Dead for Nine Days
Florence Ophelia Russell died nine days ago. Friday, it was reported to the police in the Bahamas that her family had kept her body in the apartment as her family prayed for her to be resurrected.
This is what the little Neumann girl's parents tried to do as well as the ambulance took her dead body away. Yet over and over we keep being told that no Christian really believes this. And in less than 1 month we've had many many cases showing that actually, LOTS of Christians really believe this.
The job of convincing Christians to seek medical care should not need to be undertaken by atheists. It should be the job of Christians. The pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and any other self-styled leader of Christianity should be on TV begging parents to take their sick kids to the doctor. The fact that they don't, and even lobby for an exception to law mandating medical care for children shows what the mainstream Christian tradition really is: Pray for your kids until they are dead.
The opinion piece from Wisconsin sums up the case very well for me:
The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded, “There are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.” As Gerald Witt, mayor of Lake City, Florida, said about local faith-based deaths, “It may be necessary for some babies to die to maintain our religious freedoms. It may be the price we have to pay; everything has a price.”
But religious zealots need not pay the ultimate price of sacrificing their children on the altar of faith. It says so in the first book of their bible. “Abraham built an altar . . . and laid the wood . . . and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham . . . lay not thine hand upon the lad . . . for now I know that thou fearest God . . .” (Gen. 22:9-12).
Should parents decide to disregard both their god’s admonition against sacrificing children to prove a fanatical faith and society’s laws against homicide, they should be held accountable to a secular “higher power” in a court of law that does not accept the strength of a person’s religious belief as evidence of their guilt or innocence.
Again, for those of you apologists arguing that Christians aren't really like this, how does the Mayor of a Florida town say that in public and keep his job, much less avoid being attacked? He's come out in favor of the death of children, but because it's a Christian death, there is no outcry.
This is what the little Neumann girl's parents tried to do as well as the ambulance took her dead body away. Yet over and over we keep being told that no Christian really believes this. And in less than 1 month we've had many many cases showing that actually, LOTS of Christians really believe this.
The job of convincing Christians to seek medical care should not need to be undertaken by atheists. It should be the job of Christians. The pope, the archbishop of Canterbury, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and any other self-styled leader of Christianity should be on TV begging parents to take their sick kids to the doctor. The fact that they don't, and even lobby for an exception to law mandating medical care for children shows what the mainstream Christian tradition really is: Pray for your kids until they are dead.
The opinion piece from Wisconsin sums up the case very well for me:
The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect concluded, “There are more children actually being abused in the name of God than in the name of Satan.” As Gerald Witt, mayor of Lake City, Florida, said about local faith-based deaths, “It may be necessary for some babies to die to maintain our religious freedoms. It may be the price we have to pay; everything has a price.”
But religious zealots need not pay the ultimate price of sacrificing their children on the altar of faith. It says so in the first book of their bible. “Abraham built an altar . . . and laid the wood . . . and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar. And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham . . . lay not thine hand upon the lad . . . for now I know that thou fearest God . . .” (Gen. 22:9-12).
Should parents decide to disregard both their god’s admonition against sacrificing children to prove a fanatical faith and society’s laws against homicide, they should be held accountable to a secular “higher power” in a court of law that does not accept the strength of a person’s religious belief as evidence of their guilt or innocence.
Again, for those of you apologists arguing that Christians aren't really like this, how does the Mayor of a Florida town say that in public and keep his job, much less avoid being attacked? He's come out in favor of the death of children, but because it's a Christian death, there is no outcry.
44 comments:
Evan, I hate to break your broad brush, but you're wrong:
http://resources.family.org/product/id/118724.do
is just one example of the evil Christian leadership encouraging standard, mainstream health and medical care for children.
Justin
R O F L
That is hilarious.
You really think because one group sells a for-profit book on a website to make money, that is equivalent to the leader of said group making a public statement such as, "The parents of a child who died because they prayed over her were wrong. We entreat believers NOT to pray over their sick children but to seek medical care."
You are a peach.
Evan,
No more silly than your searching out the most sensational and over-the-top examples of stupid-human-tricks and setting them up as evidence of the broader christian conspiracy against children.
ROFLMAO, indeed.
So much for rational thought and seeking of evidence.
BTW, I have the book, and if it were a for-profit publication, it would sell for $100+... try you local bookstore and look up a price for a "secular" medical reference. Even Amazon has one for $535.
Exasperated as I am, I begrudgingly return to my repeated question, the answer to which underlies the entire argument Evan has put forth. It's despicable, really, that the ease with which we discover these so-called rarities of delusional faith-healers is directly proportional to our interest in finding them.
We only considered this issue, what, two weeks ago? Yet every day it seems we uncover yet another example of god failing where simple, modern medicine would clearly have succeeded.
The question is simple:
Should we require parents to offer standard, non-experimental medicine to their minor children, regardless of religious objections to the same?
Spin-offs would go something like the following:
Do parents have a right to deny standard, non-experimental medicine to their minor children, based on their religion and/or creed?
Should we prosecute parents who withhold standard, non-experimental medicine from their minor children?
Should the minor children themselves be given a voice regarding their medical treatment?
Is the explicit denial of religious freedom sometimes a good and necessary thing?
All of these questions are valid, and deserve more than a superficial dismissal. Christians can say what they want about faith, and I will disagree with them on virtually every point, but it shouldn't be such a simple task to ignore the questions I've raised, considering the clear consequences of their answers, whether implicit or explicit.
The point has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of some, or even a majority of, religionists (contrary to Justin's attempted counter-point), but it is a matter of legislating the well-being of children regardless of their religious upbringings.
Personally, I think it clear that unchecked religion is wicked. I recognize that I am using a "broad brush", but I have my reasons for extending that conviction to religion as a whole.
--
Stan
Yes, that site had some fine, fine literature, especially the "sex ed" section where you can find materials such as this:
http://resources.family.org/product/relationship-marriage/dating+-+premarital/bd775+your+single+treasure.do?
Yes, more fine publications that no doubt "teach" children about sex by not teaching children about sex and instead promoting ignorance and a healthy psychological block against understanding their own bodies and urges.
http://www.whatstheharm.net/
Sad.
JUSTIN has left a new comment on your post "Dead for Nine Days":
Stan said...
Exasperated as I am, I begrudgingly return to my repeated question...
J
Fine, with no commment excepting that from previous posts two weeks ago:
S
Should we require parents to offer standard, non-experimental medicine to their minor children, regardless of religious objections to the same?
J
Yes, just as soon as secular society agrees who/what the "standard" is.
S
Do parents have a right to deny standard, non-experimental medicine to their minor children, based on their religion and/or creed?
J
No, considering the previous caveat.
S
Should we prosecute parents who withhold standard, non-experimental medicine from their minor children?
J
Yes, same caveat.
S
Should the minor children themselves be given a voice regarding their medical treatment?
J
Just as soon as secular society gives minor children the same priveleges and rights as adults.
S
Is the explicit denial of religious freedom sometimes a good and necessary thing?
J
No such thing as religious freedom outside that provided legislatively. Legislate away.
S
The point has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of some, or even a majority of, religionists (contrary to Justin's attempted counter-point), but it is a matter of legislating the well-being of children regardless of their religious upbringings.
J
Actually, it's a vastly different point. One is making general conclusions from outlier data while ignoring the inner 70% of the bell curve, the other is a discussion of individual liberty versus the good of others.
S
I recognize that I am using a "broad brush", but I have my reasons for extending that conviction to religion as a whole.
J
Actually, I agree with you regarding religion... sorry to disappoint you.
RA said...
Yes, that site had some fine, fine literature, especially the "sex ed" section...
J
Yet, damn it!, that fly in the ointment about promoting standard, non-experimental medicine for children. Those Christians are an enigma, that's for sure. No logic whatsoever!
No more silly than your searching out the most sensational and over-the-top examples of stupid-human-tricks and setting them up as evidence of the broader christian conspiracy against children.
I'm not searching for anything. The stories I find are ones I run across on Google when I type Christian Faith and Prayer into the news search.
That's telling you something about your faith, cuz I sure don't have to dredge very deeply to find them.
