Faith and Medicine

[usandylim]

Hope I make sense here... but one thing I wanted to mention. Atheism is not a belief that god doesn't exist. Atheism is by definition a lack/absence of belief. When the correct definition is applied there is really not much difference between agnosticism and atheism. An atheist does not believe that god exists, nor does he believe that god doesnt exist. He is indifferent to the concept of god or the afterlife.

And about this thread, I just want to say I could care less if my doctor starts preaching to me... as long as I am getting sound advice and I get cured in the end he could Jesusize every sentence I wouldn't take offense. I think its much ado about nothing.

Another unrelated story that this thread made me think about... my dad knows a friend who is a devout christian who set up this organization where he would give away free coffins for the needy living in a third world country... except he requires that each coffin be engraved by a verse from the bible. The only problem is... this third world country is made up of 90% muslims, and only 5% christians, and most of the christians are wealthy enough to afford their own coffins. I wonder how many took up the offer so far

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Saved Satan]

Hope I make sense here... but one thing I wanted to mention. Atheism is not a belief that god doesn't exist. Atheism is by definition a lack/absence of belief. When the correct definition is applied there is really not much difference between agnosticism and atheism. An atheist does not believe that god exists, nor does he believe that god doesnt exist. He is indifferent to the concept of god or the afterlife.

You speak as if you truly know what it's all about. Some people call it arrogance. Others call it sheer ignorance. I call it a virtue. I like that presumptous attitude and certainty of self. I uphold those qualities, although God apparently didn't like them too much in me.

Following up on your interest in etymology: A-theism strictly signify against (a) belief in god (theism), not lack of Belief itself. Otherwise it wouldn't be qualified as an -ism which signify a system of thought or view. What you are thinking of are people "who don't care to think about such things," the kind I love. They don't think, so they don't have any -ism. Atheists are the ones who actively argue against religions and theologies. You can tell by the way they react to someone who speak about gods and after-life as certainties. They will even get angry in the heated argument to show that non-existence of gods and after-life are certainties. They adamantly believe they are right against all believers.

Agnosticism is also interesting breed of thought. It means belief that humans cannot know the truth. It's in contrast to Gnosticism which believe that humans CAN and Should know the Truth. Again both are systems of thought requiring belief in the certainties of their conclusions.

Apart from these -isms and their believers are the one "who don't bother to think about such" as you mentioned. When someone starts proselytizing to these, they would either stare with a blank look or simply put on cordial face for the sake of not offending. But they wouldn't waste their time arguing about the issue. An atheist would get heated up, and an agnostic would love to discuss the matter philosophically.

Next time you come across different kinds of reactions, you will be able to tell the differences. But once again I just love those who just don't care. I party with them alot in my basement.

 

[Saved Satan]

I never said anything about myself having faith in an after life – just that “Oh by the way – I’m pretty sure you’ll cease to exist in a few weeks when you die” is in no way a positive view for a physician to share with a patient.

If that is a comfort to you, than there’s nothing wrong with that. But I imagine you are in a vast minority. I have never spoken with anyone who is joyous in the fact that there is nothing after this life. I have spoken to many atheists who believe there is nothing after this life and just simply accept it as true and go on with their lives. That is their choice but they do not look forward to death by any means (see: their “heavenly hope”). I don’t think even the most devout atheist would object to existing in another, more perfect, dimension - if they so found themselves there one day after this life.

If you did have that “everything is going to be ok” message for the patient - that is worth while to speak of. I just don’t think sharing views of atheism falls into that category with regards to a dying patient. I see nothing wrong with discussing this view in general, BUT a patient can get no inner strength from the idea that they are truly alone in this universe and that their suffering only ends because their consciousness will as well. Why bother to share such a view with them?


A patient can get strength and great comfort from the idea that their suffering will end because their physical body ends- not because their collective consciousness does. That one may be reunited with lost loved ones, and that there are more powerful beings out there than doctors looking out for them – be it a fact or not – is a message of hope and of better things to come. I am not advocating the Christian view by any means or that you must believe a certain way to receive such things- just that their view of hope in another life is mostly posititve. Therefore if your own personal beliefs as a physician might relay a message of hope to a dying patient, it is a good thing to share (not preach). If not, it is not a physicians place to share such a view.

As you continue your life if you do get to talk to people who are just filled with hatred or just want to kill themselves, be careful not to assume your rightfully personal view of what constitute hope and comfort to be true for all. Otherwise you will not only depress them more but you may enrage them to the point where all possible further contact will be cut off. I'm sure you don't want that if you truly care about them.

Greatest mistake religious people make: assumption.

 

[Hoya11]

Havent we learned by now? Med school is full of crazies!
ANY issue that is supported by the republican party, is supported by conservative crazies mostly on here. Anti- abortion, pro-iraq, pro-religion (but what religion oh surprise christianity) .

 

[12R34Y]

Havent we learned by now? Med school is full of crazies!
ANY issue that is supported by the republican party, is supported by conservative crazies mostly on here. Anti- abortion, pro-iraq, pro-religion (but what religion oh surprise christianity) .

I know.....its great! I'm quite happy to have your viewpoint be in the minority in this country. (read: Bush re-elected, republican house and republican senate) conservatives/republicans/christians running the show now. thanks for cheering me up. sometimes i forget that viewpoints like yours aren't the majority and are quite the minority.

later

 

[ZephyrX]

There is no law or rule that ANY physician has to refer to another physician to perform a service that he does not believe to be in the best interest of the patient. If I don't believe that abortion should be performed then I'm not going to send them to somebody who will do it.

