Science Discovers the Benefits of Christianity
Category: Health, Science & Technology
Via: heartland-american • 6 years ago • 107 commentsBy: Micheal R. Shannon
This study is no surprise to the open minded among us. The benefits of religious observances and Christian life styles have been well known for some time. This is truly good news for most people.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN issued a study a while back that found regularly attending church may increase a Christian’s lifespan while at the same time helping “them stay grounded and [providing] spiritual guidance.” I’m guessing this positive benefit results from the additional sleep gained by snoozing during boring sermons.
Gary McCoy
Regular readers know this column normally takes a dim view of social “science” studies, but an exception will be made in this instance for two reasons. First no taxpayer dollars appear to have been wasted and two, there is no evidence of confirmation bias. The results no doubt came as a real shock to the Harvard team analyzing the data.
Specifically Prof. Tyler VanderWeele crunched the numbers from 75,000 nurses as part of a Nurses Health Study. This study asked if participants regularly attended Protestant or Catholic services during a 20–year period covering.
What the team probably expected to find was over the years — as the curve of history bent toward bathroom chaos — church attendance would drop off and attendance at homosexual weddings would increase, while those still clinging to church would show signs of clinical depression.
And there would be a statistically significant boost in Wicca adherents.
None of that happened. Instead researchers “found that women who went to church more than once a week had a 33 percent lower risk of dying during the study period compared with those who said they never went. Less-frequent attendance was also associated with a lower risk of death, as women who attended once a week or less than weekly had 26 percent and 13 percent lower risk of death, respectively.”
It’s obvious a nurse attending church events more than once a week wouldn’t have time for any vice as time–consuming as alcoholism, so cirrhosis was certainly out. But that’s not the only dangerous habit church helped avoid. Regardless of how inspiring the sermon was, these women “also had higher rates of social support and optimism, had lower rates of depression and were less likely to smoke.”
These results are enough to send pastors, priests and the chairmen of building committees jumping for joy, but Harvard scientists were, to put it mildly, less enthusiastic. Although it pains him so say so, those homo–haters may be on to something: “Our study suggests that for health, the benefits outweigh the potentially negative effects, such as guilt, anxiety or intolerance,” VanderWeele sniffed.
The study didn’t include other religions, although dietary restrictions alone would appear to give Orthodox Jews a leg up. On the other hand, results for Islam would be very dependent on whether or not the mosque offers advanced explosive classes.
Naysayers pooh–pooh the results by contending church attracts people who are already healthy, since they are more mobile. This just proves those atheists have never attended a traditional service — also known as the “assisted living” service — in a Baptist church. There the sermon and gentle hiss of portable oxygen serves to lull everyone to sleep.
Even with the results in, the meaning appears to elude our secular observers. CNN interviewed Dr. Dan Blazer of Duke University who contends that since most Americans tell pollsters they are “spiritual” going to church puts their actions congruent with their beliefs.
But people don’t go to church because they are “spiritual,” they go to church because they are Christians. The “spiritual” people are communing on the 9 th hole or contorting themselves into yoga pants.
Blazer said the jury is still out on whether praying and reading the Bible also increase longevity, but like the Jewish grandmother says, “It couldn’t hurt!”
One almost feels sorry for the good doctors. Heretofore they had pitied these poor, superstitious people with their invisible deity. Science was perfectly willing to let them practice their harmless rituals as long as it didn’t interfere with the catering at same–sex weddings.
But now Baptists have managed to extend life and worse yet, they are doing it to conservatives!
How do they approach these people? It’s more awkward than Mike Bloomberg dining on scrapple with a coal miner.
Blatz is ready to delegate contact to primary care doctors. “…the doctor can help ensure they maintain a good relationship with their church, temple or mosque.” In other words take two Sunday services and one dinner in Fellowship Hall and call me in two weeks.
The truth is Christianity is a social engineer’s dream. A study in the UK, reported by The Telegraph, found religious people “are healthier and take fewer sick days.” In addition, “more religious a person is, the less likely they are to suffer from anxiety, depression or exhaustion.”
This is fiscal heaven in connection with Medicare for All. Fewer users mean lower costs. Backsliders thinking about jettisoning God, Jesus and sin, may discover under Bernie’s administration that HHS has made Christianity mandatory for everyone baptized before 2020.
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
I can see this. A key benefit of religion is that it does indeed bring comfort. Comfort reduces stress and that is good for longevity.
