I still think that the concept of believers sharing medical needs, the idea that lies behind Samaritan Ministries, is tremendous. There is no doubt in my mind that Samaritan is superior to traditional medical insurance, especially as things get worse in this post-Obama-Care world. Regrettably, I have had to post two articles warning of the dangers in Samaritan Ministries (part 1, part 2). The problems mentioned earlier are still present.
I. False Teaching Still Promoted
While in part two I had stated that "explicit promotion or recommendation of apostates has decreased," mentioning this as a "wonderfu[l] chang[e] for the better," unfortunately, false teachers who promote damnable heresies are again cropping up in their newsletter. In the November 2014 issue, within an article entitled "Will you forgive her, as God has forgiven her," a story is told of a teenage girl who has committed fornication and is pregnant outside of wedlock. The article, written by Ryan C. MacPherson, professor at Bethany Lutheran College, promotes the damnable Lutheran heresy of baptismal regeneration. It states that the woman who commited fornication "could look back toward her Baptism, knowing that God has washed away all her sins" (pg. 10), and refers to the Lutheran Augsburg Confession and Large Catechism, which make statements such as that Lutherans "condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism" (Article 9) and "condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost" (Article 12). That is, those who reject baptismal regeneration and teach eternal security are anathema and will burn forever in hell. These are the documents presented positively in the November issue of the Samaritan Ministries newsletter--baptismal regeneration is an acceptable heresy for members of Samaritan Ministries. Other heresies in recent issues including identifying Seventh-Day Adventism as Christian (pg. 9, February 2014), despite its false gospel and many abominable heresies, and the Pentecostal doctrine of healing in this life being in the atonement (pg. 8, 2/2014).
II. Quackery Still Promoted
The November 2014 issue of the Samaritan Ministries newsletter also contains an article by a quack "Dr. David Brownstein." He says that giving "intravenous vitamin C" to "all Ebola patients" should "be standard-of-care treatment," along with "from 10-100,000U of Vitamin A" and "2-6000U of vitamin D3 per day." He says that "though it has not been studied," he has "no doubt" that such "natural therapies . . . would work in a patient suffering from Ebola," and they also can "prevent [one from] becoming ill" with "the Ebola virus." However, the Great Conspiracy of "the Powers-That-Be" are secretly working to prevent people from being cured from Ebola by taking vitamins. Contrary to Mr. Brownstein, the facts are that Vitamin C does not prevent colds and only perhaps, for some people, very slightly reduces their length or severity; Vitamin C can certainly not cure Ebola!. Furthermore, while Vitamin C is water soluble so one is generally going to only have expensive urine if, within reason, he takes too much of it, regular consumption of the doses Mr. Brownstein recommends of Vitamin A can actually be dangerous, as can those he recommends of Vitamin D. He likewise promotes the myth that most people do not get the vitamins they need from a balanced diet, and even states that most people do not consume enough salt, based on the astonishing "evidence" that "infections agents prefer a low-salt environment" (pg. 15)--which, is, of course, true, because essentially all cellular life, including every cell in your body, will die if gets too much salt. Enough salt will kill just about anything--compare the Dead Sea with the Pacific Ocean, for instance. Following a quack such as Mr. Brownstein is not just expensive for one's pocketbook but also dangerous for one's health.
Regrettably, November was not the only month for dangerous medical nonsense in the Samaritan Ministries newsletter. The February 2014 letter said that a certain prominent non-profit consumer advocacy organization that warns about medical misinformation was "widely believed . . . to be wholly supported by front groups funded by Big Pharma" (pg. 3), giving as "evidence" (?) the sheer speculation and unsubstantiated rantings of a homeopath named Heidi Stevenson. The Samaritan newsletter also recorded the testimonial of a woman preacher and Samaritan member with cancer who said that the "Holy Spirit was adamant regarding the use of chemotherapy--don't" (pg. 8, emphasis in original). Supposedly the Holy Spirit violated the teaching of James 5 about getting the best medical treatment available and gave her a special revelation that instead of doing what works on cancer, they were to do what does not work. (The newsletter has never said anything positive about people with cancer getting chemotherapy.) Instead, the woman pastor and her husband were "led" to visit a quack, Stainslaw Burzynski, and take "vitamin B7" (pg. 9) to cure the cancer. So was she cured? Well, "symptoms still remain" of the cancer, but they "expect those to continue to disappear" (pg. 9). In other words, even the testimonial to the quack cure for cancer does not record an actual cure. More cancer mythology appeared in the October 2014 newsletter, which discouraged people who might have cancer from getting biopsies based on the myth that they "activate cancer cells or spread cancer" (pg. 7). Instead of getting biopsies, people are to follow treatments by a quack named Ronald Wheeler who the Florida Board of Medicine called "board-certified in medical fraud . . . one of the most dangerous doctors . . . in a long time . . . a menace to society." The March 2015 issue recommends a miracle algae to treat everything from "heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and many other life-threatening diseases" (pg. 8). It even helps women get pregnant (pg. 13). Support for the miracle algae comes from "Dr. Joseph Mercola" (pgs. 8-9), who makes millions deluding people and who promotes terribly dangerous lies such as that "HIV does not cause AIDS . . . chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes" and that cancer is really a fungus. People who are not "prudent," but are the "simple" who believe every word (Proverbs 14:15), will believe such poisonous falsehoods and go to early graves from untreated cancer. Misinformation in the Samaritan newsletter will lead people who believe it to die and leave behind widows, widowers, and orphaned children.
