Praying parents jailed over child death

Tabnabs

It's a very tragic story, reminiscent of the struggle JW parents must cope with.

The US parents of a sick girl who died after they turned to prayer instead of getting medical help which could have saved her were jailed for six months today.

Dale and Leilani Neumann from Wisconsin could have received up to 25 years in prison for second-degree homicide in the March 2008 death of 11-year-old Madeline, who died of an undiagnosed but treatable form of diabetes.

Judge Vincent Howard jailed them for a month each year for the next six years after telling them they were “very good people, raising their family who made a bad decision, a reckless decision.”

“God probably works through other people,” he told the parents, “some of them doctors.”

Prosecutors said the Neumanns recklessly killed their youngest of four children by ignoring obvious symptoms of severe illness as she became too weak to speak, eat, drink or walk.

They said the couple had a legal duty to take their daughter to a doctor but relied totally on prayer for healing. The girl, known as Kara, died on the floor of the family’s rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. A friend finally called the emergency services after she stopped breathing.

“We are here today because to some, you made Kara a martyr to your faith,” Judge Howard told the parents.

In evidence and videotaped interviews with police, the parents said they believed healing came from God and that they never expected their daughter to die as they prayed for her and summoned others to do the same.

During the sentencing hearing, Leilani Neumann (41), told the judge her family is loving and forgiving and has wrongly been portrayed as religious zealots.

“I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter’s health,” she said. “Did we know she had a fatal illness? No. Did we act to the best of our knowledge? Yes.”

Dale Neumann (47), read from the Bible and told the judge that he loved his daughter.

“I am guilty of trusting my Lord’s wisdom completely. ... Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God,” he said.

The Neumanns held each other as Judge Howard sentenced them, a Bible on the table nearby and their three teenage children sitting behind them in the front row of the courtroom.

Prosecutors had asked for a three-year suspended prison sentence and 10 years probation. Defence lawyers wanted four years probation.

The judge ordered the couple to serve one month in jail each year for six years so the parents could “think about Kara and what God wants you to learn from this.” One parent would serve the term in March and the other in September. The judge delayed the jail sentences while the couple’s convictions are appealed.

source

Turtwig

Why is it always after they stop breathing the calls are made?

Just hope this child didn't suffer all that much.
Compassionate judge, not sure he could really have done much else.
Seriously, though the amount of these kind of cases that happen is scary.

PDN

Sentence is far too lenient.

bSlick

There's a shock, praying didn't work.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Sentence is far too lenient.

Why? Were these malicious people? Or misguided or deluded people? Did Jesus not say that faith the size of a mustard seed could move mountains? Did Jesus not heal the sick? Did Jesus not say that if you ask your father for bread he would not give you a stone? You have said on this very forum, that prayer cured you of a serious digestion problem whilst in Africa. So why would a faithful person doubt that healing would be brought to their sick child? Now I fully understand, that we do not know these people, and maybe they were merely lazy and neglectful, and pulled out 'the faith card' to they get some leniance or something. It seems not the case, but we don't fully know. However, if we take them at their word, then they have recieved a severe sentance already. a) Their daughter is dead, and b) Their faith may be also.

We constantly hear about the 'power of prayer' and the 'power of faith'. So why would this family be condemned by a christian? Why did faith not work? Why did prayer not work? IMO, there is enough ambiguity in the world of Christianity to both condemn and applaud the faith on show. Someone will no doubt mention Pauls advice regarding, 'Take a little wine for your stomachs', showing that God was not your GP. I accept that, however, with so much 'Power of prayer', 'power of faith' going about also, this is what can happen. So the question is, what advice can you truly give to a person regarding Jesus' words about faith? He said that it could move mountains. So is it that faith was not actually displayed here? 'Or', is it only certain people that this was aimed at? 'Or' is there another explaination.

IMO though, if what these parents say is true, then I feel much pity for them, and I'm glad their sentance was leniant. It also sparks up a debate about the responsibility of Churches as to their preaching, though I think that these guys were non-denominational. Still though, the whole 'power of faith' and 'power of prayer' preaching needs attention IMO. To clarify, I believe in the power of both these things, but I don't know how they truly work. This case being evidence of it not being simply, 'If you have faith in Christ, you can move a mountain.' There is obviously more to it, though some preachers seem to pretty much say this.

JimiTime

bSlick wrote: »

There's a shock, praying didn't work.

Pipe down, the adults are talking!

jimmyendless

Well I think these people sound like they are religiously programmed and taking the bible literally is a dangerous thing to do. They caused the death of their daughter unintentionally by the sounds of it but their ignorance caused her death and they should be held accountable. At the same time putting them in jail isn't much use is it.

PDN

jimmyendless wrote: »

Well I think these people sound like they are religiously programmed

They weren't. They didn't even belong to a church.

taking the bible literally is a dangerous thing to do

No. The Bible doesn't instruct you to withhold medical treatment from your children. So this is nothing to do with taking the Bible literally.

At the same time putting them in jail isn't much use is it.

It may serve as a deterrent to other nutjobs..

jimmyendless

PDN wrote: »

They weren't. They didn't even belong to a church.

So to be religious you have to belong to a church? They had a group of people and they were praying and reciting the bible together. Doesn't matter if they belonged to a church or not.

PDN wrote: »

No. The Bible doesn't instruct you to withhold medical treatment from your children. So this is nothing to do with taking the Bible literally.

Well it does if the bible says god will take care of you and all you have to do is pray to him.

