It’s chilling: this report in the January 20 New York Times details the death of an 11-year-old girl, Kara Neumann, who died from diabetes because her parents refused medical care, believing that prayer would heal her. They are going on trial next week.
But what is even more chilling are these two facts (verbatim from the article):
1. About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it.
and
2. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes. (See Wendell’s comment below for an explanation of how this works in Tennessee.)
I’m not sure exactly what “forms of protection” are involved here, but any protection is too much. So it’s ok to kill your kid by withholding treatment, but not through more intentional abuse? One child dead is too many; three hundred is a national tragedy. (The Times describes several other horrifying cases.) This would not have happened in a secular society, for there would be no reason to withhold medical care.
As Steven Weinberg said in a quote I gave yesterday: “for good people to do evil — that takes religion.”
If you’d like to read more about this issue, The Times mentions this book by Shawn Peters: When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law (Oxford, 2007).
Protection????
I would call it abuse, child neglect, malicious negligence, murder.
You share an anecdote or two here. Congratulations. I think that as a scientist, you know just exactly what that’s worth.
Christian Smith and M.L. Denton conducted a gold-standard scientific study on youth and religion, published by Oxford University Press. It’s the kind of thing–science, that is, not anecdote–that I hope you consider to be of some significance, even though Richard Dawkins, supposedly the public’s guardian of science, has pointedly ignored it and clung to evidence-free theorizing.
Smith and Denton’s team measured 99 different life outcomes, and found that the more religiously devoted youth (predominantly Christians) were experiencing better, healthier outcomes on (you guessed it) 99 of them.
So before you conclude on the basis of anecdotes that religion is bad for kids, I suggest you consult what science has to say about it. It seems like that would be the intellectually consistent thing for a person in your position to do. I would have thought that of Dawkins, too.
Lets see here. Objective?
Everything you point to on your post is a religious organization and/or your own web site. The book specified is written by people with a religious doctrine. Hardly objective. You know just exactly what that’s worth.
What does that study have to do with this case? Even if the study is true, it is of no relevance here. There are no excuses whatsoever for denying life-saving medical care to a child.
Tom Gilson said:
Posted May 10, 2009 at 9:11 am | Permalink (Edit)
You share an anecdote or two here. Congratulations. I think that as a scientist, you know just exactly what that’s worth.
__________________
It’s worth the lives of 300 children, all of them killed by faith.
If you think of that as “collateral damage,” I feel sorry for you.
As a resident of Tennessee I can explain the ‘protection’ in law here. In essence the laws states that harm to a child from the witholding of care is not to be taken as proof of child neglect as long as the parent was following the instructions of a leader of an accredited religious group.
This is ridiculous on many many fronts and I am at the beginning of trying to get it repealed. Wish me luck !!
Wendell, we wish you luck, but also you have reason, logic and critical thinking on your side.
You don’t need luck, just a judge that understands the Constitution (maybe that is the definition of luck in TN). Historically, the main focus of the separation of Church and State, was to restrict or negate the state meddling in Church activities. The first and foremost was who a church can ordain (remember this was in reaction to the King appointing the Archbishops, well pretty much all over Europe, but Canterbury, in particular).
“A leader of an ‘accredited’ religious group” is prima facia, unconstitutional. Every Supreme Court decision in the matter has always reject any such accreditation. The sole criteria is the sincerity of belief. (Unfortunately no one has gone after the ubiquitous statement “by the power invested in me by the state of____.)
Belief is protected but not actions. A sect may believe in ritual human sacrifice, but is not allowed to carry it out.
Since the efficacy of pray has been shown to be only in the mind of the beholder, but objectively nil, these praying parents are equivalent to the Canaanites (including Carthaginians) who sacrificed their children to Molek’.
A comment with links didn’t post. I tried twice. ???
Another try.
How about healing uneven tire wear? No problem!