Justin you are really a delight. Stephen King sells books for 18 dollars hardback -- does he make a profit? I think he does.
Your equating someone offering a book for sale on a website with a public denunciation of a practice remains the single most obtuse argument I have ever seen in my life, but thanks, it's a gift that keeps on giving.
Thanks John, but I suppose I should've also reiterated that I was waiting for a non-dismissive set of "Christian" answers to my question(s)...
Of course all of your answers are spot-on -- my aim, as you are clearly aware, is to stimulate thought on the subject for the Christians who so loudly cry foul when their fringe peers effectively commit manslaughter (or worse). One cannot have it both ways, and until they recognize that they are in fact asking for exactly that, they are blind.
Then still, I suppose "blind" is a poor analogy in and of itself unless I limit this version of blindness to a particular band of the spectrum...
As to M's link (lazy), the following excerpt was especially damning:
She died of [meningitis]. Her mother, a Christian Scientist practitioner, was asked why her daughter was not vaccinated but her dog was. She responded that the law required it for the dog.
(emphasis added)
Seriously?
Yes, prayer is wicked, religion is wicked, and those who deny either are themselves either wicked or severely deluded.
I'm going to go throw up now.
--
Stan
Evan, I'm glad I bring you so much joy. I hope everyon else is delighted, too.
You can try to define MY argument to suit your needs all you want. The "evindence" suggests the majority of professed Christians like doctors. For every kook, there are 100s who don't cotton to child sacrifice.
But, interpret the data as you will.
Justin,
The evidence suggests that most Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
The evidence suggests that most Christians ignore the Bible when it says the following:
Matthew 7:7 – Ask, and it shall be given you.
Matthew 21:22 – And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
James 5:15 – The prayer of faith will heal the sick.
John 14:14 (quoting Christ) – If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
John 15:7 (quoting Christ) – If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
John 16:23 (quoting Christ) – Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
1st John 3:22 – And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him…
Those Christians who ignore it are doing so because they know that modern medicine is superior. But there is NOBODY who is telling Christians who accept the Bible whole hog such as Followers of Christ, Unleavened Bread, Christian Scientists, and Bahamians praying for a resurrection to IGNORE that part of the Bible.
They may make some noise about needing to do what we can here to help ourselves, but they never say the thing that needs to be said:
GOD WILL NOT HEAL YOUR SICK KID. TAKE YOUR SICK KID TO A DOCTOR. SITTING THERE AND PRAYING FOR HIM WILL ONLY LET HIM DIE.
Please show me where a Christian leader has disavowed the above verses and told Christians to ignore them.
I can show you a lot of kids who would be alive today if their parents stopped believing in those verses.
I agree with Justin partly because statistically it is the exception not the rule. But:
Between 1975 and 1995, 172 children died in the United States because their parents refused medical treatment on religious grounds.
Well, 172 children is a lot even if it is the exception. In fact, only one state since 1976 has executed more than 172 people. Oh, and the executed committed heinous crimes. The children are innocent (I assume).
Funny, because advocates of capital punishment and letting their kids die claim to be "pro-life." Odd.
Stan, I had mistakenly deleted JUSTIN'S comment so I retrieved it posted it for him. The J represents Justin. The S is you.
Hah! Well, his answers are still spot-on regarding parental treatment of minor children and medicine...
For a moment, I was afraid I'd been identified as one of them.
Good answers, Justin. I'd still like to hear a bona fide apologist give his two cents on the subject, but I do like your answers.
--
Stan
I think the illuminating issue here (at least for me) is the obvious evidence that belief based on religious conviction cannot trump the material world. I think it's readily apparent that most Christians use modern medical science; however, to do so they must rationalize it with their faith and/or entertain the cognitive dissonance that results.
The Bible certainly endorses using faith healing--one cannot claim that the Bible is silent on the topic! Does the Bible endorse using doctors? It mentions them on the whole rather indifferently, but clearly and repeatedly asserts the superiority of faith healing (e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:12, Mark 5:25-30) a So we have a clear Biblical endorsement of faith healing (much more clear than the supposed banning of abortion that many Christians proclaim) as superior to medicine, but a clear aversion to faith healing by the majority of Christians. And the question is, why? I think Florence Russell's story and those like her's tell us why--faith healing doesn't work nearly as well as modern medicine, and (most) Christians know it damn well. But how do they square that with the Bible's clear stories of the superior healing power of prayer? They weren't stories of "healing" in some touchy-feely New Age sense of healing a wounded spirit or some such; they are stories of healing the body, up to and including resurrecting the dead by faith! And yet, (most) Christians think this sort of stuff is now a poor second choice to medicine. Why?
If the power of faithful prayer is as effective as the Bible says, medical doctors and researchers would be out of business. And yet we're still employed, and treating more Christians than ever. When the rubber meets the road and the stakes are really important, (most) Christians will stick with evidence-based science every time; not only that, but they will heckle and ridicule those few Christians who actually believe the stories and promises of the Bible and act on that belief as being "kooks" bent on "child sacrifice"--faith healing has now gone from Jesus-recommended to certain death! It's only when we get to things that they think don't really have any, you know, effect that (most) Christians are willing to follow the yellow brick road into their ancient myth and superstition. Since you obviously don't believe in the power of faith healing (or heliocentrism, or Young Earth), why do you believe the parts that you can't test?
In my opinion, this is why (to bang my personal drum for a moment) you see a lot more evolution deniers based off of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 than you see heliocentric deniers based off of a literal interpretation of Ecclesiastes (despite the fact that geocentrism has a long and storied history in the Christian faith); because more people (wrongly) view our origins to be of less immediacy than heliocentrism, so they are more willing to entertain their ancient superstition. With heliocentrism, they are unwilling to do so because heliocentrism is real NOW, and they think they would be fools to deny it.
Bacchus Veritas said...
Well, 172 children is a lot even if it is the exception. [snip] Funny, because advocates of capital punishment and letting their kids die claim to be "pro-life." Odd.
You will find no argument from me, there. I agree that Christianity has a problem it must deal with A wolf is in the sheep pen.
I simply have a problem indicting the whole of Christianity based on the exceptions.
John W. Loftus said...
Stan, I had mistakenly deleted JUSTIN'S comment so I retrieved it posted it for him. The J represents Justin. The S is you.
I apologize, John, if I screwed something up in my postings.
Stan said...
I'd still like to hear a bona fide apologist give his two cents...
Ugh... that cuts, cuts deep, Man.
(long time reader, infrequent commentor)
As a scientist and an Ex-Christian, I'd like to see a book by either Shygetz or Evan dealing specifically with science/health/evolution vs faith issues. Preferably books from both. Co-authored?
Really, you two have a talent for writing in a direct and concise way, and express your arguments and points of views so well.
I read both scientific peer-reviewed material, and books with the general public in mind. I think it is time for some books written to address the issues I mentioned from individuals who are knowledgable about the theology, the doctrines, the scriptures and science. (Not some vague, wishy-washy faith-science claims which Francis Collins puts out.)
Really, I'd buy it. Honest.
Evan wrote:
The evidence suggests that most Christians ignore the Bible when it says the following:
Again, these is a matter of individual INTERPRETATION, period. Sorry to be infinitely regressive, but there infinite interpretations.
Those Christians who ignore it are doing so because they know that modern medicine is superior.
How do you possibly know why these people do anything? Are you clairvoyant, too? Your opinion is at best a WAG.
But there is NOBODY who is telling Christians... [snip] ...to IGNORE that part of the Bible.
Why should they ignore any part? What they DO, every day away from the public square in fact, is give them another interpretation of the the same proof-texts and engage them to change their ways. Nothing says they have to do it where YOU can see it.
Please show me where a Christian leader has disavowed the above verses and told Christians to ignore them.
I can't. It doesn't happen. DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS do happen. The vast majority of Christians and leaders interpret those verses differntly, and thus take their kids to doctors.
YOUR literal interpretation of those verses (which is not really yours, BTW, but is some fundy's which you allowed to be imparted onto you and you haven't bothered trying any other, because it suits your purposes) is not the only one or necessarily the correct one. Neither is mine.
I can show you a lot of kids who would be alive today if their parents stopped believing in those verses.