PDN wrote: »

It may serve as a deterrent to other nutjobs..

Might do that but since these people think they did all they could with the knowledge they had, it seems like nutjobs can be quite an unreasonable bunch.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Pipe down, the adults are talking!

+1, there is a genuine issue/discussion here about belief in prayer that hopefully the theists can have a proper discussion about without atheists taking pot shots. All my pots are been put away

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

They weren't. They didn't even belong to a church.

An earthly church anyway. They may belong to Gods church though. Also, they may have been brought up in a certain way that programmed them. Churches are not the only means of programming neither.

No. The Bible doesn't instruct you to withhold medical treatment from your children. So this is nothing to do with taking the Bible literally.

But it does say faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains, and if you ask your father for bread he will not give you a stone. I am sure you can see how someone could reason that Christ will heal.

It may serve as a deterrent to other nutjobs..

Nutjobs?? These folk may be victims of upbringing, ambiguous teachings etc etc. I think at this point in time, labelling them as 'nutjobs', is hardly fair. Unless you know more?

I know many normal decent folk. Folk that would be extremely nice and good people. Yet, due to their programming, they would see their children die before they would take a blood transfusion, and also disown their own family and friends if they were ejected or left the JW religion. These are 'not' nutjobs. They are brainwashed, programmed and pitiful.

BTW, I'm not having a go. I just think dismissing it as 'Nutjob' ignores an issue within our faith. They don't seem to be Phelps-like etc.

PDN

jimmyendless wrote: »

So to be religious you have to belong to a church? They had a group of people and they were praying and reciting the bible together. Doesn't matter if they belonged to a church or not.

Nobody said you have to belong to a church to be religious. You made a comment about them being religiously programmed. It appears more as if they programmed themselves.

Well it does if the bible says god will take care of you and all you have to do is pray to him.

And the Bible doesn't say any such thing. It says you should work. It says you should act wisely. And it says that anyone who fails to provide for their family is worse than a heathen.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

But it does say faith the size of a mustard seed will move mountains, and if you ask your father for bread he will not give you a stone. I am sure you can see how someone could reason that Christ will heal.

So, did this couple bother to feed themselves. Or did they just pray and believe that God would add nutrition into their bodies?

Did they drive or walk home from the courthouse? Or did they just pray and believe that God would miraculously teleport them?

Did they get a lawyer to represent them? Or did they just pray and believe God would conduct their defence for them?

The fact is that when it came to their own sorry hides they did the stuff you have to do to feed yourself, get from A to B, or stay out of jail. But when it cam to their kid they did nothing and tried to portray their uncaring neglect as faith.

Nutjobs?? These folk may be victims of upbringing, ambiguous teachings etc etc. I think at this point in time, labelling them as 'nutjobs', is hardly fair. Unless you know more?

I know that there was a child's corpse. That's enough for me.

I know many normal decent folk. Folk that would be extremely nice and good people. Yet, due to their programming, they would see their children die before they would take a blood transfusion, and also disown their own family and friends if they were ejected or left the JW religion. These are 'not' nutjobs. They are brainwashed, programmed and pitiful.

They are also unfit to be parents.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

So, did this couple bother to feed themselves. Or did they just pray and believe that God would add nutrition into their bodies?

Did they drive or walk home from the courthouse? Or did they just pray and believe that God would miraculously teleport them?

Well God created us with the need to eat, and also with a means of transport, 'our legs'. They may have prayed for God to give them a good harvest etc and keep them healthy, legs included. If we believe that only through sin did death and disease etc enter the world, then praying for God to remove this disease in an act of faith seems reasonable on the surface. If God has healed people without doctors, such as yourself, and others from testimony out there, why would these people doubt that God would heal their daughter? Why should they be condemned as 'nutjobs' for believing that faith and prayer would heal their daughter?

BTW, for clarities sake, I agree that they should have sought medical help. I'm not advocating their behaviour.

Did they get a lawyer to represent them? Or did they just pray and believe God would conduct their defence for them?

Not sure if their faith is quite as strong as it was. (Assuming it was there in the first place)

The fact is that when it came to their own sorry hides they did the stuff you have to do to feed yourself, get from A to B, or stay out of jail. But when it cam to their kid they did nothing and tried to portray their uncaring neglect as faith.

Well I don't know these people, so I don't know if they were uncaring. 'If' they are telling the truth, which is the basis for my point, then rather than being neglectful and uncaring, they seemed to be severely misguided.

I know that there was a child's corpse. That's enough for me.

Is it really? You don't think someone who truly believes that God is Alive, and that we can communicate with him. Who's adherants the world over testify to the healing he brings. Who told the woman who touched his robe, 'Your faith has made you well'. Who told us that 'Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains'. Who said, 'If you ask the father for bread he will not give you a stone'. Who's adherants regularly claim to recieve divine gifts, including healing etc. You don't think that a person who see's all this and decides to put his faith in God for healing may also be caring, but misguided?

Again, this point assumes that the parents in question are being truthful.

They are also unfit to be parents

I'm not getting into that. My point is that caring decent people, can be so programmed that such things can occur. It certainly begs the question of the dangers of ambiguity in our faith.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

They didn't even belong to a church.

Maybe that's the real problem. Otherwise someone might have told them why "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".

