Faith: A life or death question

[Tiassa]

Judge Carolyn Engel Temin told Catherine and Herbert Schaible, that "it's obvious a prison sentence is not called for", noting that, with the exception of the death of a two year-old infant—for which the couple faced sentencing—she had heard only good things about the family.

The couple, who are lifelong members of the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia, have seven other children. The Schaibles were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child in December after prosecutors say they failed to take their infant son to a doctor when he showed signs of the flu. Instead they prayed and their son, Kent, soon died of pneumonia.

Several undated sermons on the First Century Gospel Church's website speak directly about the church's opposition to doctors and medicine.

"Our life must be committed to God without compromise, and our will is to be His will in everything," according to one sermon. "That commitment to God means we are to trust God alone for physical healing without the use of medicine, drugs, prescriptions, human remedies, or a doctor."

(Stroud)​

Judge Engel Temin set a ten-year probation schedule for the Schaibles,including regular medical appointments for their seven surviving children. "I need to give a sentence that's long enough to ensure the kids have adequate healthcare until they turn 18," she explained.

Faith.

We can argue all day about how horrible or kindly-but-misunderstood the Schaibles are, but there is also a functional aspect to consider.

One might understand, at least academically, the submission of the self to faith. But what is the boundary? Can one say, "Because of my faith, someone else must die"?

That's essentially what happened. Not only did the Schaibles commit their lives to God, they also forfeit their own son's as a demonstration of their faith. It seems to me that someone else's life should not be included as part of one's own faith.

That is: Fine, if you want to die of an easily treated disease, that's your prerogative. But how does your faith make that decision for someone else?

Faith. The faith of the father. Or the mother. Yet it is the child who died.

There seems something amiss about this definition of faith.
____________________

Notes:

Stroud, Matt. "Faith-healing couple sentenced to 10 years probation". Philadelphia City Paper. February 2, 2011. CityPaper.net. February 2, 2011. http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2011/02/02/faith-healing-couple-sentenced-to-10-years-probation/

 

[Lori_7]

i don't like this poll, because i'm a christian, and i believe what's written in the bible, and the bible is drenched in human sacrifice. god commanded someone to sacrifice his son in the OT, and then was like "psych. i was just testing your faith. you passed." and then jesus of course, sacrificed for ME. on that premise alone, i would have to answer the poll "yes, my faith requires this." i witness human sacrifice around me every day for the sake of knowledge. and then there is the book of revelation which describes in horrific, bloody gore, the sacrifice of the vast majority of humanity in order to usher in the kingdom of christ. the same benefit of a revolution i suppose or a war,but even if it's a war between good and evil, it's still a war.

but what you're describing in the OP is just stupidity. there's no benefit, no accomplishment, no reason, just death. what are they supposed to be sacrificing for? i don't understand that.

 

[Rav]

Abstaining from medical treatment is not even Biblical. This is just another example of people and their stupid ignorant ideas twisting religion to the detriment of others.

"Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses." - 1 Timothy 5:23

This is what the Apostle Paul told Timothy in the Bible. Wine was, of course, considered a medicine back then.

 

[jmpet]

Bob Marley died because of his belief in the power of religious healing. He was wrong.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Bob Marley died because of his belief in the power of religious healing. He was wrong.

Marley died in a cancer hospital being treated in Miami, so he was also into traditional medicines as well.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Many times the state will step in when the parents won't allow their children proper medical attention but not in all states as yet.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

One might understand, at least academically, the submission of the self to faith. But what is the boundary? Can one say, "Because of my faith, someone else must die"?

They're not saying, "Our son must die." They're saying, "Our son doesn't need a doctor because God will heal him."

They're not being cruel, they're just being wrong.

Faith. The faith of the father. Or the mother. Yet it is the child who died.

All children live by the risk analysis and risk management decisions of their parents. That's one of the primary vectors in the parent-child relationship.

If you and your wife-to-be decide to skip school three days a week, so you grow up qualified for only the most degrading, low-paying jobs, then when you get married you have to live in a low-rent high-risk neighborhood with bullet holes in your walls and you have to drive a 25-year-old car with bald tires, unreliable brakes and no air bags. Your children also have to live in that neighborhood and travel in that car. They get no choice: you made it for them.

