faith healing
faith healing
What’s your opinion on people who practice so-called ‘faith healing’? That is, if someone is sick they don’t treat them, they pray that God will heal the person without any medical intervention.
Are authorities right to arrest these people for negligence, or does that violate their religious right to trust God’s care?
Are authorities right to arrest these people for negligence, or does that violate their religious right to trust God’s care?
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
I think this is a very tough question, I think there are cases of faith healing and I've recently become much more open to the mystical aspects of Christianity. But I think we also need to take advantage of scientific progress available to us, I mean we should believe God can provide food for us but we still use tractors and refrigerators.
But should people be arrested for not seeking medical care? No. They have the freedom to choose what medical care they want. I think this also applies to their children as well. If we give the government the power to decide if or when people need to seek medical care I think we're starting down a slippery slope.
But should people be arrested for not seeking medical care? No. They have the freedom to choose what medical care they want. I think this also applies to their children as well. If we give the government the power to decide if or when people need to seek medical care I think we're starting down a slippery slope.
Perhaps you don’t fully understand the ‘faith healing’ I’m talking about. I am not against praying for God to assist in healing. That’s probably the best thing you can do. But you should also seek medical help when available!
These people will have perfectly curable ailments, but refuse medical treatment because they want to be healed by ‘God alone’. If they want to do that, maybe we should let them. But my problem is when it involves their children.
There was a case where these parents had two children come down with diseases. The treatment was available at the asking, but they refused. They just let the kids lie there and prayed. Both kids died. They were arrested for negligent manslaughter, and I think that was the right action.
As I said, definitely pray, but do it in conjunction with treatment!
These people will have perfectly curable ailments, but refuse medical treatment because they want to be healed by ‘God alone’. If they want to do that, maybe we should let them. But my problem is when it involves their children.
There was a case where these parents had two children come down with diseases. The treatment was available at the asking, but they refused. They just let the kids lie there and prayed. Both kids died. They were arrested for negligent manslaughter, and I think that was the right action.
As I said, definitely pray, but do it in conjunction with treatment!
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
I agree with you on a personal level, take the treatment. But do we really want the government deciding which treatments our children should get?
Let me give some examples, vaccinations. I've had several conversations with friends of mine who don't want their children to get vaccinations, should they be arrested for neglect if their child dies because they didn't get the vaccination?
Chemo, I read a story about a child whose parents chose not to give him chemo for his cancer and instead chose to rely on faith healing, should they be arrested and the child given chemo?
Like I said I agree with you but I think giving the government this kind of power can only lead to bad things down the road.
Let me give some examples, vaccinations. I've had several conversations with friends of mine who don't want their children to get vaccinations, should they be arrested for neglect if their child dies because they didn't get the vaccination?
Chemo, I read a story about a child whose parents chose not to give him chemo for his cancer and instead chose to rely on faith healing, should they be arrested and the child given chemo?
Like I said I agree with you but I think giving the government this kind of power can only lead to bad things down the road.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, on that note I totally agree with you. Vaccinations should absolutely not be mandated, that has been a stance of mine for years.
Let’s leave the legalities out of this for now then.
Can it be moral for a parent to deprive their sick child of available treatment? Even if it’s in the name of God, surely they are in the wrong.
Let’s leave the legalities out of this for now then.
Can it be moral for a parent to deprive their sick child of available treatment? Even if it’s in the name of God, surely they are in the wrong.
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
It is not moral for a parent to deprive their sick child of treatments, it is wrong, any one who says differently needs to reexamine their morals and reread the Scriptures and change their church if it's telling them this is moral.
Right. So how can these people justify what they do? It is beyond my comprehension.
- SoccerLOTR
- If posts were pigs...
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: May 2005
- Location: The Woodland Realm
very tough subject. I agree with...both of you. Which doesn't work. I don't know how parents could refuse medical care for their children and just let them die...sometimes God's healing comes in the form of medical advances. I can't justify either position on what should be mandated by the government. On the one hand, someone needs to look out for the kids...but on the other hand, I don't like giving the government so much power to decide what is best (slippery slope ideology). I'm very much...undecided on what can be done in these situations.