Unfortunately they ended up doing something that is so wrong from both Christian and secular point of view.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Well God created us with the need to eat, and also with a means of transport, 'our legs'. They may have prayed for God to give them a good harvest etc and keep them healthy, legs included. If we believe that only through sin did death and disease etc enter the world, then praying for God to remove this disease in an act of faith seems reasonable on the surface. If God has healed people without doctors, such as yourself, and others from testimony out there, why would these people doubt that God would heal their daughter? Why should they be condemned as 'nutjobs' for believing that faith and prayer would heal their daughter?

Because what God can do is not always what God does do.

Someone may believe that God can make them win the lotto. They may pray for such a win. But if they organise their finances on the assumption that they will win the lotto then they are nutjobs.

The problem is not that these people believed that prayer and faith could heal their daughter - the problem is that they neglected to seek medical attention for her. That is criminal.

Well I don't know these people, so I don't know if they were uncaring. 'If' they are telling the truth, which is the basis for my point, then rather than being neglectful and uncaring, they seemed to be severely misguided.

I'm sure that not every previous prayer of this couple had been answered. They knew that 100% of prayers don't get answered. Therefore they were playing Russian Roulette with their daughter's life.

Is it really? You don't think someone who truly believes that God is Alive, and that we can communicate with him. Who's adherants the world over testify to the healing he brings. Who told the woman who touched his robe, 'Your faith has made you well'. Who told us that 'Faith the size of a mustard seed can move mountains'. Who said, 'If you ask the father for bread he will not give you a stone'. Who's adherants regularly claim to recieve divine gifts, including healing etc. You don't think that a person who see's all this and decides to put his faith in God for healing may also be caring, but misguided?

If they had exercised this faith on themselves then that would be misguided. They exercised it on a defenceless child - and that is appallingly irresponsible and selfish.

hivizman

One aspect of this case that may be worth thinking about is whether the parents have been prosecuted and convicted not simply because they did not seek medical treatment for their daughter but because they prayed for their daughter's recovery instead of seeking medical treatment.

Suppose that the parents were not believers in the power of prayer, but simply not very intelligent. We are told in the report that the daughter Madeline had undiagnosed diabetes, so what seems to have happened is that she felt unwell, went into a coma, and died. What if the parents, being of the robust old-school type who believe that most medical problems sort themselves out with a bit of bed rest and a couple of aspirin, had sent Madeline to bed, then misinterpreted her coma as a deep therapeutic sleep, and were shocked to find her dead? Would they even have been prosecuted in such a situation (note, I'm not commenting on whether they should be prosecuted), and even if prosecuted, would they have been convicted of the equivalent of manslaughter?

It seems that the only difference between this scenario and the actions of the Neumanns was that they cared enough to pray for Madeline's recovery (they may have been neglectful, but surely not uncaring). So have the Neumanns been convicted for praying in a situation where, had they simply made bad judgements about the seriousness of their daughter's undiagnosed medical condition, there would have been little likelihood even of prosecution?

Antbert

hivizman wrote: »

Suppose that the parents were not believers in the power of prayer, but simply not very intelligent. We are told in the report that the daughter Madeline had undiagnosed diabetes, so what seems to have happened is that she felt unwell, went into a coma, and died. What if the parents, being of the robust old-school type who believe that most medical problems sort themselves out with a bit of bed rest and a couple of aspirin, had sent Madeline to bed, then misinterpreted her coma as a deep therapeutic sleep, and were shocked to find her dead? Would they even have been prosecuted in such a situation (note, I'm not commenting on whether they should be prosecuted), and even if prosecuted, would they have been convicted of the equivalent of manslaughter?

That makes what they did seem even worse. If they were simply too stupid (unintelligent, whatever) to realise that she had a serious condition they didn't consciously make the decision not to give her medical treatment did they? These parents knew that she had a life threatening condition but decided to pray for her instead. There's a difference between thinking someone has a cold, telling them to get some sleep, then realising they have cancer and someone knowing someone has cancer but telling them to just get some sleep. My analogy went on way longer than I wanted it to, but you get my drift.

I have no sympathy for someone who endangers someone elses life and claims religion as a defence. It isn't a defence.

hivizman

Antbert wrote: »

That makes what they did seem even worse. If they were simply too stupid (unintelligent, whatever) to realise that she had a serious condition they didn't consciously make the decision not to give her medical treatment did they? These parents knew that she had a life threatening condition but decided to pray for her instead. There's a difference between thinking someone has a cold, telling them to get some sleep, then realising they have cancer and someone knowing someone has cancer but telling them to just get some sleep. My analogy went on way longer than I wanted it to, but you get my drift.

I have no sympathy for someone who endangers someone elses life and claims religion as a defence. It isn't a defence.

Well, I imagine that was one of the issues in the trial - whether the parents knew, or should have known, that Madeline had a life threatening condition.

Again, I don't know what happened in this case at any great level of detail, but I wonder what the Neumanns would have done if Madeline had fallen down the stairs and broken her leg? Would they have simply prayed for God to fix the bones, or would they have taken her to the emergency room? I don't know, but perhaps if they relied entirely on prayer in this sort of situation, then it would be reasonable to call them "nutjobs".

lugha

A common enough feature in Irish newspapers, especially regional ones, is the published prayer accompanied with a guarantee of “it never been known to fail” (I don’t know if this is a practice of Christianity in general of it is specific to RC). If you happen to truly believe this, that there is such a thing as an unfailing prayer, and your church doesn’t teach you that you shouldn’t so believe, then I don’t see how folk like the parents references in the OP can stand indicted in the eyes of their own church?