In summary, the idea behind Samaritan Ministries is great, and believers sharing medical needs is far superior to traditional insurance, especially insurance that funds abortion and other abominations to the Lord. However, the Samaritan Ministries newsletter contains extremely dangerous misinformation. If you believe what it says, you could not just waste a lot of money and be sicker, but you could physically die early. What is even worse, if you believe what the newsletter says, you could adopt a false gospel, die spiritually, and be in hell. The theology and medical recommendations in the newsletter are, to put it mildly, utterly unreliable.
If you are a member of Samaritan Ministries, and you are opposed to false gospels, the New Age, and quackery, I would encourage you to politely contact them here. Please also consider letting others you know who are members of Samaritan about these issues with the ministry.
Regrettably, November was not the only month for dangerous medical nonsense in the Samaritan Ministries newsletter. The February 2014 letter said that a certain prominent non-profit consumer advocacy organization that warns about medical misinformation was "widely believed . . . to be wholly supported by front groups funded by Big Pharma" (pg. 3), giving as "evidence" (?) the sheer speculation and unsubstantiated rantings of a homeopath named Heidi Stevenson. The Samaritan newsletter also recorded the testimonial of a woman preacher and Samaritan member with cancer who said that the "Holy Spirit was adamant regarding the use of chemotherapy--don't" (pg. 8, emphasis in original). Supposedly the Holy Spirit violated the teaching of James 5 about getting the best medical treatment available and gave her a special revelation that instead of doing what works on cancer, they were to do what does not work. (The newsletter has never said anything positive about people with cancer getting chemotherapy.) Instead, the woman pastor and her husband were "led" to visit a quack, Stainslaw Burzynski, and take "vitamin B7" (pg. 9) to cure the cancer. So was she cured? Well, "symptoms still remain" of the cancer, but they "expect those to continue to disappear" (pg. 9). In other words, even the testimonial to the quack cure for cancer does not record an actual cure. More cancer mythology appeared in the October 2014 newsletter, which discouraged people who might have cancer from getting biopsies based on the myth that they "activate cancer cells or spread cancer" (pg. 7). Instead of getting biopsies, people are to follow treatments by a quack named Ronald Wheeler who the Florida Board of Medicine called "board-certified in medical fraud . . . one of the most dangerous doctors . . . in a long time . . . a menace to society." The March 2015 issue recommends a miracle algae to treat everything from "heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and many other life-threatening diseases" (pg. 8). It even helps women get pregnant (pg. 13). Support for the miracle algae comes from "Dr. Joseph Mercola" (pgs. 8-9), who makes millions deluding people and who promotes terribly dangerous lies such as that "HIV does not cause AIDS . . . chemicals in our environment, the drugs used to treat AIDS, stress, and poor nutrition are possibly the real causes" and that cancer is really a fungus. People who are not "prudent," but are the "simple" who believe every word (Proverbs 14:15), will believe such poisonous falsehoods and go to early graves from untreated cancer. Misinformation in the Samaritan newsletter will lead people who believe it to die and leave behind widows, widowers, and orphaned children.
In summary, the idea behind Samaritan Ministries is great, and believers sharing medical needs is far superior to traditional insurance, especially insurance that funds abortion and other abominations to the Lord. However, the Samaritan Ministries newsletter contains extremely dangerous misinformation. If you believe what it says, you could not just waste a lot of money and be sicker, but you could physically die early. What is even worse, if you believe what the newsletter says, you could adopt a false gospel, die spiritually, and be in hell. The theology and medical recommendations in the newsletter are, to put it mildly, utterly unreliable.
If you are a member of Samaritan Ministries, and you are opposed to false gospels, the New Age, and quackery, I would encourage you to politely contact them here. Please also consider letting others you know who are members of Samaritan about these issues with the ministry.
We signed up for this as well with some reluctance, because of these issues. My solution for the bad teaching and nonsense medicine is to throw out the magazine when it arrives. It is an imperfect solution.
