home
RSS
Prosecutor: Parents' belief in faith healing led to infant's death
May 24th, 2013
05:22 PM ET

Prosecutor: Parents' belief in faith healing led to infant's death

By Sarah Hoye, CNN
[twitter-follow screen_name='SarahHoyeCNN']

Philadelphia (CNN)–When Brandon Schaible got a rash, his parents prayed.

When the 7-month-old became irritable with diarrhea and lost his appetite, his parents, Catherine and Herbert Schaible, prayed again.

When Brandon had trouble breathing and gasped for air, his parents called a pastor - this, in spite of the fact that a judge had ordered them to call a doctor.

Brandon Schaible died on April 18 from bacterial pneumonia, dehydration and strep, according to the district attorney’s office – all treatable with antibiotics.

On Wednesday his parents were charged with third-degree murder.

The Schaibles are lifelong members of the First Century Gospel Church in Philadelphia, one of several religious groups in the U.S. that relies on faith, and eschews most medical care.

Founded in 1925, the First Century Gospel Church is an offshoot of Faith Tabernacle Congregation, also in Philadelphia. Both churches believe that God - and God alone - heals the sick.

“Herbert’s a father like anyone else. He’s hurt and he’s mourning the death of his son,” said Bobby Hoof, Herbert Schaible’s attorney. “He’s not snubbing his nose at the court. He’s incarcerated because of his faith.”

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams says the Schaibles’ failure to seek medical attention resulted in the death of their son.

“Instead of caring and nurturing him,” Williams said, “they ultimately caused his death by praying over his body instead of taking him to the doctor.”

The Schaibles are also charged with involuntary manslaughter, conspiracy and endangering the welfare of a child. In April, the couple admitted to police that their son had exhibited symptoms for several days before he died.

On Friday, Court of Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner ordered the Schaibles held without bail out of fear they were a flight risk.

“When this happened the first time around, the Schaibles had every reason to believe that, because of their faith, they had done nothing wrong,” Lerner said. “I know they’re not ‘sophisticated criminals’ … but the circumstances have changed.”

The Schaibles are already on probation for the 2009 death of another son, Kent, who died from bacterial pneumonia. A jury convicted the couple of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced them to 10 years probation.

Lerner said he was concerned that pastors and members in “churches like the Schaibles” would harbor them.

In a media interview last month, Pastor Nelson Clark of the First Century Gospel Church, said the Brandon and Ken Schaible died because of their parents’ “spiritual lack.”

Mythri Jayaraman, Catherine Schaible's attorney, called her a "completely devoted mother."

“The charges suggest a level of callousness that doesn’t fit who Catherine is,” Jayaraman said.

In addition to Pennsylvania, faith healing deaths have been prosecuted in Michigan, Indiana and Massachusetts.

According to Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), a nonprofit child advocacy group, at least 30 children have died since 1971 in Pennsylvania as a result of a parent's refusal to seek medical treatment because of their belief in faith healing.

Among the 30 are six children who died in 1991 from a measles outbreak in Philadelphia, all whom were born into families that belonged to either First Century Gospel Church or Faith Tabernacle.

“It’s a terrible conflict for these parents. They love their children and can see their child suffering,” said Rita Swan, president of CHILD. “If the laws were clearer, many of these parents would be relived of the pressure. As for the Schaibles, they are remarkably stubborn and extreme.”

Swan began advocating for the removal of religious exemptions from immunizations and parental legal requirements after her son Matthew died in 1977 from bacterial meningitis. She and her husband had relied on Christian Science practitioners to heal him.

“The poor child couldn’t lift an arm,” Swan said. “We prayed, we went to the practitioner. We trusted them.”

For members of faith-healing sects, it is common to believe that sickness is a result of unresolved sin or lack of faith, said Anthea Butler, a professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

Faith-healing sects often interpret the Bible literally, citing, for example, Psalm 103: “Bless the Lord, O my soul … Who forgives all your iniquities, Who heals all your diseases.”

First Century Gospel Church’s website reinforces that theme, citing the New Testament’s Book of Acts, “By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name, and the faith that comes through him that has completely healed him, as you can all see.”

Other religious groups believe that God can heal the sick, and many believers pray to be delivered from illness. The difference is that they, unlike the Schaibles, often seek medical attention in addition to prayer, Butler said.

First Assistant District Attorney Edward McCann says the Schaibles’ actions, not beliefs, are the problem.

“How many kids have to die before it becomes an extreme indifference to the value of human life?” McCann asked. “They killed one child already.”

If convicted of third-degree murder in Brandon’s death, the Schaibles could face a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison, Lerner said. They also face an additional 7 to 14 years if a judge decides to revoke their probation in Kent’s death.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Belief • Christian Science • Christianity • Crime • Culture & Science • Faith & Health

soundoff (2,002 Responses)
  1. Jill

    Rainer Braendlein, don't obfuscate the primary prenuptials with rasberries. Often, the pertinent cat presents fabled necessities in the parking chamfer. Realize your net precedent. Triangulate! Save the best for the alligators. Ever the bastille notches the orchestra but Wendy is not green and horses will capitulate. Filter out the log from the turnstile and cry prevalently.

    So there brown stare. Feed your inner walnut and resolve. Subject your lemon to the ingenious door in the presence of snow and animals. Aisle 7 is for the monetary cheese whiz. Faced with the kitchen, you may wish to prolong the sailboat in the cliff. Otherwise, rabbits may descend on your left nostril. Think about how you can stripe the sea.

    Regale the storm to those who (6) would thump the parrot with the armband. Corner the market on vestiges of the apparent closure but seek not the evidential circumstance. Therein you can find indignant mountains of pigs and apples. Descend eloquently as you debate the ceiling of your warning fulcrum. Vacate the corncob profusely and and don’t dote on the pancreas.

    Next up, control your wood. Have at the cat with your watch on the fore. Aft! Smarties (12)! Rome wasn’t kevetched in an autumn nightie. (42) See yourself for the turntable on the escalator. Really peruse the garage spider definitely again again with brown. Now we have an apparent congestion, so be it here. Just a moment is not a pod of beef for the ink well nor can it be (4) said that Karen was there in the millpond.

    Garbage out just like the candle in the kitty so. Go, go, go until the vacuum meets the upward vacation. Sell the yellow. Then trim the bus before the ten cheese please Louise. Segregate from the koan and stew the ship vigorously.

    And remember, never pass up an opportunity to watch an elephant paint Mozart.

    May 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm |
  2. Over 40,000 sects of insanity

    Recently we learned from CNN of a child dying when their parents, members of a Christian sect in Philadelphia, as part of their faith, refused medical care.

    One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one (over 4,000,000 members) in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.

    One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".

    One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.

    One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.

    Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.

    Some believe that celibacy is the only option for certain people, or for people in certain positions. Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but pretend not to understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease.

    In the U.S. recently we learned of the head of Lutheran CMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting.

    Conflicted right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create more extreme divisions as time goes by, constantly subjecting others in its crossfire.

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    (Thomas Jefferson, from Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785)

    May 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
  3. Chad

    Founded in 1925, the First Century Gospel Church is an offshoot of Faith Tabernacle Congregation, also in Philadelphia. Both churches believe that God – and God alone – heals the sick.

    =>tragically, this church interprets this verse as mandating that mans physical healing treatment of another is commanded by God to be forgone.
    . 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. - James 4

    The problem is, that view takes that specific verse out of context, and extrapolates it erroneously. It is simply bad theology to claim the bible teaches that doctors are not to be taken advantage of (in addition to prayer).

    Colossians 4:14 tells us that the Apostle Luke was a physician.
    Throughout the Old and New testament, examples abound of treatment for illnesses..

    Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses. Timothy

    A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine - Luke

    May 25, 2013 at 12:46 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, speaking of "disgusting", and since you are dumping select quotes on us from your Christian book of nasty, let's take a look at some of the other fine guidance supposedly from your "god" that's in that book of horrors AKA the bible. Note also what I have to say about "context" below:

      Numbers 31:17-18
      17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
      18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

      Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”

      Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

      Leviticus 25
      44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
      45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
      46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

      Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.

      Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.

      And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Science

      You know faith?chad you are stuck in a big pile GREEN SLIME with NO horn-y red devil to save your ass.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |

      May 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm |
    • Bob

      Good day to you, Science. Appreciate your posting efforts. And a good day for science.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:04 pm |
    • Science

      Hey Chad/faith too.................Thanks Bob peace

      add it to your favorites tool bar !

      https://www.zotero.org/colleengreene/items/5XRFKX8N\

      Peace

      May 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |

      May 25, 2013 at 1:12 pm |
    • Akira

      Oh, if only these parents had met Chad. Their children may still be alive.
      I suggest Chad goes to the church and teaches how to interpret the Bible the "correct" way-the Chad way.
      I'd pay admission to see that.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad: "...that view takes that specific verse out of context, and extrapolates it erroneously. It is simply bad theology..."

      Chad, the arbiter of theology. Jesus help the Christians.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      But the text does say, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up" does it not? Why didn't their prayer work? Where does it say 'if you are sick, see a doctor and pray' as you suggest?

      You claim that they misinterpreted the Bible, but it does seem to say that prayer (and anointing) is sufficient. While you may be correct that seeking medical help is not forbidden, it also seems to indicate that it is not necessary. Why is that?

      May 25, 2013 at 1:27 pm |
    • tallulah13

      They faithfully followed the bible, Chad. They did what the inerrant word of god told them to do, according to their personal interpretation.. You simply have a different interpretation. There's the problem, Chad. Until your god actually shows up and tells people what the correct interpretation is, every version is valid.