Or if you and your wife (before or after marriage) decide to join the Holy Dingbat Church and the preacher convinces you that God will cure all disease without the assistance of doctors, then your children will never be treated by a doctor. They get no choice: you made it for them,

There's no substantive difference.

There seems something amiss about this definition of faith.

We atheists with our rational faith in empirical evidence have to remember that the faith of devoutly religious people is, by definition, irrational, since it demands as a condition of loyalty to God that they believe in things for which there is no evidence. One of those things they believe in irrationally is Heaven. They regard young children as without sin (which is not irrational), so if their children die they automatically go to Heaven. That's a far better life than they've got here, so no harm has been done--in their irrational world view.

They honestly don't understand why they should be punished. It was God's will that they not seek medical care for their child and it was God's will that in this particular case the child would die. It's not their fault, God made the decision, and in any case no harm was done to the child because he is still alive in a Better Place.

Personally I have mixed feelings about intervening in cases like this, because it's a classic "slippery slope." If we take children away from Christian Scientists because we think the risk of dying from a horrible disease is unacceptable, then do we also have to take them away from unsuccessful people who live in ghettoes where the risk of being shot in the crossfire of a gang war is of the same order of magnitude? Do we have to take them away from stupid people who don't bother getting their brakes checked? Do we have to take them away from lazy people who can't hold a job so there's never enough food on the table?

Why don't we take all the children away from all the people in the Third World? Infant mortality there is surely comparable to infant mortality in the families of American Christian Scientists. How dare those people bring children into the world, knowing that they'll never have vaccinations, clean water, adequate nutrition, antibiotics or safe living conditions!

Where ya gonna draw the line, dude? Should the shit-for-brains government have the power to rescue children from their own family? Have you ever seen a government-run child-care facility? They'd be better off living with people who practice voodoo.

but what you're describing in the OP is just stupidity. there's no benefit, no accomplishment, no reason, just death. what are they supposed to be sacrificing for? i don't understand that.

You don't seem to be very learned about the dark side of your own religion. There are Christians who take Heaven and Hell very seriously, and regard mortal life as a fleeting transition. (This is more common among Muslims but it is by no means unheard-of among Christians.) Some of them also believe that modern scientific medicine is an affront to God, because only God is supposed to decide who gets sick and who stays well, who dies and who lives another day. You should learn more about Christian Science. It was founded right here, in the supposedly "enlightened" United States. By a woman, the gender that is supposedly instinctively wiser about child care.

 

[nietzschefan]

Marley died in a cancer hospital being treated in Miami, so he was also into traditional medicines as well.

He avoided the Doctor for his foot - a gooood looong time, not sure if it was his faith, or being a typical man.

The Abraham and Isaac story cured my Christianity. It is the most telling, most important thing in the Bible. It tells you a lot about "god" fictional or real.

 

[lightgigantic]

There's no substantive difference.We atheists with our rational faith in empirical evidence have to remember that the faith of devoutly religious people is, by definition, irrational, since it demands as a condition of loyalty to God that they believe in things for which there is no evidence. One of those things they believe in irrationally is Heaven. They regard young children as without sin (which is not irrational), so if their children die they automatically go to Heaven. That's a far better life than they've got here, so no harm has been done--in their irrational world view.

never heard of reincarnation I take it?
(just helping you put your muzzle back on)

 

[wynn]

One might understand, at least academically, the submission of the self to faith. But what is the boundary? Can one say, "Because of my faith, someone else must die"?

It is happening on a daily basis - it's called "capitalism", for example.

That's essentially what happened. Not only did the Schaibles commit their lives to God, they also forfeit their own son's as a demonstration of their faith. It seems to me that someone else's life should not be included as part of one's own faith.

That is: Fine, if you want to die of an easily treated disease, that's your prerogative. But how does your faith make that decision for someone else?

It's always like this.
Whatever the parents believe, it will affect their children.
In effect, the children are the property of the parents.

There seems something amiss about this definition of faith.