So what? My kid IS alive today, and so am I, because I, as a christian, took him and myself to doctors to be treated...AND I STILL BELIEVE THOSE VERSES.
I guess I'm just double-mindedly deluded. Fine, I'll admit it.
Shygetz said...
I think it's readily apparent that most Christians use modern medical science; however, to do so they must rationalize it with their faith and/or entertain the cognitive dissonance that results.
Shygetz, you nail it here. It is ALL a matter of textual interpretation and melding it with reality.
One person's intellectual dishonesty is another's free thought.
Justin how, exactly, do you interpret the verses?
I mean, if the Bible had Jesus saying, "My followers will never need to lock their doors in fear," how would you interpret that?
Evan, if you will give me a bit, I will answer and give you my thoughts.
"Does the Bible endorse using doctors? It mentions them on the whole rather indifferently, but clearly and repeatedly asserts the superiority of faith healing "
At the time the Bible was written, they did not know about germs, so they had people using herbs based on guessing and calling things a success if it worked or it it appeared to work for some other reason like the disease ran its course. So at the time, faith healing, giving the person close attention and the resultant acts that probably accompanied the praying such as keeping them clean and dry and fed and hydrated was probably worked as well as doctoring. At the time. Just as at the time, when they did not know how to intepret fossils or did not know about genetics, the story in Genesis made as much sense in accounting for the existance of the world: Houses were built by someone, cloths were made by someone, so the world must have been made by someone really really big. But that big entity was not visible, so call it a god and define a god as a big powerful human like entity, but wait, if it is powerful, that must be because it made us like it since it must have been made first. If you look at the Bible and religion as the best ways at the time to explain things, then it is a piece of art, a piece of literature, and now that we know about other things like medicine and biology and botany and physics, it needs to be put on the shelf with all other ancient art and literature. It may have been relevant in helping people explain their world and deal with scary thoughts at one point, but it is time we grow up and let it GO!
Let's look at what all Christians likely agree on.
- God is all powerful
- God is all knowing
- God is ultimate the creator of all biological life
- God created the universe
- The Bible is the inspired word of God.
I'd also venture many of the Christian posters here believe..
- God designed human beings (vs. natural selection)
- God created man in final form.
- The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Next, in the Bible we see explicit teaching that prayer heals the sick. Evan posted several above, but the one that stands out for me is...
James 5:15 – The prayer of faith will heal the sick.
Not wanting to take this quote out of context, I looked at the surrounding verses.
13Is any one of you in trouble? He should pray. Is anyone happy? Let him sing songs of praise. 14Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.
Here, the author of James does not appear ambiguous. He references trouble, happiness and sickness in separate sentences. One says the sick will be made well. Then another says the man's sins will be forgiven. Nor do other chapters appear to be using metaphor. That is, we see no reason to think the author isn't really talking about oppressors who are rich in material things in James 5:1-6.
If all of these things are factual - if God really is who Christians say he is - it seems quite clear than God would have the knowledge, ability and that he makes the offer to heal sick people though prayer.
Now, let's compare the Christian God with modern science and medicine.
Both science and medicine are based on the finite knowledge of human beings. In addition, human beings have limited abilities. Nor did they actually design or create all life on our planet. While we have learned much in the last 100 years, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to a entity with the properties that Christians claim God has.
So, when faced with the sickness of a friend of loved one who, by the very definition that Christians make, would have the best chance at healing the person in question?
Let's say your car is in disrepair and you have two options: take it: to a teenager working at a gas station or take it to the design and manufacturing facilities who actually designed and manufactured your car. Which would you choose? The gas station many not have the right tools or know how to fix the particular problem you're having or be familiar with your make and model of car. Nor may he have the necessary parts in stock. These are non-issues for the factory as they were the ones who designed and manufactured your car in the first place. If anyone can fix your car, they can. Of course, the teenager really does not represent modern medicine as, in the case of human beings, we're essentially asking cars to fix other cars. The gap would be even larger.
The same would be said about God. If he really has the properties that Christians claim he does, and the Bible is the word of God, then if anyone could heal a sick person, it would be God. And he offers to several times in the Bible. By his very definition and offer, there could be no better choice.
As I see it, the issue is that Christians cling to the definition of a God who could heal the sick and the belief that the Bible is the word of God, despite the fact that prayer for the sick is as effective as random chance. They do so because, if the definition of God changed to reflect reality, what comfort would he provide? He would no longer be worthy of praise by the very definition that Christians use to justify God's worthiness.
As such, we have a significant disconnect with reality which manifests itself in the kinds of events we're discussing here.
Evan said...
Justin how, exactly, do you interpret the verses?
Matthew 7:7 – Ask, and it shall be given you.
To account for context, I have to look at much of Chapter 6—to do a better job I'd probably consider all of Ch's 5, 6, and 7, part of Ch. 4, AND the historical circumstances when the sermon by Jesus took place (a 1st Century Jewish rabbi, speaking to a large Jewish crowd gathered on a mountainside in Roman occupied Palestine, etc. etc.). But for brevity, I will try just consider the immediately surrounding text.
Having said that, I think I need to consider Ch. 4:23-25, too: “Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people. The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them. Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.”
To get any farther, we have to take this at face value—whether you believe it or not, assume it is true. (If we can't get past these statements, then it does no good to go any further.)
The chapters in question read like one side of a conversation... like Jesus is answering a set of questions handed to him or which were called out, but not recorded. Even if that's not the case, the style and manner of his speaking is not like a lecture, but conversational. Chapter 5:1-2 says, “When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him. He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying...”, and he begins with various snippets of “wisdom”. Actually, the whole sermon reads much like the book of Proverbs. These are not essays or theses, they are short bursts of truth (or lie, depending on your bent) meant to get minds thinking. This style carries through to Ch. 7.
Consider what Jesus says about prayer in 6:6-8: “"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.” I think the operative word here is “need” in v.8. The people of this time were oppressed by the Romans. Their concerns for the most part were for daily survival; food, and shelter. Daily needs. I see that as the main request in their prayers, to be given the things for their survival. I think in v.8 Jesus reiterates this in saying God “knows what you need before you ask Him.”
In 7:7 Jesus returns to prayer. Considering what he has said prior, and the way he has said it, we go on to vv.8ff: “"For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!”
I think Jesus is saying the same thing in a different way. Just like a typical, standard parent who give his/her child what they need to live, God will do the same. The issue is need. No parent, no sane parent, gives to their child whatever is asked for. Do we expect just that from God?
Do I need to be healed of my diabetes? I've prayed for it. I still seek medical treatment. I still NEED medical treatment, and I get it. Is my prayer answered?
Matthew 21:22 – And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Again, this verse is spoken in the context of the events prior, that is Jesus entering the city and receiving a King's welcome, as the promised Messiah (in the people's view of that time, else why throw the celebration?). He then further demonstrates his “authority” as king by purging the Temple and killing the fig tree. Why? To make a point that he IS who he says he is.
I think v.21 is important here. What is the “faith” that casts a mountain into the sea. Is it a miracle/supernatural event? Faith is fidelity, loyalty, stick-to-it-iveness. I can move a mountain, one rock at a time. If when I move one, to return to move another rock, then another, then another—if I am faithful in moving rocks—eventually the mountain is moved.
That faith and belief is what, I think, Jesus is speaking of in v. 22. Eventually, through time and energy committed to the “Cause” (which is really what Jesus is talking about, not our daily vending-machine wants), we will get what we've asked for.
James 5:15 – The prayer of faith will heal the sick.
Let's look at vv.13 & 14, too: “Is anyone among you suffering? Then he must pray. Is anyone cheerful? He is to sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.
First, this is written to people who are already believers, with assumptions that go along with that fact. This is not written to a group of skeptics needing their answer. “Sick” here has a couple of meanings, one meaning physically ill, and another meaning somehow spiritually lacking. The word here is actually “restore” or “save”, not heal. Compare the Koine Greek translations with the ASV and KJV, or any other. “Heal” is a mistranslation (take that up with the seminarians). Therefore it is dealing with another issue entirely—that is the spiritual issue. James is saying God will save the spiritually sick, which, it turns out, is much like saying “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matt 5:2)
John 14:14 (quoting Christ) – If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
A very, very important distinction here is made by Jesus, “ask any thing in my name”. To understand the gravity of that caveat, look at vv.11-12: “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.”
