Religious views on medical treatment

Give me some time time to put forth a thoughtful response and an olive branch before you post something that to which I will react childishly.
 
TheNewGuy, I appreciate the thoughtful response. It's an improvement over the histrionic scoreboard-deniers and agenda-exposers I sometimes encounter here.

Your answer points to the underlying theological gray area that interests me: interpretation. For people who want to live by scripture it seems that quite a lot is riding on what they think it means. There's no objective standard, and different interpretations sometimes lead to the kinds of radical behaviors as the example in this thread. And yet believers generally act from the same fundamental idea: I'm right, and the others are wrong.

What do you make of that? And isn't this why there are so many different denominations just within the Christian faith, not to mention competing beliefs around the world. People can't even agree on what the foundational texts mean. It seems like a pretty important problem that few want to talk about.
 
Honestly I don't know what scripture(s) people who refuse medical treatment are basing their belief on. I know for Jehovah Witnesses, they base refusing blood transfusions on the following passage:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
God created a world without disease and death. Then mankind rebelled and sin, disease, and death entered the world. That is how a Christian would explain it biblically. And is how God can be for the healing arts and not contradict Himself.
 
Mona, how did the pathogenic microbes that produce disease come to be? Like the plague or influenza, for example. These are naturally-occurring infectious diseases.
 
Dude, your whole point about this topic is how do Christians see disease and healing. What I wrote is the bedrock of any truly Christian perspective.

Biblically, the creation fell. It changed in a real and significant way. Microscopic life which causes disease now didn't then. What it did exactly before we will never know, this side of heaven. That is the biblical answer. A Christian should know that disease can be fought against because it was not a part of God's original creation. It is a result of the fall.
 
Dion, you mock, but asked for the Christian perspective on disease the proper biblical view towards fighting it. Sorry I didn't remain within your preconceived notion of what a Christian must believe.
 
Not mocking, just think it's strange how you can claim to know things that you can't know in an attempt to stay true to a doctrine. I guess anything's possible when you're making it up.
 
A man is sitting on his porch as flood waters rise. A woman floats by in a boat, asking if the man needs help. "No, thank you," says the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." The waters rise higher, sending the man upstairs. A raft full of people floats by his second story window. "Get in," they say, "there's plenty of room." "No thanks," says the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." The flood waters keep rising, pushing the man up to the roof. A helicopter swoops in, lowering its ladder for the man. "Thanks anyway," shouts the man, "I'm trusting in the Lord." Finally, the man is swept away in the torrent and drowns. At the gates of Heaven, the man asks God, "Why didn't you save me?" "What do you mean?'' replies God, "I sent two boats and a helicopter."

A nice discussion
 
Pathogens didn't cause disease until the talking snake talked Adam and Eve into eating an apple? That's what passes for mainstream Christian thought?

Let's see . . . . God created Adam and Eve, perfect and sinless. Adam and Eve sinned. Do you not see the contradiction here?

How about the deeper contradictions like an *evil* talking snake appearing on the scene in the first place? What day do you reckon the talking snake got created on?

Ya gotta love creation fables, Christian or otherwise.
 
God created a world without disease and death. Then mankind rebelled and sin, disease, and death entered the world. That is how a Christian would explain it biblically.

The key word being "biblically".

As long as the person realizes that this blblical explanation is the equivalent of myth, then they are not delusional.
 
Dude, your whole point about this topic is how do Christians see disease and healing. What I wrote is the bedrock of any truly Christian perspective.

Biblically, the creation fell. It changed in a real and significant way. Microscopic life which causes disease now didn't then. What it did exactly before we will never know, this side of heaven. That is the biblical answer. A Christian should know that disease can be fought against because it was not a part of God's original creation. It is a result of the fall.

Let's at least be honest about this: this is the "blbilical answer" for those who are literalists/fundamentalists.

They do not speak for all Christianists.
 
Perham, if a Christian does not believe the words of the Bible then they are left with a God who created death and sickness as has been described already. That kind of God is not worthy of worship.
 
Perham, if a Christian does not believe the words of the Bible then they are left with a God who created death and sickness as has been described already. That kind of God is not worthy of worship.

The way you choose to interpret your holy text may not be the way others choose to. It does not make them wrong; neither does it make you correct.

You seem to be insisting on a literal interpretation and fail to see that there are other ways to decode the text. This, no doubt, contributes to your insistence on being literal.

Not to mention that your conclusion of whether that kind of god is worthy of worship is very open to debate.
 
Your problem with a God who does things like that is due to the fact that you assume that God is mankind; finite and fallible.

A God who is neither finite nor fallible can understand reality enough to know when those things are justifiable and when they are not. A human can judge things correctly but we are all constrained by finiteness and fallibility. I think that is the issue you are running up against.

Let me clarify my previous comment about the worship worthiness of a god who created sickness and death. The problem is that god's attributes are manifested by His creation. Sickness and death are in and of themselves bad things. Not evil, but qualitatively bad. A god who created those things would be showing that his nature is also bad. Plus, looking at the world today there is lots of sin, so god would have to be a sinner too if he created the world as it is today.

I also understand that there are other ways to interpret Genesis 1. I don't agree with them but I understand the what's and why's. Please don't state why I interpret things the way I do when you have no idea of my motivation.

One other thing is that even those who don't interpret Genesis 1 literally do interpret Romans 5 and 8 literally. And those passages are just as important when understanding the fall of creation. So a figurative interpretation of Genesis 1 is no reason to disbelieve in the fall as I have described it. In fact I don't believe there are many Christians in the world who would disagree with me on that point. There are probably a few described as "liberal" or "universalist" who might but no one else really. The fall of creation is a very common doctrine across all flavors of Christianity.
 
Directions aren't meant to be interpreted, they're to be communicated clearly so the recipient can follow them without ambiguity. Once interpretation enters into it they cease to provide direction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top