      The bible is not the same as the law, therefore any our legal system will determine the level of wrongdoing, then mete out the appropriate punishment. I'm grateful for the our legal system, because as flawed as it is, it actually exists.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:28 pm |
    • Really-O?

      BTW, folks, here's the "context" for James 5:14 –

      12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

      13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

      How, exactly, does that refute the claim that the bible endorses prayer as a primary treatment for illness? Chad...still dishonest.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:29 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad is also, in in own mind, the final word on science. Smarter than Einstein, Hawking, Darwin, Krauss, Dawkins and many other contempory scientists.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Really-O?

      We all know how Chad loves to equivocate, so I want to amend my last statement slightly –

      How, exactly, does that refute the claim that the bible endorses prayer as a primary and sufficient treatment for illness? Chad...still dishonest.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Is anyone else a bit annoyed that comments are closed for the May 23rd, 2013 article posted by John Stemberger entitled "My Take: Why my family is quitting the Boy Scouts" in which he exposes his blatant bigotry?
      .

      May 25, 2013 at 1:55 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and ignorance.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:56 pm |
    • ME II

      @Really-O?,
      Yes. I still haven't heard why they would close comments on that one and none others.

      May 25, 2013 at 2:15 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ME II –

      Cheers. Nice job schooling Chad here –
      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/22/this-oklahoma-atheist-isnt-thanking-the-lord/comment-page-21/#comments @ May 23, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      I notice he had nothing more than an adolescent "LOL" as a reply.

      May 25, 2013 at 2:25 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "But the text does say, "And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up" does it not? Why didn't their prayer work? Where does it say 'if you are sick, see a doctor and pray' as you suggest?"

      =>A. I dont know why God chose not to heal that child
      B. The text does NOT say "dont see a doctor"
      C. Later text makes it clear that doctors were consulted commonly.
      D. The text does NOT say that doctors are not necessary.
      E. James also says
      You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. - James 4
      Now, I have no idea what their motives were, nor am I claiming that the lack of Gods intervention proves they were wrong, but I AM SAYING that James points out that not all prayers are answered.

      If you pray in line with Gods will, it will be answered.

      May 25, 2013 at 4:18 pm |
    • Chad

      @Really-O? "How, exactly, does that refute the claim that the bible endorses prayer as a primary and sufficient treatment for illness?"

      @Chad "The bible nowhere says that doctors are not to be consulted
      The bible is replete with faith filled men being cared/nursed thru illness by their fellow man
      The bible is replete with faith filled men being miraculously healed by God.

      I know that is very frustrating for you, as you want desperately to button hole the bible into supposedly endorsing one only.

      but, it doesnt. that's biblical reality. cant be argued.

      May 25, 2013 at 4:23 pm |
    • Rachel

      I cannot help get sick of Chad from time to time as you all do, but if I tell him to go fvcck himself it comes back on me , what a life.

      May 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm |
    • Science

      Chad do not g seek the dentist then when you have a hot tooth...............it could kill you

      May 25, 2013 at 4:29 pm |
    • Science

      Rachel.............Thanks

      May 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      A-D) I didn't claim otherwise. My point was that the Bible does state that prayer should be sufficient for healing. Are there any verifiable instances of faith-healing?

      "If you pray in line with Gods will, it will be answered."

      Useless statement.
      1) it is untestable and unfalsifiable.
      2) If you pray for what will happen anyway, which is easily definable as "Gods will", of course it will be "answered", but so will not praying at all, therefore the "prayer" is irrelevant.

      May 25, 2013 at 5:06 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Chad: "The bible nowhere says that doctors are not to be consulted"

      And yet James 5:14 – 5:16 indicates prayer alone will "make the sick person well" and is "powerful and effective". Clearly, prayer did not make Brandon Schaible "well" and was not "powerful and effective". Chad's inability or unwillingness to see this is disgusting.

      May 25, 2013 at 5:44 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I didn't claim otherwise. My point was that the Bible does state that prayer should be sufficient for healing.
      @Chad "The bible NEVER says that all we should do for healing is pray. Never.

      ========
      @Chad: "The bible nowhere says that doctors are not to be consulted"
      @Really-O? "And yet James 5:14 – 5:16 indicates prayer alone will "make the sick person well" and is "powerful and effective".
      @Chad "the actual text, all of it, says:
      Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. - James

      It is not possible to construct doctrine from that passage that:
      – prayer is the ONLY avenue for healing
      – seeking another avenue (getting help from a doctor) is wrong.
      – every single prayer is automatically granted along the lines of the request.

      you should always endeavor to get a complete context.. attempting to take a single verse, out of context absolutely will lead you to bad doctrine (which is why atheists do it all the time)

      May 25, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, I have already spoken about your context problem. You apparently haven't understood, so read this again, more thoroughly this time:

      If you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 25, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bob,

      99% of the time the "differing interpretations" can be readily clarified just from reading the entire thing (as shown on this thread above).
      Doesnt seem to much to ask, yet many of us just dont.

      Biggest mistake a person can ever make is trying to read scripture out of context.
      Read the entire thing.

      May 25, 2013 at 9:01 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Chard, are you claiming that the Schaibles and their pastor DIDN'T read "the entire thing"? Are you saying that their beliefs were incorrect? Can you provide the evidence for that conclusion?

      May 25, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, I have already spoken about your context problem. You apparently haven't understood, so read this again. Do try to think it through for a change:

      If you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 25, 2013 at 9:05 pm |
    • Chad

      A case can not be made from the bible that God has instructed us to eschew physicians.

      can not be made, end of story..

      May 25, 2013 at 9:06 pm |
    • Doug

      Bob, Chad won't answer questions directly. He's a certified gutless idiot.

      May 25, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
    • Chad

      @Bob,

      99% of the time the "differing interpretations" can be readily clarified just from reading the entire thing (as shown on this thread above).
      Doesnt seem to much to ask, yet many of us just dont.

      Biggest mistake a person can ever make is trying to read scripture out of context.
      Read the entire thing.

      May 25, 2013 at 9:07 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, I have already spoken about your context problem. You apparently haven't understood, so read this again. Do try to think it through for a change:

      If you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 25, 2013 at 9:08 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Really, Chad, it's best just to give the bible a good read for fun, maybe another for criticism, then move on to more useful things. I'll look on my shelf for you.

      May 25, 2013 at 9:09 pm |
    • Chad

      @bob

      repitition is a poor excuse for addressing the argument 🙂

      It leads the casual reader to believe you simply can not do so..

      May 25, 2013 at 9:12 pm |
    • The real Tom

      But obviously such an argument WAS made, Chard! The pastor of the church and all of its members interpreted the bible differently than you do. Gosh, what a shock! That not everyone sees things just as YOU see them! How can that be, if your god made everything completely clear so that NOBODY could POSSIBLY misinterpret his words!

      Oh, wait. The bible isn't made up of any god's words, is it? It was written by fallible, fallen men.

      May 25, 2013 at 9:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @TRT

      Did you, or someone very close to you, have a child die?

      May 25, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Nope.

      Now, Chardtard, quid pro quo: Why are you here? What do you think you'll achieve by coming here and being an azzhole?

      May 25, 2013 at 11:50 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Come on, Vegetable, out with it.

      Or are you too much of a coward to discuss your goals?

      You seem to imagine that the only reason anyone would question your belief in and defense of a god that would allow TWO children of supposedly faithful Christian parents to die would be because of some personal loss. That alone is sufficient evidence that you're a turd, Chard. Do you really think that only someone who's lost a child would question your belief in a god that punishes people for not believing he exists?

      How stupid are you?

      May 26, 2013 at 12:03 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      @ME II "I didn't claim otherwise. My point was that the Bible does state that prayer should be sufficient for healing.
      @Chad "The bible NEVER says that all we should do for healing is pray. Never.

      You are trying to rephrase the question.
      Does the Bible state that healing can be accomplished by prayer alone (or prayer and "annointing" alone)? I think it does. Whether the Bible recommends this course of treatment, or in which cases, is another question.

      May 26, 2013 at 3:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II

      The bible says that prayer can heal a person, no physician required.
      The bible states that people of great faith sought healing thru prayer and physicians
      The bible NOWHERE states that a physician is not to be consulted.

      ========
      @Tom

      When ever I encounter a person that rapidly attacks Christians for their beliefs, it's because they feel betrayed by God and as a result have vowed to oppose the very notion at every opportunity. You are a good example.. How do you think God betrayed you?

      May 26, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Rachel

      How did god betray Chad, he fvcked over his mind so badly that he has only the delusion. Chad gets me to beat him , he slips into my ident.ity and gets me to beat him, that way he can blame it on me and not feel guilty about the spilling, so sick.

      May 26, 2013 at 5:00 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "The bible says that prayer can heal a person, no physician required.
      The bible states that people of great faith sought healing thru prayer and physicians
      The bible NOWHERE states that a physician is not to be consulted."

      But NOWHERE does it state that a physician SHOULD be consulted, correct?

      May 26, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • tallulah13

      "When ever I encounter a person that rapidly attacks Christians for their beliefs, it's because they feel betrayed by God"

      Just when you think Chad has reached the pinnacle of vanity and arrogance, there he goes and raises the bar. Is there no end to this joker's ego?

      May 26, 2013 at 5:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II

      The use of physical healing from "doctors" (such as they were at the time) is recommended in the bible (in addition to healing by prayer).
      The point the bible repeatedly makes, is not to fail to pray to the Lord as the real source of healing. We are not commanded not to seek physicians aid, but to also seek the Lord.
      The point is, as with all things, that we are not to rely on our own strength ONLY.

