and


I've always thought this was a bit of a cop-out. Granted Christians will face persecution/jail/torture/death for their beliefs at times, but too often it is used as an excuse to not change their own bad behaviour.

If people get annoyed with you because you're mocking what you don't and refuse to understand, then it is not your fault.

If you post some stupidity and are called on it, it is not your fault but you're just being persecuted for your beliefs (even if the stupidity has nothing to do with your beliefs).

If you name-call, threaten, accuse people of insidious motives, imply they are lying, then you cry "persecution" when these people confront you, you are absolving yourself of responsibility for your own actions.

And since you are now absolved, that means you do not have to change anything you do or say. If others try to hold you accountable for your actions, your fall-back position is, "I'm a sinful person but God forgives me and I'm perfect in His sight and I have my reward in heaven and none of this matters...yadda yadda yadda", and again you are not obliged to change anything about your own behaviour.

A prime example is Hal Lindsey who says his critics are persecuting him for his outspoken faith and they're just mad at God. No Hal, your critics are persecuting you because you are a liar and are taking advantage of the unthinking trust given to you by people who don't have the hardware or education to divine truth from lies. They are persecuting you because you are a sham, a fraud, and a con artist. Some even question why you're on marriage number 4 now ("I'm not perfect, God forgives me though...")

Long time ago my dad and I were heading out our driveway when someone approached our vehicle and told my dad he wanted to talk to him about God. My dad said he attended the Missionary Church in town and he'd love to talk but we were in a hurry and had to leave. The response was "If you really loved God you'd spend a few minutes talking about him". My dad started backing out the driveway and the guy walked with the vehicle still berating my dad for not staying and talking. He started saying my dad was probably going to Hell and that he shouldn't reject God because someday he was going to need him. He became very obnoxious, and my dad said, "you are not God and don't speak for him...I know because I'm on good terms with God and He hasn't mentioned you at all. Good-bye". The guys last words were "I'll just get another jewel for my crown"

[that phrase usually means because you are persecuted for your faith on earth then your reward will be greater in heaven]

I don't think this fellow would get a jewel at all. In fact, if this was his typical way of evangelizing it would alienate anyone and drive people away from Christianity. If he refused to change his behaviour despite correction then is God really going to welcome him when his actions have turned people away from the kingdom?? I don't know. I'm sure every Christian is guilty of that at one time or other, but most of them learn to change unproductive behaviour. If you refuse to change unproductive behaviour though and continue to drive people away.....?????

Do you think a shepherd who was charged with gathering some wandering sheep would keep his job very long if he kept driving the sheep off the edge of the cliff despite being shown he was driving them the wrong way? "I'm not perfect, we all lose some sheep now and then. I'm sure the boss will understand".

NFM, in the context Clifford was referring to beliefs that could cause harm to others,and he wasn't referring to beliefs in Providence. People who fool themselves into believing something that is contradicted by physical evidence, and by believing this, causing harm to others, should be charged in court for damage and loss of lives caused by their unsupported beliefs.

The example was the shipowner who knew his ship was unsound but persuaded himself it was fine (hasn't sunk yet, Providence will protect), and when it sunk, then it wasn't his fault. He was absolved of responsibility because he talked himself out of the responsibility in the first place. He was saying people like this should be liable in court for their actions.

Present day examples: A mother accused of praying instead of seeking medical help for her dying 11-year-old daughter was found guilty Friday of second-degree reckless homicide.

Thirteen year old Daniel Hauser who has been diagnosed with Hodgkins lymphona (90% cure rate with chemotherapy) but whose parents have refused any further chemo treatments, ostensibly for religious reasons (which may not be true actually--regardless, the unfounded belief is that Daniel will be okay with alternate therapies, and the mother has now disappeared with Daniel).

Most likely Daniel will die and the mother (and maybe the father) will be charged with murder because like the first example, these are examples of beliefs that were not supported by evidence and were in fact contradicted by the evidence.

These are the types of beliefs that Clifford's quotes were in context with. In other works he may expand upon that to refer to the points you were talking about, in which case, I'd probably agree with you. But in what I read, we're just looking at irrational beliefs (beliefs contradicted by readily available evidence).

