Ship of Fools: Pastor-blessed blackcurrant squash and olive oil will cure cancer etc..

Thread: Pastor-blessed blackcurrant squash and olive oil will cure cancer etc.. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023372

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Assuming you agree with me that this behaviour is despicable and should be squashed immediately every time it occurs (whether associated with religion or not) what can/should Christians and/or Christian churches do to protect people who are desperate enough to fall for this sort of wickedness when it’s promoted (deliberately or unthinkingly) by religious con-men?

Should it be left to the secular press to expose this nonsense?

Quite apart from the moral question how do Christians protect their brand?

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

What CAN be done? There are plenty of quacks selling "cures" without the church, and the medical estalishment can't get rid of them, either. All you can do, if you know someone desperate enough to fall for this sort of thing, is try to support them in pursuing scientifically proven treatments (with a bit of squash and oil on the side if it gives them hope and doesn't detract from effective treatments).

In my experience of church, teaching on healing has always emphasised that, aside from the miraculous which noone can guarantee, we should praise God for the provision of medicines and doctors and nurses.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
What CAN be done?

1 – Direct action – as I understand it it’s illegal in England and Wales to claim to cure cancer unless that claim can be supported with proper evidence so, I presume, a reference to the police/Attorney General would be in order.

2 – Indirect action - I have recently drawn the attention of a mail order company to the "arthritis cure" offered in leaflets inserted within their catalogue. The response I received includes the following (anonymised by me) content.

“Thank you for your recent letter about the XXXXX insert we recently carried in our mailing.

You have raised a number of points that I was unaware of.

I would not want ZZZZZ to be associated with any product with questions over it and you have put enough doubt in my mind for me to have advised the company that handles insert for us that we will not carry this insert again.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to me – it is very much appreciated”

3 - Education - but therein lies a paradox. Churches are seeking to extend their influence in education - but how can they teach critical thinking without
a) compromising their own irrational beliefs and
b) alienating those they seek to convert/retain?
Logically - if churches are going to claim that christians have been the conduit for supernatural healing in the past they can't confront those who seek to enrich themselves through deceitful religion-based claims. Gaining wealth, power etc. at the expense of their fellow human beings made desperate through fear and/or pain is christ-like behaviour?

Elsewhere there is debate about whether/what the religious world can learn from the secular - by now churches should have learnt that association with people/organisations with inappropriate standards will damage the perception, and therefore the performance, of your brand.

It seems that effective action is possible; but perhaps only by those who don't have to argue for the possible/historical reality of supernatural healing. Can christians understand why their apparent paralysis in defence of their fearful, pain-ridden fellow man contributes to some of us concluding that "moderate" christians are ultimately as dangerous to humanity as are their more extreme fellow-travellers?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Congratulations HughWillRidMee on your indirect action in getting a leaflet withdrawn by its promulgator.

There are two separate issues here for me; whether the claim is made, and whether the person making the claim is making silly amounts of money as a result. As someone who DOES believe that God is at work in the world today, I refuse to rule out the idea that God will heal. Where I get VERY twitchy is where the healing FOLLOWS a substantial payment to the healer.

A third issue is that given that 1% of all cancers spontaneously disappear (not a great reference, but at least it's not just my memory), our vendor doesn't have to sell many bottles to get a few success stories.

A useful approach is to encourage sceptical questioning, and to challenge organisations that refuse to participate. One of the best features of the Rome's approach to this issue is that they put their claims firmly in the public domain; for example Lourdes has a well funded commission of medics to rule on the reality of healings. Us Protestants need to do likewise.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I would not want ZZZZZ to be associated with any product with questions over it and you have put enough doubt in my mind for me to have advised the company that handles insert for us that we will not carry this insert again.

Bravo!

Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :

For information - more of the same:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9473093/Parents-who-believe-in-miracles-torturing-dying-children-doctors-warn.ht ml

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

The reality is that "moderate" Christians don't come across this sort of "cash for miracles" preaching very often, if at all. But Hugh seems to be preaching that we should all go around policing what other churches are teaching. He should do it himself, if he thinks it's so important.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Surely it's a collective responsibility, Angelfish?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Quite apart from the moral question how do Christians protect their brand?

Christians belonging to one denomination have no authority over what happens in another.

Anyone who chooses to attend a church like this one goes there because it meets their own spiritual and/or psychological needs. There's probably a cultural and social appeal that your church couldn't meet. In other words, the attraction is greater than miraculous blackcurrant squash, and they're unlikely to heed calls from Christians in more more respectable establishments.

I don't believe in miraculous squash, and I think it's peculiar that Pentecostalism would take up such ideas, but one could easily become a bit cynical about the mainstream Christian response to this kind of thing. One suspects that the main fear isn't so much for a few 'vulnerable people' in a small sect (and how many people watch their TV channel anyway?) but about bad PR in the secular press.

What the secular press needs to learn is that there are different denominations because Christians believe different things. Just because one group of Pentecostals believe in miraculous squash, that doesn't mean the CofE or anyone else deserves to be ridiculed.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Or you can have the Catholic version: the Carmelite Brown Scapular which promises:

quote:
"Take this Scapular, it shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger and a pledge of peace. Whosoever dies wearing this scapular shall not suffer eternal fire."