There is, yes.
You seem to be coming from the position that faith or personal belief (in whatever, be it God or money) should be and can be such that nobody else gets adversely affected.
But generally, this is not possible in this world. Others will be negatively affected by our actions, and we will be negatively affected by theirs.
Generally, it is not possible to be a consistent pacifist in this world.

 

[Saquist]

Judge Carolyn Engel Temin told Catherine and Herbert Schaible, that "it's obvious a prison sentence is not called for", noting that, with the exception of the death of a two year-old infant—for which the couple faced sentencing—she had heard only good things about the family.

The couple, who are lifelong members of the First Century Gospel Church in northeast Philadelphia, have seven other children. The Schaibles were convicted of involuntary manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a child in December after prosecutors say they failed to take their infant son to a doctor when he showed signs of the flu. Instead they prayed and their son, Kent, soon died of pneumonia.

Several undated sermons on the First Century Gospel Church's website speak directly about the church's opposition to doctors and medicine.

"Our life must be committed to God without compromise, and our will is to be His will in everything," according to one sermon. "That commitment to God means we are to trust God alone for physical healing without the use of medicine, drugs, prescriptions, human remedies, or a doctor."

(Stroud)​

Judge Engel Temin set a ten-year probation schedule for the Schaibles,including regular medical appointments for their seven surviving children. "I need to give a sentence that's long enough to ensure the kids have adequate healthcare until they turn 18," she explained.

Faith.

We can argue all day about how horrible or kindly-but-misunderstood the Schaibles are, but there is also a functional aspect to consider.

One might understand, at least academically, the submission of the self to faith. But what is the boundary? Can one say, "Because of my faith, someone else must die"?

That's essentially what happened. Not only did the Schaibles commit their lives to God, they also forfeit their own son's as a demonstration of their faith. It seems to me that someone else's life should not be included as part of one's own faith.

That is: Fine, if you want to die of an easily treated disease, that's your prerogative. But how does your faith make that decision for someone else?

Faith. The faith of the father. Or the mother. Yet it is the child who died.

There seems something amiss about this definition of faith.
____________________

Notes:

Stroud, Matt. "Faith-healing couple sentenced to 10 years probation". Philadelphia City Paper. February 2, 2011. CityPaper.net. February 2, 2011. http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2011/02/02/faith-healing-couple-sentenced-to-10-years-probation/

It is important to note that Christianity has no scriptural abstinence of medicine. In fact in the Hebrew Scriptures Death is viewed as an eventuality of sin. The used methods of Quarantine and such to protect the populace from what we call today as bio hazards.

These people have their own religion. And that is there custom. I may question it myself but I don't think if this government is going to allow abortion and let drunk drivers roam free then I find this judge's actions completable.


This country (America) pretends that life is SO important but it proves only false to it's power. Americans wouldn't know what morals were if it detonated in an air burst over their heads. America is about two things, Liberal Secularism and convenience and that is why they handed down this punishment because they don't have a problem saying America is a country of Religious Freedom when it's conveniently liberal.

 

[Lori_7]

You don't seem to be very learned about the dark side of your own religion. There are Christians who take Heaven and Hell very seriously, and regard mortal life as a fleeting transition. (This is more common among Muslims but it is by no means unheard-of among Christians.) Some of them also believe that modern scientific medicine is an affront to God, because only God is supposed to decide who gets sick and who stays well, who dies and who lives another day. You should learn more about Christian Science. It was founded right here, in the supposedly "enlightened" United States. By a woman, the gender that is supposedly instinctively wiser about child care.

i'm fairly familiar with the dark side of what i believe and this doesn't fit into the context of sacrifice. there is no reason or purpose behind this at all. it's not as if god has spoken to these people, saying "sacrifice your child". if god had, they wouldn't have gotten off so easy with a disease to do all the work for them. they would have had to do the dirty work themselves on an altar. at least that's how it's depicted in the OT. i don't see any difference between a child who's sick and needs medicine and a child who's hungry and needs food, while their parents are waiting for manna from heaven. it's retarded and it's not biblical.