      You simply can not make a case for anything else..

      Luke 10 "He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him."

      Ezekial 47 "And on the banks, mon both sides of the river, there will grow nall kinds of trees for food. oTheir leaves will not wither, nor their fruit fail, pbut they will bear fresh fruit every month, because the water for them flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for healing"

      1 Timothy "No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments."

      Jeremiah 8 "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there?"

      2 Chronicles "They provided them with clothes and sandals, food and drink, and healing balm. "

      May 26, 2013 at 5:37 pm |
    • Rachel

      I tried to stop him but he dragged this crap off of an apologist site, it is so hard to stop the BS.

      May 26, 2013 at 5:50 pm |
    • Chad

      Dont forget that Luke (the guy that wrote the Gospel of Luke, and Acts) was a doctor

      May 26, 2013 at 5:51 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "You simply can not make a case for anything else.."

      I'm not trying to claim that the Bible forbids, or even discourages, seeking medical help, however I do think such a case can be made regardless of your protestations. In essence, one can argue for just about anything. For example:

      First, you say "We are not commanded not to seek physicians aid," but also that "The bible says that prayer can heal a person, no physician required." The common denominator is prayer. It is the only necessary and sufficient ingredient in healing. Why use a physician?

      Second, the Bible does, in places, disparage physicians.

      "Though his disease was severe, even in his illness he did not seek help from the Lord, but only from the physicians. 13 Then in the forty-first year of his reign Asa died and rested with his ancestors. " (2 chron 16)

      "You, however, smear me with lies;
      you are worthless physicians, all of you!

      5 If only you would be altogether silent!
      For you, that would be wisdom." (Job 13)

      Third, "Dont forget that Luke (the guy that wrote the Gospel of Luke, and Acts) was a doctor" and yet not once did Jesus ever say, 'Go see Luke.' Could that not be viewed as an implication to seek prayer and not the physician for healing.

      Again, I'm not claiming that this is what the Bible says/intends, only that a case can be made for exactly that.

      May 26, 2013 at 6:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II

      A case can be made from the bible that there is no God.
      Psalm 14 "There is no God"

      However, it can only be done by ignoring the complete context
      Psalm 14 "The fool[a] says in his heart,
      “There is no God.”"

      =====
      @ME II "the Bible does, in places, disparage physicians."
      @Chad "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone..

      The three most important things about the bible:
      context
      context
      context

      May 26, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.."

      You focus on one point, but as I said in my first point, prayer is the only necessary and sufficient ingredient, apparently. Does that not make physicians irrelevant?

      a. prayer alone heals
      b. prayer and medicine heals
      c. medicine alone does not heal (obviously wrong in the real world, but we're talking about the Bible.)

      One could easily make the case that the Bible is saying that medicine is unnecessary and prayer is the only effective treatment. Your quotes about healing are all secondary to the prayer, right?

      Or are you claiming that there are some things that prayer cannot do and require medicine?

      May 26, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
    • mama k

      Chad left out the right sides of those equations – here, I'll fix it up for him:

      The three most important things about the bible:

      context = conflict
      context = conflict
      context = conflict

      May 26, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You focus on one point, but as I said in my first point, prayer is the only necessary and sufficient ingredient, apparently. Does that not make physicians irrelevant?
      a. prayer alone heals
      b. prayer and medicine heals
      c. medicine alone does not heal (obviously wrong in the real world, but we're talking about the Bible.)

      @Chad "sigh
      as always, you are trying to take your view and look for something, anything, that can be construed to support it.

      no

      "medicine alone does not heal": you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking 🙂

      – Physicians are used by Godly people throughout the bible
      – God Himself provides balm and other treatments for humans to use on each other. THERE IS NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE WHERE GOD SAYS "You never need to bother with any of that treatment stuff, all you ever have to do is pray"
      – People are chastised for placing all their faith in man

      You have your agenda, but that's what I'm here for 🙂
      Simply showing you that the bible does not support your distortion.

      context
      context
      context

      May 27, 2013 at 11:55 am |
    • Really-O?

      Chad says, "Physicians are used by Godly people throughout the bible" ... "context, context, context"

      I guess, as Chad indicates in a previous post, the bible prescribes the Schaibles should have had Brandon drink "a little wine" and pour "oil and wine" on him. Yeah, that would have done it! All you have to do is consult the bible...all the answers are there.

      Lie for Jesus! Chad, you're disgusting.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Chad

      @mama k

      give me an example of where context leads to conflict

      you cant.. you're just posting something that tries to cast some doubt, without ever actually having to back it up with anything 🙂

      May 27, 2013 at 12:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      How's this for context, you lying douche? James 5:12 – 5:16

      12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

      13 Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...sorry, this line should also have been bold –

      The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:09 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...and this bit of "context" deserves emphasis too...

      14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:13 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Hey, folks...at least we now know with certainty, from Chad, the bible-exegesis-arbiter, what are the three most important things about the bible; it's not the Ten Commandments or even the redeeming sacrifice...it's simply, "context, context, context"

      What a knucklehead! Can emoticons be far behind?

      May 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm |
    • midwest rail

      " A case can not be made from the bible that God has instructed us to eschew physicians. "
      And yet the Schaibles, and more importantly, their PASTOR, did exactly that. No way around it. Using the exact same book you use, they justified withholding medical treatment from a 7 month old infant.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:23 pm |
    • Science

      GOOD NEWS...............faith the peachy one......chad too.......you know all creationists too......... story = truth !

      http://www.ibtimes.com/atheists-fight-gideon-bibles-books-christopher-hitchens-richard-dawkins-georgia-state-parks-
      1271125

      Science books and education TRUMPS the 666 beast and the red horn-y devil !

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/

      Have a great life and Memorial day.

      Peace

      PS...........by the way there has NEVER been a red horn-y devil.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse | http://www.unitedway.org/

      May 27, 2013 at 12:25 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      I am curious about instances in which prayer and faith in God were shown to be effective, necessary, and sufficient in curing someone. You're a trove of things like that, Chad. Any ideas (outside of your tatty old book, of course)?

      May 27, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @midwest rail –

      You just don't understand. As Chad possesses an inerrant knowledge of the bible, the Schaibles and their pastor were simply victims of tragic misinterpretation of clear text. That's why eschewing medical treatment is an error, but discriminating against the LGBT is righteous. Why don't you get it?

      May 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, I have already spoken about your context problem. You apparently haven't understood, so read this again. It will be repeated until it sinks through your thick skull. You clearly need the repetition. Do try to think it through for a change:

      If you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 27, 2013 at 12:35 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Well, at least we kicked Chad into submission...there's that.

      May 27, 2013 at 12:47 pm |
    • Science

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/24/prosecutor-parents-refusal-to-seek-medical-attention-led-to-infants-death/comment-page-4/?replytocom=2369497#respond..............url for chad

      May 27, 2013 at 1:26 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "as always, you are trying to take your view and look for something, anything, that can be construed to support it."

      As I said before, I'm not saying the the Bible says this, just that there is a basis for making that claim.

      "'medicine alone does not heal': you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking :-)"

      But didn't you just say that the places the Bible disparages physicians is, "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.." So in the context you cited, isn't prayer necessary, i.e. medicine alone does not heal? 🙂

      Or is that context only used to "support your distortion."

      Chad's context
      Chad's context
      Chad's context

      May 27, 2013 at 2:39 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "As I said before, I'm not saying the the Bible says this, just that there is a basis for making that claim."
      @Chad "and as I said before, there is basis for claiming the bible says there is no God.
      But, only if you do so out of context.

      Psalm 14 "There is no God"

      ===
      @Chad ""'medicine alone does not heal': you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking "
      @ME II "But didn't you just say that the places the Bible disparages physicians is, "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.." So in the context you cited, isn't prayer necessary, i.e. medicine alone does not heal? "
      @Chad "lol, no.
      The issue is one of who do you trust, who do you turn to, what is Gods role and what is yours.

      The trouble you are having, is you utter unfamiliarity with that which you are (attempting) to criticize.. it simply doesnt work. You first need to get familiar with something to speak intelligently about it (ONLY an atheist believes that isnt necessary.. in any other context the person so doing would be utterly dismissed as irrelevant and rightly so.

      Nehemiah 4 "But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.

      that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former.

      May 27, 2013 at 4:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Everything from ordinary luck to spectacular acts of heroism and the tenacious devotion of people to one another gets subsumed by the assumption that such things are answered prayer. Chad's "and the latter is useless w/out the former (prayer)" is the largest crock of shit I've seen in quite some time.

      May 27, 2013 at 4:40 pm |
    • The real Tom

      The Vegetable says: "@Tom

      When ever I encounter a person that rapidly attacks Christians for their beliefs, it's because they feel betrayed by God and as a result have vowed to oppose the very notion at every opportunity. You are a good example.. How do you think God betrayed you?"

      Did I attack Christians for their beliefs? Where? I don't have anything against Christians or their beliefs. What I oppose is the hypocrisy you and your ilk exhibit at every turn. You are nothing like the Christians I've known and admire for their faith. You're a smarmy, snarky, petty little turd who thinks he has all the answers, yet you have been unable to answer my questions about this story and most others.

      I may do a lot of things "rapidly" but I doubt that is what you intended to type. Perhaps you should stop doing so much "rapid" posting, Chard.

      And now, as far as your question about my personal reasons for my dislike of you and people like you, Chard, I'll answer that just as you answer every question I've asked you about your reasons for being here:

      ................................................................

