Spontaneous healing

[john]

Mr Hope

Cut the waffle and answer the question.

As a Christian advocate you have a duty to do so.

You have claimed on this forum on numerous occasions to have personal knowledge of individuals who have been cured by divine intervention.

OK I'll give you that for the purpose of this question the OP raises here, simplified for you.

If God has the power to cure Mrs Brown's cancer. Why does he not cure Mr Clarke's cancer who lives in the next town?

God loves all his creations but obviously some more than others by your claim. Is that a just even handed God?

Defend your claim that this God, who can cure some but ignores others is not cruel and capricious.

Help us to understand. It is not just me this is exactly the sort of point that leads intelligent thinking people to reject Christianity. By making the claims you do and not explaining Gods selective use of his powers you greatly harm your cause. 

[floo]

I know I have told this story many times but I will repeat it as it is relevant, imo. When my husband suffered a brain haemorrhage ten years ago next month, many people said prayers for his recovery. At the same time a 'born again' friend of ours was extremely ill and of course many prayers were said for him too. My husband lived, our friend died. He had a young family and his death had was more than traumatic for them. Now if god was in receipt of these prayers why did it not let my husband, an atheist, die, and let one of its own live? If my husband had died yes of course that would have been sad, but as our children are all adults leading their own lives it wouldn't have been devastating, especially as my husband has been left with half a functioning brain.

[Sriram]

Unfortunately, Sri, the term 'spontanteous healing' is often applied to recovery from a condition or illness that has been going on for a very long time, and that Western medicine with all its experts has been unable to find a cure for.  It has nothing to do with our inner consciousness (whatever that term might mean) since there are occasions when the person concerned has given up all hope themselves and accepted that they will die. 

I think the problem lies with your definition of illness - something where we as individuals have no say in what happens to us - aka fatalism.  I am aware that this way of thinking is in-built into languages such as Hindi and Nepali - and other sub-continent languages - whereas it isn't in=built into others - such as English or other European languages.  Not sure about African and languages from other continents or eras such as Maori or Australian Aborigine, Mayan, Inca, etc.

A person giving up all hope could in fact be the significant aspect of triggering the Inner consciousness.

Think of the Inner consciousness as the Unconsciousness mind. It is active and influential regardless of  the condition of the consciousness mind.  In fact if the conscious mind is troubled and less prominent, the unconsciousness mind is likely to be more powerful. 

[john]

Sririam

I do enjoy hearing your interesting take on all sorts of issues.

But in this OP I am trying to get a specific point about Christian belief.

Why does a God who can cure all only cure some and why do Christians think that's OK?

[Sriram]

Sririam

I do enjoy hearing your interesting take on all sorts of issues.

But in this OP I am trying to get a specific point about Christian belief.

Why does a God who can cure all only cure some and why do Christians think that's OK?

Yes John...i understand.  The point is that there are certain phenomena that are not apparent to us. They are non sensory and exist below the surface. These phenomena give rise to surprising experiences. These experiences in turn give rise to beliefs and myths about their origins.

So...if we want to understand the myth or belief, we need to understand the experience... and from that the actual phenomenon that triggers the experience.   Only then we understand how and why the belief has arisen.   

That is what I was trying to do.

Condemning people and considering them as idiots is very easy. But that doesn't help. It only alienates people.   

[Hope]

Learn what?  That a child dying in pain is what he wants?

Learn what, it enjoys watching humans suffer?

That life isn't the be all and end all?

[Enki]

enki, I think that john's juxtpositioning of the words 'healing' and 'saving' points to a confusion, especially when he places the thread on the Christian board - since divine healing isn't a uniquely Christian concept.  Having said that, there are those who don't want to be healed, either by medical science or religion.  I can think of some who have a full and round life who - regardless of their age - are happy to die; my mother lost her husband in 1982 and lived a full life till about 2006.  Following a number of niggly illnesses and pains - colds, joint problems, etc, she effectively 'gave up the ghost'.  She actually told me the night before she died that she was ready to die.

The title of this thread is 'Spontaneous healing'. As John, in  his opening post makes clear, this is to do with the idea of your God saving people from suffering and dying. There is no confusion on this point in my mind at all. I quite accept that all sorts of reasons are given for spontaneous healing(e.g. Sriram's take on it) but it was put on the Christian message board in the context of your God being able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering. Again, no confusion at all.

Next you bring in the idea that some people don't want to be healed for a variety of reasons. This has no bearing on the question at all. What about the many people who do not want to suffer or die, be they adults or children? If 'spontaneous healing' occurs through your God's intervention, why is it not consistently applied?

You bring in the idea that much suffering and death is the result of human actions/inactions. The cause then(and leaving aside the vexed problem that God is supposed to have created us) rests squarely with human beings. I have no reason to disagree with you.

However, much suffering and death(often premature death) is not caused by humans at all, but is a direct result of natural happenings, which you also seem to agree with.

So, the question stands:

On what basis,(assuming that He has both the capability and desire) would you say that your God intervenes to alleviate suffering (which has come about either as a result of natural or human causation) for some, but not all?