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Surely it's a collective responsibility, Angelfish?

I am arguing that it is no more possible for churchgoers to police what is preached in churches they do not attend, than non-churchgoers. We can only realistically deal with the things we encounter in our own sphere - Just as Hughwillridme didn't tackle the phoney arthritis cure peddlers directly, but did write to the magazine to which he susbscribes. Maybe some should make it their mission to seek out and destroy these practices, but it can't be for everyone, unless we all abandon the causes that are closer to home. There just isn't enough time.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

...and many of us DO encounter these things in our own sphere because we work or live alongside people who go to these churches....and it's damn hard to know how to deal with it.

( + nonsense like this is happening a tad too many times recently round here......)

[ 15. August 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
...and many of us DO encounter these things in our own sphere because we work or live alongside people who go to these churches....and it's damn hard to know how to deal with it.

( + nonsense like this is happening a tad too many times recently round here......)

Well, if you have good relations with these people, then you can have interesting religious discussions with them. If they see that you live a righteous life, they might have some respect for what you say. But at the end of the day, these are consenting adults, who will do what they want.

I think there is a wider problem, which is that the mainstream denominations tend to be quite cerebral, are geared towards people from a higher social/educational background, and provide little opportunity for the less articulate (and others) to express their frustrations, their psycho-spiritual (?) anxieties and longings. The mainstream tends to offer quite a regimented, dualistic form of spiritual expression that can also be unhelpful to people from certain cultural backgrounds.

Of course, not all Pentecostal churches sell miraculous squash for a profit, but some of them probably realise that they can get away with this kind of thing, because the basic spiritual 'product' that they offer is very appealing to a certain kind of person. There may not be another Pentecostal church in the area, or there could be racial/linguistic/social reasons why this particular Pentecostal church attracts some people rather than the other one down the road.

I imagine that all Pentecostal churches offer individual prayers of healing, the laying on of hands, or special oil, for sick members or attenders, so it's not as though this church is the only one to offer help. I wonder if this special squash tends to be sold to people who don't normally attend church and aren't very familiar with the healing services that are offered for free at many churches!

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...... As someone who DOES believe that God is at work in the world today, I refuse to rule out the idea that God will heal.

And by so doing you, no doubt reluctantly, accommodate this and this (both men have been invited to perform in Britain) and this.

quote:
Where I get VERY twitchy is where the healing FOLLOWS a substantial payment to the healer. ......

Whereas I get twitchy when people make claims that they cannot substantiate whether or not there is consideration.

I will disagree with you about “God is at work in the world today” whilst fully accepting that you should be entitled to believe whatever you want. My problems come when/if your belief has an adverse effect on others or when a claim to knowledge is substituted for the acknowledgement of belief. – and I’m not restricting this to religious belief/claims of knowledge.

My concern is that some people insist to others, including vulnerable groups such as children, the poorly educated and the elderly, that they KNOW that their belief (religious or secular) is real – the concern is not simply because they are almost certainly wrong but because they are elevating concepts for which they cannot demonstrate proof over concepts that can be demonstrated to work. This muddled thinking leads to preferring homeopathic malarial protection to prescribed anti-malarial drugs (I know of a case which very nearly proved fatal) through to horrendous tales of ceased medical treatment leading to unnecessary death (including the death of a nine-year old girl) because “to do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of faith in god’s power”.

Frankly I don’t care as much about the financial gains/costs (immoral though they undoubtedly are) as about the misrepresentation of how the world works and the damage that can be caused to our fellows because of it. How many times have I heard “Faith can move mountains”; name one instance, or its secular equivalent “If you want something enough you can make it happen” which is OK provided you don’t want to jump off the top of Blackpool Tower and glide gently to earth with no aid other than a burning desire to do so.

It is, in my opinion, not enough to say that people shouldn’t be gullible, that they should use their brains, that they have only themselves to blame. Many people don’t have the time, the education, the security or the mental capacity to question what they are assured to be correct by authority figures, their peers and amoral scam artists. We live in an environment where sophisticated (as in “a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest”) marketing is the norm from arthritis cures claiming to be proven in clinical trials (trials which are never referenced of course) through to invitations to "an opportunity to explore the meaning of life" without offering any justification for the (rather silly) claim that life has a meaning.

Humans will always seek to prosper at the expense of others, it’s part of what makes us the successful species we are, but our continued existence depends upon understanding the difference between evidence and wishful thinking otherwise our tenuous position in the universe may be destroyed by our own inability to discard concepts that have exceeded their useful life.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...... As someone who DOES believe that God is at work in the world today, I refuse to rule out the idea that God will heal.
And by so doing you, no doubt reluctantly, accommodate this and this (both men have been invited to perform in Britain) and this.

Well blow me down! As far as cheap and underhanded debating tactics go that's noteworthy.

For shame, HughWillRidmee. Off to the naughty corner with you. There you'll find fellow atheists like this guy.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
...... As someone who DOES believe that God is at work in the world today, I refuse to rule out the idea that God will heal.
And by so doing you, no doubt reluctantly, accommodate this and this (both men have been invited to perform in Britain) and this.

Well blow me down! As far as cheap and underhanded debating tactics go that's noteworthy.

