Netami's Religion Thread

[Reese Tora]

This arguement is just going to go on forever and ever until someone gets bored and walks away.

Isn't that how all internet arguments are won?  Keep head-butting till one gets bored and the remaining person is the victor? 

I always thought the victor was the other guy.

[Netami]

I always thought the victor was the other guy.

Actually, it depends on who has the most support for their view at the time.

[Damaris]

Superluser, you completely ignored the actual question as to why it matters if you're constantly questioning your faith.  Why bother if you're not sure?

[Darkmoon]

Dear lords, people, you're missing the point of it all. It's not the specific rule. I picked one that seemed like one people could debate easily without a lot of contention. Instead you got fixated on the specific rule...

Oh, and for the record, I said no meat on Fridays. I didn't say no meat on Friday's during Lent. At one point, you weren't supposed to eat meat on Fridays at all.

But, for the record, it seems less like you're questioning the rules and more like you're simply following them. Jesus sacrificed himself, huh? Great. You make a small sacrifice by not eating meat? Aren't there better sacrifices to make? Couldn't it be a "do an hour of community service on Fridays" instead?

And, for that matter, why even bother with the sacrifice? Why bother with any of it. Jesus died for your sins. If you believe in him, and believe in God (which follows from believe in Jesus), and, if you're Catholic, you don't commit suicide, aren't you guaranteed into heaven, no harm no foul?

Seems little tangible point to giving up tasty meats on Fridays...

[Netami]

It's all about personal integrity, man. If you can give up something you enjoy a lot, even that much is still worth it! I'm not saying there's some Chuck E Cheese style turn in for sacrificial points or anything, it's all about how you feel after you do something. Maybe I gave up eating meat every friday, or just ONE friday, or maybe I spend my entire life working community service. As long as you feel like you're contributing, that's all that matters! The stereotype of people buying away their guilt is faulty only because the people tend to not feel fulfilled afterwards or do so coming from a rotten point. "Don't badger me, I paid my dues!" is a terrible response to such an inquiry. People should be proud of any contribution, any sacrifice, no matter how large or small.

This is how I feel people should approach their spirituality. Never compare yourself to one another, and though you can certainly learn from others and try to mimic their lifestyles, ultimately you should forge your own path. No one lives the same life, no one has the same amount of this or that... Maybe you're not great at giving things up or making personal sacrafices, as long as you begin your day with a positive outlook and live by example then who can deny you?!

[Damaris]

Most Christian organizations?  "Feeling" is for bleeding heart liberals, don't ya know.

[Netami]

T_T Feeling is what spirituality is all about! Your personal relationship with God, or  the universe, or whatever deity you feel for. I cannot stand organized religions that would deny people's personal conclusions simply because they do not fit in with the mold. I have a problem with that whole lawful spectrum, if you haven't noticed. 

[King Of Hearts]

Limbus Puerorum isnt recognized by the Catholic faith anymore, I believe it was revoked sometime this year. Unbaptized babies now go to heaven.

[Brunhidden]

i find it mildly amusing that they can change stuff like that, as though the pope sends a memo on a balloon notifying the middle management where the paperwork gets filed now.

Thor says- It's hammer time!

[Netami]

I wonder how many people would be that much happier if the catholic church wasn't around anymore. I wonder how many people would be lost in the tide without it.

[Darkmoon]

Last I had heard, most catholics were supposed to loathe their religion, not embrace it.

Netami, you obviously are questioning, which is great, good for you. That was what I was looking for. Not blindly following the rules. Questioning isn't about regugitating the answer the church tells you. Questioning is going "is the church even necessary to begin with if I believe in God and all that jazz (fossy hands)."

Or, you know, you take it 8 steps further, abandon all attempts at organized religion, pick and choose what feels right to you, abandon the concept of deities, and live the comfy life because you're just doing what you're doing, no regrets.

[Alondro]

My faith has only 10 main rules.  They're found in Exodus 20.  Who could argue that if everyone followed those, especially the last 6 which refer to how people treat each other, the world would not be a much better place? 