ReplyDeleteI wish they would just provide the service they offer without feeling the need to lecture. I came to them so they would administrate my health sharing, which they seem to do well. Just stick to that and stop trying to educate me on spiritual issues, which they seem to do poorly.
Dear Farmer Brown,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the health sharing works great, but the promotion of false teaching is not so hot.
Thanks for the comment.
By the way, someone (who I don't know personally) e-mailed me about this post and suggested that it was not "balanced," in that I am supposed to, it appears, equally criticize scientific medicine and unconventional therapies. I would suggest, in reply, that balance is applying the Biblically-based scientific method to all therapies--which will, the overwhelming majority of the time, debunk quack therapies. Of course, nothing in this post suggests that all (or any) medical doctor is infallible, or that the current state of modern scientific medicine is infallible. One of the great areas of superiority of scientific medicine to quack therapies is that science continually tests itself and is willing to change when new, genuine facts show that previously held beliefs are in error. If an unconventional therapy can actually get real evidence in its favor, it will become conventional/mainstream, because there is no Grand Conspiracy of the Powers that Be that can successfully suppress cures for cancer, etc. Too many competing interests actually want people, including themselves and their loved ones, not to die from cancer (for example) to make it possible for some alleged conspiracy among drug companies to successfully suppress a real cure.
ReplyDeleteI regret that in the April 2015 newsletter Samaritan Ministries has doubled down on the nonsense and quackery – this issue argues that vitamin C can both your and prevent polio, viral hepatitis, measles, mumps, pneumonia, influenza, diphtheria, tetanus, etc. and can prevent and reverse AIDS, pertussis, tuberculosis, leprosy, and other diseases. Think about it! Vitamin C prevents and reverses AIDS and leprosy – you just need to take amounts of it (as recommended in the article) that actual science indicates is dangerous for you (e.g., http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-c/faq-20058030).
ReplyDeleteThis sort of quack garbage is very dangerous.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteDo you know where the metaphor, "doubled down" comes from, or what it refers to? It is a metaphor, and I hadn't read you ever use it. It's become quite common in culture. I hear President Obama use it all the time. Do not use google. It must come just from your head.
I have no idea where it comes from – I hope it's not ungodly. I won't use Google, but perhaps I will look in the dictionary, unless you want to just enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteThe correct term is "double down" which I know is used in gambling since I used to gamble when I was lost. It simply tells the individual who, for example, lost or gained $1 if he wants to put it "all in" on the next gamble or even the next decision being made in the "gamble".
ReplyDeleteIt was used mostly in card games and depending on the game you played, it was limited by how the rules were applied.
The metaphor makes sense when reading KJB1611 use of it. I take it to mean that this ministry goes "all out" and throwing everything into Vitamin C prevention to prove that this quackery and nonsense is getting out of control.
By the way, my earlier comment should have said “cure and prevent” not "your and prevent." I was using a dictation software program and missed the mistake.
ReplyDeleteIn the most recent (September 2015) Samaritan newsletter the introductory page "This Month at Samaritan" mentions: "On page 10, learn about how Dr. David Brownstein is treating diseases such as fibromyalgia, anemia, cancer, Alzheimer's, and chronic fatigue with Vitamin B12."
ReplyDeleteOf course, Vitamin B12 does not cure cancer of the other diseases mentioned; that is total nonsense.
For a real-life example of what happens to people who believe such lies and die of cancer, please see:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-cancer-tragedy-in-the-making/
I also know of a personal situation where a woman had an easily curable type of cancer, with a very high survival/cure rate, but she adopted this quack garbage and now is dead, leaving her many children in the care of her less-than-godly and probably unconverted husband. Tragic.
They seem to have a real agenda to promote this nonsense. This David Brownstein, in addition to all the B12 nonsense, is a holistic practitioner. According to Web MD, "Holistic medicine is a form of healing that considers the whole person -- body, mind, spirit, and emotions -- in the quest for optimal health and wellness. According to the holistic medicine philosophy, one can achieve optimal health -- the primary goal of holistic medicine practice -- by gaining proper balance in life."
ReplyDeleteSo now they are promoting not only bad medicine, but also false spirituality. Here is a man who is not a believer (as far as I can tell) who they are touting to their membership of believers to counsel them on their spiritual health. Here is the letter I sent last time:
Please find enclosed this month's share. I appreciate the process you have set up by which we can bear each other's burdens. It seems to be a biblical way to handle these medical issues.
What I do not appreciate is the constant stream of junk science in the newsletter. This month's article on Vitamin C curing AIDS and other diseases is a particularly egregious example of the foolishness that has been officially embraced in your newsletter. Thomas Levy claims to tout amazing science, such as the work of Klenner. He dishonestly fails to mention that Klenner did not do clinical trials for any of his work. This is a significant omission.