Nyah nyah. I posted that first two pages back.

Under a comment section in one of the science blogs I posted a fairly long comment to the skeptics saying something along these lines (more politely of course). They were (rightly) castigating young earth creationists for making idiotic assertions about science and evolution when it was obvious these YEC were ignorant of even the basics.

But then the skeptics would turn around and make equally ignorant-based comments about religion and Christianity. I rebuked them gently and told them how they were acting in the same manner and with the same ignorance of those they were criticizing in the first place. They were embarrassing themselves to anyone with a bit of knowledge as surely as YEC regularly embarrassed themselves on science threads. Both sides not only lacked the knowledge of what they commented on, but lacked it to such an extent that they weren't even aware of how idiotic some of their assertions were.

Ephesians 4:29, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."


no, Ken, this wasn't directed just to you - the last poster - but to all ninjas, especially those who post in this thread. (that includes me)!

Inky, that verse is good advice although out of context here. It is referring to the body of believers and how the believers should support one another within their set of beliefs. It does not refer to ignoring stupidity, willful ignorance, dangerous ideas, and ideas that contradict evidence, nor does it include people who advocate ideas that contradict the Scriptures.

For example, you may have heard that the Apostle Paul in other circumstances was quite caustic in his remarks about believers who perverted the truth as he saw it. There were some early believers who thought that any Gentiles who became "Christians" (that term was not used at the time as the early believers were Jews and didn't differentiate themselves much from their forefathers) should still be bound by the Mosaic Law, and they were making the Gentiles get circumcised before they could be included in the body of believers.

Paul used the Mosaic Law and showed how this was not the case now, and he concluded by wishing that the agitators would just go the whole way and emasculate themselves. Interestingly enough, Paul had one of his companions circumcised on one of his missionary trips which seems to completely contradict his whole stance on the issue.

In other sections Paul also provides some great examples of sarcasm, insolence, and the taking down of prominent people a few notches along with some good old fashioned boasting on his part.

So if someone deliberately distorts the truth I'm not interested in being helpful and building them up according to their needs. Through dishonesty you forfeit any rights to respect. Hard to imagine how to keep your talk wholesome when you're presenting evidence someone is a liar or a conman and deserves condemnation (Peter Popoff springs to mind here).

I'm also not interested in being helpful and building someone up when confronted with willful ignorance. People like that would rather wallow in the sty of ignorance than make even a slight effort to pull themselves out of the muck. If they`re quiet I`ll mostly ignore them, but should they start tossing their filth out of their pit in an effort to persuade people that we all need to be in their pit, then I'll just imitate the Apostle Paul and use his time-honoured techniques of presenting evidence, using reason and applying sarcasm to shovel the manure back into the pit where it belongs.

Because of her faith, not only she lost her daughter but now she is facing 25 years in jail? This is sad. I pray that God intervenes and helps her.

What happens when an honest mistake is done by an inexperienced doctor? Are they too subject to prison sentence for second degree murder?

What makes the jury believe that her belief was irrational when she could have easily mixed some things up within her belief system causing this tragedy? Isn't there some amount of doubt in there?

So tomorrow if it is clearly established beyond any doubt that a healing had took place in some miracle ministry, will this DA go on a sueing spree against all those who haven't taken their son/daughter to that ministry for final help?

Courts, give us break! This was her own daughter and there is no reason to suspect that this women was not sincere. And the punishment is harsh.

I think NFM should be able to defend this case with some cross questioning!

You raise a very interesting point which is raging across the blogosphere (and to a less publicized extent, in law). I don't believe you can equate this mother and the mistakes made by an inexperienced doctor.

Doctor have made mistakes and killed people. They get sued, or lose their license depending on the severity of the mistake, and may even get jail time (if under the influence). These mistakes happen fast. A wrong drug or drug amount, a slip of the knife. My friend lost his wife and first child in childbirth when someone gave his wife an overdose of something to induce labour (probably an ergot derivative).