      May 27, 2013 at 4:47 pm |
    • Chad

      I remember when I used to think the exact same thing. As nearly as I can remember these are my exact words talking to a born again Christian at the time "You guys just take what ever the result is and attribute it God or not. If it was a good result, it was answered prayer, if it was a bad result "that just wasnt Gods will", you cant ever be wrong, because the result defines it."

      you need to first ask yourself if you are open to the possible existence of God or not.
      If you are, what are you doing about ascertaining the truth?

      Refusing to get familiar with Christian doctrine, instead coming on here day after day and screaming at Christians for strawmans is a crappy investigation by any standard.
      And you know it.. that's why you get so angry.

      May 27, 2013 at 4:49 pm |
    • Chad

      "Did I attack Christians for their beliefs? Where"

      The real Tom “ if your god made everything completely clear so that NOBODY could POSSIBLY misinterpret his words!
      Oh, wait. The bible isn't made up of any god's words, is it? It was written by fallible, fallen men.
      May 25, 2013 at 9:15 pm

      May 27, 2013 at 4:50 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      What is the source of your bible, Chad, if not the thoughts, memories and imagination of people as ordinary as you are?

      May 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Another thought, Chad. Criticism of a person's publicly voiced belief is fair and reasonable. It's when your lot are unable to defend what you say that you consider criticism an attack of some kind – because, horrors!, you may be publicly embarrassed.

      May 27, 2013 at 5:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former."

      How is that not an example of almost exactly what I was pointing out, i.e. that the Bible is implying that a guard (or medicine) is useless without prayer?

      You keep claiming I have "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, which is blatant hyperbole. And then reiterate nearly the exact thing I was stating.

      Only a believer believes that the interpretation they are using is the only correct interpretation. I think that is called pride, actually.

      May 27, 2013 at 5:28 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "You keep claiming I have "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, which is blatant hyperbole. A
      @Chad "no.. it's just true.. right? what familiarity do you have? Your posting dont show anything..

      @ME II "Only a believer believes that the interpretation they are using is the only correct interpretation. I think that is called pride, actually."
      @Chad "A. Only the atheist claims that the entire message of the bible is subject to interpretation
      B. Even after reading it dozens of times, I dont claim to know more than the basics. What I do claim is that a text taken out of context is going to inevitably lead to bad doctrine.
      Read the entire thing!

      ===
      We are not saying the same thing, you are attempting to cherry pick the bible. I am pointing out that you, or anyone else, should never do that.
      simple..

      May 27, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Chad

      "What is the source of your bible, Chad, if not the thoughts, memories and imagination of people as ordinary as you are?"

      =>what investigation have you done to actually find out?
      none?

      what kind of a sufficient investigation is "none"?

      in any other field, your approach would be laughed out of the room. Right?

      May 27, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Other One

      Quite a few bright people have been at work on the bible. For many centuries that was, intellectually, just about the only game in town among Europeans. Certainly, for millennia, that was true of Jews and their writings. There has been time to make the thing coherent and internally consistent, but it does seem to have problems still. My thought on that: there have too many factions involved for there to have been sufficient agreement to make it work. Cherry pick away. That's probably about as good as anything when it comes to use of the bible as a source for moral direction or the like.

      May 27, 2013 at 6:48 pm |
    • Chad

      so the answer is none. You decided that God wasnt real based on nothing, then went off on the "bash Christianity world tour"

      in any other field, your approach would be laughed out of the room. Right?

      May 27, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      ".... you are attempting to cherry pick the bible. I am pointing out that you, or anyone else, should never do that.
      simple.."

      I assume that includes you, right?

      May 27, 2013 at 7:16 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      oops missed this:

      @ME II "You keep claiming I have "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, which is blatant hyperbole. A
      @Chad "no.. it's just true.. right? what familiarity do you have? Your posting dont show anything..

      Unbelievably wrong. "Utter unfamiliarilty" imples a complete lack of knowledge. I have in fact posted quotes from the Bible, ergo I am not "utterly unfamiliar" with it.

      ut·ter
      /ˈətər/
      Adjective
      Complete; absolute.

      May 27, 2013 at 7:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II ""I assume that includes you, right?
      @Chad "hunh?"

      @ME II " I have in fact posted quotes from the Bible, ergo I am not "utterly unfamiliar" with it."
      @Chad "I"m just going to let that one stand on its own as I think it does truly capture the essence of atheistic familiarity with the bible, AND at the same time, the belief that this level of familiarity is sufficient to equip a person for engaging a Christian in doctrinal discussion!

      One quick trip to infidels.org and your degree in fundamentalist atheism is granted, brilliant!

      May 27, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      There you go again extrpolating well beyond any statement actually made. For shame.

      "...the essence of atheistic familiarity with the bible,..."

      I made no claims as to Atheistic familiarity. You claimed that I, me personally, had an "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, I have refuted that specific statement. I made no claims of sufficiency.

      Please stop making things up.

      May 27, 2013 at 7:46 pm |
    • Chad

      as well, demonstrating the ability to cut and paste verses from infidels.org doesnt mean you are familiar with the bible 🙂
      therefor, characterizing your unfamiliarity as utter, is utterly accurate!

      May 27, 2013 at 7:55 pm |
    • Bob

      Chad, I have already spoken about your context problem. You apparently haven't understood, so read this again. It will be repeated until it sinks through your thick skull and into your seriously deficient brain. You clearly need the repetition. Do try to think this through for a change:

      If you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself, fool.

      So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish superstitions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.

      Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
      Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
      http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

      May 27, 2013 at 8:03 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "as well, demonstrating the ability to cut and paste verses from infidels.org doesnt mean you are familiar with the bible :-)"

      I did not copy anything from infidels.org... 🙂

      Your logic is ridiculous.

      May 27, 2013 at 8:25 pm |
    • The real Tom

      “ if your god made everything completely clear so that NOBODY could POSSIBLY misinterpret his words!
      Oh, wait. The bible isn't made up of any god's words, is it? It was written by fallible, fallen men."

      That's not an attack, Chardo. That's just the truth.

      Not all Christians think the Bible was written by God, dear. Just idiots like you.

      You have yet to answer the question posed, I see. Big shocker.

      May 27, 2013 at 8:33 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Come one, Vegetable. You still haven't answered the question I posed to you: what's your goal here? Why are you on this blog? What is it you think you'll achieve?

      And while you're busy not answering those, maybe you'll get around to ignoring THIS one, yet again: If the Bible is SO clear to all, then why did these idiot parents AND THEIR ENTIRE CONGREGATION manage to allow 2 children to die, believing every moment that they were following the directives outlined in it?

      Did they misinterpret it? How?

      "Read the whole thing." Chardo, do you have some inside info, dear? Do you know that they didn't read the whole thing?

      You think they were wrong, Chard. How do you know? How do you know that YOU aren't the one who's wrong? Maybe they have it right and everyone else is wrong.

      What a smug little twerp you are.

      May 27, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad,
      No, you decided god is real based on nothing, well the bible which is proven incorrect in its foundational stories.
      If I were to offer you a house to purchase, you would want to confirm that the house exists, that I have the legal right to sell, and that the location and condition of the house warrant the asking price; even more so when the description is outside your current knowledge, for example an ocean frontage in Arizona. Yet with religion you cast aside any diligence and accept the word of various unknown people over centuries based upon disproven or unproven stories.

      May 27, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I made no claims as to Atheistic familiarity. You claimed that I, me personally, had an "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, I have refuted that specific statement. I made no claims of sufficiency."

      @Chad "interesting corner you painted yourself into.. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions, or claim that cutting and pasting text from some "I hate Christians" site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine...

      May 28, 2013 at 10:52 am |
    • .

      Gospel of Chad:
      (Updated list derived from history of Chad conversations.)

      Atheism:
      1. All atheists agree with everything Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins say, even if it is unrelated to atheism. Hawking and Dawkins disagree on free will, however, but you should ignore this conflict or any atheist who says they disagree.
      2. All atheists agree with one another on everything even if it has nothing to do with atheism. See #1 for models from which you can derive all their beliefs.
      3. The definition of atheist includes anything that any atheist I disagree with believes or anything I feel like tossing in there. Ignore any definitions in pesky places like dictionaries and philosophical encyclopedias.
      4. If one atheist somewhere on the internet said something, then, since all atheists agree with him/her, I can use that randomly selected example as an argument to address all other atheists.
      5. The definition of atheism includes not just materialism but strict deterministic materialism. Non-believers who might be Buddhists, believe in probabilistic physics, see consciousness as prior to the physical world, believe in, say, witchcraft aren’t really atheists.
      6. No atheist has ever read the bible. I mean, obviously, they’d be Christians if they had, right? OK, so a few have proven to me – OK, multiple times – that they have read the bible. See #11 (just lie).

      Free will:
      7. All people who use the term “free will” really mean the same exact thing by that term, which matches my personal use of the term “free will” (unless backed into a corner, then I just declare all other meanings irrelevant)
      8. Fatalism and determinism are the same thing. It has been pointed out to me that historically these terms have been used with different meanings, but I find it more convenient to make up my own definitions, as with atheism and free will.

      In fact, I brilliantly argued “If a person is a determinist, how in the world does deterrence even come into the picture? Determinists believe in an ever marching set of deterministic outcomes based on an existing set of antecedent conditions. Those conditions march back to the origin of the universe, no way to change the past, so no way to change the future. (On April 17, 2013 at 6:20 pm)

      After reading a bit more about fatalism and determinism I decided to change my tune to a claim that determinism leads to fatalism (and to pretend this was what I was saying all along). I’m sticking to reading easy pop philosophers, though, and selective websites on the topic as anything more complex makes my head hurt. I have read snippets from a couple of websites now so that ought to put me on par with people who’ve read dozens of books on the topic, understand neurobiology and have written on both the philosophical and cultural aspects of free will and people’s belief in the topic. Oh, yeah, I know what I’m talking about!