For shame, HughWillRidmee. Off to the naughty corner with you. There you'll find fellow atheists like this guy.

I’d like to offer my thanks that you took the time and effort to educate me by providing an example of expensive and above the board debating tactics; however – I’m unable to do so since I hear the noise but I can find no trace of substance (In such situations my father used to swear by Milk of Magnesia).

People who claim that supernatural healing is real/possibly real/might have happened in the past are, like it or not, providing a cloak of legitimacy to those who use that claim to gain fame, wealth etc. whilst harming vulnerable people. That is what is meant by accommodating these scum. That accomodation may not always be religious in content – but it often is. I’ll give you another example which surfaced today (read the small print).

No-one can claim leadership in morality if they don’t act (not just speak out) against such obvious wickedness – and yet, from the churches, we hear silence and see hands being firmly sat upon.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

People who claim that supernatural healing is real/possibly real/might have happened in the past are, like it or not, providing a cloak of legitimacy to those who use that claim to gain fame, wealth etc. whilst harming vulnerable people. That is what is meant by accommodating these scum. That accomodation may not always be religious in content – but it often is. I’ll give you

This reminds me of the atheist argument that 'nice' religious people are 'providing a cloak of legitimacy' to the nasty fundamentalists. It's not an argument that makes much sense to me. I mean, how can you 'provide' someone with legitimacy? To whom are fundamentalists legitimate, except to other fundamentalists??

quote:

No-one can claim leadership in morality if they don’t act (not just speak out) against such obvious wickedness – and yet, from the churches, we hear silence and see hands being firmly sat upon.

It's unlikely that the media are going to give much airtime to a Methodist or an Episcopalian clergyman who declares that fraudulent faith healing is a 'bad thing'. I mean, is that news? I'm sure you could find lots of examples of this kind of proclamation if you attended the right churches, or read the right books, but it's hardly going to set the world on fire. And the troublemakers themselves are under no obligation to pay any attention to 'moral leadership' from leaders whom they don't recognise.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Why would you assume that anyone has to accommodate cranks and charlatans?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Why would you assume that anyone has to accommodate cranks and charlatans?

Noone has to. But by the same token, 'cranks and charlatans' don't have to accommodate the criticism of nice people either. This is the point I was making.

(Sorry if you were commenting on someone else's post.)

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
It's unlikely that the media are going to give much airtime to a Methodist or an Episcopalian clergyman who declares that fraudulent faith healing is a 'bad thing'

And that (fraudulent faith healing) is the problem in a nutshell.

There is no evidence that any faith healing (religious, homeopathy, acupuncture etc. etc.) works better than placebo. To claim otherwise is fraudulent (unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities). But because of a historic claim which, apparently, cannot be jettisoned (particularly if money changes hands) there is a need to pretend that only some such deception is fraudulent and that sometimes, unpredictably and without regard for the degree of conviction felt by the sufferer, miracles happen. The need to hold to such a pretence enables confusion and doubt, arguments about whether your faith healing works even less well than my faith healing and the root problem – vulnerable people being abused – becomes a stagnant pond of earnest discussion and b-all action.

The well-meaning but mistaken being unable/unwilling to reject an unreasonable and unprovable hypothesis creates an environment in which con-artists can, and do, flourish – it’s known as providing, however reluctantly, an accommodation.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

HughWillRidmee

You're missing the point.

Anyone's free to believe that faith healing is nonsense. Maybe it IS nonsense! But Protestant Christianity in particular has a strongly individualistic inflection, which means that Christians are in no way obliged to accept what some other Christian has to say about faith healing or anything else. The speaker could be an archbishop or a pope - it doesn't matter.

You seem to think that a priest just has to declare something to be untrue and then the whole of Christendom will bow down and obey. It doesn't work like that, though. If it did, there would only be one denomination, and only one priestly hierarchy. If people, vulnerable or not, want to believe something, they're free to do so, and a bunch of 'do-gooders' in the church/mosque/society of humanists next door telling them they're wrong won't necessarily make any difference. The response may well be 'What a boring bunch of nosy busy-bodies! Let them go and mind their own business!'

The phrase 'nanny state' comes to mind!

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There are two separate issues here for me; whether the claim is made, and whether the person making the claim is making silly amounts of money as a result. As someone who DOES believe that God is at work in the world today, I refuse to rule out the idea that God will heal.

Here is the problem. I am afraid that in our enthusiasm to root out the charletons, we will promote the idea that miracles cannot happen at all. The secular authorities would do a sterling job to help us if that is our aim.

It really is worth looking more closely at the way the Roman Catholics verify their miracles, even if you are a protestant. That's not to say, of course, that protestants can't experience miracles as well.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
HughWillRidmee

You're missing the point.

Anyone's free to believe that faith healing is nonsense. Maybe it IS nonsense! But Protestant Christianity in particular has a strongly individualistic inflection, which means that Christians are in no way obliged to accept what some other Christian has to say about faith healing or anything else. The speaker could be an archbishop or a pope - it doesn't matter.

You seem to think that a priest just has to declare something to be untrue and then the whole of Christendom will bow down and obey. It doesn't work like that, though. If it did, there would only be one denomination, and only one priestly hierarchy. If people, vulnerable or not, want to believe something, they're free to do so, and a bunch of 'do-gooders' in the church/mosque/society of humanists next door telling them they're wrong won't necessarily make any difference. The response may well be 'What a boring bunch of nosy busy-bodies! Let them go and mind their own business!'

