Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BBC Article on Medical Miracles
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Read the story here, if you care to. It's more of the same to anyone who cares to read scholarly and medical literature on the subject. There is something close to zero (or in some cases negative) medical effect of prayer and no evidence of 'miracle' healing—the instant sort that appear to happen at religious events. I certainly don't believe that prayer itself is a power (like The Force), but I am still inclined to pray privately or silently for people in hope. Why is it that some Christians feel the need to carry out these circus shows where they claim healing (none verified, nor do they usually allow unfettered medical examinations) or even raising the dead. No amount of fact seems to dissuade them or their followers. Why does it persist?
K. [ 28. June 2014, 09:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
-------------------- "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky: Read the story here, if you care to. It's more of the same to anyone who cares to read scholarly and medical literature on the subject. There is something close to zero (or in some cases negative) medical effect of prayer and no evidence of 'miracle' healing—the instant sort that appear to happen at religious events. I certainly don't believe that prayer itself is a power (like The Force), but I am still inclined to pray privately or silently for people in hope. Why is it that some Christians feel the need to carry out these circus shows where they claim healing (none verified, nor do they usually allow unfettered medical examinations) or even raising the dead. No amount of fact seems to dissuade them or their followers. Why does it persist?
K.
Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
It persists because it expresses a particular form of pentecostalism (this is not the same expression of faith that I would use, even though I would self-identify as a pentecostal).
This particular form often hinges on the interpretation of John 14:12-14: quote: Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.
The idea behind it is that by witnessing God performing a miracle (even though there is often a trace, or more, of a personality cult around those with 'healing ministries') that that is the best form of evanglism possible.
I wouldn't deny the possibility of God enacting a miracle. However, before I testify about it, I would want some evidence on which to ground the claim. This is where I differ from those in the article. When claiming a miracle, surely a major criterion should be that of 1 Thess 5:21: "test everything; hold fast to what is good"
-------------------- I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it. Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
Can you imagine a world whereby saying 'I saw something that appeared to be a "healing" and therefore it is truth' might not be too convincing? Especially given that every single investigation into verifying such events has yielded a negative?
K.
[code healed] [ 10. March 2014, 15:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I can't say whether I am the beneficiary of a medical miracle or not, but generally when your Left Anterior Descending artery is fully occluded (i.e. blocked) you die or at least you have a serious heart attack.
The man writing this post is neither dead, nor did he have even a minor heart attack. Yet he also possesses a medical report confirming that his LAD was 100% occluded before being unblocked via angioplasty.
I suppose it's possible that nature could have found a way to maintain the perfect health of my heart while having what is known as the 'widowmaker' artery fully blocked, but it is exceedingly unlikely.
I have no problem talking about a medical miracle, and I don't care whether any other person shares that belief or not. I don't need permission from atheists to draw plausible conclusions.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: [QUOTE] Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
Can you imagine a world whereby saying 'I saw something that appeared to be a "healing" and therefore it is truth' might not be too convincing? Especially given that every single investigation into verifying such events has yielded a negative?
K.
Why would I waste my time imagining such a cut-and-dried world? I'd much rather fulfil my calling in this mysterious one, pray for people to be healed and thank God on the occasions when they are. Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: I can't say whether I am the beneficiary of a medical miracle or not, but generally when your Left Anterior Descending artery is fully occluded (i.e. blocked) you die or at least you have a serious heart attack.
The man writing this post is neither dead, nor did he have even a minor heart attack. Yet he also possesses a medical report confirming that his LAD was 100% occluded before being unblocked via angioplasty.
I suppose it's possible that nature could have found a way to maintain the perfect health of my heart while having what is known as the 'widowmaker' artery fully blocked, but it is exceedingly unlikely.
I have no problem talking about a medical miracle, and I don't care whether any other person shares that belief or not. I don't need permission from atheists to draw plausible conclusions.
So your LAD artery became occluded, you lived with this for a while, then you had angioplasty which resolved the situation. And you think that the middle of these three things is the medical miracle? Why not the other two?
-------------------- My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by hatless So your LAD artery became occluded, you lived with this for a while, then you had angioplasty which resolved the situation. And you think that the middle of these three things is the medical miracle? Why not the other two?
I lived with this condition for at least two months, interpreting angina as merely stress. Usually the occlusion of the LAD results in swift death. So I do consider the middle one the miracle.