      9. A determinist cannot believe that humans can change. This would, of course, mean that nothing can change. Which would mean…oh…crud…better put my head back up my ass.
      10. A determinist cannot believe in punishing people for crimes. This is because…well…it doesn’t matter. Just keep repeating it.

      Telling lies:
      11. It is ethical to lie so long as it promotes Christian beliefs.
      12. Speaking of telling lies, a really good way to do this is to rephrase what your opponent says and then keep repeating the misquote in hopes that he or she will get bored and leave your lie as the last statement. Then you win. You can do this either by rewording as a supposed paraphrase or pulling lines out of context and reordering them. God really loves this and gives you extra endurance to sit at the computer all day and keep repeating it.
      13. One way to use this super endurance to your advantage is to keep posting the same questions over and over again even after they’ve been answered 50 times. Just pretend they haven’t been answered and act self-righteous about it. It’s really cool if you can ask this same thing on multiple threads and then claim it was never answered forcing people to waste time on the same thing over and over and over.
      14. In particular don’t forget that whatever someone says you can respond with “What investigation have you done into…”. Especially good is to ask what investigation was done into the truth of the God of Israel. When the non-Christian comes back to ask how much research you did to prove other gods aren’t real answer “I don’t need to do any because I proved the God of Israel is real and that negates all other gods”. When asked how you proved that repeat the words “empty tomb” over and over until divine light shines on the souls of the heathens.
      15. When they refuse to play your game or you don’t like the answer add some sarcasm, but use an emoticon to soften it so they’ll know your snide remarks are all in good fun.
      16. Consider asking completely nonsensical questions that can’t even be understood, let alone answered. Best yet include something the person didn’t say as a premise. For example, you might ask an atheist opponent “You say you like murdering small children on Wednesdays, could you explain how this fits with your beliefs about string theory?” Then when your question is ignored accuse the person of avoidance and make up wild hypotheses as to why they are avoiding you.
      17. Above all else keep asking questions while avoiding answering any yourself.

      Science, math and psychology:
      18. If one scientist says something that backs me, then I can assume all scientists agree with that statement.
      19. If atheist scientists say something, even if it is the view of the majority of people in that science, it should be ignored. See #11.
      20. Atheists are ruled by confirmation bias. I am free of it – it’s just great luck that everything I read and all the “data” around me confirm my strong religious convictions. See #19 on ignoring anything else.
      21. Infinity = all finite numbers according to the Chad. Thirty or forty years of constraint is the same as eternal torment.
      22. Rehabilitation and deterrence are the same thing. Yep…convincing a drug addict not to use drugs in case they are shot dead and getting them off the addiction would be the same by my wondrous Chad logic.

      General truths about the CNN belief blog:
      23. All non-believers are, by definition, idiots so you can use illogical arguments and they’ll just fall for it.
      24. If I post a quote that has a few key words in it from our discussion I can claim it backs my point even if it actually says the exact opposite thing from what I’m claiming. Atheists, as mentioned above, are too dumb to notice. Best yet is to post a link or reference a book which actually says the opposite of what I’m saying and just assume no one will look at it.
      25. There is a huge mass of fence sitters out there who are eagerly reading CNN blog comments in order to decide whether or not to believe in God.
      26. I will personally save all those mentioned in # 25 because I, Chad, am super smart. I know this because I get away with all the above mentioned lies and manipulations. Sometimes people think they are pointing these things out but they really aren’t. Or the stupid atheist masses aren’t reading them anyway.
      27. Phrase everything as if it’s a lecture so you look like you know what you’re talking about. See #23 about atheists being idiots and #24 about people not reading anything you post you’ll see that the silly atheists will fall for it every time. In particular they won’t look back to the earlier part of the discussion to see how I’m contradicting myself. This is very well aided by another tactic:
      28. As soon as you make an ass of yourself break the conversation into a new thread. That way all the newcomers (see #25 on how they are waiting to have their souls saved) will not bother to read back and see how ignorant you are.
      29. If someone points out to you that citing Wikipedia is not an adequate source for the discussion at hand you can always find a good undergraduate philosophy paper to cite instead.
      30. Never question another Christian no matter how incorrect or offensive their position.
      31. Just remember that you can define a term any way you want and you are always right!

      May 28, 2013 at 10:54 am |
    • The real Tom

      You should know about corners, Chard. You're in one now. Why is the bible so easily misinterpreted? How is it the Schaibles, their pastor, and their entire congregation were sure they were doing what it said? How do you know they weren't? How do you know that YOUR interpretation is correct and theirs is not?

      May 28, 2013 at 10:56 am |
    • Really-O?

      @The real Tom –

      You just don't understand. As Chad possesses an inerrant knowledge of the bible, the Schaibles and their pastor were simply victims of tragic misinterpretation of clear text. That's why eschewing medical treatment is an error, but discriminating against the LGBT is righteous. Why don't you get it?

      May 28, 2013 at 11:02 am |
    • The real Tom

      So you don't think the Vegetable was just "posting rapidly"?

      By the way, the Russian judge gives you ten points for "eschewing."

      May 28, 2013 at 11:04 am |
    • Really-O?

      @The real Tom –
      I think when ever Chad encounters a person that rapidly attacks he employs his several master's degrees and resorts to the adolescent use of emoticons. Hahaha!

      May 28, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "interesting corner you painted yourself into.. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions, or claim that cutting and pasting text from some 'I hate Christians' site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine..."

      You mean an interesting corner that you've painted. This is obviously a false dichotomy.

      Perhaps we should be looking at whether your reasoning abilities are sufficient for such discussions.

      May 28, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Pete

      "I did not copy anything from infidels.org... 🙂

      Your logic is ridiculous."

      The reason Chad is saying that to you is because he has been called on it multiple times himself and proven wrong so many times that it's actually hysterical. The favorite examples of him are quoting thesis papers and people who haven't even graduated from college which is why this dude is trolling trying to boost their low self esteem.

      May 28, 2013 at 11:09 am |
    • Chad

      @Chad "interesting corner you painted yourself into.. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions, or claim that cutting and pasting text from some 'I hate Christians' site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine..."

      @ME II "You mean an interesting corner that you've painted. This is obviously a false dichotomy.
      Perhaps we should be looking at whether your reasoning abilities are sufficient for such discussions."

      @Chad "so, other options? what are there?
      1. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions
      2 claim that cutting and pasting text from some 'I hate Christians' site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine.
      3. Claim that I am engaging in illogical thought but never state exactly how, or why..

      You're going with #3 ?

      May 28, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      (sigh)
      "A false dilemma ... is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. "

      You offered:
      "1. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions
      2 claim that cutting and pasting text from some 'I hate Christians' site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine."

      The simplest "additional option" would be:
      3. claim that current understanding is sufficient

      Or even:
      3. claim some other criteria as qualification, such as 'I've read the Bible'. (your begging-the-question statement presumes that knowledge comes from certain websites)

      Not that I am claiming such, by the way, just that your logic is false.

      --
      Furthermore, I have never claimed to be an expert/authority on "Christian doctrine", however you might define it. As I said before I was refuting a specific statement of yours that claimed I was "utterly unfamiliar" with the Bible, not doctrine, which is incorrect.

      Definition of doctrine
      noun
      a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group:

      ( http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/doctrine?q=doctrine)

      I would not claim to be knowledgeable about your particular church's or group's teachings, especially since I don't even know what that church or group might be.

      Additionally, if you are claiming that one must be completely familiar with "Christian doctrine", however you might define it, in order to discuss what the Bible states, then I would disagree.
      Furthermore, arguments that "Christian doctrine" is what the Bible states, is to some extent, exactly the point in question.

      May 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm |
    • Chad

      Good move, focus on semantics without once addressing the degree of your (un)familiarity with the biblical text and the subsequent level of (in)sufficient knowledge to discuss Christian doctrine.

      and they call me a disingenuous main-point-dodger !!

      🙂

      May 28, 2013 at 1:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      oh please, your whole tactic of challenging qualifications is a dodge. because you couldn't defend your position. 🙂

      May 28, 2013 at 1:38 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Good move, focus on semantics

      HAAA! That from Chad, the ultimate equivocator. Sweet, merciful hypocrisy!

      May 28, 2013 at 1:42 pm |
    • ME II

      From earlier:

      @Chad ""'medicine alone does not heal': you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking "
      @ME II "But didn't you just say that the places the Bible disparages physicians is, "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.." So in the context you cited, isn't prayer necessary, i.e. medicine alone does not heal? "
      @Chad "lol, no.
      [Dodge starts here:]The issue is one of who do you trust, who do you turn to, what is Gods role and what is yours.

      Ad Hominem here:The trouble you are having, is you utter unfamiliarity with that which you are (attempting) to criticize.. it simply doesnt work. You first need to get familiar with something to speak intelligently about it (ONLY an atheist believes that isnt necessary.. in any other context the person so doing would be utterly dismissed as irrelevant and rightly so.

      Nehemiah 4 "But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.

      that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former.

      May 28, 2013 at 1:47 pm |
    • ME II

      Try that again:

      @Chad ""'medicine alone does not heal': you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking "
      @ME II "But didn't you just say that the places the Bible disparages physicians is, "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.." So in the context you cited, isn't prayer necessary, i.e. medicine alone does not heal? "
      @Chad "lol, no.
      [Dodge starts here:]The issue is one of who do you trust, who do you turn to, what is Gods role and what is yours.