That caveat is expanded to mean a fully committed belief and action in following Jesus. And the things asked for will be in line with the “Cause”. We're not talking new Ferraris or healing from my encephalitis. He is talking of more global and far reaching things: self-sacrifice for others, giving people hope in a future when circumstances around them look dim, etc.
John 15:7 (quoting Christ) – If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Again, the caveat is stated: “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you...” It is not unconditional that whatever I ask I get. There is required a commitment of heart, mind, and soul.
John 16:23 (quoting Christ) – Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
Again, the caveat of “in my Name”. No open checkbook.
1st John 3:22 – And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him…
Caveat, again (quite consistent, actually). See the following verses: “because we keep His commandments and do the things that are pleasing in His sight. This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.”
The caveats shown here require that if we want to “get” from God, we need a very tight relationship to him and what he is about.
The promises of prayer are not open to just everyone, AND they are not promises about trivial things. Many of you will say this just helps your argument about prayer being wicked and evil. I would agree, insofar that the common, Western teaching of prayer puts for that there is no commitment to God and his cause required to get answered prayers. The evil, in my mind, is the dilution of the commitment, producing false expectations in the masses—making them ripe targets for religious indoctrination and oppression, the very thing you all rail against.
Anyway, that's how I “interpret” things... fire away. You should enjoy it.
Justin,
Do you then consider yourself a bona fide apologist? Because you don't sound like one when you answer my questions -- err... perhaps that cuts deeper?
:)
If you are truly arguing a case for Christianity (or religion in general), then you apparently recognize that religionists do not, and should not, have any sort of inherent right to claim freedom of religion as an excuse to withhold standard, non-experimental medicine from their minor children.
You should also recognize that by admitting that religious freedom does not trump reality, that we necessarily need to limit religious freedom to protect these minor children.
Of course you should also recognize the slippery slope looming before you, but is it not too late?
You answered each of my questions in stride, and I thank you, and I even said that I agree with you, but this is the foundation of the problem I pose: Any claim of religious freedom (by itself) used to withhold standard, non-experimental medicine from a minor child is baseless and evil.
Clearly, you agree that where an insulin shot will prevent a child's death that shot should be a requirement, but what of the transfusion? What of an available transplant? Where do we allow religious freedom to trump standard medicine and where do we not?
I think we all recognize that the nut-jobs who refuse simple things like insulin- or Vitamin K-shots, or blood transfusions to leukemia patients, are fringe cases at best (Or are they? Are Jehovah's Witnesses so uncommon?), but so are rapists.
We legislate against rape, and, as with the loathsome example I cited in a previous post, we even legislate that pets receive vaccinations, but we do not extend this standard medical protection to children.
Riddle me that.
If you agree that we should legislate the vaccination of minor children, or blood transfusions for minor children with leukemia (where needed), or insulin shots for minors with diabetes, etc., then you necessarily admit that we also need to limit the blanket of religious freedom under which these criminal parents hide.
Once we recognize this need to limit religious freedom to safeguard the physical well-being of children, we are also forced to consider limiting religious freedom to safeguard the mental well-being of children, and pretty soon we have eroded religious freedom to the point that only adults can practice it.
Here, here.
--
Stan
Stan wrote:
Do you then consider yourself a bona fide apologist? Because you don't sound like one when you answer my questions -- err... perhaps that cuts deeper?
Classically trained in apologetics, no. Bona fide, no. Just defending my beliefs (or trying as it maybe).
Does that lower my credibility in your mind? ;)
Of course you should also recognize the slippery slope looming before you, but is it not too late?
My skis are on...
Where do we allow religious freedom to trump standard medicine and where do we not?
Where and by that which is defined as the "standard". Good luck defining that.
... but we do not extend this standard medical protection to children... Riddle me that.
Vaccinations are mandatory... well, to enter school, but not under penalty of prosecution... well, I'm not sure, I'd need to look it up. I have no problem prosecuting such cases, especially if it's per MY standard.
If you agree... to limit religious freedom to safeguard the physical well-being of children, we are also forced to consider limiting religious freedom to safeguard the mental well-being of children, and pretty soon we have eroded religious freedom to the point that only adults can practice it... Here, here.
Again, good luck defining the "mental health" standard outside of any sort of facist methodology.
Taken logically to the end-game, eventually, no parent will be able to raise their own children... they will be taken away as wards of the State and brainwashed to the established "standard". Sounds fun.
There, there.
Oh, yeah... it's been tried. The masses will not put up with it, irrational as they are.
Justin, at the risk of being called facist, I will easily be able to describe standard medical care.
In fact, there are of course many legal cases in the US all the time describing standard medical care.
Standard medical care is defined as the practice of the community of physicians in the area defined.
Nobody can argue that antibiotics for meningitis aren't standard medical care. The death rate without them is nearly 100%. Nobody can argue that insulin for type I diabetes isn't standard medical care, the death rate without it is 100%.
So you agree that for conditions in which there is an easily established standard and standard treatments, religious exemptions should not be allowed.
That and admitting you are deluded is again why you are a gift that keeps on giving.
Evan wrote:
Justin, at the risk of being called facist, I will easily be able to describe standard medical care.
Actually I would give heavy weight to your opinion in such a matter, you being a doctor and all. And your passion for the well-being of children.
So you agree that for conditions in which there is an easily established standard and standard treatments, religious exemptions should not be allowed.
I've said as much, yes.
And, there will always be some facist with an MD and PhD and a self-serving agenda who will come along and want to change the standard to suit his/her purposes. History is replete with such folk Likely, you won't be around to defend and argue for your reasonable standard. If you are around, you will be painted as the evil, wacko, nutjob who cares little for the well-being of children over your own beliefs.
That and admitting you are deluded is again why you are a gift that keeps on giving.
I'm at your service to make you happy.
While you're looking up vaccinations and whether or not they are mandatory, I'll inform you directly: they are not.
Parents can, and do, refuse vaccinations for their children on religious grounds, which the public school system will absolutely honor. In fact, if a parent were to object to a vaccination on scientific grounds rather than religious, the school would actually require the vaccination -- no double standard there, eh?
This was precisely the point regarding how loathsome the mother's comment was concerning the fact that her dog was required by law to be vaccinated but not her child.
Check out the link M offered, http://www.whatstheharm.net (my version will send you directly to the "Religious Fundamentalism" section -- also see the "Jehovah's Witnesses" section for more gnashing of teeth...).
I'm pretty certain any number of secular sources can quickly provide a list of standard (non-experimental) medical procedures (I tried a few Google search variations, but there don't yet appear to be any such lists other than a book titled Physician's Manual: Standard Medical Procedures. I wonder if that will count?), and despite its overwhelming inefficiencies, I'd guess that even Congress could come up with a representative list.
As some simple examples, I'd say that administering a Vitamin-K shot, an insulin shot, vaccinations, and blood transfusions during the course of leukemia treatments, just to name a few, would all be considered standard.
This effectively returns to another point, which you may have misunderstood:
[It] has nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of some, or even a majority of, religionists (contrary to Justin's attempted counter-point), but it is a matter of legislating the well-being of children regardless of their religious upbringings.
To which you responded:
Actually, it's a vastly different point. One is making general conclusions from outlier data while ignoring the inner 70% of the bell curve, the other is a discussion of individual liberty versus the good of others.
To which I respond:
No, they are one and the same. Name two federal statutes in the U.S. which don't ignore "the inner 70% of the bell curve". For the sake of society, I'm glad they do (or, as a credit to society, I'm glad they only consider the outer 15% on each side).
We legislate against things like rape, murder, and theft, despite the fact that those who commit these crimes fall outside the "inner 70% of the bell curve". We drew general conclusions from the outlier data, and passed legislation to protect the individual liberties of our citizenry.
Any time a person's personal creed is directly responsible for a child's death, that person is to be held directly accountable, and that creed should be legislated against.
Clearly, as with all laws (as well as with science), when new evidence is uncovered, we can revisit the laws as necessary, and clearly, the list of accepted "standard medical procedures" would need constant upkeep, but I maintain that it is just as clear that parents cannot be continuously allowed to damage their children.