The phrase 'nanny state' comes to mind!

I’m not sure if you’re supposed to tell the originator of a thread that they are missing the point – though they may well have managed to avoid yours!

for clarification - I grew up an unquestioning believer (my father, who was a decent man, was an ordained priest in the CofE - his passport said he was a “Clerk in Holy Orders" though he preferred “Anglican minister”). I was a choirboy, a Crusader and, in my mid-teens, a (voluntarily) confirmed member of the CofE. I was also a cub instructor and involved in the running of a (Baptist Church's) Friday evening club for teenagers in working class, and sometimes fairly rough, London. I have shared meals, and conversed with, quite a selection of missionaries on furlough, bishops and other assorted visiting preachers. I was involved enough to be very well aware of the characters of others within the leadership of the church.

I have few illusions about how religion operates and suggest that you ask questions before deciding that you are in a position to bestow your knowledge on an ignorant unbeliever. I am an atheist because I have seen religion, and what I saw made me question my belief and that questioning led me to the inevitable conclusion that the lack of evidence for anything supernatural means that religion is a) irrational and b) a (well exploited) means of power for the few at the expense of the vulnerable.

My concern is not with Christendom but with people (inside or outside religion) who are vulnerable to being preyed upon by other people who may or may not invoke religion as a cover for their wickedness. If you claim to be a christian and wish to dismiss concern for others as “nanny state” you might care to re-read Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts Here is the problem. I am afraid that in our enthusiasm to root out the charletons, we will promote the idea that miracles cannot happen at all. The secular authorities would do a sterling job to help us if that is our aim.

If you could demonstrate that miracles do happen you will, I guess, have the secular world’s support to root out the charlatans. Until then you have just explained the problem. All businesses that survive know that they have to re-invent themselves as their market evolves – religion generally can’t do this because it claims to represent time-defying truth. (LDS is the obvious exception?)

When we knew little of our world people had few options but to assume a controller – now we know one is not needed religion is stuck in the mire it created when claiming to enable a connection with the controller was its main selling point.

Perhaps one could argue that the very insistence on the possibility of miracles prevents the churches' application of morality to counter the exploitation of human beings? Not possible of course because religion is the practical demonstration of morality isn't it, ....isn't it.....?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

There will always be plenty of people like HughWillRidmee who have decided to take a scientismic worldview and therefore don't believe in miracles at all. They are convinced we are all just some (incredibly unlikely) series of freak accidents which came into being for no reason and will inevitably cease to exist after a few years.

I believe this is a minority view, because most of us believe in something else, no matter how vague.

Anyway, he's cast his vote, and there are christians too, who don't believe in miracles. Their view seems to be that God isn't allowed by His own nature to intervene in his creation which, they suppose, was created by some devine spark. Who are we to limit God and tell Him what he can and cannot do?

Anyway, I think one of the problems is the fragmentation of the Church since the Reformation. I believe holy men in the past and present have been able to do miracles, but they were/are not these celebrity televangelists with huge mansions and chauffeur-driven limousines. They would usually be monks or ascetics who live a humble simple life, or their relics.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Why would you assume that anyone has to accommodate cranks and charlatans?
Noone has to. But by the same token, 'cranks and charlatans' don't have to accommodate the criticism of nice people either. This is the point I was making.

(Sorry if you were commenting on someone else's post.)

I should have been clearer that I was replying to Hugh.

The simple fact is that he posted a couple videos to some disagreeable characters and suggested that these folks belief's had to be accommodated if one believes that God works in the world. Hugh didn't ask if this was the case, nor did he tel us why this must be so.

It's like suggesting that the moral absolutist must accommodate all ideas on what constitutes morality no matter how disagreeable or evil they are. But this is not the case. And there is no logical reason why it should be the case.

The fact that he chose this debating tactic (disrepute by association) suggests to me that he is very much interested in scoring points.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I grew up an unquestioning believer (my father, who was a decent man, was an ordained priest in the CofE - his passport said he was a “Clerk in Holy Orders" though he preferred “Anglican minister”). I was a choirboy, a Crusader and, in my mid-teens, a (voluntarily) confirmed member of the CofE. I was also a cub instructor and involved in the running of a (Baptist Church's) Friday evening club for teenagers in working class, and sometimes fairly rough, London. I have shared meals, and conversed with, quite a selection of missionaries on furlough, bishops and other assorted visiting preachers. I was involved enough to be very well aware of the characters of others within the leadership of the church.

I have few illusions about how religion operates and suggest that you ask questions before deciding that you are in a position to bestow your knowledge on an ignorant unbeliever. I am an atheist because I have seen religion, and what I saw made me question my belief and that questioning led me to the inevitable conclusion that the lack of evidence for anything supernatural means that religion is a) irrational and b) a (well exploited) means of power for the few at the expense of the vulnerable.

So are you saying that if only the Archbishop of Canterbury loudly proclaimed the foolishness of faith healing then all the vulnerable people of the world would be protected?