      [Ad Hominem here:]The trouble you are having, is you utter unfamiliarity with that which you are (attempting) to criticize.. it simply doesnt work. You first need to get familiar with something to speak intelligently about it (ONLY an atheist believes that isnt necessary.. in any other context the person so doing would be utterly dismissed as irrelevant and rightly so.

      Nehemiah 4 "But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.

      that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former.

      May 28, 2013 at 1:49 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @ME II

      Wait...Chad has sworn up and down that he does not engage in argumentum ad hominem. You must be mistaken.

      HAAA!

      May 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad ""'medicine alone does not heal': you simply can not make a case from the bible that that statement is true (unless of course you are cherry picking "
      @ME II "But didn't you just say that the places the Bible disparages physicians is, "ALWAYS in the context of humans placing their faith in them alone.." So in the context you cited, isn't prayer necessary, i.e. medicine alone does not heal? "
      @Chad "lol, no. The issue is one of who do you trust, who do you turn to, what is Gods role and what is yours.
      The trouble you are having, is you utter unfamiliarity with that which you are (attempting) to criticize.. it simply doesnt work. You first need to get familiar with something to speak intelligently about it (ONLY an atheist believes that isnt necessary.. in any other context the person so doing would be utterly dismissed as irrelevant and rightly so.
      Nehemiah 4 "But we prayed to our God and posted a guard day and night to meet this threat.
      that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former.

      [begin ME II side track away from the refutation of his point]
      @ME II "You keep claiming I have "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, which is blatant hyperbole.
      @Chad "no.. it's just true.. right? what familiarity do you have? Your posting dont show anything..
      @ME II “Unbelievably wrong. "Utter unfamiliarilty" imples a complete lack of knowledge. I have in fact posted quotes from the Bible, ergo I am not "utterly unfamiliar" with it.”
      @Chad "I"m just going to let that one stand on its own as I think it does truly capture the essence of atheistic familiarity with the bible, AND at the same time, the belief that this level of familiarity is sufficient to equip a person for engaging a Christian in doctrinal discussion! One quick trip to infidels.org and your degree in fundamentalist atheism is granted, brilliant!
      @ME II “ I made no claims as to Atheistic familiarity. You claimed that I, me personally, had an "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, I have refuted that specific statement. I made no claims of sufficiency.”
      @Chad "interesting corner you painted yourself into.. acknowledge that your understanding of the biblical text is insufficient for engaging in doctrinal discussions, or claim that cutting and pasting text from some "I hate Christians" site is qualifies as sufficient understanding of Christian doctrine...
      ======================
      And that is where we sit..
      –Your original attempt claim that a case could be made from the bible that the physician’s “medicine” (such as it was at the time) was something that at best need not be made use of, and at worst shouldn’t be used was refuted by showing the bible always mandates our part and Gods part together.
      - you have dodged stating exactly what your familiarity is with the bible, you have dodged stating whether it is sufficient to converse with a Christian on doctrinal issues and you have dodged stating what is a sufficient understanding of the bible to engage in doctrinal discussions.

      In summary: you cant claim that I have dodged anything at all and I am quite sure that you wont be addressing any of your three dodges 🙂

      May 28, 2013 at 2:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Chad: "[begin ME II side track away from the refutation of his point]"

      you skipped my direct response to your bolded text:

      "that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former."

      How is that not an example of almost exactly what I was pointing out, i.e. that the Bible is implying that a guard (or medicine) is useless without prayer?

      Chad: "–Your original attempt claim that a case could be made from the bible that the physician’s “medicine” (such as it was at the time) was something that at best need not be made use of, and at worst shouldn’t be used was refuted by showing the bible always mandates our part and Gods part together."

      I was simply stating that I think the case could be made for not using medicine/physicians primarily because prayer seemed to be the only necessary and sufficient ingredient according to my understanding of the Bible.

      If you are claiming that both parts are required, then I would disagree. (more on this if needed)

      If you are claiming medicine is not required, e.g. "he latter [guard/medicine] is useless w/out the former [prayer]," then I'm not sure why you disagree with the group in the article.

      If you are claiming prayer is not required, then perhaps we don't disagree at all.

      If you are claiming that both are not required, then I completely misunderstood and will reconsider.

      I don't see any other options, but if you have some present them, please.

      Chad: "– you have dodged stating exactly what your familiarity is with the bible, you have dodged stating whether it is sufficient to converse with a Christian on doctrinal issues and you have dodged stating what is a sufficient understanding of the bible to engage in doctrinal discussions."

      First, Why does it matter? Either the argument stands on its own or it does not. In that sense, "qualifications" are irrelevant.

      Second, I avoid giving details because it detracts from the debate, for example this very discussion!, and I suspect that no matter what I claim, it will not be sufficient for you.
      That being said, I have read the Bible and researched various aspects on- and off-line. I have never claimed to be a Biblical scholar. If you consider this insufficient that is your choice, but that would be arbitrary and irrelevant.
      Or, are you claiming that reading the Bible is insufficient qualifications for discussing what the Bible says?

      Third, I am not discussing "doctrine" as that is beliefs that are taught and not necessarily based on the Bible, e.g. Catholic tradition, early church tradition, etc., much of which I am unfamiliar with.

      Chad: "In summary: you cant claim that I have dodged anything at all and I am quite sure that you wont be addressing any of your three dodges :)"

      I certainly can. Asking for qualifications alone is dodging, 🙂 in that it does not add to the point of debate, and a form of Ad hominem, I would think.

      And here,

      ME II: "How is that not an example of almost exactly what I was pointing out, i.e. that the Bible is implying that a guard (or medicine) is useless without prayer?"
      Chad: "We are not saying the same thing, you are attempting to cherry pick the bible."

      No explanation, just no, "we are not", and then attack with cherry picking. Dodge? seems like one to me.

      (wow, this has taken entirely too much time.)

      May 28, 2013 at 3:53 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      I also want to point out that where you claim I was side tracking the discussion, it was in fact a response to your comment.

      [begin ME II side track away from the refutation of his point]
      @ME II "You keep claiming I have "utter unfamiliarity" with the Bible, which is blatant hyperbole.

      May 28, 2013 at 4:16 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad “"that's biblical, prayed to God and posted a guard. The former doesnt obviate the latter, and the latter is useless w/out the former."”
      @ME II “How is that not an example of almost exactly what I was pointing out, i.e. that the Bible is implying that a guard (or medicine) is useless without prayer?”
      @Chad “by “useless” I mean there is no surety that you are in Gods will if you aren’t praying. Now, there is not guarantee that you are in Gods will even if you ARE praying, but if you aren’t praying, you definitely have no idea If you are or aren’t.

      ====
      @Chad: "–Your original attempt claim that a case could be made from the bible that the physician’s “medicine” (such as it was at the time) was something that at best need not be made use of, and at worst shouldn’t be used was refuted by showing the bible always mandates our part and Gods part together."
      @ME II “I was simply stating that I think the case could be made for not using medicine/physicians primarily because prayer seemed to be the only necessary and sufficient ingredient according to my understanding of the Bible.
      @Chad “actually, you are attempting to do exactly what I said you were trying to do.
      Rain falls on the good and the evil, there are times when indeed the evil prosper
      Prayer doesn’t just automatically get you what you want
      Placing your trust entirely in man is, in the end assessment, a useless proposition. The bible says that prayer and works (which would include a physicians work) work hand in hand.
      As such, a case simply can not be made that the bible claims that only prayer is necessary AND all works eschewed.
      ====
      @ME II “are you claiming that reading the Bible is insufficient qualifications for discussing what the Bible says?”
      @Chad “well, of course, it all depends what you mean by “reading” and “researching”.
      If reading means “well, I did read a bit of it..” and researching means “I daily peruse infidels.org for things to cut and paste”, then I would say no, that is utterly insufficient. At the end of the day, your unfamiliarity with these kind of concepts proves that they are new to you, proving that whatever your “familiarity” is, it isn’t enough that’s for sure.

      =====
      @Chad: "In summary: you cant claim that I have dodged anything at all and I am quite sure that you wont be addressing any of your three dodges
      @ME II “I certainly can. Asking for qualifications alone is dodging, in that it does not add to the point of debate, and a form of Ad hominem, I would think.
      @Chad “you mean, asking you what you know of the bible? That’s a form of ad-hominem?? Seriously? It does not add to the point of the debate? Seriously?
      Wow.. ok, I’ll remember to use that when I challenge Hawking on his “imaginary time” stuff and he wants to know what I actually know of the topic 🙂
      @Chad “what’s with this nonsense of imaginary time! My watch doesn’t have that!!
      @Stephen “ah… your question betrays a lack of understanding of the fundamentals.. what do you actually know about it?
      @Chad “AHAHA LOLOL what a dodge!!!”

      ===
      You still have two dodges:
      you have dodged stating whether it is sufficient to converse with a Christian on doctrinal issues(
      and
      you have dodged stating what is a sufficient understanding of the bible to engage in doctrinal discussions.

      May 28, 2013 at 5:48 pm |
    • FYI

      For the new people reading, Chad has been proven wrong in their logic and their bogus facts but this idiot will continue to think they are winning the argument, it's hysterical. Scroll up and read the never ending list of the gospel according to Chard.

      May 28, 2013 at 5:52 pm |
    • Moby Schtick

      This thread is chock full of Chad lying. Seriously, I've never seen so much lying. Thanks Chad!! Keep up the great work. This sort of rhetorical shape-shifting is the best you can do, isn't it? When all else fails, just dodge the subject and claim that your opponent isn't as wise as you are when it comes to one particular book or idea. That really solves the issue.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
    • FYI

      "As such, a case simply can not be made that the bible claims that only prayer is necessary AND all works eschewed."