There’s an interesting side story to this disgusting mess. The founder of a faith healing ministry called “Unleavened Bread Ministries” helped pray for the child. Story here: Parents prayed with ministry founder. Going to the Unleavened Bread Ministries web site is quite an adventure. Here, under Miraculous Testimonies, we find some really bizarre faith healing stories. It turns out that faith healing is not just for sick people but works well for such things as dead batteries> and uneven tire wear; it can even get one out of credit card debt. I don’t know if they have tried to heal the national debt but that may be too big of a job, even for God.
Considering its destructiveness and general absurdity, I have no problem saying “faith a vice” and I do so every chance I get.
Slight correction: The “uneven tire wear” fix came about via the healing of the front-end.
P.S. I tried to get this multi-link comment posted several times without success. Now, it’s finally arrived. ????
“Collateral damage”? Where did that come from??
And the complaint of objectivity? Here, of all places?? Is religious bias the only kind of bias that disqualifies a conclusion? Can you demonstrate there was bias involved in this study? Recall who published it. And consider carefully the bias with respect to religion in this venue. It’s not (ahem) very well hidden behind the “objective” science you report here.
And what does the study have to do with the issue at hand? It is, as I wrote in my comment, a balancing perspective. I acknowledge that anything can be abused, and abuse is abuse; it’s bad. Waterboarding is abusive, so do we generalize one form of abusive treatment to all uses of water? The point of what I wrote was to say:
1) Generally speaking, religious devotion produces positive outcomes in children’s lives. This is a sociological/statistical result, and as everyone knows, that means there can be exceptions. But the point remains that religious devotion generally produces positive outcomes.
2) Anecdotes are not science. Science is science. If you’re going to advocate for science, I urge you to do a better job of it on this issue than Richard Dawkins has done, and better than you have done so far in this particular blog post.
This blog post tells us about a child that was deliberately denied medical care that is known to save life. So you are justifying murder of an innocent child by bringing up completely irrelevant studies about the general effect of religion on health. It does not matter if those studies are true or not. The only thing that matters is that the parents killed their child and that they did so against better knowledge.
Your attempts at excusing the killing of a child, shows exactly what is wrong with religious people like you. You are willing to sacrifice the life of a child in order that no doubt ever be cast upon the merits of faith. That is the epitome of evil.
Tell that to the thousands of children abused/raped/degraded in the Irish Catholic School system. You want to see a shocking report – look at that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/irish-reform-schools-thou_n_205719.html
I didn’t state (1) strongly enough. To say it “generally produces positive outcomes” understates the remarkable strength and consistency of those positive outcomes. All 99 measured outcomes showed statistically significant differences between the less devoted and the more devoted youth, where the more devoted youth showed up stronger/healthier in relationships, academics, emotional maturity, physical health, substance abuse, and all other measured dimensions. In social research, that level of consistency is more than remarkable. You can wave it away as non-objective, but you’re waving off science if you do that, and substituting your anecdotes as if they told you what religion really, typically does to children. Which makes more sense, now?
So you are trying to tell us that evangelicals’ narrow view of a fantasy of reality is good for their children and is better than learning facts and logic and using critical thinking?
I guess the Taliban and others who send their children to madrases for their religious devotion produces more “positive outcomes in children’s lives”?
horse shit!
This article says that 32,600 people a year are killed by medical injuries.
Yes, withholding treatment can kill but giving treatment can also kill.
http://www.webmd.com/news/20031010/epidemic-of-medical-injuries-confirmed
NewEnglandBob:
I do not advocate or support Islam, or “religion” as such. Why would you think I would? Why would you think that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and so on, with their vastly different beliefs about reality and what is good, should produce similar outcomes? No, the study I have pointed you to is one that includes predominantly Christians among its religious respondents (I said that already), so the positive outcomes it discovered apply specifically to Christianity.
So you are trying to tell us that evangelicals’ narrow view of a fantasy of reality is good for their children and is better than learning facts and logic and using critical thinking?