[floo]

That life isn't the be all and end all?

That is SO SICK!

[Hope]

If God has the power to cure Mrs Brown's cancer. Why does he not cure Mr Clarke's cancer who lives in the next town?

God loves all his creations but obviously some more than others by your claim. Is that a just even handed God?

OK, let's look at western medical science for a while.  Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating.  Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents?  No, of course it doesn't.  Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring?  There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission).  Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?

Help us to understand. It is not just me this is exactly the sort of point that leads intelligent thinking people to reject Christianity. By making the claims you do and not explaining Gods selective use of his powers you greatly harm your cause.

It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism.  Until you can explain that, your seemingly deliberate ignoring or evasion of the answers that have been given over the years, both here and elsewhere, would seem to be a tad hollow.

[Hope]

The title of this thread is 'Spontaneous healing'. As John, in  his opening post makes clear, this is to do with the idea of your God saving people from suffering and dying.

So, why did he introduce the term/concept of 'saving'?  Does medical science use that term to mean healing?  He even used the two terms in the same sentence; and it could be that God uses the Lucian idea of Jesus as a doctor as a way to help us understand the spiritual healing that can run alongside physical healing.

[floo]

OK, let's look at western medical science for a while.  Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating.  Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents?  No, of course it doesn't.  Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring?  There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission).  Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?
It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism.  Until you can explain that, your seemingly deliberate ignoring or evasion of the answers that have been given over the years, both here and elsewhere, would seem to be a tad hollow.

More likely the other way around!

[Enki]

So, why did he introduce the term/concept of 'saving'?  Does medical science use that term to mean healing?  He even used the two terms in the same sentence; and it could be that God uses the Lucian idea of Jesus as a doctor as a way to help us understand the spiritual healing that can run alongside physical healing.

If I was to refer to a firefighter rescuing someone from a burning house, I might well use the phrase 'saving that person from terrible burns or even saving them from dying'. What's so hard to understand? In the context of this thread on 'Spontaneous healing', I suggest that 'saving' is clearly to do with curing/healing(as John says) 'in the context of medical science' as you said.

You still don't seem to want to answer the question:

If God is able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering for some. why not for all?

Or, perhaps, you hope that it will go away.(the question, that is)

[Brownie]

That is SO SICK!

To you maybe but I agree with Hope there.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't make the very most of it while we have it but we know it isn't going to go on forever and there usually comes a time when people have had enough.
Sadder if they don't feel like that.

Regarding why God doesn't cure everyone, it isn't something I've ever worried about too much.

I accept that life is full of highs and lows, including illness and recovery.  It has always been so.  I can't imagine a world without it.

It's quite natural for people of faith to pray for help when someone is ill, including ourselves, but healing doesn't always mean curing.

Feeling happier, better able to cope and make the most of what is still there is important.
Relieving pain and discomfort is important and usually possible to an extent.

We pray for help with other things too, not just health.

[Gordon]

OK, let's look at western medical science for a while.  Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating.  Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents?  No, of course it doesn't.  Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring?  There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission).

So what? We know that some conditions are treatable, others less so and some where success is very minimal or short-term. Medical science will progress but aside from accident/injury everyone will eventually die of something.

Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?

It might well say something about those doing the praying, and might even be appreciated by some of those being prayed for, but there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between prayer and the alleviation of symptoms or recovery from illness: if there were then medics would be surely prescribing prayer on a routine basis, and they don't!

It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism.

Is that so: how do you know this?

It is certain a puzzler to me that some intelligent people fall for Christianity, especially given the tendency towards fallacious reasoning we see from some (but not all) Christians here, but I'd suggest that perhaps their inclination towards theism isn't an indication of their intelligence (or lack of it) but that other personal aspects are involved.

Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse reject atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.

Edited to replace espouse with reject (which is what was intended).

[floo]

I know quite a few intelligent people, including my husband, who were Christians as young people but became non believers when they began to seriously question the faith.

[Hope]

I know quite a few intelligent people, including my husband, who were Christians as young people but became non believers when they began to seriously question the faith.

And I know of quite a few intelligent people who grew up as atheists and became believers when they began to seriously question atheism, Floo.  We have several in our church membership, who are lawyers, medics, teachers or scientists.

[Hope]

So what? We know that some conditions are treatable, others less so and some where success is very minimal or short-term. Medical science will progress but aside from accident/injury everyone will eventually die of something.

Not quite sure how this answers the bit of my post you quote.  That said, I think that everyone - even the youngsters who like to think that they're indestructible - know that death will come at some point in time.

It might well say something about those doing the praying, and might even be appreciated by some of those being prayed for, but there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between prayer and the alleviation of symptoms or recovery from illness: if there were then medics would be surely prescribing prayer on a routine basis, and they don't!

Not sure that we have any idea what percentage of doctors suggest that prayer is the way to go.  However, I do know of some doctors who have said to patients and or families that prayer is the only option they have 'now'. 

Is that so: how do you know this?

Basically because I have been told this by some of that type of person, or I've read it in autobiographies.