That has to be one of the scariest posts that i have ever read. You are in no position to make the choice for the patient if your opinion is not based on scientific data but rather on religious/ethical ones. In this case you are ruling out abortion as an option because it is not acceptable by your religious beliefs.

By your arguement if you have a physician whose religious beliefs disagree with blood transfusions then, he should be able to not mention it (even if the patient needed one) and get away with it.

What can i say, this board never ceases to amaze me.

 

[lnhoang]

I've been reading these responses over the past days. I since a lot of adversity from Sacrament. The topic started out with an innocent question about faith and medicine....opinions were mentioned. Then the discussion is bombarded w/ debate and discussion...following angry replies from assumed non-Christian users. Seems there are other issues outside this discussion that need to be dealt with.

It is mentioned from the non-Christian users that Christians are disrepectful, but I believe the these users have also been disrespectful. The language used is unprofessional. It is OK to have discussion, but no need to hateful and obscene comments to stir up anger. Therefore, I feel I should present Christianity to you the best I feel possible (b/c I believe this is the root of the problem....let's not focus on the branches)

Do this with me:
Do you believe that you are a good person? If so, ask yourself these questions:
1. Have you ever lied? (even "white" lies)

2. Have you ever stolen anything? (irrespective of its value)

3. Have you ever lusted? (which is adultery)

4. Have you ever coveted?

5. Have you ever used the Lord's name in vain?

After asking yourself these questions (be honest w/ yourself)...if God judged you based on the 10 commandments, would you be innocent or guilty?

Would you go to heaven or hell? If hell, does this concern you?
--------------------------
I am quilty of those 5 commandments (still have 5 more) a least once, if not many times in my life. I'm sure you have, too. A lying, theiving, coveting, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. Therefore, you are just like the rest of us....we are not good deep down.

Our breaking of the law has a penalty....hell.

James 2:10 "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."

In a court of law, if you break one law, you are a lawbreaker. You murder once, you are a murderer. Because God is holy, just, and righteous, there must be a punishment for your sins. A judge would be considered corrupt if he just let go a murderer or a rapist for no reason (or if he say's I'm sorry). God is the perfect judge. Therefore, Jesus paid the fine for our breaking of the law.

You must repent (turn away from your sin) and trust in the Lord Jesus (not just believe). God gets the glory!

To think you can work your way to heaven is called "self-righteousness". You believe that you can attain your salvation....you are exalting yourself to a higher level (you are trying to get the glory). We all deserve hell, because of our transgressions, but Jesus is our way out.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

Isiah 64:6 "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away."

Luke 16:15 "He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight. "

There is no "good" you can do to cover the wrongs you have done in the past or present or future.

If you had a $50,000 speeding fine (you can't afford this), and someone you didn't know sold his house to pay your fine. That is what Jesus did on the cross! The greatest demonstration of love!

Thanks for reading if you made it this far. I believe everyone has the right to express there opinion and this is mine. I am not going to shove this down your throat, but presenting the Message.

My prayer for you is that you don't go to sleep tonight without getting right w/ the Lord....we are not guaranteed tomorrow and 10 out of 10 people in the world eventually die. I say this with love and concern for your eternal well-being....you cannot be angry at that!

If you are further angered by this, it is conviction to your self-righteousness (Proverbs 3:34..."law to the proud, grace to the humble"). I'm not deserving of the cross, but Christ has provided my salvation! I'm trying be the "beggar showing another beggar where the food is".

Grace to you,
Long
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you found a cure for cancer, wouldn't it be inconceivable to hide it from the rest of mankind? How much more inconceivable to keep silent the cure from the eternal wages of death."

"Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell; I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell."

 

[Hoya11]

First, is the above post for real?

and isnt just being in med school, becoming a physician, dedicating yourself to healing other people for whatever reason evidence of some care towards all man and "faith" in that sense? I think it is, which is why i think there are so many religious people responding, but you have to understand lots of "non-religious " people are in touch with their faith or spirituality as deeply as the officially religious are, just in different ways. I just think the christian majority here happens to be the dominant majority religion in this country (for med school applicants anyway) and the unofficial religious types, who still have a spritiual connection need to stand up for what they believe in at times.

 

[trudub]

This has nothing to do with my original post, but Hoya is right I think in a sense. But, at the same time there is a difference between being spiritual and being faithful. You can be faithful without participating in organized religion I think. In the Gospel of Thomas, one of the lost Gospels, Jesus supposedly said, "lift a rock, and there you will find me." That seems to me like something Jesus would say and it just means, the Church is not what is important, it is every individual's personal connection with God. So, Hoya, you are right in the sense that you can be in touch with God without organized religion. That being said, that is much different than being spiritual. You can be spiritual in the sense of being in touch with yourself or in touch with nature. Those types of spirituality do not count in the eyes of God. And, while I am sure that God rejoices in the fact that each of us has chosen to give back to the world through our profession, he would much rather have you confesss Jesus as Lord than have you be a doctor.

 

[brightblueeyes]

Those types of spirituality do not count in the eyes of God.

How do you know?

