What is the message here?

Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital. Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.

(Pastor Bob on the Unleavened Bread Ministries website.  The daughter of two followers of that group died last March from untreated juvenile diabetes.)

What is the orthodox response to Christian Science?  As A-Bax said in a comment a while ago, it seems a fairly pure and principled test of the power of prayer.  Is the conventional wisdom that prayer is only additive—God will respond only if humans have availed themselves of all secular means of healing?   Under that theory, asking for God’s help is like seeking habeas relief in federal court—you have to first exhaust all your state court remedies.   But why should that be?  Why should we be obligated to use the fruits of the scientific method before asking for divine intervention? 

One hundred years ago, there was no treatment for juvenile diabetes, so if God were going to cure a child of the disease, he would have had to act absent relevant medical treatment.  Now that such treatment exists, will he not intervene without prior medical effort?  I don’t understand why, though I’m sure that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.   (Of course, we know that God doesn’t always respond even after massive medical effort.) 

Rick Warren says about God: “you are loving to everyone you have made.”  Why not throw our fate upon his love always and unconditionally?

On the other hand, why do Christian Scientists only abjure medical care?  Why not expect God to drive them to the supermarket or fix their computer?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to What is the message here?

  1. Polichinello says:

    But why should that be? Why should we be obligated to use the fruits of the scientific method before asking for divine intervention?

    The orthodox response is that you should do both.

    I happen to have a low opinion of Jesus–who was a bully, a fanatic and hater of the worst sort–but he did talk about ministering unto others and the Christian tradition (which is thankfully often not like Jesus) honors a number of doctors as saints.

  2. Prof Frink says:

    I happen to have a low opinion of Jesus–who was a bully, a fanatic and hater of the worst sort

    Wow, that’s a bomb. What passages could I reference?

  3. Polichinello says:

    Off the top of my head, I can’t give you chapter and verse. You can look up the story of the Syro-Phonecian woman in Mk and Mt, where he pretty much refers to her as nigger in his argot. Calling someone a “dog” in the Middle East is as low as you can get, and he is referring to her ethnicity. True, he relented and healed her, but only after a lot of brown-nosing and sh*t-eating on her part. Then there’s the story in Lk, where he extorts a profession of faith from a man looking to be healed. Look, too, for the invective he throws at towns which didn’t kiss his holy a$$. He says stuff like it was easier on Sodom than it’ll be on you. Jesus’ attacks on the Pharisees are filled with rage. Then you have the apocalyptic passages, where he relishes his duty as divine judge, casting sinners into a lake of fire to suffer for eternity.

    You know the saying, “Cast not your pearls before swine”? The swine are non-Jews. Jesus was a real piece of work. People say Paul spoiled his “real” message, but my feeling is that Paul actually cleaned it up and made it acceptable.

    One of the admittedly low pleasures I take from reading the Gospels is to imagine Jesus speaking with an Arabic heavy’s accent. You really get the feeling for his fanaticism, then.

  4. Paul says:

    Do these people resort only to prayer when they need to have the leaky pipes in their kitchen fixed or do they call a plumber? Do they deliver their mail through prayer or do they use the postal service? Do they travel by car or prayer? If they ride horses, do they shoe them by blacksmith or prayer?

    How is using a doctor and medicine any different than the other service providers and tools that we use in society every day?

  5. Paul says:

    Sorry about my quick comment. I see that you already covered my point at the bottom of your post.

  6. John Cain says:

    @Paul:

    I think it’s because Jesus used his magic to heal people, but he did not do those other things. Although it amuses me to no end to think that Pastor Bob has a distillery made up of giant vats filled to the brim with water.

  7. Polichinello says:

    I think it’s because Jesus used his magic to heal people, but he did not do those other things.

    He did restock a bar. Give the man that much. He kept a party going.

  8. The ironic part of all of this is that between their rapid breeding and refusal of treatment, they will eventually out evolve us science loving medicine users.

  9. Ploni Almoni says:

    Considering that Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly have answers to all the questions you ask here, why not find out what their reasons are (it can’t be too hard) and respond to them in Secular Right?