Humans have made religions over-complicated.  The intricate rules and ceremonies are there because the religious elite need them to keep control.  It's indoctrination.  My own religion, Seventh Day Adventist, has its own problems in some churches with people trying to indoctrinate vegetarianism.  And as I like to point out, potato chips are vegetarian but you'll die if you sit around eating those all day.

As a scientist, I seek fact.  And as someone who has a great deal of contact with other scientists, I can say quite certainly that a large number of scientists have not jumped aboard the atheist bandwagon.  Why?  Because the more we discover, the more we realize we don't understand very much. 

I find it funny that people are willing to jump aboard theories of cosmic strings and branes which even the people who come up with them say there is practically no way to test them, since the other dimensions that must exist for them to be correct can never be detected, yet they easily dismiss the idea of a god.

If the universe itself can spring from a single point, the mechanism of which is not even remotely understood itself, and no theory addresses it because that very event cannot even be minutely explained by physics, then how hard is it to perhaps accept the possibility that an intelligence as vast as the universe itself could be watching things unfold?  Many models of the universe predict that other universes must exist, and also that our universe is not the first, and that perhaps universes have been forming and fading forever forward and backward in time.  But there is no proof of that.  There will never be any proof unless someone finds a way to look outside our own dimension.

Physics itself is reaching well beyond logic and fact and delving deeply into philosophical realms.  Steven Hawkings himself, while not saying openly if he believes God (as in, the Christian God) exists, has implied that he believes there may be something out there guiding things.

The probabilities of our universe existing as it does, habitable by our type of life, are so remote that either our form of universe is overwhemingly highly favored by quantum principles (for reasons no one can even guess at), or we have had a one in a trillion lucky shot, or some vast power and intellect (or intellects) have taken a role in shaping it in deliberate fashion.

As to which religion is correct, or the most correct, that's a matter of faith. 

In any case, when we die, we'll find out once and for all who was right, won't we?  At that point, all beliefs will be moot as what happens next will be proof beyond all manner of doubt. 

My belief in God hasn't hindered my science research in the least, as I do not foolishly try to 'prove' God through it as some people have done.  I think that sort of thing is arrogant beyond description.  God will not demonstrate Himself like that, as if humans can command or trick Him into doing so with idiotic bacterial growth experiments.  Were I God, I know I would be insulted by such a display.  Those who planned the experiment obviously hadn't even taken the time to read Jesus' words.  had they, they would have known the experiment would show nothing.  That was the point of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, not to show heaven or hell, but instead to demonstrate that even if the prophets were brought back from the dead to warn certain people about the truth, they would still not believe. 

I allow my science to do the things that science does best:  improve life and discover new things about how the world works.  And my religious beliefs to do what they do best: give hope for an eternity of exploring the universe from one end to the other and knowing the Being who shaped it, as well as all the other creatures/entities/ whatnot which also share the universe on myraid unknown planets in the billions of galaxies.

Simply put, I do not limit the universe or God by any foolish arrogance or useless traditions that man invented after Jesus taught the very simple way to follow God:  Love God with all thy heart and soul and mind, and love thy neighbor as thyself.  All the other things will fall into place by themselves if one truly desires to do those first two. 

And I have one final thing to say.  True, religion doesn't guarantee everyone will be good by a long shot.  But a country without any religion at all is a disaster.  That sort of thing is a very modern invention.  In the past, even the tiniest island culture had a religion.  There have been only a small number of nations that have totally rejected the idea of religion.  Communism and fascism generally place man as the center of the world.  And in nations where those social models were enacted, the worst atrocities of human history took place.  If religion doesn't guarantee the goodness of humanity, the lack of any religion practically guarantees disaster.  And that is based on the facts of history.  So too is it the case that religions with violence as their basis will fail.  I predict that in only a few years we will see the final course of events inevitable by the pattern of extremist growth in Islam. 

Simply put, both apathy and anger lead nowhere.  That's why I'll stick with the message of Jesus:  "For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved."