Slav

lugha wrote: »

A common enough feature in Irish newspapers, especially regional ones, is the published prayer accompanied with a guarantee of “it never been known to fail” (I don’t know if this is a practice of Christianity in general of it is specific to RC)

In fairness, whatever Anonymous prints in a local paper does not necessarily relate to the teaching of RC or Christianity in general.

lugha

Slav wrote: »

In fairness, whatever Anonymous prints in a local paper does not necessarily relate to the teaching of RC or Christianity in general.

But if a particular Christian church does not direct their members that such claims should not be made. And I am not aware that the RC does so direct.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Because what God can do is not always what God does do.

So should Jesus' statement about faith come with a warning to be careful, for God doesn't always answer? Or, take other precautions just in case? Or was he only addressing a certain people? I don't recall seeing a 'faith will do this, but only if God is feeling like it.' scripture. IMO, this is where the ambiguity starts.

Someone may believe that God can make them win the lotto. They may pray for such a win. But if they organise their finances on the assumption that they will win the lotto then they are nutjobs.

Well God doesn't encourage gambling, so I could understand not having such things answered. Just like someone who prays for a threesome with Kate Hudson and Kelly Brook is unlikely. However, praying to be healed is consistant with the acts we see performed in the bible.

The problem is not that these people believed that prayer and faith could heal their daughter

Actually, it is. For I'm asking 'Why?'. I'm asking if the ambiguity regarding faith and prayer etc is responsible for such thought? I'm asking if the various pulpits mixed message of, 'faith and prayer' but at the same time, 'take your meds' needs adressing. I'm asking if we need to get a bit more specific as to what and where faith is used? 'Trust God, but not with your life, or your loved ones.' We seem to get a more risk free faith promoted. Trust God to help you sleep well etc etc.

- the problem is that they neglected to seek medical attention for her. That is criminal.

And our Christian faith seems to have misinformed them. Again, does God heal? If he does, then why should these people have thought that he wouldn't?

I'm sure that not every previous prayer of this couple had been answered.

Maybe they prayed for things like, daily bread etc, and percieved that God didn't let them down. This may be the first 'real' test of their faith. Maybe they believed they were being tested. Who knows.

Therefore they were playing Russian Roulette with their daughter's life.

So is this what faith is reduced to then? Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. You don't know when it will or wont, so best not to rely on it? Does this not basically say, don't trust faith?

If they had exercised this faith on themselves then that would be misguided. They exercised it on a defenceless child - and that is appallingly irresponsible and selfish.

Again, I think it is irresponsible if they truly thought there was a risk. However, if what they had was faith, then what risk was there in their heads? If they thought there was risk, then they didn't have faith.

The big question it raises for us as Christians is, what does faith do or not do? If my wife stands behind me and I say I have faith she'll catch me if I fall back, but I hold onto a secured rope as I fall, what does that say? So if God and his adherants says that he heals, then why should someone be condemned for having the trust not to use the rope?

JimiTime

lugha wrote: »

A common enough feature in Irish newspapers, especially regional ones, is the published prayer accompanied with a guarantee of “it never been known to fail” (I don’t know if this is a practice of Christianity in general of it is specific to RC). If you happen to truly believe this, that there is such a thing as an unfailing prayer, and your church doesn’t teach you that you shouldn’t so believe, then I don’t see how folk like the parents references in the OP can stand indicted in the eyes of their own church?

And such things can be implied in many places in Christianity. That IMO, is the issue raised by this case. Namely, what should be said of faith and prayer.

lugha

JimiTime wrote: »

And such things can be implied in many places in Christianity. That IMO, is the issue raised by this case. Namely, what should be said of faith and prayer.

My impression is that most Christians accept that not all prayers will be answered, even what might appear to be “no brainers” like a prayer for the recovery of a sick child, arguing essentially that God word in mysterious ways. But surely that totally conflicts with the idea of the unfailing prayer? Indeed doesn’t the idea of an unfailing prayer imply that God is bound to answer our calls and thus, is in a sense subordinate to us? Why then would a Christian church not assertively rebuke such thinking?

JimiTime

lugha wrote: »

My impression is that most Christians accept that not all prayers will be answered, even what might appear to be “no brainers” like a prayer for the recovery of a sick child, arguing essentially that God word in mysterious ways. But surely that totally conflicts with the idea of the unfailing prayer? Indeed doesn’t the idea of an unfailing prayer imply that God is bound to answer our calls and thus, is in a sense subordinate to us? Why then would a Christian church not assertively rebuke such thinking?

Well those 'unfailing prayer' things are simply foolish for the reasons you've described, and yes, if they are coming from within certain churches, those certain churches should IMO rebuke them.

However, this case is a more subtle issue IMO. It strikes at what faith does. yes, it healed me here, but didn't there. It fed me here, but not there etc. then we have those who say of the person that didn't get healed, 'you musn't have enough faith' etc. IMO, we should discuss the power of prayer and the power of faith and try hammer out its power. As PDN said, and of course I agree, 'God can do all that is asked, but doesn't always do it'. So as servants, what kind of trust should we have in prayer and faith? The question is raised, how can we trust someone who responds to our faith sporadically? Christ says if we believe without doubt in our hearts. However, the faith that is espoused here by PDN SEEMS, to suggest you will always have doubt, for you don't know if God will or wont be with you.

David didn't think, 'God might not show up' when he met Goliath.

Also, we would not be discussing irresponsible parents, if God healed this girl. We'd probably have some uplifting thread about faith and how great God is etc. When God doesn't answer though, they're nutjobs. I definately think thats a bit dismissive of deeper issues.