And, while I am sure that God rejoices in the fact that each of us has chosen to give back to the world through our profession, he would much rather have you confesss Jesus as Lord than have you be a doctor.

Some of us think good works are more important than professions of allegiance.

I think some people overlook that all that is good and noble in religions could exist just fine without them. The golden rule was around long before Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism.

 

[ZephyrX]

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. "

I find it very interesting that you sit here claiming that you are a Christian and then you misquote the bible. Go back to whoever sold you the bible and ask for a refund. Corinthians 6:9-11 doesn't mention "homosexual offenders". It uses the word "malakoi" which means "soft". So i guess that rules out butch lesbians eh?

Not that it matters but just pointing out.

 

[trudub]

I am not saying that people who are not Christian are bad people. You are right that there certainly could be goodness in the world without religion. However, I am able to say that these types of spirituality do not count because of what God's word says. Certainly good works are important but faith is the most important. Good works for all that they are, cannot get you into Heaven. Only faith can get you into Heaven. That being said, faith without works is dead.

 

[12R34Y]

That has to be one of the scariest posts that i have ever read. You are in no position to make the choice for the patient if your opinion is not based on scientific data but rather on religious/ethical ones. In this case you are ruling out abortion as an option because it is not acceptable by your religious beliefs.

By your arguement if you have a physician whose religious beliefs disagree with blood transfusions then, he should be able to not mention it (even if the patient needed one) and get away with it.

What can i say, this board never ceases to amaze me.

the difference between abortion and blood transfusion is that abortion is NOT a life threatening issue (99.9% of the time) and therein lies the HUGE difference in your obviously poorly though out argument. Witholding a blood transfusion may kill someone really quickly. NOT performing an abortion is not going to kill them and certainly will kill the baby. Big difference.

Abortion to save the life of the mother is warranted. Yet, that is rarely indicated. The usual circumstance is that the mother has a complication late in pregnancy after viability. In that instance, the baby should be delivered prematurely and not killed.

later

 

[lnhoang]

I find it very interesting that you sit here claiming that you are a Christian and then you misquote the bible. Go back to whoever sold you the bible and ask for a refund. Corinthians 6:9-11 doesn't mention "homosexual offenders". It uses the word "malakoi" which means "soft". So i guess that rules out butch lesbians eh?

Not that it matters but just pointing out.

If you need another reference to clarify, Romans 1:18-32....
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

-----------------------
I wouldn't go out and make an statement until you research more on something before you make a cookie-cutter rebuttal to a common statement.

The reason I made this post (that I know is not related medically) is to show why a Christian physican may have a heart for sharing their faith in practice. Christians should share their faith as they go in life (coffee shops, friends, classmates, work, etc.). This was another opportunity for me to do this in this forum.
The things you do with your medical knowledge is up to you. If you choose to help your fellow man for YOUR glory or HIS glory. That is your choice.

LH

 

[SocialistMD]

Abortion to save the life of the mother is warranted.

Heh.

 

[12R34Y]

Heh.

confused?

If the baby is not viable (ie. prior to 24 weeks) AND the mother is going to die if the pregnancy continues then abortion should obviously be allowed. However, if the mother is going to die because of the pregnancy and the pregnancy is viable then you deliver the baby. pretty straight forward stuff.

Again, if the only reason people had abortions in this country were for true life or death reasons we'd have about 10 a year. Not the current rate of about 1 million for reasons such as: "I don't like to use condoms." "i'm not ready for a baby." etc...

later

 

[v-tach]

confused?

If the baby is not viable (ie. prior to 24 weeks) AND the mother is going to die if the pregnancy continues then abortion should obviously be allowed. However, if the mother is going to die because of the pregnancy and the pregnancy is viable then you deliver the baby. pretty straight forward stuff.

later

Think of it this way: If the baby is not viable and the mother dies, two lives are lost. If an abortion is done to save the life of the mother one life is lost. It's still an awful situation, but looking at it that way it would be worse to let the mother die by not doing anything. And obviously, as 12R34Y said, if there's any chance of viability then inducing labor (or doing an emergency C-section) is the thing to do. There's still the possibility that the baby won't make it, but at least he/she has a chance at life.

 

[v-tach]

I'm trying be the "beggar showing another beggar where the food is".

I like that! My pastor uses that expression a lot. And it sums up what our approach should be--just sharing, without trying to force it on people (can you picture a beggar trying to cram food down another beggar's throat??)

 

[superdavykinz]

I find it very interesting that you sit here claiming that you are a Christian and then you misquote the bible. Go back to whoever sold you the bible and ask for a refund. Corinthians 6:9-11 doesn't mention "homosexual offenders". It uses the word "malakoi" which means "soft". So i guess that rules out butch lesbians eh?

Not that it matters but just pointing out.

Ok, according to the NIV version of the Bible, the above verses are correct. Please remember that there isn't an exact or even good translations for some of the stuff in any version but those that choose to use this version believe it to be the best translation with modern English. I don't know where you got your reference from, perhaps you can quote it in the original hebrew, greek or latin?

 

[SocialistMD]

If the baby is not viable (ie. prior to 24 weeks) AND the mother is going to die if the pregnancy continues then abortion should obviously be allowed. However, if the mother is going to die because of the pregnancy and the pregnancy is viable then you deliver the baby. pretty straight forward stuff.