I'm sorry if you feel that all the Christians you met on your journey (apart from your dad?) were either abusing or enabling the abuse of the vulnerable. If that's your experience, I can't argue with it.

quote:

My concern is not with Christendom but with people (inside or outside religion) who are vulnerable to being preyed upon by other people who may or may not invoke religion as a cover for their wickedness. If you claim to be a christian and wish to dismiss concern for others as “nanny state” you might care to re-read Matthew 5, 6 and 7.

Well, the only solution, then, would be to banish all religion. Because any religion - just like any political ideology or philosphy - can be put to unhappy uses by cynics and power hungry people. A belief in miracles isn't the essential component, I don't think.

quote:

Perhaps one could argue that the very insistence on the possibility of miracles prevents the churches' application of morality to counter the exploitation of human beings? Not possible of course because religion is the practical demonstration of morality isn't it, ....isn't it.....?

This brings to mind the thought that Jesus himself would have to be accused of tricking the vulnerable, by your reckoning. Maybe that's your point.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by; Squibs
The simple fact is that he posted a couple videos to some disagreeable characters and suggested that these folks belief's had to be accommodated if one believes that God works in the world. Hugh didn't ask if this was the case, nor did he tel us why this must be so.

quote:
It's like suggesting that the moral absolutist must accommodate all ideas on what constitutes morality no matter how disagreeable or evil they are. But this is not the case. And there is no logical reason why it should be the case.

I am saying that those who present belief in the supernatural (whether religious or not) as fact rather than as belief do a dis-service to humanity because it encourages false expectations which can be manipulated to harm the innocent.

quote:
The fact that he chose this debating tactic (disrepute by association) suggests to me that he is very much interested in scoring points.

.
It’s your choice whether or not you’re associated with disrepute, isn’t it?

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So are you saying that if only the Archbishop of Canterbury loudly proclaimed the foolishness of faith healing then all the vulnerable people of the world would be protected?

quote:
I'm sorry if you feel that all the Christians you met on your journey (apart from your dad?) were either abusing or enabling the abuse of the vulnerable. If that's your experience, I can't argue with it.

No again. I met some wonderful people who were Christians, and many wonderful people who weren’t. I also met many dishonest, untruthful and manipulative people on both sides of the fence. Being a Christian seems, on balance, to be irrelevant.

quote:
Well, the only solution, then, would be to banish all religion. Because any religion - just like any political ideology or philosphy - can be put to unhappy uses by cynics and power hungry people. A belief in miracles isn't the essential component, I don't think.

I’m not sure that simply removing all religion, if it were possible, would change much. I do think that a society where evidence is valued over irrational preference, where authority is derived from excellence rather than tradition, where individuals are taught that they have value and potential for good rather than that they are inherently wicked and unable to raise themselves out of depravity and where human beings can exist with confidence for their future and the future of those they love rather than living in fear of pain, poverty and an eternal future of torment might – just might - be a star worth aiming for. If religion died out along the way – so much the better.

quote:
This brings to mind the thought that Jesus himself would have to be accused of tricking the vulnerable, by your reckoning. Maybe that's your point.

No – by my reckoning if there was a Jesus there is no way of knowing whether he said or did any of that which is reported. My central point is to do with those who are alive today (and those to follow) rather than to do with a, possibly fictional, person who, if real, has been dead a very long time.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

HughWillRidmee

You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not clear if Christianity is the problem or it isn't. First you say this:

quote:

I met some wonderful people who were Christians, and many wonderful people who weren’t. I also met many dishonest, untruthful and manipulative people on both sides of the fence. Being a Christian seems, on balance, to be irrelevant.

If Christians can be 'wonderful', then why are you accusing all of us of giving legitimacy to those who want to hurt vulnerable people? That's not very 'wonderful', is it?

Then you say this, muddling things up in the same paragraph:

quote:

I’m not sure that simply removing all religion, if it were possible, would change much. [...] If religion died out along the way – so much the better.

This isn't very clear at all. If Christianity isn't the main problem, then why focus on Christianity?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I wish we could move on from HughWillRidMee's evangelistic atheist rants. Was that the only reason for starting the thread?

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

One man’s disagreeable is another man’s wicked.

Sure – I picked extreme instances – are you suggesting that an occasional murderer is OK but a regular one is not, or that a con-artist can be acceptable because he’s never defrauded anyone of more than (say) £100,000? Do the injured parties count for nothing?
[/QUOTE]

What has any of that got to do with the price of beans?

The point I was making was so simple that it should not require reiteration.

We don't have to accommodate charlatans, cranks, liars or lunatics. And I see no imperative that compels any Christian to do anything of the sort.

However, according to you, and seemingly just because you said so, anyone who thinks that God acts in the world must accommodate such snake oil salesmen. Thankfully your opinion doesn't count as said imperative.

quote:
I am saying that those who present belief in the supernatural (whether religious or not) as fact rather than as belief do a dis-service to humanity because it encourages false expectations which can be manipulated to harm the innocent.

Again, what has that go to do with anything? That's just your anti-theistic opinion, which is not to be confused with fact.

quote:
It’s your choice whether or not you’re associated with disrepute, isn’t it?