I would recommend a nutritious diet, exercise, interesting past-times, etc. as a better approach to managing stress. But for those who are inclined to believe something simply because other human beings claimed it is true sans evidence, then at least there is a benefit of comfort and a corresponding reduction is life-shortening stress.
What's the old saying TiG: "[willful] Ignorance is bliss"
Yet another irrational and wholly unsubstantiated claim.
And not surprising in the least.
Why? What would be better about that?
If you took my entire comment as a whole it would make more sense:
It should be no surprise to you that I would not recommend people believe in something sans evidence to reduce stress but rather to take direct actions that are good for the body and mind. But if some use religion then that is net good because stress is a killer. If belief keeps one from dying young (and causes no other ill effects i.e. Islamic honor killings, homosexual persecution, ...) then that is a good thing.
WALLY GONE WILD!
Really this is more aptly titled: A Comforting Belief Might be Good for a Longer Life.
Note also that another comforting belief is Islam. Another is Buddhism. Another Hindu. Indeed, for some Scientology is a comforting belief.
Go figure, eh?
Meditation also has similar effects too.
If someone really wants to extend life I would suggest dropping Christianity and embracing Zen Buddhism .
Of course being unaffiliated (e.g. agnostic atheist, ...) is better.
But best is to be a Jew.
Christianity is a bit low on the list per Pew.
So, are you going to upgrade to Buddhism, Judaism or go full atheist to get that longer lifetime?
How so? Religious belief can have similar mental effects as meditation does: stress reduction and comfort, thereby promoting better health . Many religions also developed and/or incorporate meditation into their practices.
I do find myself to be quite content as an atheist.
There's a similar study done in Scotland, but it covered 65 years rather than only 25. It found that simply participating in a club at age 18 was associated with a 33% lower mortality rate at age 76. People who seek out the support of others live longer.
Married men live longer than single, and if you marry after 25, you live even longer. Church is just another club and it provides support, but there's doesn't appear to be anything more special about it than any other club. I come from an enormous family and many are practicing Catholics. It seems to be especially useful at life's end. Although not a believer myself, I see that it has a comforting effect on many. They believe they'll see the person again, and a church filled with people who care about their loved one obviously helps them. But, none of them wield their religion as cover for bigotry. This article on the goodness of going to church makes sure to mention homosexuality a couple times in a negative context, even though it is irrelevant. It's looking for justification to be bigoted.
Comfort is key I think.
Good point.
Out of curiosity, do you think many people follow a comment whose only content is a link?
I do not. I figure if the author of the comment does not feel it worth his time to make a point in his own words, I do not feel it is worth my time to investigate his link. I am not even curious.
I wonder how many others ignore comments that are nothing more than a link.
"All aboard the crazy train !!"
What on Earth are you talking about?
I think you have it backwards. It is certain sects of Christianity that openly persecute the LGBTQ community. You must be aware of this. You know, people using labels such as 'abomination', deeming their relationships a sin, etc. You are aware that some call for them to be put to death, right?
Very strange to see reality in exact opposition to what is actually happening.
You are projecting an 'I am better than you' message. Is that your intent?
No, it's the perfect response to the asinine BS you spew.
Wow, now that's hilarious. Tee old persecution complex shines through again. It's clearly been the LGBT community that has been "persecuted" by Christians. Not the other way around. By all means, I defy you to demonstrate where Christians have been "persecuted" by the LGBT community, or anyone else for that matter!
Who is the "we" you're always talking about?
[deleted]
Not all believe in your God or any God, so the God point is MOOT
would you prefer to be more on or less off ?
target
If someone routinely makes demonstrably ridiculous claims and is (of course) routinely challenged on same and then fails to ever meet the challenge, I suspect that individual might view his challengers as intellectually arrogant. I would recommend not making ridiculous claims such as: evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists.
Well said. My point is made.
I doubt anyone here is trying to persuade you of anything for obvious reasons. For me, the objective is to challenge absurd claims.
You claim knowledge of God’s laws because you read from a highly translated, errant book composed by many imperfect human being over thousands of years with no original source to review.
Accepting the Bible as divine is a fundamental mistake. That which contradicts itself is not something that should be held in such perfect regard.
Declaring continued proselytizing is not imparting any new information.
I wonder if you read the comment that you responded to. Not seeing the connection.
I told you that I doubt anyone is trying to persuade you of anything. Instead, I suspect the objective (it is for me) is to counter ridiculous claims.
Letting this
speak for itself.