Obviously, we are not at a stage where we define the differences between "physical" and "mental" damage resulting from religious upbringing, but I don't think it too far fetched to think it wouldn't at some point surface, especially if we start treating children as more worthy of safeguarding than dogs.
[Regarding the roles of parents in raising their children, I have stated before that although I am a parent of two, I do believe that children should be raised by the community rather than considered property -- which is exactly how they are considered legally in the U.S. today.]
--
Stan
Justin: John 15:7 (quoting Christ) – If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Again, the caveat is stated: “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you...” It is not unconditional that whatever I ask I get. There is required a commitment of heart, mind, and soul.
What does this mean? If God has requirements on answering prayer, there must be a concrete set of conditions which defines a this commitment. Where are they listed? This is like announcing a 100 million dollar lottery, but not revealing how you can become eligible to win.
In addition, this sort of 'logic' leads people to believe that they did something (or failed to do something) which prevented their loved one from being healed. Did they not pray enough last week? Was I not nice enough to my neighbor? Even though I didn't act on it, could it have been my feelings of anger toward X? Essentially, you're saying they just didn't try hard enough, which is vague and could lead to feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
And if there is a specific set of conditions, they why hasn't Christians performed studies to find out exactly what these conditions are? I mean, if I though God could and would heal a sick loved one under the right conditions, you can be darn sure I wouldn't rest until I found out exactly what these conditions were. Surely, we would notice if people with or above a particular commitment level had prayers answered, while others with lower levels were not.
Justin: John 16:23 (quoting Christ) – Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Again, the caveat of “in my Name”. No open checkbook.
I'm confused here as you're implying the requirement is not what you ask for, but how you ask it. Are you saying that sick people are not healed simply because they failed to mention Jesus when praying to God? What of all the people who end their prayers in "in the name of Jesus we pray."? Again, without a concrete requirement, you're simply making ad hoc statements in an attempt to reconcile the fact that prayer does not heal sick people.
Justin: “Sick” here has a couple of meanings, one meaning physically ill, and another meaning somehow spiritually lacking. The word here is actually “restore” or “save”, not heal.
The author of James is recommending prayer for any needs and situations. Including happiness and illness. Since the early Christians did not understand biology, they did not separate spiritual wellness from physical wellness. As far as they were concerned, they shared a supernatural cause, so the same supernatural remedy was prescribed.
Again, if God is who the Bible says he is, then he would be the "go to" man for any need by his very definition. This verse simply confirms this position.
Scott said...
Again, if God is who the Bible says he is, then he would be the "go to" man for any need by his very definition.
The bible doesn't "say" anything, we interpret the words we read. Herein is another demonstration of differing interpretations.
I don't interpret the bible to be saying God is any sort of "go to man". He is not at my beck and call. Why should he be, he created me, not the other way around.
Because of that interpretation, my view of prayer is quite different than yours, Scott.
Where are they [conditions] listed?
Now THIS is the $64,000,000 question. The "caveats" of my previous post are a start: love God, love others, abide in Him, do "my" commandments, etc.
This is like announcing a 100 million dollar lottery, but not revealing how you can become eligible to win.
If all you want from God is comfort, security, safety, and ease, you're correct to hate the bible. Again, our expectations of God temper how we read the text and make conclusions.
In addition, this sort of 'logic' leads people to believe that they did something (or failed to do something) which prevented their loved one from being healed.
We wouldn't want to have our motives in prayer questioned, now would we? Hmmm.
...which is vague and could lead to feelings of guilt and inadequacy.
So? I feel the same guilt and shame. Deal with it. Let's be honest. If God exists--let's just say--I DON'T measure up, I AM inadequate and I AM guilty. So is everyone.
No matter how anyone reads it, nearly everyone comes away with that conclusion. That is what makes the bible so offensive. All the scientific proof and evidences B.S. is just a diversion from that fact.
...why haven't Christians performed studies to find out exactly what these conditions are?
This has been the whole of Christian scholarship for 500 yrs plus, ever since Luther's 95 Theses. Systems and formulas; that approach does not work, apparently.
I mean, if I thought God could and would heal a sick loved one under the right conditions...
Why do you only approach God for him to do you a favor?
I'm confused here as you're implying the requirement is not what you ask for, but how you ask it.
Not the mechanics of "how", but your motivation behind it. What is the condition of your heart of hearts in approaching him?
Are you saying that sick people are not healed simply because they failed to mention Jesus when praying to God?
By no means... re-read some of the context I posted. Proper repetition is not what is asked for.
Again, without a concrete requirement, you're simply making ad hoc statements in an attempt to reconcile the fact that prayer does not heal sick people.
Prayer does nothing. God heals sick people. Prayer is just the development of a relationship. The "concrete" requirement is a personal commitment to God and his Cause beyond all other commitments and causes. Sadly, I don't stack up.
Nearly everyone is unwilling to make such a commitment.
Since the early Christians did not understand biology, they did not separate spiritual wellness from physical wellness.
I beg to differ... read Mark 2 ("who sinned, this man or his parents"?).
It seems that I'll keep begging.
"I do believe that children should be raised by the community rather than considered property -- which is exactly how they are considered legally in the U.S. today.]"
Does that mean that if you are atheist and your community is say, catholic, the community should be allowed to teach catholicism to your children? Against your wishes? What are you saying here?
Justin (I think) had expressed fear of fascism if we allowed "the state" to raise our children rather than the biological parents. My statement was an aside, which I meant to show that I harbor no such fear, if the "parenting program" is well-thought and appropriately run.
No, I don't advocate a Catholic community teaching any children Catholicism -- rather, if you're truly interested in my views on childcare, a revolving (based on the child's age) group of surrogate parents, who all had qualified as such, in various widespread communities and cultures within society, would "raise" the child collectively. The biological parents, if they choose and qualify, could be allowed to have the child(ren) for extra time, but this is by no means necessary.
Sure, it sounds (and is) radical, and will likely never become mainstream (indeed, it fails if it is tried in a small group), but it's a better way of contemplating child rearing, if we allow ourselves to see the idea objectively.
Anyway, the point is merely that no one has the right to claim parental privelege (for any reason -- religious or otherwise -- in executing harm, physical or emotional/mental, on their child. Religious instruction of the young is precisely that, and especially if we consider these so-called "fringe" groups as resulting from our complacency with regard to parental privelege.
I hope that's clearer.
--
Stan
Scott: Again, if God is who the Bible says he is, then he would be the "go to" man for any need by his very definition.
Justin: The bible doesn't "say" anything, we interpret the words we read. Herein is another demonstration of differing interpretations.
The Bible doesn't 'say' that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead three days later?
I don't interpret the bible to be saying God is any sort of "go to man". He is not at my beck and call.
A 'go-to- man' is a person who can resolve a difficult problem or situation you are facing. This does not imply that God is your servant. It means that God, by the very attributes assigned to him, would be best resource for healing the sick.
Why should he be, he created me, not the other way around.
Because he wanted to and offered to? Claiming that God wouldn't heal people because he created us is a non-sequitor. If God is sovereign, there would be nothing to prevent God from deciding he wants to heal the sick when we ask him to.
Because of that interpretation, my view of prayer is quite different than yours, Scott.
Of course it's different. If God is to remain worthy of your devotion, he must retain his omni traits despite the fact that the sick are not healed through prayer. As such, your interpretation must create a loophole to explain what we observe in reality. I have no such requirements.
Now THIS is the $64,000,000 question. The "caveats" of my previous post are a start: love God, love others, abide in Him, do "my" commandments, etc.
So you're saying that the requirements are impossible to meet? Why would God 'advertise' to heal the sick if he knew no one could meet the requirements?
If all you want from God is comfort, security, safety, and ease, you're correct to hate the bible. Again, our expectations of God temper how we read the text and make conclusions.
First, where did I say I hated the Bible?
Second, I'm only asking why God does not heal the sick when it seems pretty clear that he offers to do so in the Bible. I guess we should throw out all of God's other promises as well. Why should God save me when I ask him to? Why should God do anything for anyone?
We wouldn't want to have our motives in prayer questioned, now would we? Hmmm.