If this was anything but a dishonest charlatan grasping for money, it would be easy to prove. There are perhaps 25,000,000 Americans suffering from Herpes, which Mr. Levy claims can be cured by Vitamin C. Mr. Levy could round up several thousand of them under clinical conditions, and put his theory to the test. Certainly there would be plenty of interest from those herpes sufferers who have been told they have an incurable disease, and abundant profit opportunity. Of course, like any sleight of hand artist, Mr. Levy does not like sunlight. A test such as this would thoroughly discredit his outrageous ideas, and could perhaps put a damper on his speaking fees and other sources of revenue.
The problem with this type of junk science is two-fold. First, it makes Christians look unwise for believing and promoting such dangerous theories. I am happy to be a fool for Christ and to be mocked for following his precepts, but I would not like to be a fool for Mr. Levy.
Second, some desperately ill people might believe this and follow it. This will lead them to neglect real treatments that have some hope of treating their illness. There are a significant number of people who have done this to their detriment. A simple search yields many results showing people with treatable diseases who neglected real health care until it was too late.
Who answers for those people? Do the ones who promoted the bad science? Not hardly. They are on to the next speaking engagement, often embracing real treatment for themselves while simultaneously selling their cure-all to their eager followers.
As I said, I am happy with your service and with the principles that it embraces. I only wish you would not continue to publicize men like Mr. Levy. It harms you and your reputation, and associates the name of Jesus with these dishonest men.
If you are a member, Perhaps you could send similar letters. Each time this nonsense is featured, they should know a significant portion of their membership is unhappy.
Dear Farmer,
ReplyDeleteGreat letter-I agree with you on this. I think what really needs to happen is that people who believe in medical science based on the Biblical dominion mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) are elected to the board instead of people who believe in quackery. When people come up for the board they need to be vetted on this and only ones that believe in science voted for.
"...and only ones that believe in science voted for."
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean only ones that "believe in science"? There are in the medical field as in other disciplines of science what is known as "science falsely so called". Many in the medical world are "drug pushers" who make money supporting drug companies. I believe that most of the cancer potions for leukemia are nothing more than sorceries! Others perform unnecessary surgeries and even others in the medical field support abortions!
There are quacks, liars and frauds on both sides of the fence.
Today, everything must be taken on a case by case basis and judged according to truth.
As a Research Engineer it is my job to always test "my theories" so that what they end up being are "practical realities" that work under the conditions, parameters and requirements that have been established. Some of my ideas have ended up as "dead ends" when scrutinized by proper testing.
So, I am for clinical research that at least establishes some parameters of truth, but because evolution is the principle that is taught in all the medical institutions of our day, MONEY is what drives both sides (holistic and medical).
George, it is certainly true that scientific medical doctors are sinners who can have selfish motives, etc. like all other men. The big difference between science and quackery is that double blind, placebo controlled trials don't change based on what the person conducting the test wants to have happen (if the tests are done correctly).
ReplyDeleteI trust you are aware that authors in medical journals must disclose any possible conflict of interest in their articles.
A medical doctor who prescribes drugs because of kickbacks from a company will lose his job and his medical license if he is found out. Quack alternative "medical" men regularly have all kinds of conflicts of interest.
You can believe that standard medicine for leukemia is nothing more than sorcery if you wish, but sorcery cannot pass placebo controlled trials, while medical science can, so your belief is false. I hope you never get leukemia and reject proper treatment, nor do you counsel someone to do so and have that person's blood on your hands when he dies.
While belief in evolution can hinder a medical research to some extent, it does not change the result of scientific trials. If in a sample of 1,000 people with controlled conditions 500 are given a drug for their leukemia and of that 500 475 are alive 10 years later, while in the placebo group of 500 only 14 are alive 10 years later, it doesn't matter if the drug was developed by someone who believed in creation or in evolution. Quack therapies do not conduct controlled trials of this kind because their treatments do not work.
Thanks.
The October 2015 letter keeps up the quackery and conspiracy theories. The front page article is by a quack named Bill Sardi, who argues that there was a conspiracy to make people have low cholesterol and low fat diets; supposedly these were concocted to make people more sick so that doctors can make more money! See:
ReplyDeletehttp://mdprevent.blogspot.com/2012/10/can-bill-sardi-be-trusted.html
about Mr. Sardi. Sardi, in his article for the October 2015 Samaritan issue, makes statements such as:
"Which begs the question [sic]: was the effort to reduce fat and cholesterol in the diet intake in the American diet a covert effort to reduce fertility and birth rates and control population growth?" (pg. 1)
"Did the entire medical profession line their own pockets by written policy to ensure there would be more than an ample amount of disease to treat" by encouraging people to consume a diet low in fat and high in fruit and vegetables (pg. 12)!