Are you really Dr Laura?
Strawman.
Such an enlightened perspective.
Does that mean you literally believe that a beast with 10 heads will rise up out of the sea? And that 4 guys on horse back really will spread disease, war, and famine all over the earth?
Worse even:
and:
Great passages for the literal readers.
that's funny! She says the same shit you do about sex and marriage
Easy problem to solve. Stop looking into other peoples bedrooms.
Yeah....it is absurd. If they believe in the inerrant Word of God and literally believe every word, how come they don't have slaves any longer?
I ask my question above because I've always heard this bullshit about literal truth of the bible but when it comes to Revelation it's all allegorical. They don't believe that a literal Beast with 10 horns (or is it crowns? heads?) will rise out of the sea to take over the world.
But why is Revelation allegorical when the rest of the Bible is the literal truth?
This seems obvious to me.
If the Bible is the inerrant word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator of everything and sentient arbiter of objective morality, then why is it that the Bible never condemns as immoral the owning of another human being as property but instead makes rules for 'proper' enslavement?
Similarly, how is it that an omniscient creator, can be surprised or disappointed by His creations? How could God not know what Adam & Eve were going to do? Talk about the grand setup for failure. Like me placing raw meat in front of my dog and then punishing her for eating it. And then the moderated, wise punishment is to punish all their progeny for all of earthly time. Sound more like the musing of ancient men than the willful act of the grandest possible entity.
Some actually believe that God picks all the world's leaders and has done this for all of history.
And when the obvious questions are raised such as Stalin, Hitler, ..., Trump the response is that they (the evil ones) are part of God's greater plan. (The Lord works in mysterious ways.)
A beast with 10 heads has risen out of the sea and the media didn't cover it???????
That's a non-answer. Every other word in the Bible according to you is the literal truth, but now you're back tracking on the meaning of Revelation.
It's like parents and kids. We know they're gonna do something dumb but we get mad at them anyway. And then punish them for it. Then we curse them and tell them they are going to have kids just as bad as they are.
Maybe parents are God?
Why would God set such a monster like Hitler on his Chosen People? That makes ZERO sense. Stalin wasn't very nice to Jews, either.
The key difference though is parents do not actually control the kids. We did not create them nor do we have perfect knowledge of what they will do.
God, in contrast, ostensibly created Adam & Eve knowing full well what they would eventually do and then He punished everyone for it. The logic is ... bizarre.
The best answer you will get is akin to: 'The Lord works in mysterious ways'. The grand excuse to cease critical thinking and simply believe.
There is no logic.
eh-hem....I think I did create my children. I incubated them for a period of time after their dad did his job.
But...yeah...I never did control my kids. They did whatever they damn well pleased.
Oh yeah...the "Mommy, why is the sky blue?" question. And since you're exhausted you give the lame answer..."It just is"
By 'create' I meant 'designed'. We parents know all too well that kids do not behave the way we would prefer. We just have to work with whatever results from the 'process'. God, in contrast, has full control over all operations and chose (ostensibly) to make Adam & Eve in such a way that they would misbehave. That is the grand setup.
You sure set the bar quite low then. Of course, that's not something I'd be proud of.
That sounds like the definition of closed mindedness.
The Bible itself demonstrate's that statement to be false. But, if God is the arbiter of morality, then is slavery moral?
You are free to do so, just as anyone else is free to challenge them.
Those of us who believe in a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible in all matters
You mean like this :
Your first and last sentences are incoherent.
But I have to ask, what happened to the god in the first covenant ? Did y'all just kick that one to the curb ?
Even worse, there is no definition for the new covenant. It is not known what part of the old covenant (which itself is under debate; 'experts' disagree) is retained in the new. People who speak of old and new covenants do not know what they are talking about.
Deliver the authoritative source which defines what is included in the 'first covenant' and what is included in the 'second covenant'. The OT and the NT do not define these covenants so you need to do better than simply point to the Bible.
Unless you can deliver the authoritative source for these covenants (and I know that you cannot because the source does not exist) you are simply opining.
The best you (and anyone else) can do is give a general description of the covenants; I recommend you follow the lead of Judaism in this regard. You cannot, however, show that Mosaic law such as Leviticus 20:13 has carried forward and is still in effect. Important since Christians use the covenants to distance themselves from awkward parts of the OT and the distinctions in Judaism do not provide that for them.
Now this just cracks me up. I've known quite a few holy rollers who were hung over in the pews on Sunday morning.