You state your opinion like it is gospel (which, I guess, technically it is). Simply because you do not agree with abortion other than in your one situation does not mean it isn't appropriate. I just thought it was funny how your were handing out your personal view as an absolute, that's all.

 

[sacrament]

I've been reading these responses over the past days. I since a lot of adversity from Sacrament.

That was before I saw all your Bible quotes. I didn't realize there was such strong scholarship behind your position. I have a lot of thinking to do.

 

[Elysium]

That was before I saw all your Bible quotes. I didn't realize there was such strong scholarship behind your position. I have a lot of thinking to do.

Yes, think about it, but remember our rule: if either one of us becomes a christian the other person gets to kill them (or put them in a nuthouse, where these lunatics belong).

 

[joselind]

Yes, think about it, but remember our rule: if either one of us becomes a christian the other person gets to kill them (or put them in a nuthouse, where these lunatics belong).

that's crossing the line. way too broad of a generalization to all christians.

 

[kenshinoro2004]

I find it very interesting that you sit here claiming that you are a Christian and then you misquote the bible. Go back to whoever sold you the bible and ask for a refund. Corinthians 6:9-11 doesn't mention "homosexual offenders". It uses the word "malakoi" which means "soft". So i guess that rules out butch lesbians eh?

Not that it matters but just pointing out.

Go to a bookstore, find a NIV bible...word for word homie.

Now..to more important things... either there is a God or there isn't...lets analyze the options..

Option 1: There is no God
Might as well do, say, believe whatever you want, cuz once this life is over, its over, and there's no one to answer to anyway.

Option 2: There is God
Better figure out who He is, what He's like, and where you stand with Him.. Might want to also figure out his characteristics, and extent of power, and if you are wise, get right with Him on terms that He agrees with, not your own terms.

Or you could just sit here and argue and let us know when you die...but by then I think it will be too late to decide...so maybe not.

 

[superdavykinz]

Go to a bookstore, find a NIV bible...word for word homie.

Now..to more important things... either there is a God or there isn't...lets analyze the options..

Option 1: There is no God
Might as well do, say, believe whatever you want, cuz once this life is over, its over, and there's no one to answer to anyway.

Option 2: There is God
Better figure out who He is, what He's like, and where you stand with Him.. Might want to also figure out his characteristics, and extent of power, and if you are wise, get right with Him on terms that He agrees with, not your own terms.

Or you could just sit here and argue and let us know when you die...but by then I think it will be too late to decide...so maybe not.

Yeah, I guess it's like "If I'm a Christian and I'm wrong, then I have nothing to lose. But if you're wrong, I guess you're screwed."

 

[fang]

hypothetical scene:

"hi Mr. mfrederi, l'm Dr. smith. How are you doing? ................................. I'm really sorry about all of this- I know it's terrible news and this must be a confusing and frightening time for you. I was wondering Mr. 12R32Y, do you have a spiritual background to help you right now? Oh, you're a Christian? Well, have you ever considered Islam? Because, see, according to my beleifs you are going to burn in hell (in about 3 mo.), and I feel it is my duty to save you from that fate. I'll be happy to discuss any questions you have in future visits, and will be bringing this subject up again next time you're here."


Are you comfortable with this situation? Because this is what you're doing when you prosylitize to non-Christians about your faith.

 

[brightblueeyes]

Go to a bookstore, find a NIV bible...word for word homie.

Now..to more important things... either there is a God or there isn't...lets analyze the options..

Option 1: There is no God
Might as well do, say, believe whatever you want, cuz once this life is over, its over, and there's no one to answer to anyway.

Option 2: There is God
Better figure out who He is, what He's like, and where you stand with Him.. Might want to also figure out his characteristics, and extent of power, and if you are wise, get right with Him on terms that He agrees with, not your own terms.

Or you could just sit here and argue and let us know when you die...but by then I think it will be too late to decide...so maybe not.

You're using a simplified version of Pascal's Wager. I agree it seems convincing at first glance...but it's more famous as an example of flawed thinking than as a sound argument for believing in any particular (say Christian-style) God.

See: Pascal's Wager

Basically, without coming right out and saying it, you're assuming that the God you refer to would care whether we believe in him or her and that we could suffer for not believing. But this is just one possibility. As the philosopher J. L. Mackie wrote:
Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable.

In other words, using your own argument but with all possibilities taken into account, a good bettor would choose not to believe in any particular God.

If you choose to help your fellow man for YOUR glory or HIS glory. That is your choice.

You're assuming a false dichotomy. Why not help others for THEIR glory? (Or for one of the many other possible reasons.)

One of the most depressing things about some Christians' arguments is that there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that altruism and benevolence might be good in themselves...and not need appeals to base instincts like fear.

 

[superdavykinz]

You're using a simplified version of Pascal's Wager. I agree it seems convincing at first glance...but it's more famous as an example of flawed thinking than as a sound argument for believing in any particular (say Christian-style) God.

See: Pascal's Wager

Basically, without coming right out and saying it, you're assuming that the God you refer to would care whether we believe in him or her and that we could suffer for not believing. But this is just one possibility. As the philosopher J. L. Mackie wrote:
Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable.

In other words, using your own argument but with all possibilities taken into account, a good bettor would choose not to believe in any particular God.


You're assuming a false dichotomy. Why not help others for THEIR glory? (Or for one of the many other possible reasons.)

One of the most depressing things about some Christian's arguments is that there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement that altruism and benevolence might be good in themselves...and not need appeals to base instincts like fear.