If you're asking me whether God should be held responsible for causing the condition in the first place, then no. Things happen in life, either through one's own fault, or the general fallenness of the world, and it doesn't follow that the healer should be responsible for the initial condition. As for the medical procedure that cured the problem: of course, this is down to medical science, and I see no dichotomy between God's intervention and the role of medical science, given that God is the sustainer of life and therefore of human skill.
An atheist once told me that my ability to live with this serious condition could not have had anything to do with God, because I did not apparently rely on God to get the problem solved. This is a false dichotomy, which seeks to define 'miracle' in such a way as to exclude any human involvement. The necessary role of science is not proof of atheism or the absence of God, because God, being the absolute authority, has authority over science, and can use it as He sees fit.
I certainly believe (through personal experience) that God intervened and sustained me during that period of my life, and that itself is a kind of miracle.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
K.
-------------------- "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
Yes, often with tragic results.
quote: Two Philadelphia faith-healing churches have a long history of the youngest members of their congregation dying because parents refused medical care.
Families who attend Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park have lost more than two dozen children to illness since 1971, according to non-profit Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD, Inc.). Both churches believe in the power of prayer over modern medicine.
The Schaibles are one of those families.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible stand charged with third-degree murder and other crimes after their 7-month-old son Brandon died from bacterial pneumonia, dehydration and a group B streptococcus infection on April 18.
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams says the boy’s death could have been prevented, but the couple instead turned to prayer.
This is the second time the couple lost a child to illness. They were sentenced to 10 years probation after the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son Kent. Kent died after contracting pneumonia, an illness prosecutors said could have been prevented with basic medical care.
While I'm sure folks like the Schaibles take quite a bit of pride in the disapproval of skeptics, the rest of us are just appalled.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos Yes, often with tragic results.
Total non sequitur and false dichotomy. Not only did I not imply that a belief in the miraculous obviates the role of natural medicine, but I actually affirmed the role of medical intervention.
You really couldn't misread someone's posts more glaringly, if you tried!! [ 10. March 2014, 13:40: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Croesos Yes, often with tragic results.
Total non sequitur and false dichotomy. Not only did I not imply that a belief in the miraculous obviates the role of natural medicine, but I actually affirmed the role of medical intervention.
Skeptic! Why are you casting aspersions on the Schiable's belief that God would miraculously heal their children?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
Well, it depends what you mean by claims being substantiated.
What are the standards being applied?
It seems to me that the general approach is this: if an unexplained healing takes place, and there is a natural explanation - no matter how improbable and far-fetched - then that healing could not have been miraculous. The concept of implausibility is not factored into the equation. In fact, even when there is no natural explanation, there is often the claim of "spontaneous remission / regression", as if that really means anything from a naturalistic point of view.
You talk about 'truthfulness', but given the impossibly high standard that miracle claims have to achieve, then I don't think the investigation or consideration of these claims is fair.
In my case, it is possible to talk about collateral circulation. Who knows?
I remember on one occasion (during the time that I thought my chest pains were just stress related following redundancy) walking along the seafront of the town where I live and feeling like I was about to collapse. I prayed and the severe pain disappeared. Was that a miracle? I assume that it was. Yes, I should have called an ambulance. I was stupid for not doing so, and one could argue that God should have given me the wisdom to deal with this problem in the proper way, but the fact is that such a severe condition does not disappear in a matter of a minute such that I could continue my walk and attend a jobfair with no problem just minutes later. A sceptic would say: "if there is a natural explanation for this 'remission' of pain and distress, then clearly this had nothing to do with God". I don't have to accept that explanation. That is what I meant by saying that my faith is not dependent on the approval of sceptics. And it has nothing to do with rejecting the role of medical science, which is the absurd position taken by Croesos.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: And it has nothing to do with rejecting the role of medical science, which is the absurd position taken by Croesos.
Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I'm not a doctor, but as I understand it, an artery isn't like a hot water pipe. It is elastic. The blood pulses down it, rather than flowing steadily. And the artery itself is muscular and to some extent pulses with the flow.
As a result an artery can be blocked most of the time, but when there is a rise in pressure as the heart beats, it can open and let blood through. I'm not sure if this is what 100% occluded means.
Praying might involve stopping walking or at least slowing. It might involved turning your thoughts from stressful anxieties towards beliefs and feelings that you find calming. People can be taught techniques to reduce their blood pressure, and I would expect normal prayer to be effective at slowing the heart.
It's about as explicable as angioplasty.