If motive is a requirement, then spell out the requirement. Otherwise, you're simply presenting some vague reason why prayer doesn't heal the sick.
So? I feel the same guilt and shame. Deal with it. Let's be honest. If God exists--let's just say--I DON'T measure up, I AM inadequate and I AM guilty. So is everyone.
Again, so no one meets the requirements? God is effectively dangling a carrot in front of us we can never have. However, instead of coming out and telling us this, he presents some vague conditions with the implication we can meet them. Sounds perfectly moral to me.
This has been the whole of Christian scholarship for 500 yrs plus, ever since Luther's 95 Theses. Systems and formulas; that approach does not work, apparently.
I'm confused, either people can meet the requirements for God to heal people when prayed for or they cannot. Which is it? If they can, then why has there been no study that looks at the statistical effectiveness of prayer based on a person's particular level of devotion and perceived relationship with God?
Why do you only approach God for him to do you a favor?
Is this a requirement for having God heal the sick or simply a Red Herring?
Not the mechanics of "how", but your motivation behind it. What is the condition of your heart of hearts in approaching him?
John 16:23-27
In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.
So, based on this verse, the only requirements are that you believe that Jesus is God's son and ask God in Jesus' name. Yet I personally know several people who do believe that Jesus came from God and have asked God to heal one of my relatives. Their prayers were not answered.
The "concrete" requirement is a personal commitment to God and his Cause beyond all other commitments and causes.
Do you have a scriptural reference to back that up?
Nearly everyone is unwilling to make such a commitment.
Which just so happens to correlate with the fact that nearly everyone's prayers go unanswered. How convenient.
Scott: Since the early Christians did not understand biology, they did not separate spiritual wellness from physical wellness.
Justin: I beg to differ... read Mark 2 ("who sinned, this man or his parents"?).
This does not exclude God from being the ultimate catalyst that caused the ill to become well. God was the force that held the sun in the sky and caused the sick to become well. All good things came from God.
Scott said...
The Bible doesn't 'say' that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead three days later?
Nope, it sure doesn't. I read/interpret it that way, but your mileage may vary.
This does not imply that God is your servant.
Surely it does, if “we” assign attributes to him, then “we” decide what he does. “We” box him in when when then expect him to heal the sick at our bidding. Sounds like a servant to me.
Claiming that God wouldn't heal people because he created us is a non-sequitor.
Good, because I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that God is not defined by me, or you, or “us”... he defines “us”. Therefore he does not heal all sick people because he is not at our bidding.
If God is sovereign, there would be nothing to prevent God from deciding he wants to heal the sick when we ask him to.
... and nothing to prevent him from deciding NOT to heal the sick when we ask him. Damn!, that sovereignty, and just when insulin prices are going up...
I have no such requirements.
How can you say you have no such requirement when you plainly do require, if you are to be convinced of God, that he give you a “sign” by healing the sick by prayer?
So you're saying that the requirements are impossible to meet?
Yes I am. You win the $64,000,000! er... I'm a little short on funds right now...
First, where did I say I hated the Bible?
You didn't, necessarily. My intent is not to imply you do. I meant that you [generically anyone] are correct to hate it if all you want from God is health, wealth, and prosperity. The way I read the bible, it doesn't promise that.
Second, I'm only asking why God does not heal the sick when it seems pretty clear that he offers to do so in the Bible.
Pretty clear in your interpretation of it, mind you. Not so clear to me in mine. Who's right or correct? Who's the arbiter?
I guess we should throw out all of God's other promises as well. Why should God save me when I ask him to? Why should God do anything for anyone?
You are absolutely correct to ask this. Indeed, why should he? Another $64M question. How 'bout double-or-nothing?
Again, so no one meets the requirements? God is effectively dangling a carrot in front of us we can never have. However, instead of coming out and telling us this, he presents some vague conditions with the implication we can meet them. Sounds perfectly moral to me.
Maybe I should up the ante... you answer this question by betting your soul—heart mind and body.
I'm confused, either people can meet the requirements for God to heal people when prayed for or they cannot. Which is it?
They cannot.
Is this a requirement for having God heal the sick or simply a Red Herring?
I think it is the person who is seeking healing who is diverting attention from the real issue. Why—in the deepest recesses of your existence—are you asking God to do something for you?
So, based on this verse, the only requirements are that you believe that Jesus is God's son and ask God in Jesus' name. Yet I personally know several people who do believe that Jesus came from God and have asked God to heal one of my relatives. Their prayers were not answered.
This must be reconciled with Jesus' own words from before (Matt 6:7), “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.”
So, Jesus is contradicting himself, or asking in “Jesus' name” is more than some mantra or intellectual ascent, and it is not a formulaic, cause-and-effect.
The "concrete" requirement is a personal commitment to God and his Cause beyond all other commitments and causes.
Do you have a scriptural reference to back that up?
(Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23)
“If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”
(Luke 14:26)
“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.”
(Luke 16:13)
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
(Philippians 3:7,8)
“But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ.”
(Rom 12:1,2)
Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
I can't include all the context, but this is enough to show the point.
Nearly everyone is unwilling to make such a commitment.
Which just so happens to correlate with the fact that nearly everyone's prayers go unanswered. How convenient.
Are we willing to commit, fully, or are we looking for a quick fix? From the referenced versed, it seems God wants a full, deep commitment, not a list of demands.
[Mark 2] This does not exclude God from being the ultimate catalyst that caused the ill to become well. God was the force that held the sun in the sky and caused the sick to become well. All good things came from God.
Yeah, but what reason does Jesus give for healing the paralyzed man?
How about this: In John 9, what reason does Jesus give for the man being born blind?
Scott: This does not imply that God is your servant.
Justin: Surely it does, if “we” assign attributes to him, then “we” decide what he does. “We” box him in when when then expect him to heal the sick at our bidding. Sounds like a servant to me.
Have you not helped someone merely because they asked? Did this make you their servant?
And, on one hand, God is all powerful and created everything, yet we cannot assign any attributes to God?
Scott: Claiming that God wouldn't heal people because he created us is a non-sequitor.
JustinGood, because I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that God is not defined by me, or you, or “us”... he defines “us”. Therefore he does not heal all sick people because he is not at our bidding.
In saying God is NOT at our bidding, you've just defined God as not being at our bidding.
Scott: Of course it's different. If God is to remain worthy of your devotion, he must retain his omni traits despite the fact that the sick are not healed through prayer. As such, your interpretation must create a loophole to explain what we observe in reality. I have no such requirements.
Justin: How can you say you have no such requirement when you plainly do require, if you are to be convinced of God, that he give you a “sign” by healing the sick by prayer?
I have no requirements to protect God's omni traits in face of the fact that prayer does not heal the sick. If God does not keep his promises, you much change his promises to ensure God remains worthy of your devotion.
Scott: First, where did I say I hated the Bible?
Justin: You didn't, necessarily. My intent is not to imply you do. I meant that you [generically anyone] are correct to hate it if all you want from God is health, wealth, and prosperity.
What's with the 'hate'? If I want health, wealth and prosperity, I'm responsible for obtaining and maintaining them. Why would I hate a book? I'm concerned with the cognitive dissidence that results from others who take the Bible at face value.
The way I read the bible, it doesn't promise that.
Of course it doesn't. How else could you continue to believe that God is all powerful, all knowing and worthy of praise? You must find loopholes and ignore the problem.
Scott: Second, I'm only asking why God does not heal the sick when it seems pretty clear that he offers to do so in the Bible.
Justin: Pretty clear in your interpretation of it, mind you. Not so clear to me in mine.
So now you're unclear on the interpretation? Could it be that others are unclear as well?
Justin: Who's right or correct? Who's the arbiter?
This is precisely the problem. The idea that we can somehow know the nature or will of a immaterial being without any remote kind of verification is dangerous. Again, you say we cannot define God, but then make all kinds of claims about God defining us, which is a spectacular claim without any explicit evidence.
Scott: I guess we should throw out all of God's other promises as well. Why should God save me when I ask him to? Why should God do anything for anyone?
Justin:You are absolutely correct to ask this. Indeed, why should he?
Again, because he want's to and said he would? This is a non-answer.