Christians should want to do anything in their life to glorify God because of his greatest blessing (Jesus). Sure, there are instances in the Bible where it in the context there is fear or being afraid, but as far as Christians doing something for God it is in the context of respecting God.

 

[lnhoang]

Brightblueeyes,
You say that it is a better bet to believe in the absence of God?

Do you consider yourself an atheist? or an agnostic?

There is no such thing as an atheist. Do you know how many grains of sand in the beaches of California? How many stars in the sky? How about how many hairs in your head?

Would it be safe to say that if you knew all available knowledge in textbooks and scientific findings that you probably have only scraped 1% of total knowledge in the universe?

Because you don't know everything, you cannot say that no God exists. You are an agnostic....which means, "you don't know".

Therefore, would it really be safe to bet your life on the absence of God?

Refer to my previous posts to explain Christianity.....a truly God-centered message (other religions are basically a works based salvation, which give credit to the person instead of God). Salvation is based on repentance and not just believing, but putting your trust in Jesus Christ like you would a parachute!

This doesn't mean that we can sin all we want, because we are forgiven....here's an illustration:

If you went fishing with you father and he said, "while I start a fire you can go fish on the dock, but don't get in the water, because there are alligators". So you go fishing for a while, then get bored, so you jump in anyway. All of a sudden, you find yourself in big trouble...surrounded by alligators. Your father sees you in trouble and jumps in to save you. After a few moments, you are safe and on land...you're ok, but you look at your father and his leg is all chewed up. After seeing him, would you disobey him and jump back in the lake? NO, because you appreciate and understand the sacrifice to save you. So Christians desire to turn from their sin (repent), because they understand the sacrifice on the cross. If you love God, you will desire to follow in His ways.

 

[lnhoang]

Another interactive thing:

Spell the word "SHOP" out loud.......(because we are speaking thru text and not audibly, you will obviously cheat)

Answer this question....what do you do at a green light?













I know this illustration will probably not work here (as the words are right in front of you), but 9 out 10 people I talk to (verbally) will immediately answer "stop".....but it's a green light.

The point I'm trying to make is that the heart is not always right!

Just wanted to clarify. Examine yourselves....eternity is a long time to be wrong.

 

[brightblueeyes]

Another interactive thing:

Spell the word "SHOP" out loud.......(because we are speaking thru text and not audibly, you will obviously cheat)

Answer this question....what do you do at a green light?







I know this illustration will probably not work here (as the words are right in front of you), but 9 out 10 people I talk to (verbally) will immediately answer "stop".....but it's a green light.

The point I'm trying to make is that the heart is not always right!

Just wanted to clarify. Examine yourselves....eternity is a long time to be wrong.

I don't agree with your reasoning in your previous post but I also don't feel any desire to try to weaken your or anyone else's faith. While it's true that I think all religions have hurt more people than they've helped, the person I most look up to is a devout Christian. It's just that I think she would be just as noble and good a person if she were Muslim or atheist.

But as for the interactive exercise you posted...it worked like a charm (I said "stop"). So I'll readily admit that I could be wrong about this and many other things.

 

[mfrederi]

I don't agree with your reasoning in your previous post but I also don't feel any desire to try to weaken your or anyone else's faith. While it's true that I think all religions have hurt more people than they've helped, the person I most look up to is a devout Christian. It's just that I think she would be just as noble and good a person if she were Muslim or atheist.

But as for the interactive exercise you posted...it worked like a charm (I said "stop"). So I'll readily admit that I could be wrong about this and many other things.

remember, it is not about the "nobility" or the inherent goodness of the individual. Do I believe that many Muslims do better things than Christians? Absolutely. However, there is nobody, Muslim, Christian, or o/w that can say they have been absolutely perfect, or even near to that. Thus the need for a Savior. And that is one reason why Christians will sometimes minister to the most sinful people, people that if you just looked at them or saw the things they did in their life you would assume wouldn't want to hear Christ's word, and in fact would be angered by it. We believe that even the most sinful sinner can come to know Christ and have their sins forgiven. E.g. the man on the cross next to Christ- was he a bad dude? Yeah, he was being crucified so he did something worse than saying a dirty word or something. However, just by his profession of faith Christ told him that he would be with Him that day.

 

[mfrederi]

hypothetical scene:

"hi Mr. mfrederi, l'm Dr. smith. How are you doing? ................................. I'm really sorry about all of this- I know it's terrible news and this must be a confusing and frightening time for you. I was wondering Mr. 12R32Y, do you have a spiritual background to help you right now? Oh, you're a Christian? Well, have you ever considered Islam? Because, see, according to my beleifs you are going to burn in hell (in about 3 mo.), and I feel it is my duty to save you from that fate. I'll be happy to discuss any questions you have in future visits, and will be bringing this subject up again next time you're here."


Are you comfortable with this situation? Because this is what you're doing when you prosylitize to non-Christians about your faith.