JimiTime

Slav wrote: »

Maybe that's the real problem. Otherwise someone might have told them why "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God".

Did david 'Tempt God' when he confronted Goliath? If the person in question was motivated by, 'Hey God, prove to me....' or something similar, then you'd have a point, but I don't think we know their motives do we?

eamonpendergast

Withholding medical care from a child, when the medical proceedure would save the childs life is nothing short of child abuse.

The parents deserved 25 years. Their efforts ammounted to closing their eyes and hoping the problem went away.

chozometroid

I'm completely with JimiTime on this one.

We don't know the truth behind who the parents are and what they really believe, but I don't think them asking for healing from God is unreasonable. I hate to see this story as it shows their prayer was unanswered, and I believe God does answer prayers. The gift of healing is one of the things in Christianity that I think about often. I want to see people healed. Had their daughter been a cancer patient, and they "neglected" to get chemo treatments, it wouldn't bother me one bit. Many sickness are treated with medications that do nothing but harm to the individual. This is where I would ask God for help, and reject human devices.

In this case, it would've been better if they did seek medical treatment, and found that the treatment could do nothing for their daughter, THEN relied soley on prayer for healing. I would expect God to come through when we've done our part and can do nothing for ourselves anymore.

I don't take Jesus's statements about faith lightly, nor the many healing miracles I believe He performed.

JimiTime

chozometroid wrote: »

We don't know the truth behind who the parents are and what they really believe,

A key point. My point soley rests on if these people are telling the truth.

but I don't think them asking for healing from God is unreasonable.

Again, no Christian would. However, most take exception to such trust it seems. In hindsight, its obvious they weren't wise, and we can shout 'nutjob', 'idiot', 'criminal' etc. However, as I mentioned, if this girl was healed, it would be a completely different story. Which begs the question, at which point should we say, 'well faith aint gonna cut it'.

I ask this question genuinely btw. I honestly don't know how its supposed to work The problem as I see it though, is that many people, who don't fully understand neither, speak as if Faith is such a powerful thing. However, the 'take your meds' seems to be the small print. So many people want to testify to the power of faith and prayer and all it brings, and use anecdotes of healing etc. It feels good and sounds great. Should we then really be surprised though, when someone decides to trust in God in such a manner? As Christians, could it not be seen as a lack of faith to pray for God to heal ones child, and then take them to a doctor? I'm not saying thats the only reasonable thing, but I would not shout 'nutjob' at this reasoning while at the same time believeing in the power of faith and prayer. IMO, its much too convenient for us as Christians. We have a responsibility here too IMO.

I hate to see this story as it shows their prayer was unanswered, and I believe God does answer prayers.

My issue, is with the ambiguity. Its a bit like the If I don't get it, He said no. If I get it he said yes. If I get it later, I just wasn't ready at the time etc. Its ambiguous, and forsight, and unfortunately in this case, hindsight would suggest that some Christians don't have a grasp on what God offers us in this regard.

The gift of healing is one of the things in Christianity that I think about often. I want to see people healed.

Don't we all.

Had their daughter been a cancer patient, and they "neglected" to get chemo treatments, it wouldn't bother me one bit. Many sickness are treated with medications that do nothing but harm to the individual. This is where I would ask God for help, and reject human devices.

OT, but I know a few people who's Cancer has been sucessfully treated with Chemo, and while it took its toll on them at the time, they are fit and healthy now.

In this case, it would've been better if they did seek medical treatment, and found that the treatment could do nothing for their daughter, THEN relied soley on prayer for healing.

That in itself, and I don't mean to insult, is part of the issue. You, or I for that matter, seem a bit lost when it comes to these matters. 'When all else fails, talk to God' It doesn't sit right with me.

I don't take Jesus's statements about faith lightly, nor the many healing miracles I believe He performed.

Nor do I, which is why I'd love to gain more understanding on the matter.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, no Christian would. However, most take exception to such trust it seems. In hindsight, its obvious they weren't wise, and we can shout 'nutjob', 'idiot', 'criminal' etc. However, as I mentioned, if this girl was healed, it would be a completely different story. Which begs the question, at which point should we say, 'well faith aint gonna cut it'.

No, Jimi, it wouldn't be a completely different story. If these parents deliberately neglected to get medical treatment for their kid, and then God healed her, I would still see their behaviour as criminal.

They would be lucky criminals in that God had, in His mercy, saved their bacon - but still criminal.

Faith in God, and faith in prayer, does not mean that you neglect the other means God has given us such as doctors.

I am not taking exception to trust. I am taking exception to presumption.

I ask this question genuinely btw. I honestly don't know how its supposed to work The problem as I see it though, is that many people, who don't fully understand neither, speak as if Faith is such a powerful thing. However, the 'take your meds' seems to be the small print. So many people want to testify to the power of faith and prayer and all it brings, and use anecdotes of healing etc. It feels good and sounds great. Should we then really be surprised though, when someone decides to trust in God in such a manner? As Christians, could it not be seen as a lack of faith to pray for God to heal ones child, and then take them to a doctor? I'm not saying thats the only reasonable thing, but I would not shout 'nutjob' at this reasoning while at the same time believeing in the power of faith and prayer. IMO, its much too convenient for us as Christians. We have a responsibility here too IMO.

Faith is powerful, and those who practice it regularly often see miracles as a result of faith.

But the fact is that all of us know our prayers are not answered 100% of the time - and only a complete charlatan or a nutjob would claim that they are. We can explain this however we like - we can blame God''s unwillingness to answer, or we can admit that maybe we aren't as great at this prayer thing as we would like to think - but it is fact that it doesn't work the way we want 100% of the time.

