Rimshot said,
Well, they may have actually believed it, and they may have actually been doing their best to comfort the family. I seriously doubt any of them would trade their diploma for ordainment.
These stories always remind me of a long ago newsreel. A tugboat lost its engine in the Niagara River and drifted down toward the falls. It grounded about 50 yards upstream and was slowly moving toward the falls. Fire and police and others worked for hours an finally got the 3 man crew off safely and secured the boat from further movement, at considerable risk to themselves.
In an interview at the end of the news account, the tugboat captain thanked God.
My favorite believers are the ones that thank god for touchdowns and homeruns. You just know The Big Guy put on a pair of cleats and ran that sucker home.
Any know where to find that thread? I’ve done a search for “babies deformed” and “babies god*” and nothing turns up.
Suppose someone started a mpsim and a great debate broke out.
Who’d a thunk.
Here it is:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=233346
Maybe it wasn’t God who saved her. Maybe God made all her skin fall off but Zeus saved her life just to spite God.
It’s an autoimmune reaction. Your body decides, for reasons currently known only to itself (but having to do with your MHC and science is hot on the trail of 'em), that Bactrim is a virulent enemy that must be weeded out… and does to your skin in search of the enemy, what Joseph McCarthy tried to do to America in search of the Reds.
Tears it apart.
Good lord, I cannot imagine a person who lost 100 PERCENT of their skin. I have to admit a desire to see what that looked like, as disturbing as it might be. Horrifying.
Being an atheist, of course I agree with the idea that it was the treatments that saved her. Just because she was the first to lose all the skin and survive, doesn’t mean there was supernatural intervention.
Her condition was simply treatable. There must have been factors that the doctors don’t know yet that contributed to her recovery that weren’t there in other cases.
It’s like the early days of surgery before they knew about hygiene. Whenever someone survived the early risky operations, no doubt many, even doctors, said it was a “miracle” and “the will of God”. In fact, it was of course natural factors that are well-known today, such as the doc by coincidence happening to have clean hands before the operation.
Oh and this: “Even the membrane covering her internal organs – her eyes, mouth, and throat – began peeling away”
Damn. She’s got a hell of a story to tell people.
I am a Christian, and I do pray. But in order to believe God saved this woman, I would have to also believe that God chose not to save all the other sick people who have prayed with all their hearts to be saved.
To believe this goes beyond what I can believe of a loving God.
So I’ll say hooray for the doctors and their treatment, which saved a woman from a death so awful I hadn’t even thought of it before I read this thread.
I’m going to post before going out tonite, since I have some time…
Okay Kalhoun - let me first say that I usually stay out of theological debates. I enjoy discussing topics of theology with friends, family, people I know. I’m not a GD. I know my limitations. I haven’t posted on any thread in GD relating to theology (I believe not) but I couldn’t resist some “commenting” on this particular thread where it started in GQ.
Now here’s your quote: “OneYogini, how else would you explain the fact that people just died in earthquakes, avalanches, and at the hand of insane in-laws, yet god chose to save the woman in the article?”
As I said, I can’t explain why “god chose to save the woman” or why “people just died in earthquakes, avalanches, and at the hand of insane-in-laws”. I can’t explain it because I believe (a) there are WAY too many factors, (2) I’m not a good debater, (3) I don’t know that God necessarily chose to save the woman, (3) I don’t know why people do things and God does or does not intercede (this could go into a tangent of free will, sin, etc.), etc. I am not omniscient. I will say that I have faith that God knows what he’s doing, whether I understand it or not. (BTW-Did I say that God did or did not choose to save the woman? Did I say that anything about other people dying “in earthquakes, avalanches, and at the hand of insane in-laws”? How can I POSSIBLY explain what God or does not do? If I knew those answers…WOW!!)
Also Kalhoun about this “Well, they may have actually believed it, and they may have actually been doing their best to comfort the family. I seriously doubt any of them would trade their diploma for ordainment.”
It’s MY opinion, as I posted above somewhere, that God and medicine can work hand in hand. I personally don’t think you have to give up one for the other.
And Kalhoun about this quote “My favorite believers are the ones that thank god for touchdowns and homeruns. You just know The Big Guy put on a pair of cleats and ran that sucker home.”
And David Simmons “In an interview at the end of the news account, the tugboat captain thanked God.”
Again my opinion: I think that some people who thank God for things that others find arbitrary, do so because the bible says “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” Proverbs 3:6. By way of example: that’s what my mom said (cited the scripture) when I asked her why she felt it necessary to thank God for a good parking space. (LMAO!! Whether I agree with it or not, is not really the topic.)
