We've always had food, we haven't always had medical treatments, so I'm not sure it's a good analogy.

Why are there some religious people who refuse medical treatment but eat food if it's a good analogy?

Well, on a literal reading of Genesis we haven't always had illness, either. But OK, would a non-condemnatory Biblical reference to medical treatment suffice?

Are you asking me why there are idiots and/or crazy people?

'either'? I thought we'd always had food. Honestly, a non-condemnatory Biblical reference doesn't help much since there are so many ways to interpret the bible it's almost useless as supporting evidence IMO. Even the seemingly straightforward statements can't be taken straightforwardly apparently and have to be interpreted 'in context'. 'See them healed' doesn't necessarily mean to accept medical treatments, especially given that in that time there really wasn't much 'medical' treatment that could be offered, they didn't even know what bacteria are.

You compared the acceptance of medical treatment to eating food. If the acceptance of medical treatment is that 'obvius' then why do some Christians reject it?

What else do you suppose it might refer to? The temporary granting of godlike healing powers?

The important thing is that the passage doesn't instruct the guilty party to pray for the injured party's health to be restored. It instructs the guilty party to do something practical, does it not? So on what basis would a Christian reject seeking medical treatment?

It's perhaps worth noting that Luke, the traditional author of one of the Gospels, is portrayed as having been a physician. In Catholic doctrine, there are eight separate patron saints of medical workers and a tutelary angel. Anyone claiming that medicine is illegitimate for Christians faces a burden of demonstration, they don't get to assert it and demand contradiction imo.

Again, you seem to be asking me why stupid and/or crazy people exist. I'm not obligated to explain their existence and I'm not privy to the inner workings of their mind.

Blood transfusions? Organ transplants? Some forms of surgery?

Or not, since those things didn't exist then and those are the types of medical treatments that some Christians now reject. So you see, that it said 'see him healed' in the bible has little relevance to this thread IMO. I don't think that it supports that Christians should as obviusly accept medical treatment as they should accept food.

I still don't think you used a good analogy or that I'm a sap.

Christian Scientists can reference passage in the bible that they believe support their rejection of medicines: http://www.religioustolerance.org/med_bibl.htm

They're crazy?

So people that reject medical treatments on religious grounds are crazy and/or stupid?

You can adopt that position, but not without insisting that all Christians go full Amish. If you're prepared to accept cars, then you have to accept ambulances, I'm afraid.
I didn't call you a sap. And it's a fine analogy. I could have challenged you to show that your objection was actually valid - ie, that "we've always had food" is a material objection (maybe we were always wrong not to pray for alleviation of hunger, right?), but I'm easy. My main aim is helping you to understand that what you're saying isn't true. Whatever way seems best is the way I'll go.

Sure, and if a Christian rejects their interpretation of those verses, as I assume the majority of Christians around the world would, what's your beef? Have you considered the CS arguments and the non-CS-Christian arguments, weighed them and decided that the CS arguments are superior?

Or are you just clinging to what you thought was a cute line?

Crazy, stupid, morally irresponsible, pick an epithet. A wide range potentially applies.

Depends on the medical treatment.

Damn it Flynn, Uke and MB almost had me convinced that my only two options are either to accept a literal reading of the text to be the very word of God or to succumb to a radical relativism of interpretation in which everything can mean everything. Now I'm wavering again.

Does not Matthew 21:17 say And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there?

And does that not mean Mightyboosh is totally right, you guys?

Think about it.

It is known.

Did the child have a say in the matter? 11 isn't that young. I turned atheist in 6th grade so I was either 12 or 11 and several months. What if the child is atheist and wants to live, she has to just roll over and die because she has insane parents?

Pretty much. 11 isnt that old. Old enough to formulate your opinions, sure, but not so much when it comes to acquiring things by yourself.

Not to mention, I think 11 is still young enough where you trust your parents implicitly. That's part of what makes this so awful.

Given that the parents are now being charged with homicide, I guess if the kid would have raised publicity about it something might have been done in time to keep her alive. Chances are she didn't disagree with her parents anyway because like you said, most kids at that age would trust their parents (and that's usually what a kid should do).

I get religious freedom but imo it should only apply to decisions about your own self, you shouldn't be allowed to risk someone else's life with your belief in magic.

Suppose a truck is coming toward your kid. What's the difference between not pulling your kid away from the truck's path, and what those parents did? What's the difference between trusting prayer to stop a disease and trusting prayer to alter the path of a truck? Both prayers are an attempt to momentarily alter the laws of physics.