      "And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”"

      May 28, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • Pete

      "Thanks Chad!! Keep up the great work. This sort of rhetorical shape-shifting is the best you can do, isn't it? When all else fails, just dodge the subject and claim that your opponent isn't as wise as you are when it comes to one particular book or idea. That really solves the issue."

      Chad is so dishonest that he believes his lies are true. Yes, Chad is a great example of a deceptive person who lies to try and win an argument, we can all see it in his posts but he can not. For Chad to face himself in the mirror would be too painful for his low self esteem which is why he will never grow up.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:14 pm |
    • Chad

      @Chad "As such, a case simply can not be made that the bible claims that only prayer is necessary AND all works eschewed."
      @FYI "And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer.”"

      @Chad "sigh.. what I have repeatedly said, and I'll repeat it again:
      Rain falls on the good and the evil, there are times when indeed the evil prosper
      Prayer doesn’t just automatically get you what you want
      Placing your trust entirely in man is, in the end assessment, a useless proposition. The bible says that prayer and works (which would include a physicians work) work hand in hand.
      There are times when prayer is the only avenue
      Prayer is always an avenue

      Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. – James

      It is not possible to construct doctrine from that passage that:
      – prayer is the ONLY avenue for healing
      – seeking another avenue (getting help from a doctor) is wrong.
      – every single prayer is automatically granted along the lines of the request.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:15 pm |
    • LOL

      This is a great example of why Chad uses deception in his arguments to try and win but still doesn't "get" why he is wrong. LOL!

      May 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      by “useless” I mean there is no surety that you are in Gods will if you aren’t praying. Now, there is not guarantee that you are in Gods will even if you ARE praying, but if you aren’t praying, you definitely have no idea If you are or aren’t."

      Ah, well, that's different. Most people, I think, consider the term "useless" to me that it won't work, not your "no surety" of God's will bit.

      "Placing your trust entirely in man is, in the end assessment, a useless proposition."

      Again, this is not the same as saying placing a "guard" or using medicine is "useless", is it?

      If I understand correctly, you are not making any claims what-so-ever as to the efficacy of prayer in physical health, correct? And also, that Bible does not claim that prayer is necessary for physical health, correct, just "in the end assessment"?

      --
      “well, of course, it all depends what you mean by ..."

      As I said, "...I suspect that no matter what I claim, it will not be sufficient for you."

      --
      “you mean, asking you what you know of the bible? That’s a form of ad-hominem?? Seriously? It does not add to the point of the debate? Seriously?"

      No.
      First, you asked for qualifications, not "What [do] you know of the bible?"
      Second, what I said was, "Either the argument stands on its own or it does not. In that sense, 'qualifications' are irrelevant." I don't think I have ever stated otherwise.

      "Wow.. ok, I’ll remember to use that when I challenge Hawking on his 'imaginary time' stuff and he wants to know what I actually know of the topic :)"

      That is exactly what I was trying to prevent, disqualifying someone from debate based on arbitrary "qualifications". You see, claiming someone is not "qualified" to discuss the topic is a dodge, a form of Ad Hominem, which is what I thought you were attempting. Now, claiming that someone doesn't understand and showing where they are incorrect is valid debate.

      --
      "you have dodged stating whether it is sufficient to converse with a Christian on doctrinal issues"

      Do you mean whether my 'qualifications' are sufficient? As I said, I'm not talking about "doctrinal issues". You brought up "doctrine" not I.

      "you have dodged stating what is a sufficient understanding of the bible to engage in doctrinal discussions."

      In addition to the above, it would depend on the "doctrine", I suppose.

      --
      p.s. Please let me know when you plan to "challenge" Hawking. I'd pay to see that.

      “AHAHA LOLOL” 🙂

      May 28, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
    • Chad

      One thing I always notice.. all of these accusations never actually come with an explanation of exactly what is the "lie" or the "disingenuous" or the "deception" or whatever..
      just the accusation, never the evidence backing it up..

      now.. why is that?

      Could it be that you actually can't spell out anything I have lied about, but you just want to say something?

      cue ad-hominem

      May 28, 2013 at 6:32 pm |
    • Pete

      "One thing I always notice.. all of these accusations never actually come with an explanation of exactly what is the "lie" or the "disingenuous" or the "deception" or whatever..
      just the accusation, never the evidence backing it up..

      now.. why is that?

      Could it be that you actually can't spell out anything I have lied about, but you just want to say something?

      cue ad-hominem"

      Oh come on dude get real with yourself and stop lying. We have on numerous threads pointed out your deceptiveness and your lies which you ignore or run away from every time. It's why the gospel according to Chad was started in the first place. This comment it's is an actual lie and deceptive too.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "If I understand correctly, you are not making any claims what-so-ever as to the efficacy of prayer in physical health, correct? And also, that Bible does not claim that prayer is necessary for physical health, correct, just "in the end assessment"?"
      @Chad "not sure why you are having such a difficult time understanding.
      – God hears all prayers (Matthew 7)
      – But, we dont automatically get what we want (James 1)
      – There are physically healthy people in the bible that went to hell (Matthew 5)

      You seem to be getting stuck on the notion that unless we automatically get what we want, prayer cant be real..

      ===
      @ME II "As I said, "...I suspect that no matter what I claim, it will not be sufficient for you.""
      @Chad "nice dodge 🙂 "

      ===
      the rest? Nice dodge (attempt anyway..)

      ===
      Try and build a biblical case, in context, that all guards/medicines will fail (according to the requester's definition of failure) w/out prayer, OR that all guards/medicines will succeed (according to the requester's definition of success) with prayer.
      It cant be done.
      know why?

      if you were familiar with the bible, you would know the answer to that.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:46 pm |
    • Chad

      I have no doubt you can point to other threads where accusations of lying and deception have occured, however, on those threads what the lie or deception was, wasnt identified either..

      If it's so hard, why cant you do it? Could it be that you actually can't spell out anything I have lied about, because I havent lied, but you just want to say something?

      remember, me stating that God is real isnt a lie.. 🙂
      because He is.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:49 pm |
    • Pete

      "I have no doubt you can point to other threads where accusations of lying and deception have occured, however, on those threads what the lie or deception was, wasnt identified either..

      If it's so hard, why cant you do it? Could it be that you actually can't spell out anything I have lied about, because I havent lied, but you just want to say something?

      remember, me stating that God is real isnt a lie.. 🙂
      because He is."

      Thanks for proving how you are a deceptive liar once again.

      May 28, 2013 at 6:53 pm |
    • @ME

      "Try and build a biblical case, in context, that all guards/medicines will fail (according to the requester's definition of failure) w/out prayer, OR that all guards/medicines will succeed (according to the requester's definition of success) with prayer.
      It cant be done.
      know why?

      if you were familiar with the bible, you would know the answer to that."

      The xtian out is it might not be their God's will regardless of what the bible actually states, that way they don't have to actually prove anything and have a great excuse to get out of any argument. LOL!

      ""Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." (Matthew 7:7)

      "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 18:19)

      "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." (Matthew 21:22)

      "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." (Mark 11:24)

      "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (Luke 11:13)

      "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14)

      "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you." (John 16:23)

      May 28, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "You seem to be getting stuck on the notion that unless we automatically get what we want, prayer cant be real.."

      Not my point at all... (shrug)
      ====

      Isn't "nice dodge" actually a nice dodge?
      ====

      "It cant be done. know why?"

      I'm thinking that it has something to do with "'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Luke 4:12)

      But that's probably incorrect for some dontrinal reason, so please enlighten us with your "qualfied" knowledge, oh learned one.

      Peace

      May 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "The xtian out is it might not be their God's will regardless of what the bible actually states, that way they don't have to actually prove anything and have a great excuse to get out of any argument."

      @Chad " remember the three most important things about the bible?
      Good example above.. you simply arent reading the entire verse nor it's context,
      1. Who was He talking to when He said that
      2. what does "in my name" mean?

      ===
      @Chad "Try and build a biblical case, in context, that all guards/medicines will fail (according to the requester's definition of failure) w/out prayer, OR that all guards/medicines will succeed (according to the requester's definition of success) with prayer." It cant be done. know why?

      @ME II "I'm thinking that it has something to do with "'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" (Luke 4:12)"

      @chad "that's actually sufficiently close.
      God is a "person", we cant make Him do what we want Him to do, nor should we try (that's putting God to the test).

      Now you understand why your original contention is not biblical.

      "Bible does state that prayer should be sufficient for healing....You claim that they misinterpreted the Bible, but it does seem to say that prayer (and anointing) is sufficient. While you may be correct that seeking medical help is not forbidden, it also seems to indicate that it is not necessary

      May 28, 2013 at 7:23 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "that's actually sufficiently close."

      Oh goody, I passed Chad's test yeah!! /sarcasm

      "Now you understand why your original contention is not biblical."

      No, what I understand is that the Bible certainly seems to contradict itself.
      'It works, unless it's a test'.
      Every psychic in history has said the same thing. (okay not every psychic, but you get the idea)

      May 28, 2013 at 9:49 pm |
  4. Bootyfunk

    religion teaches people to turn off their brains. this is a clear example. do you know why god didn't save your child? because he doesn't exist. but people could have saved your child.

    protip: have faith in people, not invisible sky fairies.

    May 25, 2013 at 12:28 pm |
    • Science

      It works energy !

      Energy Efficiency Tax Credits to Consider for 2013
      Did you miss the energy efficiency and renewable energy tax credits for 2012? Learn how you can take advantage of them this year.

      http://energy.gov/energysaver/energy-saver

      May 25, 2013 at 12:36 pm |
  5. Dead Children

    We just want to thank Mom and Dad and of course God. We didn't want to live anyway. Thanks a bunch.