It is also my opinion, that some people, in cases of crisis (cry-seas, how do you write that?!), often call on God in their “time of need”. That’s not to discount the actual people involved in helping. After averting said crisis, the same person might thank God for those people who helped as well, that they were there/capable/trained to help - it may be that it’s just their gut reaction to thank God first. I can’t explain why PEOPLE do what they do…I said that. lol!
That said…I don’t fault anyone for their beliefs or non-belief. You have the right to believe or not believe whatever you want, as do I. I won’t judge you for your opinion or your beliefs. It’s interesting to hear other poster’s views. I may or may not agree with them, they may or may not agree with me. I don’t really think that’s the point, and it wouldn’t be much of a GD thread if everyone felt the same way about a topic.
Yogini
(I ramble too! OY! I can’t wait to see my typos!)
All I can think of is the scene from “Hellraiser” where the ressurected woman is walking about without a skin. It’d be kind of neat to see in real life actually. Terrible thing to happen. Good for the doctors, and good for her!
(disclaimer: I’m not belittling her pain. As a special effects artist I have a morbid fascination with things like this.)
Well at least we could prove to you that the kitten exists.
Who gave this woman the allergy to begin with?
Medical science saved this woman. “Prayer” had fuck all to do with it. If someone wants to assert that it did, let them prove it with empirical evidence. Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the dumbest kind of fallacy.
*Jodi, no one has the slightest burden to prove a negative, here. The burden is on those who make fantastic assertions. Can you prove it wasn’t Satan? can you prove it wasn’t aliens with ESP?
Praise the doctors. They’re the ones who saved her. The rest is just so much glurge.
I agree with those who argue that “prayer” had little to do with this recovery (explanation of my use of the word “little” follows).
If you reason “religiously” then you first of all must ask yourself the question: Why would God allow this medication to endanger her life and next perform a miracle to save it?
Was God in need of some PR stunt or what? Do you believe God is in need of PR stutns? If yes: why do you believe that?
Now the explanation of the word "litlte I used in this context.
The fact that people are praying together for a common goal can have a positive effect because of the simple fact that positive thoughts can create positive energy which can work on the subconcious of the receiving subject.
And since most probably the woman was aware of people praying for her recovery, this effected her will and struggle to survive, which is proven to effect largely a healing process.
Salaam. A
Then the victim should have also thanked God for cursing her with a condition that caused her skin to fall off. If it truly is “in all things”, we mere mortals shouldn’t discriminate against the bad circumstances. “His ways are not our ways” and all that.
That is, if you take the rationale Yogini provided to its rational conclusion, perhaps we should thank God for the evil that exists in the world as well as the good. And before someone calls my position hopeless cynical, I know there are mystics out there in many religious traditions who think that’s the way we should act.
I would be the first to admit that thanking G-d is a almost a reflex, automatic reaction on my part. When I feel gratitude, right or wrong he gets it. It isn’t because I think he has intervened, it’s because I’m just happy for the good outcome and believe he created everything. IHO creating evil also was necessary to give us free will, choices. I am grateful for the choices, so I guess that makes me thankful for evil too. Uh…not as thankful though. The doctors get my immediate praise though. Thank G-d for doctors.
Hellraiser II, actually
Just curious, do you distinguish between natural evil (earthquakes, floods, other “Acts of God”), moral evil (murder, rape, holocausts), and mixtures of the two (skin falling off due to human-administered antibiotics)? If so, do these demarcations influence your gratitude? I assume, if you buy into the whole Augustinian free-will business, you are less grateful for the lightning that strikes a good person dead than you are for the pecadilloes that entice people to follow the straight-and-narrow.
What I never understood about the whole “evil is, in part, from God” camp was how their justifications rationally worked themselves out. I mean, it is RATIONAL to believe that an omnipotent, omnibenevloent God would be in part responsible for evil. What doesn’t seem rational to me is the fishing for panglossian excuses when Job-like calamities befall the good (or the bad for that matter). If you can justify rationally your God’s complicity in evil, then how come it is that you cannot make a judgement against his or her complicity in things that are pointlessly causing suffering? I mean, at least if you believe in karma you think that the bad things are happening for a reason that is explainable. Can you give an explanation, or do you opt out of that part of the discussion?
Could someone explain where the Christian God came into all of this? I read the article, and all I got were some references to praying and a miracle. It never specified who they were praying to, or who brought about her recovery. For all we know, she sacrificed a kitten to Satan in exchange for her recovery.