Scott: I'm confused, either people can meet the requirements for God to heal people when prayed for or they cannot. Which is it?
Justin: They cannot.
So then God doesn't heal the sick at all? We're getting nowhere fast. Why would Jesus make an offer that no one could ever receive.
Scott:Is this a requirement for having God heal the sick or simply a Red Herring?
Justin: I think it is the person who is seeking healing who is diverting attention from the real issue. Why—in the deepest recesses of your existence—are you asking God to do something for you?
So now we're not supposed to ask at all, even though Jesus explicitly tells us how to ask for thinks in his name when praying to God. Again, if a particular motivation is required, then what motivation is required? Otherwise, you're avoiding the question.
Justin: So, Jesus is contradicting himself, or asking in “Jesus' name” is more than some mantra or intellectual ascent, and it is not a formulaic, cause-and-effect.
Jesus knew he was going to ascend into heaven. As such, he specifically told his disciples that once this occurred, he would no longer be available to directly answer their prayers. Instead, they should ask God, but reference himself so God knew they believed Jesus came from God. Exactly how they made this reference is not defined. Only that they make it.
Justin: [Various Bible quotes ]
So you're saying monks would be able to heal the sick. Wouldn't people notice this sort of thing?
And if someone had to hate their mother before God would answer their prayer, why would they pray for their mother be healed in the first place?
You've simply pushed food around on your plate and claimed you've ate it.
Jason: Are we willing to commit, fully, or are we looking for a quick fix? From the referenced versed, it seems God wants a full, deep commitment, not a list of demands.
So it's all just some ploy to get us to pay attention to him?
Yeah, but what reason does Jesus give for healing the paralyzed man? [In Mark 2]
In John 9, what reason does Jesus give for the man being born blind?
God makes him self look good at the expense of others? Surely, if a all powerful, all knowing God wanted to make is power known, he could find a way to do so without the suffering of others.
Scott: If they can, then why has there been no study that looks at the statistical effectiveness of prayer based on a person's particular level of devotion and perceived relationship with God?
Still you still haven't addressed this question.
Justin,
Scott said...
The Bible doesn't 'say' that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead three days later?
Nope, it sure doesn't. I read/interpret it that way, but your mileage may vary.
Wait, you're saying that you don't think it says that. Then, you turn around and say that you do think it says that. Are you just trying to be fair to some Christians who have a different viewpoint? OK, fine, but what's your point?
Do you mean to argue that an atheist has no valid criticisms against "Christianity" because some Christians hold to one viewpoint and some to another? You've read the FAQ for this blog, right? The FAQ that says that what DC is arguing against is primarily "Evangelical Christianity", and not every little Christian sect under the sun?
Now, if you'd like to say, "Oh yeah? Evangelical Christianity, good luck defining that!", then sure, there are differences within that group as well. But DC is targeting specific doctrines that are wrong, or silly, or harmful (or all three). We can argue against specific problems in one variety of mainstream Christianity, and critique them, despite the fact that some other Christians don't hold those views. If you're one of those enlightened Christians, then, good for you! Help us spread the love. Tell your fellow Christians not to be fundamentalists, not to take the bible as literally inerrant, etc. If you're already telling them these things, I applaud you.
If you're worried that we're painting all of Christianity with a broad brush, well, the FAQ covers that. We're aware that there are people who've thought more deeply about many of these issues than the typical biblical literalist.
To get back to your interpretation line:
I read/interpret it that way, but your mileage may vary.
What level of parsing are you proposing here? Take an example:
I read The Lord of the Rings. Love it, great book. Now, I come away with this idea, among many: the ultimate mission of the fellowship of the ring was successful. They set out to destroy the one ring in the fires of Mt. Doom, and lo, it was destroyed. Would never have happened if they hadn't had that meeting in Rivendell.
Along comes another reader, who says, no! not so! It was Gollum who actually destroyed the ring. The fellowship failed: Frodo chose to keep the ring. It was only luck at the end that saved everyone, and everything.
Is this the kind of parsing of the New Testament you're talking about? Is this how someone could claim that the NT does NOT say that Y'Shua returned to life after having died on the cross, and did so three days later?
Hamilcar said...
Wait, you're saying that you don't think it says that. Then, you turn around and say that you do think it says that... but what's your point?
The bible doesn't speak. It is an inanimate object. It is words typewritten on a page. The reader MUST interpret those characters for any information to be communicated. This is true for any written media, from newspapers to Tolstoy. To state that the bible “says” anything is to infer that there is a correct interpretation, and that it can be determined if the reader adheres to a “proper” hermeneutic. I reject that, simply because of the subjectivity of interpretation—we can't read objectively, and I believe the words on the page would be meaningless if we could.
Do you mean to argue that an atheist has no valid criticisms against "Christianity" because some Christians hold to one viewpoint and some to another?
No. I mean to argue that, if the foundational (fundamentalist/literal) reading of the bible is held up as the “correct” interpretation, the atheist has every argument in the world against Christianity. I reject the foundational reading, thus I reject the atheist arguments against Christianity based on such a reading. The argument has to change if it is based on another reading.
You've read the FAQ for this blog, right? The FAQ that says that what DC is arguing against is primarily "Evangelical Christianity", and not every little Christian sect under the sun?
From the FAQ: “I can, and I do argue against mainline and even Catholic Christianity. It's just not my focus.” and “I can argue against liberal theological views!” John goes on to say in other places he [my paraphrase] rejects catholic and orthodox arguments as well. Since all stripes of Christianity are reading the same book John is debunking, I take that to mean “Open Season”. If we're going to stick with arguing for and against Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christianity, then there is no reason for me to be here... I'm against that too. But the existence of God, morality, the nature of the universe, and supposed claims of the bible reach far beyond the narrow focus of fundys.
What level of parsing are you proposing here? Take an example:
I read The Lord of the Rings... [snip] Along comes another reader, who says, no! not so! [snip]
Is this the kind of parsing of the New Testament you're talking about? Is this how someone could claim that the NT does NOT say that Y'Shua returned to life after having died on the cross, and did so three days later?
Yes. I can accept that someone may come along and read that passage and come away saying the passage is a poetic ruse. A gnostic-type might interpret it that way, believing Jesus was spirit and not human, thus could not die and was not bound at all by the physical limitations of a human body.
I reject such an interpretation, but it is a possible one, of many.
Justin,
I reject such an interpretation, but it is a possible one, of many.
On what basis do you reject it? I know that there are other interpretations. I acknowledge your gnostic example, sure. But is it merely your whim that leads you to reject it? Is it just the fact that you were brought up in a specific religious tradition that leads you reject it?
Or is it that, on some level, those alternate interpretations don't make as much sense to you?
If you were to engage in argument with said "gnostic" Christian, would you present an argument to her in order to show her why your view makes more sense? Perhaps she has some cloudy thinking on the subject, and once you've laid out the evidence, she'd be convinced and no longer be gnostic.
Or would you simply shrug, and grant her that her gnostic interpretation is really just as good as yours, just as valid, an equally reasonable and justified interpretation of the text?
Now, shifting slightly, let's say you engage with a member of the Flat Earth Society. Many of them aren't religious at all, but that's neither here nor there. You're not engaging them in an argument about religion, you're arguing about whether the earth is a spheroid or a cylinder. You're arguing about whether the sun is a giant, nuclear furnace 93 million miles away, or whether it's merely a "light" a few dozen miles across, a few thousand feet up.
Do you shrug, and grant them their interpretation? Or do you put forth your best understanding of the evidence, in the hopes that you might convince them of a better explanation for the shape of the world (or if not to convince them, convince those observing the debate)?
Hamilcar said...
On what basis do you reject it?
A little bit of everything. My upbringing, yes. My mental/emotional baggage, yes. My education/scholarship, yes. My whim's, too. I accept the one that makes sense to me, yes.
... would you present an argument to her in order to show her why your view makes more sense?
Yes.
Or would you simply shrug, and grant her that her gnostic interpretation is really just as good as yours, just as valid, an equally reasonable and justified interpretation of the text?
If she was not convinced, yes.
Do you shrug, and grant them their interpretation?
Only after I...