Is your view of facts, logic, and critical thinking so narrow as to exclude the findings of scientific research? Because this is not about what I’m saying, it’s about what the research says.
The chief source of this information, by the way, is the book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. The study was conducted out of the University of North Carolina. The project web page is http://www.youthandreligion.org/.
So you want science, but you read whatever you please into that study. I see. Your horse blinders are the cause of your myopia.
Really, now. What did I read into the study? I’d be interested to know.
What did you read into it? Thos statement.
“Why would you think that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and so on, with their vastly different beliefs about reality and what is good, should produce similar outcomes?”
This is not science, it is speculation.
But you are so far off topic about religion causing the death of a child.
Thank you for pointing this out, Bob:
You see, I was not the one who brought up Islam in the first place. The original topic was about religion’s harming a child, and I replied by pointing out that an anecdote is not science, and that there was scientific research
You brought up the Taliban, not I. The reason I answered the way I did was just to say that I wasn’t talking about Islam. It is not speculation that Islam and Christianity have different beliefs.
As to whether Islam produces similar outcomes to Christianity, I think that would be another interesting study, but it’s a different topic than the one that I thought we were discussing. I was discussing life outcomes of Christian youth, and how positive that generally is. I have no reason to think Islamic youth’s outcomes would be similar, since their overall outlook on life differs markedly, but I’m not speculating on it either. I asked a question about what you believe, and you called it non-scientific speculation on my part. Odd.
off topic. Irrelevant.
I am a pastor in a church that believes in the ability of God to heal. I encourage our people to pray, then seek medical attention if the symptoms persist, and then pray for the doctors to have wisdom and skill and that the treatments will work.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of success to failure between: 1. medical treatment alone, 2. medical treatment combined with prayer, and 3. prayer alone.
We hear about the failures of prayer alone. What about the times it succeeds? What about the times that medicine alone fails? What does the rest of the data show?
The comparison of 1 and 2 has already been done and published for heart surgery. There is no significant improvement in patients who were prayed for with intercessory prayer and knew it; in fact, they did slightly WORSE than the controls. I would be thousands of dollars that treating cancer patients with prayer alone would have a worse effect than using surgery and chemotherapy (these are the experiments that are done anecdotally with unfortunate children like those described in this post. If one of your parishoners had early-stage melanoma, you’d advise him/her to pray, and only go to a doctor if the melanoma got bigger? I hope not, because if you did this you would be an evil man.
He’s quite right. Perhaps you should go and do a little research of your own on the subject Mr Curt. Doesn’t take much to start typing keywords into google these days.
I said “then see a doctor if the symptoms persist” not “only go to a doctor if the melanoma got bigger”. By persist, I meant if the symptom remains evident. Did you deliberately distort my statement? If so, what does that make you?
I have apparently read different reports than you. Some of the reports that I have seen have shown that prayer, or religious faith, have a favorable impact on medical treatment.
Another study that would be interesting, would be to show the percentage of all children born to parents with the different practices mentioned earlier, that survive to age eighteen. There may be value that is unseen when only looking at those children that become ill.
Just some thoughts.
Pastor Curt
Posted May 11, 2009 at 8:33 am | Permalink (Edit)
I said “then see a doctor if the symptoms persist” not “only go to a doctor if the melanoma got bigger”. By persist, I meant if the symptom remains evident. Did you deliberately distort my statement? If so, what does that make you?
________________
Well, by their nature melanomas get bigger. If you tell somebody to go home and pray that their suspicious looking mole goes away, and only then counsel medical treatment if it doesn’t, then you are increasing the chance that the person will die. Some conditions need to be attended to IMMEDIATELY, not after a bout of prayer.
Pastor Curt:
Show us a proper study that shows that prayer, or religious faith, have a favorable impact on medical treatment. Those that do show it have been shown to be improper studies, with little or no control groups and/or false data.
All legitimate studies, including those by religious people, show no such impact.