I come back to the occlusion itself and why that isn't a miracle, just something that happens. I've heard people claim it was a miracle that they could walk away from a terrible car crash, but not that the patch of oil that caused the crash was a miracle. You can't pick and choose your favourite things to be miracles.
-------------------- My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by hatless: I come back to the occlusion itself and why that isn't a miracle, just something that happens. I've heard people claim it was a miracle that they could walk away from a terrible car crash, but not that the patch of oil that caused the crash was a miracle. You can't pick and choose your favourite things to be miracles.
Well, it's pretty obvious that you can pick and choose, just that there's no consistent rationale that can be applied other than 'God gets credit for what I consider "good stuff", but all the "bad stuff" is just nature being a bitch'.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I would have thought that picking and choosing was absolutely central to this way of thinking, since so many things don't improve.
It's a bit like the sole survivor of a disaster thanking God, and ignoring the irony of that.
I don't mind it really; I suppose the 'it's true, because I say so' line does start to grate after a while.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I have seen some studies that show that people who are ill tend to recover quicker when they are being prayed for. I have no idea why this is, and it may simply be the fact that someone cares enough for them. But it indicates that praying for people who are ill is a positive thing to do.
I think there is a danger when praying if done instead of treatment, as a sort of divine NHS. That is a different matter. I am all for praying for people who are ill, praying before their operations etc. I think it is a good thing to do. I don't think relying of God to heal when there is other more reasonable routes (at least in the UK, where the NHS is still free to all).
-------------------- Blog Music for your enjoyment Lord may all my hard times be healing times take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical And it has nothing to do with rejecting the role of medical science, which is the absurd position taken by Croesos.
Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
This is yet another reason for believers to resist allowing their thinking to be governed by the demands of sceptics, given that some of the latter construct straw man arguments, as here. You are basically imposing your view of the idea of divine activity on other people, and then judging their views accordingly. Well, of course, that is just totally out of order.
This idea that there is an absolute dichotomy between God's activity, on the one hand, and natural functions and processes, on the other, is a nod to Platonism / neo-Platonism, and is not consistent with historical Christianity, which affirms the role of nature within God's economy. I am under no moral or intellectual obligation to defend a view of theology, to which I do not subscribe.
There is nothing intrinsically evil or unholy about medicine (I say 'intrinsically', because there are treatments with which I happen not to agree). The idea that God can only work by some 'pure' direct spiritual means is an anti-Christian notion, being a fundamental denial of the incarnation.
Furthermore, healing can be achieved either instantaneously or, more often, through a process. If the latter, and if it includes medical intervention, there is no reason why God should not have been involved, and that there could not have been elements of the miraculous along the way. That idea is not at all illogical or contrary to any of the teaching of mainstream Christianity.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky: quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
K.
A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos Well, it's pretty obvious that you can pick and choose, just that there's no consistent rationale that can be applied other than 'God gets credit for what I consider "good stuff", but all the "bad stuff" is just nature being a bitch'.
This argument would have merit if the entire universe operated according to the principle of divine determinism.
But we know that determinism is a myth, and you don't even need to be a theist to recognise that!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Croesos Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
This is yet another reason for believers to resist allowing their thinking to be governed by the demands of sceptics, given that some of the latter construct straw man arguments, as here. You are basically imposing your view of the idea of divine activity on other people, and then judging their views accordingly. Well, of course, that is just totally out of order.
Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: This argument would have merit if the entire universe operated according to the principle of divine determinism.
But we know that determinism is a myth, and you don't even need to be a theist to recognise that!
Determinism has nothing to do with it. If God can and does arbitrarily cause what you would consider "good stuff" (random healings, finding a good parking space, etc.) why not some "bad stuff" too (smiting someone with heart disease, letting that other guy get your parking space, etc.)? There's no reason to believe an arbitrary God has to always be arbitrary in your favor.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
So let's get this straight.
You hold a particular view of how divine activity ought to work, and it seems you have been influenced by the Faith Tabernacle Congregation. And therefore I am supposed to accept this, and defend this view, with which I happen not to agree.
I utterly deplore the approach of this church. Why am I being asked to defend what I don't accept?
I have already given my theological reason for affirming that God works in concert with natural processes.
Perhaps you would like me to defend the 'healing' practices of African juju priests, because, hey, it's all 'religion', innit?
It really is pretty pathetic to criticise someone's view, by expecting that person to defend a view, with which he disagrees, even though there may be a few vague similarities between that view and his own.