No thinking caring parent would solely rely on something that only works some of the time for the life of their child. Dressing such bad parenting up as 'faith' or pretending it is virtuous is to compound their sin.

That in itself, and I don't mean to insult, is part of the issue. You, or I for that matter, seem a bit lost when it comes to these matters. 'When all else fails, talk to God' It doesn't sit right with me.

No, that is not it at all.

The maxim is 'Talk to God at all times, and don't neglect the practical ways in which God answers your prayers such as doctors etc.'

So there's this huge flood one day, and an entire town looks like it's going to be swallowed up by the waters. And the Police and Rescue Agencies are running all over the place trying to get people to safety.

So they send the rescue boat over to this house where a guy's sitting on the roof with the water lapping around his ankles and they say "Come on, quickly, there isn't much time"

To which he says "Nah, it's ok, God will Provide"

So about an hour later they're zooming past in the boat again and they notice the guy's still there, only the water's up to his waist, almost at the top of the roof.. "Quick" they say, get in the boat, it's going to get worst before it gets better.

"Nah, don't worry - God will Provide"

An hour after that a rescue helicopter flies over the area and notices the guy, who must be standing on the peak of the roof now, with only his head and shoulders out of the water. "GRAB THE ROPE!" they cry "IT'S YOUR ONLY HOPE!"

"Don't worry" he replies calmly "God will provide."

So he gets drowned of course. And he goes to heaven, and is a little ticked off with God for drowing him like that, and expresses his concern saying "I had FAITH, I BELIEVED in you - and still you didn't help me"

"HELP YOU?!" God replies "What MORE did you want - I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

I am not taking exception to trust. I am taking exception to presumption.

Great debate. Great post. I like this line - now I don't have to think about the dilemma too hard myself.

But the fact is that all of us know our prayers are not answered 100% of the time - and only a complete charlatan or a nutjob would claim that they are. We can explain this however we like - we can blame God''s unwillingness to answer, or we can admit that maybe we aren't as great at this prayer thing as we would like to think - but it is fact that it doesn't work the way we want 100% of the time.

Although it might seem ridiculous, a large part of my prayers are for serenity to understand and accept why God's will differs from my own. God seems to dispense His miracles for to teach us something (about Him or His creation) rather than to bend to our whims.

drkpower

postcynical wrote: »

Great debate. Great post. I like this line - now I don't have to think about the dilemma too hard myself.

It certainly is an interesting debate but, as long as it is carried on in the context of this thread, it is not a good one....

Whether God exists or not, whether he occasionally performs miracles or not, for any parent to rely on him performing a miracle in a specific situation where the consequence of him not doing so is the death or serious injury of their child, the parents responsible are guilty ethically, morally and legally of the most extreme form oif recklessness. They should no longer have access to children and should do a decent custodial sentence for such activity.

They may not have explicitly intended that their child die, but the drunken reckless driver who mows down a kid on the side of the road didnt intend such a result either. It happened nevertheless and gross recklessness over the life of another should never be excused or qualified just because it is done in the name of religon/God/virtue.

Zombrex

drkpower wrote: »

Whether God exists or not, whether he occasionally performs miracles or not, for any parent to rely on him performing a miracle in a specific situation where the consequence of him not doing so is the death or serious injury of their child, the parents responsible are guilty ethically, morally and legally of the most extreme form oif recklessness. They should no longer have access to children and should do a decent custodial sentence for such activity.

I believe that was PDN's point.

chozometroid

JimiTime wrote: »

I ask this question genuinely btw. I honestly don't know how its supposed to work The problem as I see it though, is that many people, who don't fully understand neither, speak as if Faith is such a powerful thing. However, the 'take your meds' seems to be the small print. So many people want to testify to the power of faith and prayer and all it brings, and use anecdotes of healing etc. It feels good and sounds great. Should we then really be surprised though, when someone decides to trust in God in such a manner? As Christians, could it not be seen as a lack of faith to pray for God to heal ones child, and then take them to a doctor? I'm not saying thats the only reasonable thing, but I would not shout 'nutjob' at this reasoning while at the same time believeing in the power of faith and prayer. IMO, its much too convenient for us as Christians. We have a responsibility here too IMO.

I think God expects us to use the means that are available to us before we start asking for a miracle. Faith in God is just trusting in His will, come what may, and believing in His promises. Really though, why expect God to intervene if what we need is right in front of us?

My issue, is with the ambiguity. Its a bit like the If I don't get it, He said no. If I get it he said yes. If I get it later, I just wasn't ready at the time etc. Its ambiguous, and forsight, and unfortunately in this case, hindsight would suggest that some Christians don't have a grasp on what God offers us in this regard.

Well, in this case, if they did pray for healing, it's obvious God said no. Perhaps they didn't have the faith, or God expected them to at least seek medical advice before they threw their hands up in the air claiming they had no other hope.
Personally, I generally pray for things that I have no control over, or the ability to perform well in what I can control.

That in itself, and I don't mean to insult, is part of the issue. You, or I for that matter, seem a bit lost when it comes to these matters. 'When all else fails, talk to God' It doesn't sit right with me.

All I said is that if they did all they could, then they would rely solely on prayer. Of course you would pray throughout the process. It's not a case of "when all else fails, talk to God." You pray that "all else" will not fail before asking God for a miracle.