I can see how this would seem very uncomfortable. However, I would actually welcome this scenario because I really enjoy discussing such things with people of other faiths. I can learn alot by talking with people from different faiths. Additionally, I am secure with what I believe to be true. I think that alot of the animosity about sharing the Gospel arises from maybe a little insecurity as you discuss it with people. A absolutely secure atheist (or Muslim, or whatever) would seemingly be a little annoyed or pestered by a evangelical Christian, but downright angry? I think people sometimes get angry because they are forced to think about things which they don't want to address, they don't want to consider the possibility of "what if?" Now again, this is what I think, I could be very wrong about why people get so angry (and clearly insecurtiy is not the root of all this anger because sacrament stated that he was opposed to relgion on terms of the detriment of the world and the negative impact of religious wars / conflicts). Lastly, I think it would be great if my death (which is the inevitable completion of life) would give me an oppurtunity to share my faith. How cool would it be for a dying pt's peace and comfort from Christ in his last days could show somebody else Christ's love, and maybe ultimately lead them to know Him?

 

[Hoya11]

I can see how this would seem very uncomfortable. However, I would actually welcome this scenario because I really enjoy discussing such things with people of other faiths. I can learn alot by talking with people from different faiths.

Im hesitant to even respond because I do not even know if these posts are serious, and I think Lhoang or whatever should stop posting those long lists that is not cool in a thread. I cant imagine y ou are typing all of that.

Anyways..

Havent you ever had a mormon or jahovahs witness knock at your door and ask to come in? And you have to give a little polite respone like Im eating dinner, whatever.

The point is , you may like talking about it, but guess what THEY DONT. Most people are thinking, shut up, tell me about my medical situation/im never coming to you again. HOw would you feel if a priest started giving you medical advice? People come to you for one reason, dont put your own agenda on it.

 

[trudub]

The big difference is that a priest has no knowledge to be able to give medical advice but a lay person may be able to share about God. It does not take a priest or pastor to be able to share the Gospel. God has entrusted that responsibility on all people not just the ordained. So, your point Mr. Hoya is not a very good one in this instance.

 

[trudub]

Also, as I have pointed out previously, studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of patients surveyed (something like 78% I think) do say they would like their doctor to address their spiritual lives. Most patients welcome doctors talking about such issues as indicated by reputable studies (published in JAMA)

 

[Hoya11]

The big difference is that a priest has no knowledge to be able to give medical advice but a lay person may be able to share about God. It does not take a priest or pastor to be able to share the Gospel. God has entrusted that responsibility on all people not just the ordained. So, your point Mr. Hoya is not a very good one in this instance.

Entirely true if you believe this: "...but a layperson may be able to share about god."

This is exactly the point I am trying to make: People do not like MDs, other people in general "talking" with them about their faith for no apparent reason. It is personal. This is the point I was making. Its not whether the advice is qualified, its whether its relevant.

 

[trudub]

Also not true as I just pointed out with recent studies. I am not saying even necessarily that a doctor should evangelize but should address the spiritual lives of his/her patients.

 

[SocialistMD]

Because you don't know everything, you cannot say that no God exists. You are an agnostic....which means, "you don't know".

Therefore, would it really be safe to bet your life on the absence of God?

You do realize, of course, this argument leads to a two way street. You do not know everything, either. Therefore, you cannot say that God does exist. This leads to your second point, the safe bet. One could construe from what you've said that you believe simply because you put your chips on black rather than red because, in your mind, it is a safer bet. However, I'll bet that is not why you "believe" as you do. Since we've established that you do not know everything, then I'll say you believe because you have faith.

A flawed assumption that many people who spend their time (to use this thread's term) "witnessing" is that those to whom they speak have never been exposed to Christianity and have never really "thought" about the miracle of God's work. Truth be told, most people have, or they have their own religion's explanation for the same miracles you attribute to God. What non-believers lack is faith, and it isn't something sermon after sermon will create. Either it is there or it isn't, and to create it doesn't depend on your attribution of miracles to God and explanation of His word, but the individual's acceptance on the individual's own terms. That is what people of such religious zeal as yourself do not get when dealing with people without religion; you have a faith in something for whatever reason that they don't and you cannot create that faith by telling stories from the Bible or anywhere else. The faith has to come from one's own experiences.

You are not doing God's work or spreading God's word when you do this, you are pushing people away from God because they are sick of you and what you have to say because no matter what you say, you will never create that faith. If it comes, God will create it, and God's instrument will never be you.

 

[trudub]

Faith does not even come from within though. Faith comes from God. People can merely open their lives and God does the rest. You make a good point about people who have thought it through. For those that haven't, I would hope at some point someone would at least introduce them to the concept. For those who have thought it through and still do not have "faith", I would hope that those people discussing faith with them would not merely sermonize them but would instead just ask them to ignore the scholarly aspect of Christianity and just be open to the possibility. For those who are truly open to the possibility, I believe God will do the rest. Faith itself comes from God. In the end, people/evangelists do not convert people to faith, God does that. People who want to spread Christianity should have the goal of getting people to at least acknowledge the possibility. If they can accomplish that, it is is up to God to do the rest.

 

[SocialistMD]

For those that haven't, I would hope at some point someone would at least introduce them to the concept.

In this country, it is next to impossible for this to be the case, thus making the discussion unnecessary. Christianity is rampant in the United States and one must be living in a cave (and not in your hospital, grocery store or university quad) to never have had the exposure. If someone wants to know more, they will seek out that knowledge, not look for it to come to them.

For those who have thought it through and still do not have "faith", I would hope that those people discussing faith with them would not merely sermonize them but would instead just ask them to ignore the scholarly aspect of Christianity and just be open to the possibility.