I am not going to bother refuting these statements. Anyone who thinks about them carefully will see huge, huge fallacies in them and how impossible they are. I like the idea of Christians helping each other with medical care. I hate having to support the sort of quack garbage too often in the Samaritan newsletter.
The latest issue of the Samaritan newsletter (December 2015) continues what is becoming a tradition of almost monthly spreading of quackery in the periodical. This latest issue promotes a man named Ray Strand who says, contrary to science, that people cannot get enough nutrition by eating a healthy diet and promotes other sorts of lies and misinformation. He even is promoting homeopathy now (http://www.groundedandsurrounded.com/dr-ray-strand-changed-my-life/) – and anyone who promotes homeopathy evidences either the most astonishing lack of understanding of science or a terrible and deliberate misrepresentation of facts.
ReplyDeleteIs there the slightest warning about this man claims that one should consume homeopathic products – overpriced water with not a single molecule of the substance that is supposed to be the cure (see http://faithsaves.net/unconventional-and-new-age-medicine/)? No. Am I surprised? Sadly, not at all.
By the way, the election for the Samaritan board of directors is coming up. I do not know the views on quackery of the four people running for the board, except for one, Chris King. He runs a business that promotes and sells quack stuff. He needs to get off the board, so people who believe in the biblical scientific method and oppose quackery should definitely oppose him and vote for some of the other people on there.
For anyone stumbling into this diatribe against alternative treatments or any methods for treating disease which fly in the face of "established" strictly allopathic medical fact based double blind placebo yadda yadda yadda just please realize that some people cannot resist propoganda and the safety of group think.
ReplyDeleteRah Rah! AMA! If it's not, it's not okay!!!
I'm not going to even bother illuminating the need for (much, much) more than 200mg of Vitamin C per day so please continue to enjoy existing on the verge of scurvy. Strange how most animals are able to make their own vitamin C but humans, Guinea Pigs, fruit bats and primate monkeys cannot. Also interesting to note, but certainly meaningless, is that the animals which do produce vitamin c do so in massive quantity compared to the nearly gospel, but fully useless, RDA of 200mg.
Yep, you can trust that the RDA are excellent recommendations based on the best science has to offer. After all, the government gave us the food pyramid 40 years ago which was created by the governments foremost nutritional experts. Oh wait...
One day the truth of BIG PHARMA'a influence peddling and out right ownership of key "elected" government officials or positions will be revealed. A continually evolving cadre of complicit bad actors who either sold their souls to BIG PHARMA etc...for 30 pieces of silver or have been threatened into submission by some form of extortion. Henchmen/cronies appointed to positions of power in the public and private sector which allow them to frame data or omit information in any way so long as it support a position that aligns with what they decide the truth should be. Talking points are disseminated from on high down amongst the paid off, well heeled or castrated media at large waging part of the biggest propaganda war to which this world has ever been subjected.
Take what is currently the biggest SCAM imaginable let alone in history: APG. (or whatever catchy name they've changed it to in order to keep perpetuating it the scheme) "This year was the hottest year on record" passes as gospel truth to the uniformed because they don't mention the actual amount that it was "hotter" which is foundational to the inconvenient FACT that in reality it was statistically insignificant and WELL within margin for error. AND...that is after torturing and manipulating the data.
Even more galling is that it doesn't matter that the solution they demand, and which by their own admission, does nothing to actually affect or correct the problem!! They say it's just important that we lead, set an example or whatever yadda yadda yadda, they spout at these global navel gazing get togethers. Well when you actually examine what they propose you find it takes money from A and distributes it amongst the cabal of UN criminals using various merchanisms (like Carbon Exchanges) to siphon percentages along the way and leaves billions of people to die without the energy needed to rise from starvation and poverty.
How about cancer? Don't forget to donate towards the cause cuz we've declared war on cancer. Yep, Cancer is big business and boy is business good!
Or take flu vaccinations etc... For example, why is it that information released about influenza deaths routinely never mention that the percentage of everyday generally healthy people is DWARFED by those who have compromised immunity, have multiple infections, are elderly and/or have been mal-nourished. Yes, just trot right out spewing government propaganda a, get vaccinated like a good mindless lemming and then force others to do the same.
You know what would be good? If BIG PHARMA could absolve themselves of nearly any responsibility for the damage directly attributable to the swill they are pumping into children at large in the US and worldwide.
Oh wait...they already did that with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act which prevents anyone from suing BIG PHARMA for injuries that are listed in the insert of the swill to be injected.