You aren't getting this, are you? In stating that we must accommodate such people you are associating us with them. Make up your mind.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There are christians too, who don't believe in miracles. Their view seems to be that God isn't allowed by His own nature to intervene in his creation which, they suppose, was created by some devine spark. Who are we to limit God and tell Him what he can and cannot do?

Anyway, I think one of the problems is the fragmentation of the Church since the Reformation. I believe holy men in the past and present have been able to do miracles, but they were/are not these celebrity televangelists with huge mansions and chauffeur-driven limousines. They would usually be monks or ascetics who live a humble simple life, or their relics.

The other week I attended a healing service at an Anglican church. No bling-bling or hard sell, just a well-spoken vicar and some ladies in a semi-circle. I didn't take any of the oil myself as I wasn't there for that, but I wonder whether 'healing' in this context is considered to be 'miraculous', i.e. fraudulent in the eyes of Hugh and others. Where is the dividing line, in other words? Is it just a matter of church culture?

As for holy monks and ascetics, it's hard to imagine how that kind of lifestyle could be maintained in modern Britain. Would they be on the dole? Self-employed businessmen? Have a website/blog? A direct debit for the gas and electric? There's not much of a wilderness to hide away in in modern Britain. Maybe they'd hide in the urban jungle. There's a cultural problem as well - I can't see the 'vulnerable' African immigrants who probably attend this 'blackcurrant' church trekking to Devon or the Scottish Highlands to seek out such a person. New Agers and stressed executives looking for a detox would probably be the 'clientele'. But that wouldn't be very fair, would it?

I don't know. It would make a good subject for a somewhat magic realist novel, though...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...As for holy monks and ascetics, it's hard to imagine how that kind of lifestyle could be maintained in modern Britain. Would they be on the dole? Self-employed businessmen? Have a website/blog? A direct debit for the gas and electric? There's not much of a wilderness to hide away in in modern Britain. Maybe they'd hide in the urban jungle. There's a cultural problem as well - I can't see the 'vulnerable' African immigrants who probably attend this 'blackcurrant' church trekking to Devon or the Scottish Highlands to seek out such a person. New Agers and stressed executives looking for a detox would probably be the 'clientele'. But that wouldn't be very fair, would it?

I don't know. It would make a good subject for a somewhat magic realist novel, though...

They would probably be found in monastries - of which there are quite a few in the UK. I don't know anyone who has a reputation as a wonderworker though, currently (others might), but you'd stand a better chance of a blessing in these places than you would at a Benny Hinn crusade (IMO).

[ 22. August 2012, 20:52: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
They would probably be found in monastries - of which there are quite a few in the UK. I don't know anyone who has a reputation as a wonderworker though, currently (others might), but you'd stand a better chance of a blessing in these places than you would at a Benny Hinn crusade (IMO).

I know of a few orders of nuns, but I couldn't tell you where my nearest monastery is. We never hear about monasteries, or rather, we hear about how it's fashionable for well-heeled people to go on retreats in monasteries. This is what I mean - Benny Hinn's clientele is probably quite different from the clientele who visit monasteries.

It's another topic, but if the Reformation hadn't happened, I think we'd have to invent it. History shows that one church can't meet everyone's needs. But it's relevant to this topic as well: if Hugh were a dictator who outlawed all claims of faith healing, there would still be Christians (and others) who sought such healing, and Christians who secretly offered it. These people would inevitably have to found a new denomination for themselves, if the officially sanctioned churches were unwilling to break the law.

[ 22. August 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Assuming you agree with me that this behaviour is despicable and should be squashed immediately every time it occurs (whether associated with religion or not) what can/should Christians and/or Christian churches do to protect people who are desperate enough to fall for this sort of wickedness when it’s promoted (deliberately or unthinkingly) by religious con-men?

The Episcopalian way would be to pass a resolution condemning it at the next General Convention-- which is unfortunately three years away.

These resolutions express our position in the most official and forceful manner possible. Everyone listens. [Biased]

How ironic. Isn't this precisely the kind of thing the same rank Protestants like to lambast the Catholics for doing? How do they explain it among themselves within a theology that is probably relatively Manichaean and gnostic-leaning?

If you want blessed stuff, why not go to the nearest RC church and get some holy water? As far as I know, there's no charge.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There will always be plenty of people like HughWillRidmee who have decided to take a scientismic worldview and therefore don't believe in miracles at all. They are convinced we are all just some (incredibly unlikely) series of freak accidents which came into being for no reason and will inevitably cease to exist after a few years.

The reason was chemistry. The accidents were random variations within DNA (copying errors, exposure to chemicals and radiation etc.) which were moderated by natural selection. If we are still living only on this planet in less than 5 billion years humanity will die out as the sun expands as a red dwarf and destroys the Earth. We may well bugger the globe up sufficiently to bring our extinction forward substantially.

quote:
Who are we to limit God and tell Him what he can and cannot do?

Atheists don’t. If there is some supernatural being which doesn’t/can’t/won’t interact demonstrably with our universe it can be as powerful as it wishes – it’s irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You seem to be contradicting yourself. It's not clear if Christianity is the problem or it isn't. First you say this ....................................This isn't very clear at all. If Christianity isn't the main problem, then why focus on Christianity?