1. More often than not, this isn't how the discussion goes.
2. If someone is open to the possibility, it will have been the case before the discussion and not after, thus making the discussion unnecessary.

For those who are truly open to the possibility, I believe God will do the rest.

Exactly, which (again) makes the discussion unnecessary. Those who are open to the possibility will not have their faith "confirmed" based on a discussion with a person. It will come from God in the form of a feeling of peace, a personal miracle or a beautiful sunset.

The end sum of this is that the discussion is not necessary with most people in this country.

 

[trudub]

The end sum of this is that the discussion is not necessary with most people in this country.[/QUOTE]


Not true because if people were truly open, then God would have done his work. I have agreed all along with people who have said it should not be shoved down people's throats. But, open dialogue, not sermonizing, is something that is valuable for all. It is valuable to those who have already heard God's voice and it is valuable to those who have not. Sermonizing does not do anyone any good. God could sermonize, people cannot. Open dialogue is what will do people good.

 

[SocialistMD]

Not true because if people were truly open, then God would have done his work. I have agreed all along with people who have said it should not be shoved down people's throats. But, open dialogue, not sermonizing, is something that is valuable for all. It is valuable to those who have already heard God's voice and it is valuable to those who have not. Sermonizing does not do anyone any good. God could sermonize, people cannot. Open dialogue is what will do people good.

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As one speaking from the side of "I've been exposed, thought it through, open to the possibility and still have no faith," I can tell you that no further discussion will aid me, nor did it ever.

 

[jonb12997]

Open dialogue is what will do people good.

VERY well said.

 

[12R34Y]

hypothetical scene:

"hi Mr. mfrederi, l'm Dr. smith. How are you doing? ................................. I'm really sorry about all of this- I know it's terrible news and this must be a confusing and frightening time for you. I was wondering Mr. 12R32Y, do you have a spiritual background to help you right now? Oh, you're a Christian? Well, have you ever considered Islam? Because, see, according to my beleifs you are going to burn in hell (in about 3 mo.), and I feel it is my duty to save you from that fate. I'll be happy to discuss any questions you have in future visits, and will be bringing this subject up again next time you're here."


Are you comfortable with this situation? Because this is what you're doing when you prosylitize to non-Christians about your faith.

fang,

I'd absolutely LOVE IT if my doctor were a muslim and we actually opened a dialogue about our faiths. What an amazing opportunity for me! Only good could come from it. so......yes...I'm absolutely fine with my doctor talking to me about his faith.

what's the big deal?

later

 

[mfrederi]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As one speaking from the side of "I've been exposed, thought it through, open to the possibility and still have no faith," I can tell you that no further discussion will aid me, nor did it ever.

socialist- thats fine. And when you give me that response if we were to ever encounter one another I would leave it at that. I think you would be very surprised at some of the discussions / results that follow a simple line of questioning into somebody's faith. There are people that actually will pray to receive Christ right there in the office. On a mission trip (medical) there were many who entered into a dialouge with myself or others about their faith, and quite a few of these became Christians right there in a dusty tent in Mexico. The same thing can, and does happen in Christian doctor's offices all across the US, but only if the subject is breached. There are alot of people in this world, and in this country that are hurting badly spiritually and know it. They probably don't expect a doctor to care one way or the other, so why bring it up? They feel intimidated at church (and probably judged as well which happens in far too many chruches) and confused / alienated / judged by some of the Christian's they encounter. Really, in all honesty there eyes light up at the chance to address their faity. I would say 30% of the time you get an answer like: "I've been meaning to try to start going to church." Most people mean that they are looking for something deeper in life when they say this, and I am more than happy to explain to them what in my life is my deeper, ultimate motivation- Christ.

 

[mfrederi]

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As one speaking from the side of "I've been exposed, thought it through, open to the possibility and still have no faith," I can tell you that no further discussion will aid me, nor did it ever.

Sorry, one more point of view on this: Socialist, if you have been exposed to the teachings of Christ, and have rejected it, you have your own, probably very logical and rational reasons for doing so. I assume that you have objections to something contained w/in that message. Sometimes if you open the subject with people, even as convinced as you, they are willing to discuss the reasons they reject the Gospel. Perhaps I can answer some of their questions, or give them a different way of looking at things that allows the Gospel to take root. As you more than likely know, Paul (probably the most influential apostle) rejected the teachings of Christ for years, even killed Christians because he was so sure he was right. Then, Christ appeareed to him and he completely changed. I too for many years thought that Christ was for the deluded and was a nice story, but ridiculous, because he didn't fit into my world view. But, how things change. Thankfully someone had the courage to talk to me about my faith.

 

[lnhoang]

You do realize, of course, this argument leads to a two way street. You do not know everything, either. Therefore, you cannot say that God does exist.

What I'm saying is that you can't make the assumption of no God, you don't know everything. Making that conclusion requires you to look under every possible place for it.

On the other hand, I can believe there is a God. It doesn't require me to know everything. If I found the car keys that I've been trying to locate for hours, I no longer need to search for them!

Pretty much you can say you're AGNOSTIC, but ATHEIST you are not.....they don't exist.

 

[SocialistMD]

And when you give me that response if we were to ever encounter one another I would leave it at that.