Handsome Bob

Dyflin wrote: »

It's a very tragic story, reminiscent of the struggle JW parents must cope with.



source

They honestly sound like people who were absolutely inept in regards to modern thinking. I feel sorry for them because they were brought up to not know any better. That's not a potshot at religion, moreso a potshot on the environment that fostered such reckless behaviour in them.

drkpower

Wicknight wrote: »

I believe that was PDN's point.

It was, yes, and I agree with him. My criticism of the debate is that there really is no debate at all (be you a religous fundamentalist or rabid atheist).

drkpower

Dyflin wrote: »

It's a very tragic story, reminiscent of the struggle JW parents must cope with.

In fairness to JWs*, at least they make certain efforts to ensure that other 'acceptable' treatments are made available to their members and are very active in liasing with Hospitals with regard to suitable alternative treatments and/or doctors. These parents sat on their hands and did nothing.

* - Im not defending JWs totally; they have many other issues that they need to answer for!

Slav

lugha wrote: »

But if a particular Christian church does not direct their members that such claims should not be made. And I am not aware that the RC does so direct.

There is a well known advise that's even quoted in the Catholic Catechism:

"work as if everything depends on us and pray as if everything depends on God".

I think it sums it up very well.

Slav

JimiTime wrote: »

Did david 'Tempt God' when he confronted Goliath?

He did not. He trusted God but he was going to fight himself. After all he was carrying stones to the battlefield, not a bag of popcorn.

If the person in question was motivated by, 'Hey God, prove to me....' or something similar, then you'd have a point, but I don't think we know their motives do we?

I don't see much difference between "prove to me" and a genuine blind belief that faith and prayer will save their child. In both cases they put themselves in a position where God is somehow obliged to offer them His services. That sort of attitude "look, I have faith in you now I expect you to heal the child in return!" is as silly as "if you want me to have faith in you prove that you worth it". First, God does not owe us anything. Second, He already gave us more than we could possibly think of. Demanding even more for whatever reason is silly and sinful.

JimiTime

drkpower wrote: »

It was, yes, and I agree with him. My criticism of the debate is that there really is no debate at all (be you a religous fundamentalist or rabid atheist).

I think we all agree that this was an awful case. However, I think without knowing the people involved, we should not be so quick to judge. They may be very caring parents who truly believe they were doing the right thing and it opens the debate up, for Christians especially, as to 'Why?' they would think this.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

...
"HELP YOU?!" God replies "What MORE did you want - I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

... and a Jewish one:

One Jew never ever won a lottery. But always wanted to. And that's what he always kept asking God for in his prayers but they were all unanswered. It went on and on until one day during such prayer God lost his temper and spoke to him directly: "Oh please, for God's sake, will you ever buy a lottery ticket??"

drkpower

JimiTime wrote: »

I think we all agree that this was an awful case. However, I think without knowing the people involved, we should not be so quick to judge. They may be very caring parents who truly believe they were doing the right thing and it opens the debate up, for Christians especially, as to 'Why?' they would think this.

They may be caring but the 50 year old who has sex with the 10 year old may also greatly care for the child. That in no way absolves or lessens their culpability.

Children are not the property of their parents (or anyone else) and they have certain fundamental rights - disregarding or being reckless with those rights can never be excused.

It is very easy to 'judge' in this case because there is no possible explanation that can absolve these parents from their guilt (unless they could argue that they had no idea she was sick - which doesnt appear to be a runner). Discussions around God, faith, miracles are all very interesting - but they are irrelevent when it comes to the question of what these parents should have and were legally obliged to do.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

No, Jimi, it wouldn't be a completely different story. If these parents deliberately neglected to get medical treatment for their kid, and then God healed her, I would still see their behaviour as criminal.

They would be lucky criminals in that God had, in His mercy, saved their bacon - but still criminal.

Faith in God, and faith in prayer, does not mean that you neglect the other means God has given us such as doctors.

I am not taking exception to trust. I am taking exception to presumption.




Faith is powerful, and those who practice it regularly often see miracles as a result of faith.

But the fact is that all of us know our prayers are not answered 100% of the time - and only a complete charlatan or a nutjob would claim that they are. We can explain this however we like - we can blame God''s unwillingness to answer, or we can admit that maybe we aren't as great at this prayer thing as we would like to think - but it is fact that it doesn't work the way we want 100% of the time.

No thinking caring parent would solely rely on something that only works some of the time for the life of their child. Dressing such bad parenting up as 'faith' or pretending it is virtuous is to compound their sin.


No, that is not it at all.

The maxim is 'Talk to God at all times, and don't neglect the practical ways in which God answers your prayers such as doctors etc.'

So there's this huge flood one day, and an entire town looks like it's going to be swallowed up by the waters. And the Police and Rescue Agencies are running all over the place trying to get people to safety.

So they send the rescue boat over to this house where a guy's sitting on the roof with the water lapping around his ankles and they say "Come on, quickly, there isn't much time"

To which he says "Nah, it's ok, God will Provide"

So about an hour later they're zooming past in the boat again and they notice the guy's still there, only the water's up to his waist, almost at the top of the roof.. "Quick" they say, get in the boat, it's going to get worst before it gets better.

"Nah, don't worry - God will Provide"

An hour after that a rescue helicopter flies over the area and notices the guy, who must be standing on the peak of the roof now, with only his head and shoulders out of the water. "GRAB THE ROPE!" they cry "IT'S YOUR ONLY HOPE!"

"Don't worry" he replies calmly "God will provide."

