster@syr.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of alternative treatments for illness is common in the Uni ...[text shortened]... not be allocated to this line of research.
EDIT: Ann Behav Med. 2006 Aug;32(1):21-6.
You may need these "peers". The believers don't.
We have our own surrounding "cloud of witnesses".
Originally posted by sonshipIf your cloud of witnesses say one thing and the scientific method says another, science wins every time. The funny thing is, that if it was a scientific study that involved your personal safety, such as vehicle or aircraft safety, you would rely on the science and ignore the advertising agency.
Your meta analytical study is a waste of time.
You may need these "peers". The believers don't.
We have our own surrounding [b]"cloud of witnesses".[/b]