 

[Tiassa]

Unfortunately, it seems like it's supposed to accomplish something pretty stupid

i don't like this poll, because i'm a christian, and i believe what's written in the bible, and the bible is drenched in human sacrifice. god commanded someone to sacrifice his son in the OT, and then was like "psych. i was just testing your faith. you passed." and then jesus of course, sacrificed for ME. on that premise alone, i would have to answer the poll "yes, my faith requires this." i witness human sacrifice around me every day for the sake of knowledge. and then there is the book of revelation which describes in horrific, bloody gore, the sacrifice of the vast majority of humanity in order to usher in the kingdom of christ. the same benefit of a revolution i suppose or a war,but even if it's a war between good and evil, it's still a war.

When people tried to teach me that the Book of Job was an example of faith, I generally thought, "Well, yeah, if the sky itself comes down and excoriates me, I'd probably pay attention." Job had something that you and I don't get—direct revelation. Abraham had something that you and I don't get—direct revelation. Christ had something we don't get—direct revelation. Of course, there is also the argument that Christ was direct revelation.

Faith, these days, does not provide such dramatic events as angry skies, burning bushes, and singing doves. Well, okay, metaphorically and, in some cases, literally. But none of them are actually communicating to us in our verbal language while the clouds brew, the bush burns, or the dove sings.

The Bible is drenched in all sorts of violence, but—and strangely, perhaps—I would suggest these examples don't actually represent human sacrifice. Isaac was not killed. Jesus was born specifically to die. I mean, certes, we might consider the dimensions of Docetism as a heresy, despite the fact that a human Redeemer was too much for Nicaea. But most humans don't come back to life three days after they die. The "human sacrifice" of the crucifixion is more demonstrative than literal. Which, hopefully, brings us to:

but what you're describing in the OP is just stupidity. there's no benefit, no accomplishment, no reason, just death. what are they supposed to be sacrificing for? i don't understand that.

Even if we count Jesus, God sent the Son to die for a reason. It is, in some cosmic way, a matter of cause and effect. Humanity, apparently, is lost without this demonstration.

And I do think that notion is somewhat different from what happened in Pennsylvania.

What was it supposed to accomplish?

In the most noble interpretation, it demonstrates the depth of faith. I had a geometry and logic teacher in Jesuit school who once told the story of her child born with a cleft palate. It caused breathing problems, such that the infant had to sleep upright; and even that wasn't a sure thing. So, one night, after some undetermined period of lying awake and listening to her infant son wheeze and burble along, she got sick of it. So she took the baby to another room where she couldn't hear him, said, "God, I'm putting this in your hands," and went to bed with a clear conscience. If God wanted the child to live, the child would live. If God wanted the child to come home, the child would die. It was out of her hands.

And even among the Jesuits, some found this course admirable.

Don't get me wrong: I understand the idea of someone simply snapping. But did we really need to go so far as to suggest child neglect is an admirable?

And this is at the heart of my question. I understand the idea of faith in God, of placing outcomes in God's hands. And I suppose that's fine if you do so for yourself. But someone else?

And, indeed, I understand that the child, being among the most important things in the world to the parent, can represent the depth of what a person will give over to God, but that child is someone else, in the first place. And they are depending on the parent in the second.

What is it supposed to accomplish? It is supposed to show God how important He is compared to anything else the lowly human might value.

And God is supposed to be impressed.

 

[Lori_7]

When people tried to teach me that the Book of Job was an example of faith, I generally thought, "Well, yeah, if the sky itself comes down and excoriates me, I'd probably pay attention." Job had something that you and I don't get—direct revelation. Abraham had something that you and I don't get—direct revelation. Christ had something we don't get—direct revelation. Of course, there is also the argument that Christ was direct revelation.

Faith, these days, does not provide such dramatic events as angry skies, burning bushes, and singing doves. Well, okay, metaphorically and, in some cases, literally. But none of them are actually communicating to us in our verbal language while the clouds brew, the bush burns, or the dove sings.

i must contend as i have received direct revelation. in my experience christ has been a catalyst.

The Bible is drenched in all sorts of violence, but—and strangely, perhaps—I would suggest these examples don't actually represent human sacrifice. Isaac was not killed. Jesus was born specifically to die. I mean, certes, we might consider the dimensions of Docetism as a heresy, despite the fact that a human Redeemer was too much for Nicaea. But most humans don't come back to life three days after they die. The "human sacrifice" of the crucifixion is more demonstrative than literal. Which, hopefully, brings us to:



Even if we count Jesus, God sent the Son to die for a reason. It is, in some cosmic way, a matter of cause and effect. Humanity, apparently, is lost without this demonstration.