If you read what I have written it includes this behaviour is despicable and should be squashed immediately every time it occurs (whether associated with religion or not) and
I’m not restricting this to religious belief/claims of knowledge. and
they KNOW that their belief (religious or secular) is real and
This muddled thinking leads to preferring homeopathic malarial protection to prescribed anti-malarial drugs (I know of a case which very nearly proved fatal) through to horrendous tales of ceased medical treatment leading to unnecessary death (including the death of a nine-year old girl) because “to do otherwise would demonstrate a lack of faith in god’s power”. and
How many times have I heard “Faith can move mountains”; name one instance, or its secular equivalent “If you want something enough you can make it happen” which is OK provided you don’t want to jump off the top of Blackpool Tower and glide gently to earth with no aid other than a burning desire to do so. and
We live in an environment where sophisticated (as in “a method of argumentation that seems clever but is actually flawed or dishonest”) marketing is the norm from arthritis cures claiming to be proven in clinical trials (trials which are never referenced of course) through to invitations to "an opportunity to explore the meaning of life" without offering any justification for the (rather silly) claim that life has a meaning. and
That accommodation may not always be religious in content – but it often is and
There is no evidence that any faith healing (religious, homeopathy, acupuncture etc. etc.) works better than placebo. and
vulnerable to being preyed upon by other people who may or may not invoke religion as a cover for their wickedness and
I am saying that those who present belief in the supernatural (whether religious or not) as fact rather than as belief do a dis-service to humanity because it encourages false expectations which can be manipulated to harm the innocent and
Being a Christian seems, on balance, to be irrelevant and
I do think that a society where evidence is valued over irrational preference, where authority is derived from excellence rather than tradition, where individuals are taught that they have value and potential for good rather than that they are inherently wicked and unable to raise themselves out of depravity and where human beings can exist with confidence for their future and the future of those they love rather than living in fear of pain, poverty and an eternal future of torment might – just might - be a star worth aiming for

Since, however, this is a forum largely populated by people who describe themselves as Christians, and since the instance was to do with a Christian church it seemed reasonable to enquire as to what could be done by Christians to counter such outrages (religious and/or secular).

quote:
If Christians can be 'wonderful', then why are you accusing all of us of giving legitimacy to those who want to hurt vulnerable people? That's not very 'wonderful', is it?

People can be wonderful human beings without being perfect. Just because someone has been brought up to believe something irrational and has failed to realise it does not mean that they are incapable of being wonderful. Unfortunately their lack of critical thinking (nature/nurture?) means that they are part of a movement which is misused by some others. That is not legitimacy – it is providing an umbrella under which the con-men can also gather and assume membership of the sheltering group. That, wittingly or unwittingly is “accommodating”. There are people who do this via the many versions of religion, there are many who do the same through “alternative medicines”, through lifestyle gurudom etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I wish we could move on from HughWillRidMee's evangelistic atheist rants. Was that the only reason for starting the thread?

I’m sorry that, since you voluntarily involved yourself in the thread, you want to move on before you’ve responded to any of my subsequent points. I find it sad that your incorrect assessment of my conviction is, apparently, the only reply you feel able to make to If you could demonstrate that miracles do happen you will, I guess, have the secular world’s support to root out the charlatans.

The reason for starting the thread was to seek to create a debate which might lead to some mitigation of the harm done by wicked people to those who are vulnerable. There is a parallel thread which suggests that at least some Christians think that Todd Bentley should have been banned from the UK. It may be that religious leaders have encouraged such banning behind the scenes, but, publically at least, it was a Labour MP who initially raised the issue with the Home Secretary – and on grounds involving risk to vulnerable people.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
We don't have to accommodate charlatans, cranks, liars or lunatics. And I see no imperative that compels any Christian to do anything of the sort. ?

quote:
I am saying that those who present belief in the supernatural (whether religious or not) as fact rather than as belief do a dis-service to humanity because it encourages false expectations which can be manipulated to harm the innocent Again, what has that go to do with anything? That's just your anti-theistic opinion, which is not to be confused with fact. .

Are you seriously suggesting that people don’t use false expectations to harm others?

quote:
It’s your choice whether or not you’re associated with disrepute, isn’t it?You aren't getting this, are you? In stating that we must accommodate such people you are associating us with them. Make up your mind.

I’m suggesting that you don’t have to belong to a group which allows the disreputable to associate with them.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

: if Hugh were a dictator who outlawed all claims of faith healing, there would still be Christians (and others) who sought such healing, and Christians who secretly offered it. These people would inevitably have to found a new denomination for themselves, if the officially sanctioned churches were unwilling to break the law.

Oh dear, and perhaps the nasty bogeymen from Alpha Centauri would be summoned by their pals in the NWO and do unspeakable things to the poor, persecuted, rebellious martyrs.

If Hugh were a dictator he would not outlaw all claims of faith healing, but he might demand evidence that such claims (religious and/or secular) were not fraudulent, worked reasonably reliably, without inflicting additional harm (as some herbal preparations do) and better than placebo – and failing that - insist that they had an appropriate comment built in to all publicity. (Not proven to be effective – for entertainment purposes only) perhaps.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

I am saying that those who present belief in the supernatural (whether religious or not) as fact rather than as belief do a dis-service to humanity because it encourages false expectations which can be manipulated to harm the innocent

Okay. I agree with you that it's 'muddled thinking' to promote 'belief' as 'fact'. To me, they're different. I have a belief in God. But I know for a fact that my father is currently outdoors, in the sunshine. The two things are distinct, at least to me.