The lack of statistical support for prayer’s effectiveness in these studies can be interpreted in either of two ways:
1) Prayer is ineffective (most likely because there is no God), or
2) Prayer does not control God in the manner hypothesized by the researchers.
Option (2) is not ad hoc, it is entirely consistent with historic Christian theology, which says that God rules humans and not vice-versa. Christian thinkers have never regarded prayer as a kind of drop-a-dime-in-the-vending-machine think. It’s a relational interaction with a God who has power to effect change but who decides according to his will.
I can’t think of any philosophical or scientific reason to reject (2) on the basis of these kinds of studies alone. If (2) is rejected, it is rejected on other grounds.
Crikey! You’d better believe that if prayer was shown to be efficacious in healing, all the believers would shout hosannah, saying that it confirmed God’s existence! Option 2 IS ad hoc, because lots of people believe that God answers prayers. “Christian thinkers” are not the same as “practicing Christians”.
No test of religious beliefs will ever be falsifiable, so it’s an airy-fairy story. When they supposedly found the ossuary of Jesus’s brother John, lots of Christians celebrated it as evidence for Jesus. When it was shown to be a forgery, they all said that “We don’t rest our beliefs on tangible evidence.”
This is an irrational way of thinking.
I think you probably know that “ad hoc” means “made up for this, i.e., that it is thrown out as an hypothesis after the fact to explain away some result. I don’t quite see how a view of God that goes back several millennia could have been made up to explain away the results of these studies, do you?
Now, I do believe God answers prayers, but I don’t believe he commits himself to do it in order to prove himself to skeptics. When people wanted to put Jesus to some kind of test, as Herod did in demanding that he show him some miracle, he refused to play their games. When people wanted to understand who God was, and how to follow Him, Jesus showed them freely. This has been in the record for almost 2,000 years. It’s not ad hoc either.
Yes, it IS all ad hoc. All made up. Fairy tales, Supernatural nonsense. Not based on any facts or evidence.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe prayer does anything, in any way.
I think you have missed the definition of ad hoc. It has a definite meaning, not equivalent to “wrong,” “nonsense,” “superstitious,” “silly,” or any such thing.
It means (approximately “made up for this,” as in, concocted specifically for the purpose of saving a hypothesis or a theory.
You can disagree all you want, but you’ll do so more effectively if you do it more accurately than calling a 2,000+ year-old teaching an ad hoc response to this decade’s research results.
Even better. It was ad hoc 2000 years ago by bronze age men to try to explain the spooky world they did not understand. Therefore it is shown to be ridiculous to use that explanation for anything in the present. Bronze age fairy tales have no usage by modern humans except as stories.
Where are you a pastor, Pastor Curt? Just curious.
Some time ago I read somewhere: “There are no creationists in clinics.” as a persiflage on “There are no atheists in foxholes.”
Now I see you can read this in more than one sense.
You seem to think that being a creationist means one cannot accept the scientific advances of medicine. Given that Dr. Coyne calls Francis Collins a creationist, that’s just obviously wrong.
A Christian who believes in prayer can also believe in God working through natural means. There are extremely rare, fringe groups, wherein the two are taken to be in conflict with each other. The case Dr. Coyne cited in this blog post appears to be one of those. I think that’s a tragic error, and uncalled-for from a biblical perspective as well as from a medical perspective. It’s a very fringe belief, however, and completely unrepresentative of Christianity as a whole.
I’ve had my life saved by medical science at least four times so far. I’m grateful for it. I pray, too. No contradiction there.
You can believe anything you want Tom. The big problem is that many religious people, especially hard core fanatical creationists such as evangelicals, espouse the erroneous belief that their self-imposed religious rules MUST be followed by everyone. They try to force people to do it their way – what to eat, who to marry, how and when to have children, who should learn what and many other disgusting issues that they try to jam down others’ throats.