Even with the NCVIA I'm thinking BIG PHARMA must be just fuming because of the loopholes being used to hold them accoutable anyway. I don't understand why they just don't just buy a CA legislature election and have the shill introduce a bill to become law that mandates ALL children, regardless of the wishes of the parent(s), be subjected to litany of injections VERY rapidly (and I mean statistically all at once) AND ON THE SAME BILL also stipulate BIG PHARMA to be completely and utterly blameless no matter what happens to the child as a result of the injections.
ReplyDeleteOh wait...that's right, see RICHARD PAN 2015 (easy to spot, has no soul)
It "should" scare the hell out of you that they nearly got away with it and they may still. However, I think, hope and dearly pray that this will be shown to have been the tipping point in exposing BIG PHARMA for the intentionally harmful and murderous campign of infecting of generations around the world with pestilence for profit.
Call it a bridge to far. They got greedy to the point of hubris. Where California goes so does much of the nation for good or bad, (mostly bad these days). Imagine the dollar signs in BIG PHARMA's eye's thinking they could get a shill elected and introduce a bill for nearly automatic passage into law.
If the people posting here where actually interested in the truth they might jack out of the Matrix to find things rather contrary to the rainbows and unicorns they and the AMA try to present as reality.
Then again, with all the quack verbage maybe they are part of the Quackpots at Quackwatch, those wascally wabbits. LOL
Quackwatch (Stephen Barrett et al) has been a perpration of fraud and conspiracy against certain manufacturers and the public at large for WAY WAY to long. It turns out all of the attempts to discredit and harm those practicing alternative medicine was part pschological projection and part rabid racketeering attack dog as discovered so far during the Doctor's Data vs Stephen Barrett et al case.
Yep, alternative therapies....nothing but hype and lies.
--
a follower of Christ...
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for posting your comments. They are a great illustration of the conspiracy theory mindset that ignores evidence and substitutes pie-in-the-sky secret conspiracies to suppress evidence for rational argumentation. The more people think like you, the more of them will die young and leave behind widows and children. I don't know if it ever occurred to you that unconventional medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry that has financial motives (as do pharmaceutical companies also, of course), but real medicine is based on evidence. The difference is whether one listens to evidence, or whether one rejects evidence for conspiracies and thinks that putting words in all caps (combined with bad grammar) is an argument.
By the way, if you are a follower of Christ, why do you use "hell" as a curse word? "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh" (Luke 6:45). Maybe it is because hell is in your heart and you need true regeneration. Please read the study at:
http://faithsaves.net/salvation/
and come to repentance and faith in the Christ that can clean up your filthy mouth.
In Christian love,
TR
Good point, TDR, about the money. These conspiracy nuts talk about making money as if that is evil, but they of course neglect to consider that their favorite occult inspired homeopathic quack is selling water for $50 an ounce. What is sleazier that that?
ReplyDeleteThank you Farmer Brown. It seems that Samaritan Ministries does do a fine job at health sharing administration, and for this I am thankful. It is unfortunate that they seem to feel the need to endlessly push their own micro-beliefs, as if we don't already have our own churches and religious doctrines to follow. There seems to be a lack of understanding that our churches have some slightly different beliefs. Not a one is the same in all aspects. We all like to think our doctrines are the most accurate, but we can strive to do our best. As a Baptist I don't feel the need to cram my thinking down my Lutheran neighbor's throat. It seems though that Samaritan editors see members as their spiritual disciples that they must teach. They should be proud of the service they provide and let the churches handle the spiritual part.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I agree with Farmer Brown also, but I would not put the differences between Lutherans and Baptists in the category of nonessential or minor differences, since Lutheranism teaches the false gospel of baptismal regeneration. See, e. g.,:
http://faithsaves.net/bible-truths-lutheran-friends/
Thanks for the comment.
KJB1611,
ReplyDeleteI will only say this: that after reading your blog and seeing your responses in the comment section, I would have good reason to doubt your own integrity. You show very little grace or love, and instead treat yourself as the pinnacle of an intellectual hierarchy. It would be better if you would keep an open mind, instead of mindlessly (albeit with some intelligence) railing against SMI and their articles. Its true that very few (if any) homeopathic treatments have been subjected to double-blinded, placebo studies, but I'd ask you: is that the pinnacle of science? Is that the absolute best we have to offer? Will we cast away doctor's experiences (men who were experts in their fields for 40+ years) and the amazing stories of people who have been cured using homeopathy?
If so, yes, you are very closed-minded, and I'm sorry for your situation such as it is. I want you to know I'm sincerely praying for you, and I hope God brings some miracle into your life that opens your mind to His wonders just a little bit more :)
Dear DJ Lion,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment.