- Whitty Whit
- Whittier than you
- Posts: 5985
- Joined: June 2010
- Location: Somewhere
This with a less condescending manner.Ayn Rand wrote:It is not moral for a parent to deprive their sick child of treatments, it is wrong, any one who says differently needs to reexamine their morals and reread the Scriptures and change their church if it's telling them this is moral.
God allowed man to use science to come up with medical treatments. THAT IS GOD'S WAY OF CURING THEM..... if God doescn't cure them without it. If I had a disease that could be treated, and I didn't seek medical attention, that's stupid. But if God wanted me to be alive and cure me, that's His decision. The possibility of that happening.... I don't know if there's a stat for that. But God allowed us to come up with the capability for curing people.
And I realize by saying that, that people are gonna use that exact logic in another way. lol. Go ahead, rip it.
1x admin, 2x moderator. 3-26-11, 5-25-12
#FOREVERKITTYJehoshaphat wrote:I mean every election is basically just choosing what type of government we want.
This situation is so bizarre you can actually leave both legality and morality out of it and just make it purely a logic issue, and it still doesn’t make sense.
I just can’t understand how they think they’re doing the right thing. Like I said, I’m all for praying for God’s healing. I do that myself when I or someone I know is ill. But it’s common sense to also seek medical help! The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Taking medicine doesn’t mean you don’t trust God to heal you.
It’s like that story where the man’s neighborhood is being flooded. As the water rises all his neighbors evacuate, but he refuses and sits on his porch. A boat comes up and the driver says “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” The man says “No no, God will save me, I don’t need you.” The water continues to rise, so he goes upstairs. Another boat comes up to his window. “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I know God will save me.” The water continues to rise, so he goes on his roof. A helicopter flies up. “Get in, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I don’t need anyone, God will save me.” The water covers the house and he drowns. The man furiously asks God “I trusted you, why didn’t you help me?” God replies “What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”
Yes God heals people, but it’s not always through medical miracles. Sometimes He works through earthly doctors and medicine.
I just can’t understand how they think they’re doing the right thing. Like I said, I’m all for praying for God’s healing. I do that myself when I or someone I know is ill. But it’s common sense to also seek medical help! The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Taking medicine doesn’t mean you don’t trust God to heal you.
It’s like that story where the man’s neighborhood is being flooded. As the water rises all his neighbors evacuate, but he refuses and sits on his porch. A boat comes up and the driver says “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” The man says “No no, God will save me, I don’t need you.” The water continues to rise, so he goes upstairs. Another boat comes up to his window. “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I know God will save me.” The water continues to rise, so he goes on his roof. A helicopter flies up. “Get in, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I don’t need anyone, God will save me.” The water covers the house and he drowns. The man furiously asks God “I trusted you, why didn’t you help me?” God replies “What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”
Yes God heals people, but it’s not always through medical miracles. Sometimes He works through earthly doctors and medicine.
- SoccerLOTR
- If posts were pigs...
- Posts: 2055
- Joined: May 2005
- Location: The Woodland Realm
I forgot about that story...great example. Completely agree.bookworm wrote:This situation is so bizarre you can actually leave both legality and morality out of it and just make it purely a logic issue, and it still doesn’t make sense.
I just can’t understand how they think they’re doing the right thing. Like I said, I’m all for praying for God’s healing. I do that myself when I or someone I know is ill. But it’s common sense to also seek medical help! The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Taking medicine doesn’t mean you don’t trust God to heal you.
It’s like that story where the man’s neighborhood is being flooded. As the water rises all his neighbors evacuate, but he refuses and sits on his porch. A boat comes up and the driver says “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” The man says “No no, God will save me, I don’t need you.” The water continues to rise, so he goes upstairs. Another boat comes up to his window. “Come on, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I know God will save me.” The water continues to rise, so he goes on his roof. A helicopter flies up. “Get in, I’ll take you to safety.” “No, I don’t need anyone, God will save me.” The water covers the house and he drowns. The man furiously asks God “I trusted you, why didn’t you help me?” God replies “What are you talking about? I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”
Yes God heals people, but it’s not always through medical miracles. Sometimes He works through earthly doctors and medicine.