    May 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      Your sarcasm is stupid because it includes God. God in contrast to the Schaibles loved the child and still loves it. God is and was in a dilemma: He has created us as free beings with a free will, and we even have the dignity to commit crimes. Yet, one day God will judge us (Judgement Day). God actually wanted the Schaibles to take care of their child but they failed, and God could not prevent this because than he had violated their free will as free human beings.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:26 pm |
    • science

      Hey RB change it to BS then it works.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Rainer...,
      "God actually wanted the Schaibles to take care of their child ...."

      You don't know this. You only think you do. Even your own stories tell of God coammanding death of children, how do you know this isn't one of those instances?

      May 25, 2013 at 12:50 pm |
    • Dead Children

      @Rainer Braendlein

      1. My sarcasm is completely accurate because it includes God.
      2. You don't have any idea what state of "mind" God is was in so you are a liar.
      3. The Bible is clear the humans are not free. You are a liar.
      4. You have not idea what God will or won't do. You are a liar.

      And on a personal not, you are a stupid as a bag of hammers.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:55 pm |
    • G to the T

      So if God has answered their prayers... it would have violated their free will? Sorry but it sounds to me like god ignored their prayer or else the answer was "no".

      I don't see anywhere where "free will" would have been violated in this case.

      May 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
  6. Alias

    The comments here that worry me the most are the ones that suggest the child died because they prayed 'wrong'.
    No prayers to any god would have saved this child. The doctors could have.

    May 25, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
  7. Rainer Braendlein

    Censored News Network.

    May 25, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
    • ..

      Some crazed outsourced blog developer on this blog

      May 25, 2013 at 12:17 pm |
    • Science

      Science

      Hello mama k...............like cap'y ass wipe always says below....................But the sh-it does NOT work prayer that IS !

      Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things,

      May 25, 2013 at 7:18 am | Report abuse | Reply

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/24/prosecutor-parents-refusal-to-seek-medical-attention-led-to-infants-death/#comments

      May 25, 2013 at 11:47 am | Report abuse |

      faith

      so?

      May 25, 2013 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |

      Science

      About 17,300 results (0.36 seconds) ..........google

      298,000 results Any time ................Bing...........for this article interesting.

      Numbers.

      peace

      May 25, 2013 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |

      Science

      You know faith you are stuck in a big pile GREEN SLIME with NO horn-y red devil to save your ass.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Report abuse |

      May 25, 2013 at 12:27 pm |
    • Scienec

      Rainer Braendlein.............add it to your favorites tool bar !

      https://www.zotero.org/colleengreene/items/5XRFKX8N\

      Peace

      May 25, 2013 at 1:09 pm |
  8. Bootyfunk

    “Instead of caring and nurturing him,” Williams said, “they ultimately caused his death by praying over his body instead of taking him to the doctor.”

    why didn't god save their child? easiest answer ever: god doesn't exist. these people should have put their faith in people and good medical care. christianity is a cult, like all religions.

    May 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm |
    • Rainer Braendlein

      “they ultimately caused his death by praying over his body instead of taking him to the doctor.”

      Yes, they caused his death, and have committed a heavy crime.

      If God would alway descent from heaven when we are about to commit a crime or sin we would be only puppets without a free will, and it could never become manifest if we are wicked or noble. God allowed the Schaibles to commit the crime of the murder of their son, and at Judgement Day God will judge them for this.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      don't be silly. there's no such thing as an invisible sky fairy.
      try thinking for yourself. you won't regret it.

      May 25, 2013 at 12:24 pm |
  9. Lamb of dog

    The sad thing is they probably think it's a test from God.

    May 25, 2013 at 11:43 am |
  10. The Central Scrutinizer

    These parents are criminals.

    These children were abused.

    These children died.

    These parents must now rot in prison.

    May 25, 2013 at 11:15 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Their stay in prison will probably be short. . .

      May 25, 2013 at 12:11 pm |
    • The Central Scrutinizer

      Short perhaps, but painful.

      May 25, 2013 at 1:00 pm |
  11. Woody

    I can visualize one of those late night lawyer commercials on TV. "If you prayed over your critically ill child and he/she died anyway, WE can get money for YOU!!!" If prayer actually started working (don't hold your breath), a lot of physicians, medical schools, medical associations, medical text book publishers, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, emergency vehicle manufactures, the aforementioned emergency vehicle chasing lawyers and many other people too numerous to mention, would be getting very nervous.

    May 25, 2013 at 11:13 am |
  12. Reality

    Last time I checked, our judicial system casts many a stone to include execution when needed.

    And then there is this:

    John 8:7

    "When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

    And from Professor Gerd Ludemann, in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 416,

    "Anyone looking for the historical Jesus will not find him in the Gospel of John. "

    See also http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

    May 25, 2013 at 11:08 am |
  13. mama k

    Recently we learned from CNN of a child dying when their parents, members of a Christian sect in Philadelphia, as part of their faith, refused medical care.

    One sect calls homosexuality an abomination while the next one (over 4,000,000 members) in the same denomination is already performing gay marriage.

    One sect, the Westboro Baptist Church believes Americans are being killed at war because America is too kind to "fags".

    One sect believes women to be subservient, while another sect in the same denomination promotes equality between the sexes.

    One sect believes that Jesus and Satan were brothers and that Christ will return to Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri.

    Some believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Some believe Obama is the Anti-Christ.

    Some believe that celibacy is the only option for certain people, or for people in certain positions. Many of the people from these same institutions advocate against abortion, but pretend not to understand the realistic benefit of the morning after pill or even basic contraception; their unrealistic wishful thinking is causing the death of many at the hands of disease.

    In the U.S. recently we learned of the head of Lutheran CMS chastising a minister of that church for participating in a joint service for the victims of the Newtown school shooting.

    Conflicted right from the very beginning, Christianity continues to splinter and create more extreme divisions as time goes by, constantly subjecting others in its crossfire.

    Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.

    (Thomas Jefferson, from Notes on the State of Virginia, 1785)

    May 25, 2013 at 10:36 am |
    • science

      Hello mama k...............like cap'y ass wipe always says below....................But the sh-it does NOT work prayer that IS !

      Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things,

      May 25, 2013 at 7:18 am | Report abuse | Reply

      May 25, 2013 at 10:58 am |
  14. required

    God always wins my love, for too many reasons. Faith and doing what you have to do. You have to do both, not just the one.

    May 25, 2013 at 10:11 am |
    • Science

      Hey required

      #http://ted.com/talks

      Peace

      May 25, 2013 at 10:32 am |
    • G to the T

      Ironic then that it always turns out based on what you did. Exactly like it would be if there had been no prayers at all...

      May 28, 2013 at 12:16 pm |
  15. vikingwoman

    This is child abuse & in the name of God, noless!! The name of the church tells the story, though–First Century!? If that's the century celebrated by this extreme religion, no wonder their kids die! There were no antibiotics in the 1st century! Listen, if adults want to live a life of delusion, that's their business, but please don't drag the children into it! Let them live long enough to make their own choice!!

    May 25, 2013 at 9:42 am |
  16. STFU

    "churches believe that God – and God alone – heals the sick"

    let's accept their belief, but do they believe that "God – and God alone" would help them to get off the legal trouble? NOOOOO, they have to have an attorneys to save their ass from going into prison, God is useless in the court of laws.

    May 25, 2013 at 9:42 am |
  17. STFU

    they followed the churche of uncompassionate.

    May 25, 2013 at 9:34 am |
  18. Alias

    One more victory for science over religion.
    We still have a long way to go before mythology gets put into its proper place, but we are making progress.

    May 25, 2013 at 9:13 am |
  19. mama k

    Bill Moyers interviews Daniel Dennett, an American philosopher, writer and cognitive scientist whose research centers on the philosophy of mind, science & biology. He is a professor of philosophy at Tufts University.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUeQXmYVamA
    Dennett: "[not all, but for many, the dangerous thing about religion is that] it gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking."

    May 25, 2013 at 8:52 am |
    • Science

      Agree..............mama k

      A box for thinking does not work aye .

      Peace

      May 25, 2013 at 9:05 am |
    • Science

      Updated box :

      Agree ...............mama k

      A box does not work well for thinking.

      Peace

      Hey faith/chad... and sally too........Thanks have a great life.

      http://www.wecanbeheroes.org/

      http://www.caterpillar.com/Foundation

      http://www.autismspeaks.org/

      http://www.hlntv.com/clusters/salute-troops

      https://www.zotero.org/colleengreene/items/5XRFKX8N

      Heaven for atheists? Pope sparks debate

      By Dan Merica, CNN

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/23/heaven-for-atheists-pope-sparks-debate/

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/09/my-take-a-word-to-christians-be-nice/comment-page-44/#comment-2369235

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/23/the-money-man-behind-atheisms-activism/comment-page-77/#comment-2369249

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/21/who-hears-prayersforoklahoma/?replytocom=2369279#respond

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/19/proofs-of-heaven-popular-but-not-with-the-church/?replytocom=2366421#respond

      http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/05/when-christians-become-a-hated-minority/

      Peace

      May 25, 2013 at 9:11 am | Report abuse |

      May 25, 2013 at 9:16 am | Report abuse |

      May 25, 2013 at 9:45 am |
  20. ronvan

    While I beleive in my Lord & savior he also gave me a brain and common sense! These people have lost both! Using someone's religion as an "excuse" is outrageous! There are SOME people that do not deserve to have children!

    May 25, 2013 at 7:09 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.