Actually, it is very loving to warn people about risking their lives with quackery like homeopathy. It is not graceless or loveless at all. My articles could save the life of someone--or many people--with cancer who would have died at the hands of homeopaths.
I assume that you believe warning people is appropriate, since you warn that I am "mindlessly . . . railing," "very closed-minded," etc.
Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the remedy within them. They are 100% water--H20. It is great to drink water, but homeopaths should label their remedies "bottles of water" since that is exactly what they are.
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
Please also read:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagehealth.html
if you have not already done so.
If homeopathic remedies are simply water--which they are--it is rebellious and a violation of the principle behind the Sixth Commandment to reject medicine and use them instead when we are sick.
Homeopaths have raked in millions and millions of dollars from people. They could easily have tested their products with double blind placebo controls. They don't, because they don't work any better than any other bottle of water in curing disease.
Thanks.
Dear KJB1611,
ReplyDeleteI apologize, I thought I was dealing with someone of intelligence. I see that you are radical and unwavering in your thoughts. Honestly, that's something I can admire :) But the area towards which you direct that single-mindedness is an area we shall always disagree on.
I'll look forward to seeing you in person in Heaven, as I have no doubt that despite our different views on medicine we shall see each other there.
You mention how homeopathic medicine violates the Sixth Commandment. Tell me, in the past 25 years how many people have vitamins killed?
ReplyDeleteAnd also, in the past 25 years, how many physician-assisted suicides have there been? It seems like there's plenty of blood on the hands of those you call science-based medical practitioners.
Dear DJ Lion,
ReplyDeleteI get that you know how to insult me, saying "I thought I was dealing with someone of intelligence."
Perhaps, now that you are done with that, you could answer what I asked you earlier:
Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the remedy within them. They are 100% water--H20. It is great to drink water, but homeopaths should label their remedies "bottles of water" since that is exactly what they are.
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
Even though you didn't answer my question but chose to insult me instead, I will answer yours.
1.) We don't know how many people have overdosed on vitamins, but some have died earlier than they would have otherwise: http://sciencenordic.com/confirmed-vitamin-pills-can-cause-death
2.) I don't know how many physician assisted suicides there have been. I, and Christian advocates of scientific medicine, are against doctors killing people. This is a total straw man.
3.) I also don't know how many people are dead because they took homeopathic "remedies" instead of seeking treatment--but the number is probably a lot larger than the number of physician assisted suicides in the USA.
Now that I have answered your questions, please answer mine. Another insult is not an answer.
Thanks.
Dear KJB1611:
ReplyDeleteTo your first point, read this: http://www.nogracias.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/deben-las-revistas-dejar-de-publicar-articulos-de-la-industria-bmj.pdf
To your second, honestly its a moot point, and I'm glad you disagree with their choices on that one.
To the third... pure speculation. I'd judge the other way round. My point on that one is that people have free will, and I've read letters from and shared the needs of Samaritan members who went homeopathic routes and beat cancer, heart disease, diabetes. Conventional medicine has no tried and true cure for these major diseases! I'm certain you'll fire back with some numbers disputing this, so go right ahead, I'm not too worried about it honestly.
Anyhoo, I've enjoyed our conversations but I don't have any more time to deal with your ideas. I'm tired of dealing with people like you.
One last question: if you are such a proponent of science-based medicine, is it not hypocrisy to then totally ignore a valid field of medicine? Our bodies are natural organisms, and logically it makes sense to make good use of beneficial organic substances that occur naturally in order to fight disease.
Dear DJLion,
ReplyDeleteI have asked you what I wrote below, in the comments on part 3 of Dangers in Samaritan Ministries and in part 1, about 5 times now, and you still have not answered it. Here it is again:
Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the remedy within them. They are 100% water--H20. It is great to drink water, but homeopaths should label their remedies "bottles of water" since that is exactly what they are.
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
or, if you have time to insult me but not to actually explain how occult water--homeopathy--can cure anything, at least answer the question below "true" or "false," as I have already asked more than once:
A 30x homeopathic remedy has nothing in it but water--not a single molecule of anything else.
A.) True
B.) False
You refused to answer, but instead you asked me:
To answer your question, I have another question:
Do you understand biochemistry in any way, shape, or form?
:
My answer: I trust that passing college biology, chemistry, physics, upper-level physics, calculus, vector calculus, etc. enables me to know enough about biology and chemistry to understand the answer to your question. Don't worry, although you stated that I am not "someone of intelligence," a goober like me should be able to understand enough biochemistry to hear this amazing explanation for why water in a homeopathic bottle can cure diseases but water from the tap cannot. Go ahead. Here it is again:
Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the remedy within them. They are 100% water--H20. It is great to drink water, but homeopaths should label their remedies "bottles of water" since that is exactly what they are.