By contrast, this mother made a continuing and ongoing mistake for many days. Her child was diabetic...a very treatable condition. The child could have lived for decades more. Right up until the last few hours it would still have been possible to save the child's life. It became very evident that what she was doing (prayer) was not working.

Compare that to a doctor again. If it becomes evident that a treatment isn't working the doctor does not continue with that treatment. He finds something that does work. Even this analogy is faulty because a doctor will first try a treatment that has been shown to work in double-blind studies, and only switch to another proven treatment if this first treatment does not work.

The doctor most emphatically does not ignore all treatments that work....in favour of something that does not work. If s/he did, then that doctor would be guilty of manslaughter as well. This is essentially what the mother did. Ignored all working treatments in favour of something that does not work.

As she kept on doing that which wasn't working more and more people were telling her to take the child in to the hospital. Her child was visibly dying in front of her, getting worse over many days, and she let her child die contrary to all advice from friends and family, to all medicine, to all common sense.

God raises people from the dead. Is she still praying for God to raise her child? At what point should she be convinced that God is not answering this prayer. Eight months after the death? Eight days after death? Eight hours? Eight minutes? How about eight minutes before death? Eight hours before death? Eight days? How long should her child suffer before she seeks the very simple medical treatment that will save her diabetic child?

It is very very sad. She let her child suffer and die because of misguided blind faith that flew in the face of all rational and reasonable thought. Sincerity of belief just means you can be sincerely wrong. Refusal to admit you are wrong in face of all evidence is a sign of pride, not faith.
At the risk of sounding snarky, why would God intervene and help her now? If He wanted to help, why didn't He intervene earlier and cure her child? Why didn't He intervene and raise her from the dead? In fact, why hasn't God intervened and cured every terminally ill child when very devout sincere parents and the entire church community prayed for a cure over many months from sickness right to the final breaths of the child?
Even sadder this will not be the last death...there are people out there who think their child's life is just a means by which their faith is to be tested. "I" have faith. God is testing "ME". It is all about ME. Extremely self-centred point of view (see next post).

Sorry Ken, my edit crossed your post. Some of my arguments might sound dump. but to counter the dumb law and punishments. Ok I think.

Re: self-centred views, extreme selfishness.

Read part of a book a month or two back on why some adults are extremely selfish or immature (everything is all about them, it is everyone else's fault not theirs). This type of thinking can be seen in a child up until their early teens. During teen years the brain starts rewiring itself/developing and starts becoming the adult brain (keeps on going to the mid-20s).

However, if anything interferes with this development the brain/personality can remain at least partially in a child state. Things that may interfere, as you may guess, are drugs. Drug use, heavy drinking, all can interfere with this growth, and this chapter of the book was talking about the strong correlation between adult selfishness, immaturity, childishness and drug use during the rewiring period. The adults remain permanently stunted in different aspects of their personality and the way they think, see life, and act.

No. The most important part of any treatment (or any science) is repeatability. If something works, then it has to work consistently no matter which research team is trying it.

A miracle by its very definition is not repeatable, otherwise would it still be considered a miracle? Suppose though someone was consistently healing diseases day after day in double-blind tests, then we might have grounds to sue if someone decides they'd rather try treatment with a 60% cure rate versus a laying on of hands cure rate of 98%.

Sincerity doesn't count. She was sincere, no doubt. If a parent sincerely believes her child does not need food, does it make her any less guilty of her child's death? The consequences of neglect are no different between a sincere parent, a psychotic parent or a too-drunk-to-care parent. In this case the parent failed to provide for her child. This child did not have to die.

How would the law distinguish between someone who was sincere and let their child die and someone who wasn't sincere and let their child die. Do you say, "You were sincere so you won't get jail time since you're obviously very upset already. That's enough punishment."? "I don't think you were sincere in your prayers and you wanted your child out of the way. Jail for you".

A parent who kills their child through neglect (sincere or not) can still be grief-striken. "Oh, you're very upset, you drowned your child, but you're very sincerely sorry for it now. We won't put you in jail".

Thinking along those lines is probably what led to that old joke about the man who kills his parents and then asks for the courts mercy because he is an orphan.

I suspect the guilty outcome in this case couldn't be avoided. It would just open too many worm cans.