They had doctors back in Bible times (not that they were often much use, but hey) and Jesus never condemned the practice of seeing a doctor or receiving help from one. He even used doctors as a parallel for who He came to reveal Himself to ("it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick..."). I don't feel like He would compare Himself to a doctor if He didn't condone what they did.
I definitely see and agree with Ayn Rand’s point, however I still believe arresting these people is the right move. So I’ve been trying to understand why I see it both ways, and I think I did.
It’s because they’re two different situations.
Vaccinations are optional. It’s up to people whether they want to take them, and to parents whether they give them to their children. And rightfully so, since they aren’t, strictly speaking, necessary.
But in these ‘faith healing’ arrests, we aren’t talking about things like vaccinations, these children had diseases. Diseases that needed treatment. Treatment the parents refused to give. In my mind that falls under child abuse, which is a valid reason for authorities to intervene.
If your child has a cold, you can choose to not give them medicine. It’s not going to severely harm them, it just might make the time it takes to recover longer. In this case the choice is up to the parent because in the long run it isn’t really important.
But if your child has a disease, you need to give them the available treatment. You don’t have a choice, they either get help or they die. In this case, how can we not take action? A child’s life is at stake.
It’s because they’re two different situations.
Vaccinations are optional. It’s up to people whether they want to take them, and to parents whether they give them to their children. And rightfully so, since they aren’t, strictly speaking, necessary.
But in these ‘faith healing’ arrests, we aren’t talking about things like vaccinations, these children had diseases. Diseases that needed treatment. Treatment the parents refused to give. In my mind that falls under child abuse, which is a valid reason for authorities to intervene.
If your child has a cold, you can choose to not give them medicine. It’s not going to severely harm them, it just might make the time it takes to recover longer. In this case the choice is up to the parent because in the long run it isn’t really important.
But if your child has a disease, you need to give them the available treatment. You don’t have a choice, they either get help or they die. In this case, how can we not take action? A child’s life is at stake.
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
Plenty of doctors and health care professionals would say the same thing about vaccinations, the child's life and often other children's lives are at stake when you don't get a vaccination.
Also who gets to decide when it's life threatening and when the parents decision gets taken away? What about treatments for cancer? Many of the treatments for cancer are thought by some to be worse than the cancer itself and many adults refuse those treatments. Are you saying that children shouldn't be allowed to opt out of those treatments because their parents don't get to make all medical decisions for their child?
Also who gets to decide when it's life threatening and when the parents decision gets taken away? What about treatments for cancer? Many of the treatments for cancer are thought by some to be worse than the cancer itself and many adults refuse those treatments. Are you saying that children shouldn't be allowed to opt out of those treatments because their parents don't get to make all medical decisions for their child?
No I’m not saying that. I would consider cancer treatment in the optional category. Yes untreated cancer will kill, but even treated it sometimes can. In these other diseases, the treatment has no ill effects, all it does is guarantee the life will be saved. It seems like a clear distinction to me.
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
Almost any medical procedure or drug has possible ill effects. Could you provide examples of treatments without ill effect that would cure a disease that left treated would kill someone?
- Laura Ingalls
- Half Pint
- Posts: 11493
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Suburbia
You may consider it in the optional category, but other people don't which is scary. I know I read about a case where a girl with cancer was forcibly taken away from her parents because they chose to go with alternative treatments instead of chemo like the traditional doctor recommended. It made me angry that government thought they had the authority to do that! It's none of their business if the parents think it's in the best interest of their child to provide different treatment other than toxic chemicals.
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. ♡
- John Chrysostom
- No way I broke the window
- Posts: 3593
- Joined: September 2007
Very well, still what procedures are you thinking of? Also Laura brings up a good point that the government already forcibly forces children to undergo chemo treatments.
I have never heard of situations like that before. That is definitely wrong. Was that just one case or is this the norm? A family I know has a child with cancer, he takes chemo, but it’s because they chose to do it.
- Laura Ingalls
- Half Pint
- Posts: 11493
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Suburbia
I don't know if it's the norm or not, all I know is I read a news article about the situation I described a few years ago.
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. ♡