Atheism will never lead to peace.  I've seen them murder each other just as readily as those who claim to believe in a God, but whose actions speak otherwise to the belief only in greed, selfishness, lust, and a thirst for power at all costs.  When I say I believe in God, I mean that.  I do not put my faith in mankind, because mankind is unsteady and changeable as the wind.  A house built on sand will not stand the storm. 

The great leaders of modern history, remembered for their courage in the face of overwhelming adveristy, relied on their faith for their strength.  Winston Churchill was one such man.  Often he expressed his faith, even when the Nazis looked unstoppable and only a few short weeks from seizing totaly control of Europe.  Yet he endured, and the people of Britain endured, by divine grace or by merely the strength of will their faith endowed them with, we shall not know unless we have the opportunity to ask of God ourselves.  But compare Churchill now with Adolf Hitler.  Hitler's reponse to losing was the suicide of himself, Eva Braun, and their children. 

Religion promises hope; atheism promises oblivion.  Given the two choices, I'll take hope.  If death is the end for both, I'll choose the path that at least brings peace to my heart and a reason to strive for something better.  The alternative is the despair and emptiness that drove the murderous teenagers in Columbine to ask questions of the students they were shoothing "Where's your God now?".

People don't understand why things which are terrible happen in this world.  They say, "Why would God allow something like that?"  The answer is actually very simple.  Freedom of choice, which also means that the consequences of those choices must be allowed to occur.  And choices made thousands of years ago can affect life today.  If the Bible and the Q'ran are correct at all in their histories, the Abraham's choice to have a son with Hagar has led to every Mideast conflict there has ever been, for the purist Arabians trace their lineage back to Hagar and Abraham.  The actions of cause and effect must be allowed to fully play out for the universe to understand why God's law is what it is.  Lucifer made the claim that God's law was unfair, and himself believed he could do better if he were 'like the Most High'.  That is the sole basis for the great controversy, God's law vs Lucifer's anarchy; which is truly the best way?  There had never been any real choice before, not because God forbid it, but because there had never been any evil to choose before.  Once it came to be through Lucifer's rebellion, God obeyed his own law of choice by not simply exterrminating Lucifer and the rebel angels instantly.  This world then became the staging ground where the results of living outside of God's will could be seen to their utmost ends; as much as God suffers to see it, He must obey His own laws, or the laws are meaningless.

As for Lucifer himself, his purpose is not one of ruling hell, or to punish the evildoers.  No, his purpose now is personal vengeance, for when Jesus died on the cross as the pure 'Lamb of God', fulfilling that part of the law that the wages of sin is death (as was the analogy of Aslan's death in place of Edmund, for those who didn't know), Lucifer lost.  His only purpose now is to destroy as many people as possible out of pure spite.  It's literally a 'scorched Earth' mentality.  He's going to be destroyed, but he'll take as many as he can with him to cause God pain.

Well, perhaps a little long-winded, but if we're going to be discussing what we believe and why, I think it's best to get as much evidence out there as I can.  After all, what point is it to discuss the logic of one belief vs another if no one has all the evidence of either to choose between?  You can't made an educated choice until you're completely educated.

And that is a very logical manner of thinking, no?   

[superluser]

Superluser, you completely ignored the actual question as to why it matters if you're constantly questioning your faith.  Why bother if you're not sure?

Er... I don't think I understand what you're trying to say.

Darkmoon asked about people who accept their religion, deit(y/ies), and rules.  He then implied that people who do this accept their faith unquestioningly.  I'm simply saying that some people are constantly re-evaluating their faith.  I am one of these.  That doesn't mean that I'm not sure of what I believe, just that I don't take for granted that what I have believed in the past is true, or even what I believe now.