How about this?: The North Korean regime is atheistic and anti-Christian. Could you, Croesos, please explain why you agree with that regime?
You would, quite rightly, tell me to stop being so ridiculous. But that is exactly how you sound to me!!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
I have never prayed to God to make a cancer with a gloomy prognosis go away. I have, however, prayed often for the strength to handle it, and have given thanks, often, for the gifts of healing placed in the hands of the surgeons and many others who have treated and cared for me. Ultimately, a metastatic cancer usually has one predictable outcome, but until then I've found the ability to laugh in its face, to work again, and to enjoy living for as long as the body hangs together in reasonably good working order. You can call it a miracle if you like.
-------------------- Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: quote: Originally posted by Komensky: quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
K.
A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Ok, fine. Please just prove it under the same conditions with which medicines are proven to work/not work.
-------------------- "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Why does he need to 'prove' it?
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Croesos Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
So let's get this straight.
Okay.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: You hold a particular view of how divine activity ought to work, and it seems you have been influenced by the Faith Tabernacle Congregation.
Nope, not straight. The FTC holds a particular view of how divine activity ought to work. I was commenting on the way in which it seems compatible with (though not identical to) your own.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: And therefore I am supposed to accept this, and defend this view, with which I happen not to agree.
I utterly deplore the approach of this church. Why am I being asked to defend what I don't accept?
Again, a bit crooked. No one's asking you to defend their approach, you just can't seem to help yourself.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: I have already given my theological reason for affirming that God works in concert with natural processes.
But you keep hedging about God working outside natural processes. The sort of thing discussed in the OP and the article I linked to. On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice. If God does heal instantaneously, in ways inexplicable in terms of natural causes and does so in response to human requests (prayer), then in what sense are FTC's beliefs wrong?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Because they are predicated on a false dichotomy between "secular" and spiritual, science and faith, which has led to an unjustifiable and unbiblical rejection of conventional medicine in favour of an erroneous and sub-biblical conception of faith.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: quote: Originally posted by Komensky: quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by daronmedway Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
K.
A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Ok, fine. Please just prove it under the same conditions with which medicines are proven to work/not work.
That's a bit like insisting that the value of a listening ear be measured by means of the hypotetico-deductive method. I'm sure it's theoretically possible but I'm not sure it's at all necessary.
It also has the ring of the Pharisee.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice.
I anticipated that someone would pick up on that, and that is why I was careful to insert the word 'only' in the sentence immediately preceding the 'instantaneous healing' comment.
Go and look it up and meditate thereon.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: Because they are predicated on a false dichotomy between "secular" and spiritual, science and faith, which has led to an unjustifiable and unbiblical rejection of conventional medicine in favour of an erroneous and sub-biblical conception of faith.
While I don't agree with everything you have posted upthread, this is entirely agreeable. It is not possible to separate physical, emotional, science, and religious (or spiritual as the newer terminology). True that.
However, the very expectation of miracles and the attribution of particular events to a miracle seem to me to be problematic as well. First, there is no controlling or channelling God nor faith to do any form of work for us. None.
Second, the attribution of an occurrence to a miracle always begs the question: why him/her and not me?, or why this situation and not that other one? And I don't understand why God might intervene for an individual and not a larger population, say people lining up for a German gas chamber or getting arms chopped off in Cote D'Ivoire. Sure, cure cancer or an infarct within our first world piety but not bother about dying en masse in the third. I think they may pray equally well in both.
-- I've posted before that I think that God offers support, nothing more. I do wonder that if God offered a miracle now, I might have to hand it back, with a "no thanks" and keep eating my apple which I have claimed now for mine own.
-------------------- Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety. \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
This owes more to the theology of Ricky Gervaise than anything I recognise as properly Christian.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by daronmedway: Because they are predicated on a false dichotomy between "secular" and spiritual, science and faith, which has led to an unjustifiable and unbiblical rejection of conventional medicine in favour of an erroneous and sub-biblical conception of faith.
It's only a false dichotomy if it doesn't work. Evidence (in the form of a bunch of dead kids) would seem to indicate that it doesn't, but that's the kind of thing that relies on the dreaded "naturalistic point of view".
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Croesos On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice.
I anticipated that someone would pick up on that, and that is why I was careful to insert the word 'only' in the sentence immediately preceding the 'instantaneous healing' comment.