Christians may seem very enthusiastic about their beliefs, especially during worship. But they're still beliefs.

quote:

Being a Christian seems, on balance, to be irrelevant

I don't think 'irrelevant' is quite the word you want here, because it does seem contradictory to your other arguments. Perhaps you could say that Christianity is one factor that contributes to a wider problem.

quote:

I do think that a society where evidence is valued over irrational preference, where authority is derived from excellence rather than tradition, where individuals are taught that they have value and potential for good rather than that they are inherently wicked and unable to raise themselves out of depravity and where human beings can exist with confidence for their future and the future of those they love rather than living in fear of pain, poverty and an eternal future of torment might – just might - be a star worth aiming for

We already live in such a society. This is a post-Christian country, with mostly secular values. A small African sect/denomination that offers blackcurrant cures doesn't really overturn this general reality.

If you'd prefer that the CofE be disetsablished, I'd be of the same opinion.

'Alternative medicines' is a term that covers a vast array of different practices and products, some of which may be more helpful or harmful than others. It's difficult to dismiss all of this stuff as harmful without going into more detail about what exactly you're talking about. But in general, I imagine that most people in our culture would visit a conventional doctor if they're seriously ill, and only use these other methods as some kind of back-up, or last resort. Foolish, perhaps, but a certain kind of person will try all avenues to reach a positive solution.

In the land of the NHS I doubt that anyone drinking 'blackcurrant squash' for cancer has failed to visit a doctor!

quote:

Since, however, this is a forum largely populated by people who describe themselves as Christians, and since the instance was to do with a Christian church it seemed reasonable to enquire as to what could be done by Christians to counter such outrages (religious and/or secular).

So why did you disagree when I said above that you seemed to think that Rowan Williams could express his disapproval and everyone would listen? It's not clear what you think Christians should actually do. Neither Rowan Williams nor myself has any authority over small African (or any other) religious groups.

quote:

People can be wonderful human beings without being perfect. Just because someone has been brought up to believe something irrational and has failed to realise it does not mean that they are incapable of being wonderful. Unfortunately their lack of critical thinking (nature/nurture?) means that they are part of a movement which is misused by some others. That is not legitimacy – it is providing an umbrella under which the con-men can also gather and assume membership of the sheltering group. That, wittingly or unwittingly is “accommodating”. There are people who do this via the many versions of religion, there are many who do the same through “alternative medicines”, through lifestyle gurudom etc.

So, the only way to remover this 'cover' is for everyone to become an atheist. Because any form of religiosity, in your mind, provides a cover for the sorts of religious people you don't like.

quote:

There is a parallel thread which suggests that at least some Christians think that Todd Bentley should have been banned from the UK. It may be that religious leaders have encouraged such banning behind the scenes, but, publically at least, it was a Labour MP who initially raised the issue with the Home Secretary – and on grounds involving risk to vulnerable people.

Most religious people in Britain wouldn't know who Todd Bentley was. (I had to go to Wiki - and you probably had to check online as well.) If he came to Britain he wouldn't be connnecting with churches that most of us know. Of course, if he came here he'd get more publicity, and your average Methodist might then find our who he is. But someone like him is unlikely to appeal to Christians from a very different faith tradition.

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
We don't have to accommodate charlatans, cranks, liars or lunatics. And I see no imperative that compels any Christian to do anything of the sort. ?

Actually – yes you do have to accommodate them, unless you expel them or repudiate them. By keeping quiet when they associate with you you tacitly accept them – at least in the eyes of those who they seek to con. If it didn’t work they wouldn’t waste their time doing it would they?

People like that tend not to have much of an association with mainstream denominations. Newer denominations who are trying to develop a respectable position in society tend to discourage them as well. But they'll find a home somewhere, of course, even if they have to start their own church. Those they 'seek to con' are also outside the orbit of the mainstream churches, on the whole.

Your comments might be used, ironically, as an argument for a stronger mainstream church presence. The sociologists say that the decline of the influence of mainstream religion has allowed all sorts of other kinds of spirituality to flourish. Obviously, in this pluralistic situation, loud declarations from the Anglicans or the Methodists are going to leave plenty of people indifferent.

quote:
I’m suggesting that you don’t have to belong to a group which allows the disreputable to associate with them.

Oh dear! Then there's no hope.

quote:

If Hugh were a dictator he would not outlaw all claims of faith healing, but he might demand evidence that such claims (religious and/or secular) were not fraudulent, worked reasonably reliably, without inflicting additional harm (as some herbal preparations do) and better than placebo – and failing that - insist that they had an appropriate comment built in to all publicity. [qb] (Not proven to be effective – for entertainment purposes only) perhaps. [/B]

This would be very generous of you, but what if, at the end of the day, some people didn't agree with your position? They'd carry on regardless.

People should be discouraged from undergoing treatments or ingesting products that may cause them serious harm. We all agree on that. Information campaigns should certainly increase awareness of the downsides of unconventional medical practices. Beyond that, people are free to try what they want, as they are with a whole range of risky behaviours.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0