I'll give you an example--there's a verse in Matthew that says that Herod killed all the children in Bethlehem under two years old.  There was a time when I would have accepted that unquestioningly.  From what we do know of Herod, it's in keeping with his character, and events like that happened all the time back then (heck, they happen all the time today).  But outside of Matthew and one apocryphal work from AD 150, there is no mention of it--you would expect at least Josephus to comment on mass murder.  Once I heard that, I was forced to conclude that the event probably didn't happen.

So I'm constantly looking at my beliefs, re-evaluating them, and rendering opinions on them.  It shouldn't be odd that I come to the same conclusions over and over again--after all, I came to them the first time.

Oh, and for the record, I said no meat on Fridays. I didn't say no meat on Friday's during Lent. At one point, you weren't supposed to eat meat on Fridays at all.

Well, I wasn't sure if that's what you were referring to, so I chose to go with the current rule in the US.

And, for that matter, why even bother with the sacrifice? Why bother with any of it. Jesus died for your sins. If you believe in him, and believe in God (which follows from believe in Jesus), and, if you're Catholic, you don't commit suicide, aren't you guaranteed into heaven, no harm no foul?

No one's guaranteed a spot in Heaven, man! (Well, Jesus, but that's about it)

If you're baptized, haven't renounced the faith, and die in a state of grace, the Catholic Church teaches that you're probably going to get into Heaven, eventually.

The point of sacrifice and discipline is to keep you active and doing something that contributes to your faith, lest you find yourself outside of that state of grace.

Limbus Puerorum isnt recognized by the Catholic faith anymore, I believe it was revoked sometime this year. Unbaptized babies now go to heaven.

I mentioned this before.  Every few years, the Church says something like, ``We never considered Limbo to be a valid doctrine,'' and papers print headlines like the following:

Wineke: Catholic Church abandons limbo, Wisconsin State Journal, WI - Apr 25, 2007

Life After Limbo, Time v. 167 no. 2 (January 9 2006)

Pull plug on Limbo? Pontiff will decide, The Seattle Times (Seattle, WA) (Nov 30, 2005)

Whatever happened to limbo? U.S. Catholic v. 66 no. 8 (August 2001)

Shoring Up Satan, Closing Limbo, New York Times, 01/31/99

Dumping Limbo, Free Inquiry, Winter97/98

I believe the quote is ``Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,''

Which is radically different from what the Church said in 1992:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.  Indeed, the great mercy ... allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

See, instead of saying that there's reason to hope that unbaptized infants go to Heaven, the Church used to say that there's reason to hope that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

PS Alondro: dr;tl Did read, still too long.

[Damaris]

Yeah, I meant to say this earlier- but someone mentioned the purgatory thing to me, I hadn't seen the articles yet.  Obviously, they didn't realize the difference between purgatory and limbo, not being Catholic.

Alondro, I'm coming back to you, but I'm going to let your points stew for a while before I say what I personally think.

[Darkmoon]

If religion doesn't guarantee the goodness of humanity, the lack of any religion practically guarantees disaster.

I would debate that point. The US is in one of the worst states it's been in in years due to a president that has... well, too much religion for his own good. When teh US called itself an open society and we tried to take into account all religions and all walks of life (even if that was nearly 200 years ago), things in many respects were better. Not everything, and sure.

Maybe I'm idealizing, but no worse than you. Atheism isn't the evil of the world. People don't sit there going "I don't believe in god, so I can do whatever." Hell, even most satanists don't go around killing willy-nilly, and they have a religion that allows them to do anything they want so long as it makes them happy.

But that's the thing: in every religion, and in every walk of life, there are crazies that are going to go out and do stupid, crazy things. Can't control human nature through "the good book" and blind faith.

If you're baptized, haven't renounced the faith, and die in a state of grace, the Catholic Church teaches that you're probably going to get into Heaven, eventually.

The point of sacrifice and discipline is to keep you active and doing something that contributes to your faith, lest you find yourself outside of that state of grace.

Well then I'm just screwed. Never been baptized, never going to be baptized, and I don't really see the point in it anyway. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

[Amber Williams]

I've been baptized 3 times, each of them for different reasons, none of them being really my own will.