Interesting. A few moments ago you suggested that one of the things I wrote was off topic, irrelevant. But I was talking about the subject Dr. Coyne had opened with, which was religion’s effects on children. And now you yourself have switched subjects, to how you think evangelicals force their beliefs on others.
You’re not being very consistent here, are you?
But you can believe anything you want, Bob.
Of course you can not follow logic, Tom. What I said was off topic was your questioning me of my beliefs. I certainly don’t care about your silly little beliefs.
And still I wait for someone to acknowledge the difference between science and anecdote with respect to Christianity’s effect on youth.
You would think that on a science-oriented blog like this, it wouldn’t have taken this long.
Tom,
Speaking for no-one but myself I’m quite prepared to allow that the book you reference is a scientifically derived study and the blog is an anectdote of the tragic, preventable death of a child. I wish you joy of the victory.
Regards,
I believe in the power of prayer. I also believe that modern medicine is a wonderful thing. I encourage people to see the doctor in a timely fashion, depending on the particular problem. You can pray while rushing to the emergency room if need be. If God heals you on the way, then you don’t have to check in:)
I know people who believe that going to see a doctor for treatment is showing a lack of faith. I counsel them that God has given us brains, medicine and technology and that it is not a lack of faith to use them. Luke (a gospel author) was a physician himself, after all.
Regarding statistics, I was thinking more along the line of sociological surveys rather than clinical studies. I would not want to suggest that anyone forego treatment for the sake of a study.
A bigger issue here is that of religious freedom and personal autonomy. At what point do we decide what is best for someone else’s children, especially if it is bound up in their religion? Wasn’t religious freedom an important part of our national heritage? I, for one, am very reluctant to go down that path. Although cases like the one this post is about does legitimately raise that question.
Child abuse and child neglect should never be part of religious freedom. What if there was a religion that called for eliminating anyone called Pastor? Should that freedom be allowed? Of course not. You may be reluctant to go down that path, but I will run down it, because that is what is moral and ethical.
“At what point do we decide what is best for someone else’s children, especially if it is bound up in their religion?”
The case in the blog post is clear. The parents are directly responsible for the death of the child and should be prosecuted without any regards to their religious beliefs.
The general question of who decides what is best for a child, is not an easy one. However, any debate about that question should be based on evidence and reason. That rules out any arguments based on religious dogma – because dogma cannot be debated.
Keep religion out of politics and any other form of public discourse. Only then can we hope to have a fruitful debate on issues of personal freedom.
Amazing how well all of those arguments apply to babies not yet born…
They hardly apply in the first three months of pregnancy. They do not apply when there is no nervous system, etc. Of course, some people make outrageous statements because they need attention.
Using the phrase “babies not yet born” is a ridiculous and dishonest attempt at avoiding the difficult question of how and when to define a fetus as a human being.
The issue of abortion does involve unpleasant moral dilemmas. Doctors are faced with such dilemmas every day. But as usual religion brings nothing of value to the discussion.
How about healing uneven tire wear? No problem!
There’s an interesting side story to this disgusting mess. The founder of a faith healing ministry called “Unleavened Bread Ministries” helped pray for the child.
Parents prayed with ministry founder.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29556439.html
Going to the Unleavened Bread Ministries web site is quite an adventure:
http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/
We find some really bizarre faith healing stories under “Miraculous Testimonies” (on the left)
Faith healing also works for dead batteries: under “Provisions”
and uneven tire wear: under “other signs”
and credit card debt: under “Deliverances”
I don’t know if they have tried to heal the national debt but that may be too big of a job, even for God.
Considering its destructiveness and general absurdity, I have no problem saying “faith a vice” and I do so every chance I get.
Slight correction: The “uneven tire wear” fix came about via the healing of the front-end.
New England Bob,
I believe that child abuse is understood as actively harming a child. That would not fit this case.