... forth [my] best understanding of the evidence, in the hopes that [I] might convince them of a better explanation for the shape of the world (or if not to convince them, convince those observing the debate)?
... and they are not convinced.
Actually, Stan, vaccination exemptions vary state to state. West Virginia, for example, does not appear to offer religious-based exemption for entry into public school.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf
justin says: Shygetz, you nail it here. It is ALL a matter of textual interpretation and melding it with reality.
Then you are left with important questions--if you must interpret the Bible under the lens of reality, then what does the Bible tell you that you don't already know, and how certain can you be in that knowledge knowing that you and fellow believers have to alter your interpretation based on new findings in the past?
I can understand taking the Bible as a source of what is essentially a humanist moral philosophy; however, to grant it privileged status would require it to meet a stricter standard, would it not?
Shygetz asks:
... if you must interpret the Bible under the lens of reality, then what does the Bible tell you that you don't already know...
It tells me that how we interact with each other matters. Not “matters” in the sense of getting along in civilized society, but in the sense that what I do, how I do it, and who I do it to has lasting effect, and a wider effect than we will get to realize.
No, I don't get that understanding from other sources.
... how certain can you be in that knowledge knowing that you and fellow believers have to alter your interpretation based on new findings in the past?
New scientific findings do to change the fact that people love and hate, feel pleasure and hurt, live and die—and that how we respond to those events and circumstances in our lives is important to the people around us. The universe being 15.7 billion years old vs. 6 days matters very little in that regard. The story of Cain killing Abel might have something to say about that, however, regardless if it's allegorical or spot on history.
I can understand taking the Bible as a source of what is essentially a humanist moral philosophy; however, to grant it privileged status would require it to meet a stricter standard, would it not?
It depends on what I am looking to the bible for. I don't believe it to be a journalistic thesis on moral philosophy and its sources and biases, nor do I believe it to be a reference of bygone scientific observations or statements of natural law—or even a very good ancient history book. Sure, it has “thou shalt” and “thou shalt not”, and “In the beginning...”, but that is within a wider, very complicated context of an exploration of the relationships humans have had with each other and with God (assuming he/she/it exists). To approach the bible as a unifed codex of philosophical, moral, and natural laws, historical record, and societal how-to—and as such hold it to a strict standard of coherency applied to modern academic or industrial reference texts—is either to be ignorant of, or flatly deny, the circuitous path taken which has brought us the modern, printed, English bible and all its varied translations. Holding it to such a standard is a guarantee to discredit it, which may, after all, be the whole point.
I grant the bible “privileged status” in my life because it answers the existential questions I have, where other sources do not, and in antithetical ways. My questions are not necessarily yours, so I will repeat... your mileage may vary.
Scott, I apologize. I missed this reply or yours. Here are my comments:
Have you not helped someone merely because they asked? Did thismake you their servant?
Yes, and yes (at least temporarily).
And, on one hand, God is all powerful and created everything, yet we cannot assign any attributes to God?
If he is not observable, how can we assign any quality or attribute to him? If he IS observable, then any attribute we “assign” must be observed beforehand, or imagined. Primacy of Existence comes to play.
In saying God is NOT at our bidding, you've just defined God as not being at our bidding.
So which is it... have you observed him to be at our bidding, or is that something you expect? I am saying that, since I cannot observe his “servitude” to human desires, I expect him to not be. That is consistent with a creator-to-created relationship, I think. God's servitude to humanity's whims makes him a vending machine, not a creator.
If God does not keep his promises, you must change his promises to ensure God remains worthy of your devotion.
Or, find an interpretation of the promises that makes more sense. My interpretation must fit reality, else the whole cognitive dissonance thing.
I'm concerned with the cognitive dissidence that results from others who take the Bible at face value.
With all due respect, what do you care? Why isn't being satisfied with your own conclusions in your own mind enough? Must everyone think alike? You seem to be standing on the outside, looking into people's thoughts and emotions, determining their validity. What gives?
You must find loopholes and ignore the problem.
Is there, then, only one correct way to read and interpret the bible? Is it your reading and interpretation?
So now you're unclear on the interpretation? Could it be that others are unclear as well?
I can only assume that to be the case.
This is precisely the problem. The idea that we can somehow know the nature or will of a immaterial being without any remote kind of verification is dangerous.
I agree. It is a risk.
Again, you say we cannot define God, but then make all kinds of claims about God defining us, which is a spectacular claim without any explicit evidence.
I make is simply on the assumption that, if God exists as the creator, he defines his creation... me and us. If it is true (an arguable point) it does not matter if I can observe the evidence. It remains true.
Again, because he wants to and said he would? This is a non-answer.
How do you know he wants to? To answer that question, you have to either, impart upon God a definition of your own choosing, or give credence to the bible which attempts to describe God and his promises. If you don't believe in God, why hold up the very book you discredit as the proof for the promise he makes? You can't have it both ways. If the bible is bunk and God does not exisit, the bible cannot be held up as some sort of proof of the failed hypothesis.
So then God doesn't heal the sick at all? We're getting nowhere fast. Why would Jesus make an offer that no one could ever receive.
I didn't say that. I said [rather mean] that God determines when to and when not to, based on whatever it is he bases that decision on. He is not obligated simply because we ask or understand a biblical promise to mean he will.
So now we're not supposed to ask at all, even though Jesus explicitly tells us how to ask for thinks in his name when praying to God. Again, if a particular motivation is required, then what motivation is required? Otherwise, you're avoiding the question.
I believe what we ask for matters, and with what motivation. Paraphrasing, love of God and love of others are the motivation(s). None of that trumps what God's wider purpose in healing or not. It's not always about me and my desires.
So you're saying monks would be able to heal the sick. Wouldn't people notice this sort of thing?
No, I'm not. What makes you think a monk is somehow more "properly motivated" or somehow meeting the "requirments"?
And if someone had to hate their mother before God would answer their prayer, why would they pray for their mother be healed in the first place?
It's a matter of priority and personal commitment, and Jesus was using hyperbole to drive home a point.
You've simply pushed food around on your plate and claimed you've ate it.
I can't make you like my answers, or see it my way. This discourse may not be for your benefit.
So it's all just some ploy to get us to pay attention to him?
I would be intrested to know what your view of friendship is.
God makes him self look good at the expense of others? Surely, if a all powerful, all knowing God wanted to make is power known, he could find a way to do so without the suffering of others.
We want all the power of deity at our beck and call, but we don't want the sovereignty of a creator. You are free to reject God because he let's people suffer. If there is one reason I would go that direction, it would be human suffering. I don't like suffering, either. Neither did I like it when my parents let me cut my head open as a kid, or bloody my own lip on the stairs, or play football and break my knee, or stood by while bullies beat me up. My only answer is the one Job didn't get... there is more to it that I understand or see. I do know that people who work through their suffering, or carry on in spite of it, are better people because of it. And people who I've met who have not suffered in any appreciable way are spoiled-brat, whiny, selfish asses.
If they can, then why has there been no study that looks at the statistical effectiveness of prayer based on a person's particular level of devotion and perceived relationship with God? Still you still haven't addressed this question.
They can't. Subjective experience cannot be analyzed statistically.
"My only answer is the one Job didn't get... there is more to it that I understand or see. I do know that people who work through their suffering, or carry on in spite of it, are better people because of it."
This is truly sad. Perhaps you assume that children who suffer from leukemia and die are better off for the experience, or those who are born and left in dumpsters to rot are equally enlightened tots.
Despite the common argument, I never used "evil" or even "suffering" as a reason to question the validity of the OT God's validity. Rather, his penchant for inflicting it and doing so with utter confusion (repentance after the flood, for instance.) That, along with his seeming bloodlust for children (taking firstborns, newborns, etc.) makes this seem more like a test of our ethical lines.
I can see it now: "Wonder how far the heartless will go in order to justify THESE acts as those of a loving God?" Perhaps the joke is on the believer for doing just that.
And what of the consequences? Might adherence to the ideology of such a bloody god influence his followers? Surely history is its own testimony to this hypothesis.
Job is not the only one not to "get" this malicious god, nor are modern-day ex-scholars, agnostics, atheist, etc. the only ones to raise an issue over the ethics involved.
Start with Marcion and work your way forward.
Post a Comment