[Darkmoon]

Hey, apparently you're good for 3 different reason. You can be extra wrong and still be covered! Boss!

[thegayhare]

. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

This is what I've believed for the longest time
In a world thats as vast as this one is I can't see how a just and loving god would condem billions of good people to eternal punishment just because they were born on the wrong side of the world or in the wrong time.  Or because of who they love, or for any of a hundred other nitpicy little reasons that the faithful tell me I'm going to hell.

Personaly I respect athiest phillanthopists more then I do those who make faith based claims for the generousity.  For one with the faithfull there is always the stated or unstated goal of bringing in new recruits.  For example recently several faith based orginisations have started pushing to increase the number of christians who adopt children.  They have actualy stated two of the reasons for this  are 1 to keep as many kids as possible from being adopted by gays, and 2 to bring as many children into the fold as they can.   The Athiest has no book telling him to do good things, or be a good person.  They have no promise that in the end doing good will earn them any reward.  but the fact remains that your average athiest is just as good and decent as your average faithful.

Myself I belive in god,  It's not the christian god, or any other named god.  I belive that god would be something that humans simply could not adiquitly define or comprehend so any attempt threw a religion to define god or the will of god by any human is inherently flawed.  So the best thing you can do is simply try to live as good and decent a life as you can.

[Stygian]

I never thought I'd say this, but you've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

Rrrrright. Maybe I should rephrase that. Ahem...

People act with as much intelligence as they possess according to their feelings and "whims". What does matter is that there is at least some intelligence and some emotional restraint in the works, really.

I do not have any faith in the concept of humanity as a whole. However, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns. At least not all the time. And if they do, even then they do possess some brains and all act according to what they feel, which means that there is some sense behind it all.
   There are, of course, cases where even this is incorrect, or close to. And it is there that I personally am sickened and appalled. Complete dementia, absolute apathy or "vegetability", extreme autism or the like. I cannot help it, and I most deeply understand that some people suffer quite horribly from it and cannot be blamed, but it still nauseates me.

[superluser]

When teh US called itself an open society and we tried to take into account all religions and all walks of life (even if that was nearly 200 years ago)

Do you mean when it was founded or nearly 200 years ago?  Because nearly 200 years ago was the time of the Know-Nothing Party.

Assuming you mean the founding of the nation, I find it funny that you think we tried to take into account all religions.  That was what the founding fathers *said*.  Heck, that's probably what they meant and what official US policy was.

But imagine a Turkish Muslim trying to integrate into American society.  I've read newspaper articles from the turn of the 19th century.  Many elements of the US were extremely xenophobic.  They would make Ann Coulter sound like Walter Cronkite.

Well then I'm just screwed. Never been baptized, never going to be baptized, and I don't really see the point in it anyway. If I'm wrong, eh, I'm wrong. I personally don't see how a omnipresent, omnipotent being can just go "well, hell there, you followed the logical path for you and did what you felt was right, so I'm gonna cast you down into the fiery pits because you didn't believe."

I'll be honest: if God really is going to do that, then I will take Hell gladly. I'd rather that than believe in a shitty god like that.

I'm not going to try to change your mind, since I don't think you're interested at this point in your life, so all I can say is that I hope that God shows His mercy to all of us.  I know I'm going to need it.

However, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns. At least not all the time. And if they do, even then they do possess some brains and all act according to what they feel, which means that there is some sense behind it all.

You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

[Stygian]

You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

You've too little faith in intelligence, superluser. Maybe you should read some LaVey? I know I always enjoy it.

[superluser]

You've got too much faith in humanity, Styg.

You've too little faith in intelligence, superluser. Maybe you should read some LaVey? I know I always enjoy it.

I have faith in intelligence, but not in man to use it.  I think LaVey proves this.

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
- Søren Kierkegaard

[Valynth]

How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.
- Søren Kierkegaard

That statement runs on the assumption that those two freedoms are exclusive, but in order to get the maximum yield from either of them you must use them both in unison.