    I’ll get things started. I think that Christian Scientists, first of all, do not abjure all medical care. They only abjure certain procedures, such as transfusion, and that is based on scripture. Their scriptural interpretation doesn’t strike me as any more far-fetched than Jewish (rabbinic) interpretation. I don’t think they find any scriptural injunction against driving to the supermarket, which is why they don’t abjure it. But I may be wrong here, because like you, I’m too lazy busy to look up the answers on Wikipedia.

  10. I find this far preferable to the opposite phenomenon, where religious people oppose medical research, but are first in line for treatment when they get sick.

  11. A-Bax says:

    In my opinion, the more exotic forms of Christianity (usually strains of Protestantism like Christian Scientist or Jehovah’s Witnesses) are closer to the “wild type” of religious belief as described by Boyer and Atran. That is, they primarily driven by the kind of animism, superstition, and agent-causality-uber-alles that seem to be the default mode of humans round the world. (To be sure, recently “Catholicized” places, like patches of South America and Africa, retain these older forms as well, as the Fra Galvao pills demonstrate.)

    The “Christian” part, (or “Abrahamic”, as I think this would apply to recent Indonesian converts to Islam too), is that they take some specific text as canonical, and a driver of their built-in superstitious cognitive structures. (Cognitive structures that we all have, in virtue of being human, and that only long training and intellectual work can stamp out.)

    Petitionary prayer is really just a hold-over from the more basic forms of religion. Religious sophisticates (like Feser, or Ratzinger) would dress this practice up in high-falutin’ mumbo-jumbo, but it isn’t much different that what goes on in Hindu river villages, the New Guinea Highlands, or the Amazon basin.

    It’s just a manifestation of the built-in cognitive reflex that “agency” is the proper explanation for all things not well-understood. (Humans, being highly social animals, have simply evolved to think this way).

    But….since the scientific world-view and the empirical verification process has been so obviously successful in the last few hundred years, it has been accorded much respect by people at large. Sensing this, religious sophisticates strain to reformulate their (fundamentally primitive) religious impulses as scientific, or at least not inconsistent with the results of science. They do this largely through sophistry and rhetorical slight-of-hand (e.g. Feser’s work), and most people are either too polite or too busy to really call them on it.

    Petitionary prayer is, however, one of those delightful occasions where the contrast between empirical methodology and supernatural inclinations is so stark that even the “experts” have no tricks up their sleeves to dispel the cognitive dissonance that is manifestly palpable to anyone paying attention.

    Peace. 🙂

  12. David Heddle says:

    What is the orthodox response to Christian Science?

    A good start is to ask them what Luke’s profession was.

    Polichinello

    Off the top of my head, I can’t give you chapter and verse. You can look up the story of the Syro-Phonecian woman in Mk and Mt, where he pretty much refers to her as nigger in his argot.

    You are an idiot of biblical proportions. Even if this doesn’t make it through moderation, I want you to know that.

  13. Polichinello says:

    Whatever, David.

    If all you have is an insult, then you’ve lost the argument.

  14. David Heddle says:

    Polichinello,

    Yes, your argument:

    I happen to have a low opinion of Jesus–who was a bully, a fanatic and hater of the worst sort

    Was oh so very substantive.

  15. Polichinello says:

    But that wasn’t intended as THE argument. I was pointing out my opinion before talking about orthodox belief. It was a statement of interest. When Frink asked for clarification, I provided it with examples. THOSE are the argument. Do you want to deal with them?

  16. David Heddle says:

    Polichinello,

    I love to argue theology and exegesis. I especially love to debate with knowledgeable opponents. But I have seen the quality of your arguments. Arguing with you would be like arguing evolution with someone who asks: “What good is half an eye?” It’s just not worth it when the person arguing is so uninformed that they are “not even wrong” and yet are arrogant in their ignorance.

    Just one example. You wrote:

    You know the saying, “Cast not your pearls before swine”? The swine are non-Jews..