And I do think that notion is somewhat different from what happened in Pennsylvania.

What was it supposed to accomplish?

In the most noble interpretation, it demonstrates the depth of faith. I had a geometry and logic teacher in Jesuit school who once told the story of her child born with a cleft palate. It caused breathing problems, such that the infant had to sleep upright; and even that wasn't a sure thing. So, one night, after some undetermined period of lying awake and listening to her infant son wheeze and burble along, she got sick of it. So she took the baby to another room where she couldn't hear him, said, "God, I'm putting this in your hands," and went to bed with a clear conscience. If God wanted the child to live, the child would live. If God wanted the child to come home, the child would die. It was out of her hands.

And even among the Jesuits, some found this course admirable.

Don't get me wrong: I understand the idea of someone simply snapping. But did we really need to go so far as to suggest child neglect is an admirable?

And this is at the heart of my question. I understand the idea of faith in God, of placing outcomes in God's hands. And I suppose that's fine if you do so for yourself. But someone else?

And, indeed, I understand that the child, being among the most important things in the world to the parent, can represent the depth of what a person will give over to God, but that child is someone else, in the first place. And they are depending on the parent in the second.

What is it supposed to accomplish? It is supposed to show God how important He is compared to anything else the lowly human might value.

And God is supposed to be impressed.

yeah i doubt god's impressed. i mean, if the reason behind this is supposed to be a demonstration of faith, then the demonstration clearly failed.

when it comes to faith and spiritual influence, the bible always refers to the outcome as fruit, and discernment can be made in regards to the faith/spirit according to that fruit. and the fruit in this case is dead. there just isn't a good/beneficial outcome to be witnessed here, not in the child (who is in the ground), or in the parents lives. there is no blessing. there is no healing. i can't decide if this demonstration is ego-based or fear-based. since there is no command from god that can be cited in this case, the parents were very clearly following their own will, probably out of fear that is a direct result of a lack of faith, and a lack of knowledge, of god. according to the bible, and to my own experience faith in, and a knowledge of, god results in empowerment that produces results like peace, joy, love, kindness, and healing, not death.

 

[Lori_7]

i'll make an analogy between my opinion of these parents and my opinion of what signal's presenting in another thread...

signal is contemplating (and i have to try really hard not to laugh when i type this) going to some particular place once a week, or every so often, where he would be browbeaten and verbally and emotionally abused by a particular group of people. if i understand him correctly, he's contemplating this because he thinks it might possibly be what god wants him to do. but the truth is (and he admits this), that the only reason he's contemplating this absurdity is because he doesn't know god, and has absolutely no idea what god may want him to do. i mean even without the knowledge of god or a spiritual influence, can't we at least take an objective look at the results of these absurd behaviors, and discern?

 

[keith1]

Only the state has data and records left of now-extinct families who were so incompetent they killed off their whole family. That which we survive, makes us stronger. And believe me, surrounded by dum**sses, still we survive.

 

[superstring01]

You make weird poll options, Tiassa.

Note on my "faith". I have faith in the universe, as a whole. I also accept that there may be a grand architect of the cosmos, but barring any reasonable proof, I'll just tuck that thought in the back of my head and follow what science tells me.

~String

 

[GeoffP]

"Allows or demands that I sacrifice other people?"

Struck on the connection to Christianity that's being inferred here.

 

[S.A.M.]

There is a reason they have an informed consent form that has to be signed for any treatment. Tragic as it seems, people have the right to refuse treatment. Its irrelevant what the reason may be.

 

[NMSquirrel]

the OP misses one aspect of sacrifice..
the OP is 'sacrifice some one else',
what about sacrificing one self..

i am sure to sacrifice someone else is wrong, even in gods eyes, i think he would much rather see us sacrifice ourselves for our faith..just as i am also sure it is easier to sacrifice someone else than it is to sacrifice one self..

faith in god should be something to die for, not to kill for..