So he gets drowned of course. And he goes to heaven, and is a little ticked off with God for drowing him like that, and expresses his concern saying "I had FAITH, I BELIEVED in you - and still you didn't help me"

"HELP YOU?!" God replies "What MORE did you want - I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

AAArgh, i had a big reply to this done up, but due to the awful bugginess of this site, it got lost in some error!! I'll be back to you.

Stephentlig

1: they were not Catholic, and faith =doctrine=must have faith in catholic doctrine and morals ( discipline ) but my second point goes to show that faith does not come easy, faith is also something we pray for.

2: faith the size of a mustard seed, even Peter whom Christ founded his church upon lost faith and fell into the water, and Jesus was even there and grabbed him as he fell, this is the same peter whom jesus used to heal people in the book of acts. so allow me to reiterate...faith does not come easy.

3: The problem the child had was easily solved and God could of helped buy means of a doctor but the enemy deceived the couple and instead of using their common sense they expected a big show to happen in their room.

4: I sliced my finger the other day, I prayed to God for a quick recovery, God answered my prayer by inspiring me to go fix it myself.

5: a lot of the healings given by Jesus are ones that are medically impossible to cure by us, so Jesus ( should it be his will ) shall descend and do that for us.

6: A man is praying, and his servant runs up and says ''hey master, your beard is on fire'' his master replies ''I know but cant you see I'm praying for rain?''

its tragic what happened the young girl, I shall pray for her.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

No, Jimi, it wouldn't be a completely different story. If these parents deliberately neglected to get medical treatment for their kid, and then God healed her, I would still see their behaviour as criminal.

They would be lucky criminals in that God had, in His mercy, saved their bacon - but still criminal.

Under what law would these people be 'criminal'? There would be no victim. Would you condemn who God has responded to? Would you condemn David, a shepherd with no military experience for rushing into a confrontation with no armour with the Philistine military hero? Or Samson taking on an army of Philistines?

IMO, they had more than faith, they were filled with Gods spirit. That, IMO, is where the confusion seems to lie. Also, God is not a God of luck. If he happens to answer someone, I would certainly not reduce it to 'lucky God came through for you'. You seem to suggest that truly we cannot 'risk' him not answering us. That would be wise if Faith is indeed some intermittant thing.

Faith in God, and faith in prayer, does not mean that you neglect the other means God has given us such as doctors.

Is this scripture talking? Or is it maybe an invention of man which occured when those who wanted to believe God was working with them ascribed the things of mens hands to God? again, I believe this is where the ambiguity enters the frey.

I am not taking exception to trust. I am taking exception to presumption.

Is trust not a presumption anyway? I raise again the point about my wife catching me if I fall backwards. My trust in her means I presume she'll catch me, or in fact 'Know' she'll catch me. If my wife said 'Trust me. I wont always catch you, but trust me.' Is this not an oxymoron? So when Christ says 'If you ask with no doubt', what is he saying? Is it, 'Ask with no doubt, but I wont always be there'? Thus making the request for 'no doubt' fairly meaningless?

Faith is powerful, and those who practice it regularly often see miracles as a result of faith.

Faith is powerful, but ambiguous in its power it seems. Best not rely on it seems to be the message. Or, do we simply not grasp it?

But the fact is that all of us know our prayers are not answered 100% of the time -

If I had the spirit of God within me, then would they be answered? You have said in another thread about you praying in tongues. This is Gods spirit talking to God through you. Do you know after you've prayed in tongues what you have prayed? Do these spirit prayers get answered 100% of the time?

We can explain this however we like - we can blame God''s unwillingness to answer,

Which seems to go against what Christ tells us.

or we can admit that maybe we aren't as great at this prayer thing as we would like to think

This is an interesting one. So there is a way to pray that God listens to more than others etc? Or maybe certain people he listens to? This would seem consistant with scripture, in that maybe the 'power' Christ talks about is enacted through chosen people like throughout scripture? Prophets, Apostles etc. In other words, those who God has bestowed his spirit upon, manifests fruits and gifts of it. This would make even more sense, as Gods power would not be reduced to inconsistancy, luck or ambiguity. It means we would see Gods power in the spirit of a chosen disciple, and would also grant us the gift to identify charlatans and false doctrines.

No thinking caring parent would solely rely on something that only works some of the time for the life of their child.

I wholeheartedly agree, but what does that reduce the power of faith to? Some inconsistant, unreliable thing? Where is this powerful, consistant, trustworthy thing that Christ referred to?

No, that is not it at all.

The maxim is 'Talk to God at all times, and don't neglect the practical ways in which God answers your prayers such as doctors etc.'

Again though, is this sola scriptura, or a mans twist on things? Was this philosophy born out of a desire to believe that God is actively involved in our life? Or does this come under 'God makes it rain and the sun rise on both faithful and heathen alike'? Has this really got something to do with the powerful Faith that Christ spoke of? It seems to me, that somewhere along the line, things got a bit muddled.

Thanks again for your knowledge and wisdom in these matters PDN.

Phototoxin

If I recall a gospel JC himself states ' thou shall not put the lord to the test'

Muppets should have gotten a doctor and some insulin STATIM!

Just hope this child didn't suffer all that much.

Just to clarify: it is most likely SHE DID. Being ill with Diabetes isn't fun. DKA is nasty and yet you recover quite quickly if treated. To allow her to die from it they must have let her suffer a lot before hand. I also think their sentence is too lenient. That poor girl has no life now since her parents were arrogant.

I wonder if they trust god that much do they sit and expect angels to come and feed them? *is angry*