But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
My GP was diagnosed with an abdominal tumour which was clearly identified by a PET scan. He said farewell to his patients, set his affairs in order and went for surgery to remove as much of the tumour as could be removed to ease his discomfort. Meanwhile the congregation gathered around and pleaded with the Lord to save this wonderful Christian doctor. When the surgeon operated, the tumour was nowhere to be seen - it had disappeared. The surgeon was stunned, and being an atheist, was nonplussed at the outcome. There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
-------------------- "My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by pydseybare: quote: Originally posted by bib: There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
How about 'random, inexplicable thing happens to random person in a random way that is not easily explained by medical science'.
Just because science cannot explain something this does not mean that the thing is not explainable by science, nor that the only explanation is divine intervention.
Indeed. As mentioned earlier developing a tumor in the first place often has no clear medical reason. Yet we very rarely attribute that to divine intervention.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Croesos But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention. So you are putting words in my mouth there.
Secondly, there could be many reasons why God works through a process rather than instantaneously. Unlike atheists, Christians believe that there is more to life than the merely mechanistic physical realm. There is spiritual healing. Life is not a serious of dramatic events in which problems are just solved "on tap", but God may work slowly to bring the person along with Him, and deal with other issues alongside the physical healing.
Of course, I anticipate the predictable mockery of this idea: what kind of God would string out the suffering of a cancer patient etc etc...? The only answer I can give to that is: ask the person who is suffering. Only that person has the right to pass judgment on God (if anyone ever has any such right anyway).
I certainly believe that God worked through a process to solve my heart problem. I admit I sometimes get mad at God over certain things (much to my shame), but I have never felt the slightest anger or frustration over that issue. Therefore I, personally, am very comfortable with this understanding of divine healing. [ 10. March 2014, 19:41: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by pydseybare: quote: Originally posted by bib: There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
How about 'random, inexplicable thing happens to random person in a random way that is not easily explained by medical science'.
Just because science cannot explain something this does not mean that the thing is not explainable by science, nor that the only explanation is divine intervention.
But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
Now you could say that the fact science can't currently explain something is not to say science will never explain it. But by the same token you would also have to say it's possible that science could exhaust every other possibility other than that an event has a divine cause.
Either way it's not a very smart argument.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ramarius: But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
Well unfortunately this is a limitation of language. Things happen all the time that cannot easily be explained by science. For example weather patterns are monitored by massive computers, but even they cannot explain every single weather pattern on the planet.
Hence the thing can be both inexplicable whilst at the same time explainable by science.
In this case, a complicated medical situation might well be the result of many different factors, so the pinning down the reason why this thing happened at this particular time to this particular person is a very hard thing to do. But that isn't the same as saying that there is no scientific explanation.
quote: Now you could say that the fact science can't currently explain something is not to say science will never explain it. But by the same token you would also have to say it's possible that science could exhaust every other possibility other than that an event has a divine cause.
That isn't what I am saying. There are plenty of phenomena which are understood but hard to understand in individual circumstances. An inability to explain adequately a complex situation is not an indication that there is no possible scientific explanation.
quote: Either way it's not a very smart argument.
Smart or not, it is the truth.
-------------------- "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that there are quite a lot of spontaneous remissions of cancer, although also they seem to vary according to type of cancer. Off the top of my head, one of the most likely to get better with no treatment, is breast cancer.
I guess plenty of women to whom this happens, don't think it's a miracle. Why would they?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I like, Stercus Tauri. I know of no other and never will.
-------------------- Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by pydseybare: quote: Originally posted by Ramarius: But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
Well unfortunately this is a limitation of language. Things happen all the time that cannot easily be explained by science. For example weather patterns are monitored by massive computers, but even they cannot explain every single weather pattern on the planet.
Hence the thing can be both inexplicable whilst at the same time explainable by science.
In this case, a complicated medical situation might well be the result of many different factors, so the pinning down the reason why this thing happened at this particular time to this particular person is a very hard thing to do. But that isn't the same as saying that there is no scientific explanation.
quote: Now you could say that the fact science can't currently explain something is not to say science will never explain it. But by the same token you would also have to say it's possible that science could exhaust every other possibility other than that an event has a divine cause.
That isn't what I am saying. There are plenty of phenomena which are understood but hard to understand in individual circumstances. An inability to explain adequately a complex situation is not an indication that there is no possible scientific explanation.
quote: Either way it's not a very smart argument.
Smart or not, it is the truth.
Really? The material universe is all there is and scientific discoveries will never be able determine anything else? That's a statement of faith.