    (As in the swine and dogs of Matthew 7.) That is not correct—and it is not even close. Jesus instructs us to take the gospel to all people including (duh) Gentiles. Therefore his view of non-Jews cannot be that non-Jews are dogs and swine. For he does not in one place command us to give what is holy to non-Jews only to command somewhere else to avoid giving what is holy to non-Jews. There is virtual unanimity among commentators on this passage, and it is this: the gospel should go to all people—even those who seem very antagonistic. Jews and non-Jews. However, there is a threshold of contempt toward God that you might encounter, as demonstrated by a history of particularly virulent hatred toward the things of God. Under those circumstances don’t bother.

    None of you other arguments are any better.

  17. Polichinello says:

    Dogs and swine are unclean animals. They’re used figuratively to represent Gentiles, as has been pointed about Michael Grant and others. You’ll see an unflattering reference to gentile rulers in those verses as well.

    Jesus instructs us to take the gospel to all people including (duh) Gentiles.

    Jesus’ instruction usually comes in later passages, like Mt. 28, after the resurrection. If you think dead guys can come back, I guess that’s fine for you, but I’d like a bit more authority than that.

    During his lifetime Jesus tended to avoid gentiles and gentile towns. He made it clear to the Syro-phonecian woman that he wasn’t sent to the gentiles at all, as a matter of fact. He warned his followers to steer clear of them, too. Where he does deal with non-Jews, it’s either after the non-Jew has been vouched for (the centurion), or performed some serious self-degradation (the Syro-Phonecian woman), or as a messianic prop or fable character, the Samaritan characters usually (who were still in the Israelite fold, if not proper Jews).

  18. You two make me really glad I haven’t read all those books. So far the only thing I’ve gained from this argument is that religious texts are faulty, so there is no use reading them and arguing about it.

    “I don’t believe in astrology; I’m a Sagittarius and we’re skeptical.” – Arthur C. Clarke

  19. Polichinello says:

    Well, I’m sorry to have offended your sensibilities.

    Of course, if you want to remain ignorant of the central text of western civilization, I suppose that’s your choice. It’s still a free country.

  20. ◄Dave► says:

    @Polichinello

    It’s still a free country.

    Now, there is a worthy subject for debate. 🙂 ◄Dave►

  21. David Heddle says:

    Steel Phoenix,

    I’ve gained from this argument is that religious texts are faulty, so there is no use reading them and arguing about it.

    Accepting your criticism, isn’t it sensible to read and argue about faulty books? Do you only read and argue about infallible books?

  22. mnuez says:

    This is a very silly discussion, one of my fellow missionaries from the other night told me that the Smithsonian Institute “put out a study calling the Bible the most accurate book in history”. I’m really not sure I can understand then why we’re still arguing about it. The matter’s been settled by the Smithsonian Institute. As an aside, does anyone have any idea what the fuck is going on in Job? I mean the Hebrew is harder than Ezekiel’s and the English translations make me wonder if they’re just making it up as they go along. I say we decided once and for all if we can make any sense out of it and then vote it out of the cannon.

    I’ll fire off an email to the Smithsonian to get their take…

  23. I can’t read them all. I admit that having been taught to read by a computer, I don’t much read books, but if I did, I would have to prioritize, and those books which start with the premise that God created the heavens and the earth fall squarely within the fiction category.

  24. Christian Science is really in its own category that shouldn’t be treated as the same as branches of Christianity. Christian Science grew out of the New Thought and Theosophy movements in the 19th century. In there case it is a core belief that humans get sick or heal based on their spiritual well-being. Christian Scientists explicitly connect this to their belief that humans are reflections of the divine and that bad thoughts create imperfections in that divine reflection (that’s how I understand it. If I’m getting the theology incorrect someone please correct me). In that context it doesn’t make any sense to fix a computer with prayer since a computer isn’t a reflection of God.

  25. Mnuez, what would even mean for a book to be the most accurate book in history? How would you go about measuring that? And why hasn’t almost anyone heard of this study and a google search can’t find it? I’d tentatively suggest that this study doesn’t exist.

Comments are closed.