Child neglect would seem to imply that no effort is made to provide for the needs of the child. If there were a case in which there were several options of medical treatment available, and the family picks option A, and the child dies, do we then blame them for not choosing option B? This family sincerely believed that prayer was capable of bringing healing. They are guilty of bad judgement, but not neglect.
Let’s say that a different family with the same illness chooses option C for their child. Option C is to participate in a clinical trial of a new drug. Sadly, their child also dies, an adverse reaction to the drug. Should we charge them, and the doctor with child abuse? After all, they actively gave the child something that killed them.
I believe that the freedom to choose is an important right in our society. This is ironic because I am a creationist, evangelical, pentecostal pastor about whom you wrote
“The big problem is that many religious people, especially hard core fanatical creationists such as evangelicals, espouse the erroneous belief that their self-imposed religious rules MUST be followed by everyone. They try to force people to do it their way – what to eat, who to marry, how and when to have children, who should learn what and many other disgusting issues that they try to jam down others’ throats.”
Yet, here I am arguing for the freedom of choice. I will admit that there are some people who would fit your above description, but I believe that they are in the minority.
angelical, pentecostal, etc. about whom you wrote
“
Pastor Curt:
Your arguments are nonsense. A non-starter.
They killed the child. That is abuse and neglect and malicious and incompetent.
You attempts to explain it away are obfuscations and disingenuous.
Pastor Curt,
I have to conclude that your ethics have been warped by your religiosity. There is no evidence that prayer will cure lymphoma. The parents are not only guilty of child abuse; they are guilty of murder.
Isn’t it your duty to counsel your parishoners to heed the judgement of doctors? You’re not a doctor, so why would you think you’d know better how to get rid of lymphoma.
To call this only “bad judgement” is one of the most egregious statements I’ve ever heard. And it comes from a PASTOR!
Another thing warped here is the idea of “freedom of choice”. Choice has a context. It applies up to the point where the rights of others are violated–also violating the freedom of choice of others. As an example, we’ve all seen how the “free exercise” clause is used by religious advocates. We can all believe what we want but we can’t do whatever we want. In my view, the parents violated the child’s right to their rational care and deserve to be prosecuted.
“rational care”: an important point.
The determination of rational care cannot consist merely of claims to care made by the parents. If that were the case, the whole idea of parents’ responsibility for care would, in practice, be vacuous. The facts of the case have to be examined in detail–which I suppose will be done in this criminal case. It will be interesting to see what tests will be used. In any event, whether or not the parents provided care is to be determined by facts and not by the beliefs of the parents.
Sorry, I was having a little trouble with my “cut and paste” that last line is not supposed to be there.
Whyevolutionistrue, I have already stated, that I believe in prayer and that I recommend seeing the doctor.
There are people who claim to have been healed of cancer by prayer. None of you may believe it, but the parents of this child did believe that prayer could heal their child.
MelM, Thank you for pointing out a key point. The rights of the parents to belief, and the right of the child to receive proper care. Adults who decide to forego the use of medical treatment we freely allow to suffer the consequences of their decision. When children die, it is a tragedy,and our society screams out in protest. The line has been crossed. If the parents endanger their child by their practices, then perhaps it is time for the state to step in, but we should be careful about surrendering our rights as parents to the state.
I’d be very grateful for the following:
1) Evidence (in the form of a scienctific study) that prayer can heal
2) An explanation as to why God never heals amputees
aitchkay,
In response to #1
God does not need to prove himself to a skeptical world. The unscientific claims of believers that have experienced healings is all the evidence that is offered.
In response to #2.
I believe that God does not heal amputees because it would provide undeniable proof of His existence and power. God intentionally works in our lives in ways that allow the nonbelievers room to dismiss religious claims. God has called us to have faith. Proof will have to wait fot the day of judgement.
Pastor Curt – your answers are the response of someone with no real answers so you make up slimy nonsense.
Anyone that ‘devines’ such tripe shows maliciousness or mental instability due to the unwillingness to face reality.