That's just it; I don't ever want to have the discussion with you as a patient. It's fun to discuss when I want to, but not when I don't, and that is how most people I know (good, bad or ugly) feel about the issue. Many people do not like to discuss religion and I feel it is intrusive and not my business to bring up such subjects. I recognize you have another perspective, but you must see from where I'm coming at the very least. You can do as much harm making a sick person angry as you can do good by exposing him/her to God's light. To operate with the one-sided point-of-view is selfish and reckless. You can get cues from patients as to if they want to discuss their faith; if they do, be my guest. However, to begin probing a patient's theologic history crosses bounds a physician should not cross (again, I know you feel differently, but hear me out); the benefit isn't always there and harm can arise.

There are basically two possible outcomes for your action:

1. You expose or reinforce someone's faith. Great. You cite a number around 30%. I think that is a gross overestimate. In my limited experience in the clinic/hospital, I've never seen someone have a positive reaction at their own private revival in room 505.

2. You distance your patient. I don't think you grasp how personal the subject is to many people. I feel completely comfortable dropping my pants in my doctor's office for my physical, but I wouldn't feel that way if s/he asked me when I last went to church. It just isn't the forum in which I want or feel comfortable discussing it. Living in Texas as you do, I think your perspective is a bit skewed for how comfortable people are with the subject because the Southern Baptists are the majority and they have no problem telling everyone how much they love Jesus. Maybe in Granbury you could ask your patients about religion, but chances are you'd have seen them last Sunday at church. Don't assume the rest of the country is the same, and know the pitfalls of such questioning can be just as bad for the patient's health as the positive light to which you expose them can be good.

As for my personal reasons for the way I feel, there is no discussion that can correct the contradition that exists in Christian doctrine. Most people who have a problem with organized religion have a problem with the double-talk, the spin and the unverifiable answers (unverifiable without faith, that is) that go on in trying to justify the Bible, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, etc... Trying to "give them a different way of looking at things" only reinforces that negative attitude. Trust me, you do more harm than good in trying to talk an American into a religion when s/he has thought over the issue.

 

[BCF81]

Let me see if I can summarize the debates here:

What non-Christians don’t seem to understand is that Christians believe they have found the only true path to salvation. Salvation- essentially eternal harmony and bliss, anything you want, reunited with loved ones- basically your view of paradise (whatever that may be). Who does not want this?? Probably very few, in their right minds ( and Im not talking about people who are “full of hate, hate themselves, hate life" etc.) And the path is so simple, right? The most wonderful thing any Christian could do is to share this “true” belief with another so you can achieve this same great happiness/reward with them. They are doing you a great favor out of the generosity of their heart, trying to give you a great gift - and I think they fully and humbly believe this (correct me if Im wrong). If you don’t want to hear it, then basically you just don’t “understand” yet. Essentially is a duty, a responsibility, of Christians to share their word. So all they can do is continually share their views until, perhaps one day, you do understand the incredible power of this faith.


What many Christians don’t seem to understand is that some people cannot accept many aspects of Christianity – they have explored, it does not inspire their faith. Are they doomed to hell because of this?? Such that there would actually exist “one true religion” is almost a contradiction in itself. Have not Muslims and Buddhists found their absolute truths? What makes the Christain bible the word of God? Do not other books, equally reputable, claim similar things? Is it not the word of God because man (your parents, preachers etc.) only say it is? Did God come down and tell you Himself? Why didn’t he tell me? I would believe Him. I don’t mean that mockingly, just that ( and everyone will have a different opinion on this) the origins of the Bible are not concrete to many people. Same goes for the Talmud, Koran - and many other great religious books (you name it really). What about all the Gospels that were not included in today’s bible? What about all the councils held in the early days of Christianity that weeded out certain aspects and emphasized others?? (See Council of Nicaea in 325 AD) Yes there are many different opinions on this - No need to try and answer these questions or debate me on the facts (I readily admit don’t know them nor will I accept that anyone living truly does). Christian references will say one thing and others will say another thing. But my point is what Christians can’t seem to get is that “because the bible tells me so” just isn’t good enough. To many the bible seems as man made a concoction as the DaVinci Code.

Or that a perfect God is petty enough to allow only those who believe a certain way to reap certain rewards or that he would allow such an illogical concept as “Hell” to exist to punish people who just didn’t get it in life. Why should He care- He is God, He gave us free will (and might I add it is NOT free will if you MUST believe certain ways or suffer the consequences) - He would not punish us for this gift. Would you really argue that Mahatma Gandhi or the countless number of Muslim/Hindu/Agnostic philanthropists (or just good people in general) who have lived throughout the ages with no exposure to Christianity are in an absurd place such as hell? Please. These are powerful enough convictions for “non-believers” that I don’t think Christians have enough weapons in their arsenal to overcome.

I have had conversations with Christians and it is equally frustrating for "non-believers" to talk with them. It is not a two way conversation in terms of being open-minded. Christians have their beliefs that they wish to share with you, but are in no way, shape, or form open to the idea that there are countless other truths to consider. I think this angers many people (See: SDN “Faith and Medicine” post), not the fact that they themselves are forced to consider other possibilities or something other than their own personal truths, just that their Christian counter parts are in no way open to doing the same.

I know there are many Christians out there who do want to be open minded, but ask yourself really- is there anything that could be said that would shake you of your faith? Probably not (which, of course, makes you a good Christian) and Im certainly not here to do so, but only keep this aspect in mind when you accuse a non-Christian of being frustrated, offended or angry with your views.