It is certain a puzzler to me that some intelligent people fall for Christianity, especially given the tendency towards fallacious reasoning we see from some (but not all) Christians here, but I'd suggest that perhaps their inclination towards theism isn't an indication of their intelligence (or lack of it) but that other personal aspects are involved.

I suspect that the same could be said the other way round.  I'd repeat what I have said a few times before, both here and elsewhere - namely that I find it hard to understand that intelligent people don't see the truth of Christianity - especially as it is so different from every other form of faith.

Oh, and by the way, this thread has pointed out the importance of faith for all forms of understanding.  We've had non-religious people suggest that spontaneous healing is simply a current lack of scientific knowledge that science will 'discover' at some point in the future - can't get much closer to a statement of faith or belief than that.  Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something www.oxforddictionary.com

Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.

Whilst your generalisation that I suggested that this was a generalisation is astonishing and belittles your argument.

[Gordon]

And I know of quite a few intelligent people who grew up as atheists and became believers when they began to seriously question atheism, Floo.  We have several in our church membership, who are lawyers, medics, teachers or scientists.

Very nice: but there are other lawyers, medics, teachers and scientists of presumably similar intelligence, being similarly qualified, who aren't Christians. Would you not agree that this perhaps suggests intelligence is unlikely to be an key indicator of a tendency towards theism.

What would be useful to know are the proportions of Christians vs atheists in each of the groups you mention since, presumably, if you think intelligent people are attracted to Christianity from atheism, then each group should show a majority who are Christians - since you raised this matter perhaps you can conform that this is indeed the case. 

[Brownie]

Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.

Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?

I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent;  Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick  .

[Hope]

Very nice: but there are other lawyers, medics, teachers and scientists of presumably similar intelligence, being similarly qualified, who aren't Christians. Would you not agree that this perhaps suggests intelligence is unlikely to be an key indicator of a tendency towards theism.

You don't say!!  Shock, horror!  Well, if I remember correctly, it was either you and/or one of the others from your side of the debate (Floo?) who introduced the issue.  So, I'll simply return the ball for one of you to answer the question.

What would be useful to know are the proportions of Christians vs atheists in each of the groups you mention since, presumably, if you think intelligent people are attracted to Christianity from atheism, then each group should show a majority who are Christians - since you raised this matter perhaps you can conform that this is indeed the case.

It would be an interesting study, but then one would have to have an extremely tight definition of the term 'intelligent', as well as needing a very tight study hypothesis.  As for your suggestion that I conform (sic) 'that this is indeed the case', as I didn't actually make the point that you claim that I have perhaps you need to rethink your question.

[Hope]

Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.

Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?

I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent;  Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick  .

Nor is atheism the prerogative of the intelligent - despite what some here would like to believe.

[BeRational]

Nor is atheism the prerogative of the intelligent - despite what some here would like to believe.

There is a tendency nothing more than that for more intelligent people to be less religious.

Possibly because they understand and value evidential analysis more. They may also be more able to accept a don't know answer as the only honest answer to some questions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

[Gordon]

Not sure that we have any idea what percentage of doctors suggest that prayer is the way to go.  However, I do know of some doctors who have said to patients and or families that prayer is the only option they have 'now'.

Do you mean literally or as a form of expression to less bluntly say that death is likely to be imminent?
 

Basically because I have been told this by some of that type of person, or I've read it in autobiographies.

More argument by anecdote.

I suspect that the same could be said the other way round.  I'd repeat what I have said a few times before, both here and elsewhere - namely that I find it hard to understand that intelligent people don't see the truth of Christianity - especially as it is so different from every other form of faith.

Perhaps intelligence isn't a key factor then - what makes you think that Christianity is a position based on intelligence: that some undoubtedly intelligent Christians here argue fallaciously might indicate that something other than intelligence accounts for their faith.

Oh, and by the way, this thread has pointed out the importance of faith for all forms of understanding.  We've had non-religious people suggest that spontaneous healing is simply a current lack of scientific knowledge that science will 'discover' at some point in the future - can't get much closer to a statement of faith or belief than that.  Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something www.oxforddictionary.com
Whilst your generalisation that I suggested that this was a generalisation is astonishing and belittles your argument.

You seem to be conflating justified knowledge (such as science) with religious faith, and also deploying the good old 'god of the gaps' argument along with a straw man: bearing in mind that science (such as medicine) is progressive then that current 'don't knows' may in time be better understood is a reasonable conclusion based on the history of increasing knowledge via methodological investigation - religious faith is a very different entity no matter how hard you try, and fail, to equate the two.   

[Gordon]

It would be an interesting study, but then one would have to have an extremely tight definition of the term 'intelligent', as well as needing a very tight study hypothesis.  As for your suggestion that I conform (sic) 'that this is indeed the case', as I didn't actually make the point that you claim that I have perhaps you need to rethink your question.

Why are you using the term 'intelligence' then?

[Gordon]

Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.

Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?

I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent;  Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick  .

You're right - I used the wrong term: I meant to say 'reject' in responding to Hope, and I have made the point in other posts that I don't think intelligence is a factor.

I'll edit the post.