You might as well just stick out your tongue and say “nah, nah”.
Pastor Curt – that’s one of the funniset things I’ve heard. I can just imagine God’s dilemma: “Gee Miss – I really do feel for you, what with you having no legs and all, and I’d really like to help. But you see, I just can’t because that’d be like – well, it’d be like giving people a good reason to believe in me. And I’d prefer people to believe in me without having a good reason to. You do understand, don’t you?”
You mean God only heals when it can’t be taken as proof that he exists? How convenient. That is, convenient for you – not very convenient for amputees.
On what basis, do you suppose, God decides to heal non-amputees or allow them to continue suffering. Any ideas?
Do you really think people should pray before seeking medical treatment? Are you aware that some medical problems require immediate attention, and delay of even a minute or two can reduces the chances of survival (such as heart attacks, strokes etc)?
As it should be:
entire article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo_4
Story–with poll!
There is also an MSNBC story today:
Judge rules family can’t refuse chemo for boy
Page down to find a link to a poll: “What do you think?”
So, the boy made his decision based on a really bad assessment of the facts.
In a secular society, there would still be people who were paranoid of conspiracy. People do all kinds of things in the name of religion, but they don’t necessarily understand creationism. You can’t take a handful of extremists and say that their actions are indicative of any and all religion. Well…I guess you can…and you just did, but for me your argument doesn’t hold water.
There was an article in Skeptic Magazine about this issue (it’s always worth reading the magazine anyway). I think Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic.
Pastor Curt – you said:
“This family sincerely believed that prayer was capable of bringing healing. They are guilty of bad judgement, but not neglect.”
And in a previous post you said:
“I am a pastor in a church that believes in the ability of God to heal.”
You arrear to contradicting yourself, unless you’re saying that God can heal, but not as a result of prayer.
aitchkay, I said previously that the process should be:
pray
seek medical attention if symptoms persist
pray again
The families bad judgement was to think that medical treatment should be refused.
I believe that God can heal in response to prayer, that does not mean that prayer will always result in healing. Divine healing is a gift that we receive, not a right that we demand.
I also believe that medical treatment is appropriate as needed.
You say you believe that prayer can heal. Does one have to pray to the God of the bible, or can one pray to any god (such as Zues or Mithra)? And if I pray by saying in my head “Dear God, please give me some divine favouritism,” how does he know I’m talking to him and not to some other god?
Even if was scientifically demonstrated that prayer has an effect (it hasn’t been), it could be that praying has a beneficial psychological effect – it would not necessarily point to divine intervention, much less to divine intervention by a specific diety.
newenglandbob,
It is only nonsense to you and to others who do not believe in the existence of God.
A persons metaphysical perspective of reality is a basic foundation upon which we build our understanding of all things. You and I obviously have different foundations. In order to have a constructive discussion we would need to find a common starting point.
Quite contrary to saying “nah, nah” I would say that God loves you, and I am praying for you. You seem to have fair amount of anger and bitterness in your responses.
And now, besides your delusions and supernatural fantasies, you are a complete failure as a lay psychiatrist. Is your entire life like this?
“metaphysics perspective” is not anything real. It is delusions and/or mental inadequacies.
I have no common starting point with someone who creates fantasies and denies reality like you.
My attitude towards you is sadness at your failure to live this life instead of making up nonsense and dreaming of the next one that is not coming. How sad that you do not enjoy the wonders of reality.
newenglandbob,
Metaphysics is the division of philosophy that studies the nature of reality.
I do enjoy the wonders of this life. I just believe that the best is yet to come.
aitchkay,
Why God heals some and not others is a mystery. I am not God, and so can only speculate. I can say that a persons life can be rich and complete, even if their bodies are not whole, because God’s grace is able to help us make the best of things. There are many aspects of this life that can be enjoyed.
I believe in prayers that are offered in the name of Jesus Christ.
God sees our hearts, if we sincerely reach out to him, he will hear our prayers.