-------------------- '
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention.
According to the evidence, 'instantaneous' healing is non-existent. You have yet to provide a single positive example. It's quite one thing to believe in something that is neither provable or unprovable (the existence of God, for example), but quite another to insist on believing in something that is demonstrably untrue and which is easily debunked. Doctors and other researchers have been following evangelical healers for about half a century now and despite the millions of claims of miraculous healings, the number of cases to which no other explanation other than miracle/prayer could be attributed is precisely zero. There are plenty of scientists waiting to cooperate with you; just show them your miracle healers, that's all it takes. In fact, if you go to the James Randi Foundation, they'll give your $1M (USD) if you can prove your case. That could really help a lot of people. So if your healers are the real deal, now is your chance to prove it!
[code] [ 10. March 2014, 20:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
-------------------- "The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I thought that there are quite a lot of spontaneous remissions of cancer, although also they seem to vary according to type of cancer. Off the top of my head, one of the most likely to get better with no treatment, is breast cancer.
I guess plenty of women to whom this happens, don't think it's a miracle. Why would they?
Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
-------------------- '
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote: Originally posted by Croesos But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention. So you are putting words in my mouth there.
Actually that's my own assessment. Medical care is usually invasive, often undignified, frequently comes with a risk of secondary infection, and (if the condition treated was serious) typically requires a lengthy period of recovery. Compared with being returned to full health in the blink of an eye, as is often described in miracle stories and you implied with the use of the word "instantaneously", medical intervention seems like a second-best option.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Secondly, there could be many reasons why God works through a process rather than instantaneously. Unlike atheists, Christians believe that there is more to life than the merely mechanistic physical realm. There is spiritual healing. Life is not a serious of dramatic events in which problems are just solved "on tap", but God may work slowly to bring the person along with Him, and deal with other issues alongside the physical healing.
Once again I'm drawn back to the question of Faith Tabernacle Congregation. Doesn't the argument that "there is more to life than the merely mechanistic physical realm. There is spiritual healing" apply to them? Or does spiritual healing only work if it's coupled with physical medicine?
"Dear God, please heal my sick family member in a way that is indistinguishable from the workings of modern medicine. Amen."
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Croesos -
You can talk about Faith Tabernacle Congregation as much as you like, but it has nothing to do with me or my views.
I've already explained my position, so I am not going to repeat myself to someone who insists that I embrace a view of divine healing, which I actually reject.
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ramarius: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I thought that there are quite a lot of spontaneous remissions of cancer, although also they seem to vary according to type of cancer. Off the top of my head, one of the most likely to get better with no treatment, is breast cancer.
I guess plenty of women to whom this happens, don't think it's a miracle. Why would they?
Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
But why would divine intervention work particularly with breast cancer, and not, say, with lung cancer? Does God favour one over the other?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Ramarius: Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
Assuming that prayer is the driving mechanism, which makes sense only if you believe either that God doesn't know you're sick or injured unless you tell him, or that He does know but will refuse to heal you unless you beg for it.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Komensky According to the evidence, 'instantaneous' healing is non-existent. You have yet to provide a single positive example. It's quite one thing to believe in something that is neither provable or unprovable (the existence of God, for example), but quite another to insist on believing in something that is demonstrably untrue and which is easily debunked. Doctors and other researchers have been following evangelical healers for about half a century now and despite the millions of claims of miraculous healings, the number of cases to which no other explanation other than miracle/prayer could be attributed is precisely zero. There are plenty of scientists waiting to cooperate with you; just show them your miracle healers, that's all it takes. In fact, if you go to the James Randi Foundation, they'll give your $1M (USD) if you can prove your case. That could really help a lot of people. So if your healers are the real deal, now is your chance to prove it!
So bib earlier in the thread is lying then?
Oh wait...! That doesn't count. Spontaneous remission!
The truth is that no philosophical naturalist will a priori accept an explanation for any phenomenon which contradicts his philosophy. Any event which may appear to do so, and which he cannot explain, will simply be filed in the category of "we don't yet know" or some fancy phrase will be invented to make it appear as though science has a handle on it (such as "spontaneous remission").
This is why most believers frankly couldn't give a s**t what a bunch of atheists and sceptics say. You believe what you want to, and we'll stick to our explanation. And what James Randi thinks is irrelevant, because God is not a service which can be turned on as a tap, and is subject to laboratory scrutiny. What incredible arrogance to think that He could be!
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|