Don't forget that we're talking about prayer as a means of causing healing here not simply 'should Christians reject medical treatment or not' or some argument about taking the bible literally that isn't even happening. If Christians believe in prayer in that they are praying to a god who is listening and has the power to heal, then why do they seek out medical treatment?

For centuries prayer was used, then along came modern medicine and prayer for healing was promptly regulated to the land of crazy and/or stupid. Wouldn't devout Christians have more faith than that?

I think the use of modern medicine clearly demonstrates a lack of faith.

That would be mildly amusing if it had any bearing on what we're actually discussing and if it didn't demonstrate your clear (and fairly typical) preference for interpreting the bible as it suits you.

Honestly I think I prefer you ignoring me than sniping at me using other people's posts as an excuse. I could go find an 'unimpressed' gif but I can't be bothered.

Because it works? I mean this is why I brought up food initially. Why do Christians walk anywhere if god could teleport them? Why do Christians have sexual intercourse when god could impregnate them? Why do Christians scratch their arses when god could just make it go away?

This isn't accurate at all. Remember that Luke was a physician. You haven't justified the proposition that medicine conflicts with Christianity at all.

More faith than what?

Oh it demonstrates a lack of a specific faith, yeah. Faith generally, no.

FWIW I don't think you get to say stuff like this after your dodgeball exhibition re Exodus earlier ITT.

There's certainly conflict just now in areas concerning medical science such as stem cell research. It will be interesting to see what stance those who oppose such research take with regards to any advances that come from it.

fwiw, that would be a VERY interesting debate topic: "Does my moral objection to X commit me to a moral objection to Xn, if X is necessary for X1, X1 is necessary for X2 etc. to Xn." Intuitively, I'd say no, but I've never really thought about it.

And prayer doesn't work?

I don't think food, or sexual intercourse or arse scratching a good comparisons. Unless people used to pray for those but have also stopped doing it now there's a modern alternative?

I'm not trying to establish a conflict, I'm looking at this from an entirely different perspective. I'm asking why prayer isn't the first (and only?) choice? I'm not sure why you're still coming at me from a perspective of 'taking the bible literally' or 'conflict with Christianity', that's not at all my point.

I think I might have confused the issue by linking those Christian science biblical arguments, that was a mistake by me.

I think refusing medical care back then would have had almost as the same effect as choosing medical care such as it was and prayer was a seemingly much more viable and effective alternative. For the kind of medical issues that require blood transfusions or surgery, I'd be surprised if the survival rate for 'treatment my prayer' was any different from that of 'medical care' of the time.

More faith than to choose modern medicine over the power of prayer to heal. Is choosing medicine second guessing god and abandoning hope of god healing you? Are people who pray AND accept modern medical care just hedging their bets?

Yes there's a 'specific lack of faith', this is the point I've been trying to make all along. A lack of faith in prayer to heal. Do you think the religious would see it like that?

If you believe that prayer achieves anything, that there is a god who listens and might act on your request, why would you decide ton this specific issue that actually it doesn't and I'll go to an hospital instead?

Now this is somewhat similar to what I'm suggesting except in my question I'm asking if a moral commitment to prayer and to have faith that god will either heal or allow nature to take it's course, as his is will, should rule out accepting modern medical care.

I am not aware that Christians are expected to solely rely on God for everyday tasks that they can take care off themselves or have somebody else have take care of for them.

I've gotta admit, I do find it pretty ironic when you see people put themselves in the hands of health professionials and then when cured of whatever serious illness they have they then thank god.

I can invisage a certain thought process they may go through to get to that conclusion but it's pretty amusing all the same.

You think they don't also thank the doctors?

I'd like to think they do. But I wouldn't be surprised if asked that they would give most of the credit to god. Wouldn't be too difficult to find some clips online of people who have survived something praising god and not once mentioning the surgeons. I'm sure I seen one posted on here a while back (which was actually about a different subject altogether iirc)

Ok, so that was a comment about the religious fringe, then. Np.

We're not talking about everyday tasks, or arse scratching, or eating, we're talking about prayer.

Unless Christians are praying for arse scratching devices or help with the house work, why do they pray for god to heal them, then go to the doctors? Presumably when they pray, they do it because they believe that it achieves something? But in the case of medical issues, they decide not to rely on prayer, why? Are they second guessing god? Covering their bases? Do they secretly acknowledge that prayer isn't really doing anything? Do they think god might have decided to let them die and decide to defy his will?

Why would you pray for a win in tomorrow's game but rely on modern medical treatment rather than prayer?

Define the religious fringe