After all, what good is a thought if you can't share it?  And what is the point of speech without a thought to guide it?

[Caswin]

but the fact remains that your average athiest is just as good and decent as your average faithful.

For what it's worth, I've actually heard an atheist on a different board say differently - "more jerks per capita" or something to that effect.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Atheism will never lead to peace.  I've seen them murder each other just as readily as those who claim to believe in a God, but whose actions speak otherwise to the belief only in greed, selfishness, lust, and a thirst for power at all costs.  When I say I believe in God, I mean that.  I do not put my faith in mankind, because mankind is unsteady and changeable as the wind.  A house built on sand will not stand the storm. 

Erm. Communism and Fascism are, to my understanding, neither of them atheists. "Thou shalt not make false idols" or words to that effect - my understanding was that the followers of both of these, in their own ways, had made gods of, respectively, Communism and Fascism...

I could well be misunderstanding the thrust of your argument, of course. It just seems to me... well, according to the statistics dept of the US of A, there are fewer Atheists in jail, per head of Atheist population, than there are religious sorts. I believe ~10% of the population is Atheist, and ~2% of the jail population is Atheist - stats are passed to me via an Atheist's blog, but, since he linked, and links, to the stats at every opportunity, I presume the numbers are reasonably provable...

Religion promises hope; atheism promises oblivion.  Given the two choices, I'll take hope.  If death is the end for both, I'll choose the path that at least brings peace to my heart and a reason to strive for something better.  The alternative is the despair and emptiness that drove the murderous teenagers in Columbine to ask questions of the students they were shoothing "Where's your God now?".

Atheism doesn't engender despair. Nihilism engenders despair, but that's a different state of mind. Atheism merely states, I don't believe there is a god, and I think we should make the best of what we have here.

I can't see where that would lead, definitively, to the emptiness and despair you remark upon. Stupidity, now, I can see that leading all too well to the end result. Atheism itself, however... nah. Atheists tend not to attract the fundamentalist mindset that other places do. Although you get all sorts in all walks...

I do not have any faith in the concept of humanity as a whole. However, I do have faith in that people behave as people, rather than raving lunatics or senseless imbeciles or egotistical clowns.

Erm. I believe, strongly, that the vast majority of humanity -is- raving lunatics, senseless imbeciles, or egotistical clowns. (FWIW, I believe I'm in the third category)

For what it's worth, I've actually heard an atheist on a different board say differently - "more jerks per capita" or something to that effect.

You get what you bring to yourself.

I'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

[Caswin]

I'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

I did. Immediately above the line you quoted.

[Caswin]

I'm inclined to wonder what your Atheist compadre does to bring the jerks flowing in towards himself. Or herself, if appropriate...

Who says he (let's assume "he") does?

I did. Immediately above the line you quoted.

Yeah, yeah.  But why are you assuming that he does?

[Amber Williams]

It's odd, most of the atheists I met have been very friendly and good-natured people. I didnt even know they were atheists until times later when religion became a subject.  Most of them when I talked to them don't even say they want the world to become atheists, but rather figure religion is something various people need to cope with themselves and society.  Granted a good deal of them think its stupid, but most that I've talked to acknowledge what they feel is a purpose for it.

When it comes to religion, I find myself in the "Stats and surveys are always a plus, but never underestimate your personal experiences" department.  I've met plenty of of good natured people from all beliefs and standpoints..and I've met BATSHIT INSANE versions as well.  I guess for me, what it all boils down to is if people use their belief or lack of one as an excuse for themselves and their behavior.  Be it through looking down at other groups, making judgements that infringe on the freedoms and happiness of others, or just generally being an assmunch.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Yeah, yeah.  But why are you assuming that he does?

Well, it's my opinion.

It's been borne out in the various things I've seen, not to mention at least two people I know swear by it - in fact, they usually grumble at me bringing problems into my life by concentrating on them.... But that's a different story.

Suffice it to say: I believe it does. I've seen it happen. *shrug* Certainly for negative effects. I try to focus on the positive ones, though...