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
You would have to drink more water than is in the Pacific Ocean to get even one molecule of something other than water in a homeopathic "treatment."
Be warned, DJ Lion. Homeopathy is New Age quackery that dishonors God. If you use it when you need real medicine you will not get better because of it, any more than you would if you just drank water from the tap. If you recommend homeopathy to someone and that person dies, his blood will be on your hands. Insulting my intelligence won't help you when you are weeping over the grave of a loved one that had an easily curable disease. God will also hold you accountable in part for the many deaths that take place through substituting homeopathy for medicine because you fund the occult water business by buying homeopathic nostrums.
Dear KJB1611,
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, there's already plenty of blood on my hands. Thankfully, its been washed away, as of January 16, 2008 when I accepted Christ and the message of the Gospel that is Hope.
There are about 36 vitamins and minerals in existence. The point you bring about water and its treatment value is an inarguable one, but also an invalid one. Remember, nearly everything in nutrition is a double-edged sword: enough water is life saving, too much is life threatening.
I wasn't aware that 500mg of niacin, taken 6x daily along with several antioxidants was "water", especially when Abram Hoffer M.D., Ph.D., used this regiment to help cure many schizophrenics.
I wasn't aware that vitamin C, taken in doses exceeding 80g a day, helping to cure 86 of 86 people of polio at the hands of Dr. Frederick R Klenner.
I wasn't aware that 1mg of methylcobalamin, given as an injection to my grandmother who was developing signs of Alzheimer's and has since become much more mentally clear, was water.
As for your education... What level of biology and chemistry? Physics has importance yes, but calculus is a little of the bulls-eye for this particular subject (its kind of specialized :/ )
Currently, I have my Master's in Biochemistry, and I can say this: if your education is as good as you say it is, you would have better reason to investigate the system you so erroneously defend. Putting any authority other than God's as absolute is going to be a costly mistake, because it shows you have put your faith in man rather than in God.
One last question: how do you know homeopathic remedies are "diluted"? And what gives you the authority to say so credibly? I haven't seen anything in your blogs to convince me that either can be answered in a satisfactory manner.
Dear DJ Lion,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry, but you do not seem to even understand what homeopathy is. The things you mention are quack treatments--the reason we don't have polio today is because of God's good provision of vaccines through scientific medicine, not because of people taking vitamin C--but they aren't homeopathy. It is amazing that you are defending homeopathy yet do not appear to understand that it is nothing but water with not even a single molecule of anything else in it. Proof? For example:
Homeopathic remedies are so highly diluted that they are nothing more than water. The dilutions are done according to the “Centesimal scale” of 1:100. 1C (or CH1) refers to one part of an original tincture of some substance mixed in 100 parts of water. One part of that super diluted mixture becomes the next “tincture.” At 3C “the mother tincture will be diluted to one in a million” and at 6C “the dilution will be one in a billion” (Homeopathy: Heart and Soul, p. 23). Homeopathic doctor Keith Souter admits that a 12C solution is “unlikely to have even a single molecule of the original compound left.” Yet he recommends 30C or 200C potencies (p. 26)!
Dr. H.J. Bopp of Switzerland, who has studied homeopathy carefully, says: “Any patient receiving a homeopathic treatment at CH30 should be under no illusions as to its composition. There is no longer any of the named material substance in his pill or liquid whatsoever.”
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagehealth.html
That there is not even a single molecule of anything other than water in homeopathic remedies is not in dispute. It is sad that you are willing to trust your life to homeopathy and attack those who advocate Christian scientific medicine and therefore warn against homeopathic occult water, but you are not even aware of what homeopathy is, or if you are, for some reason you want me to prove what is not in dispute. If you really have a Master's in biochemistry, and it isn't from Diploma Mill University or Homeopathic Quack University, then ask your professors if there is anything other than water in homeopathic "remedies."
OK, here is the question about the 7th time. If you won't answer everything, how about at least the "true" or "false":
Homeopathic "remedies" are diluted to such an extent that there is not a single molecule of the remedy within them. They are 100% water--H20. It is great to drink water, but homeopaths should label their remedies "bottles of water" since that is exactly what they are.
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
or, if you have time to insult me but not to actually explain how occult water--homeopathy--can cure anything, at least answer the question below "true" or "false," as I have already asked more than once:
A 30x homeopathic remedy has nothing in it but water--not a single molecule of anything else.
A.) True
B.) False
You would have to drink more water than is in the Pacific Ocean to get even one molecule of something other than water in a homeopathic "treatment."
Please explain how a "treatment" that is nothing but water can treat any disease better than the water from my tap.
I'm not going to answer all your rabbit trails until you actually answer this. Asking 7 times or so should be enough to get a "true" or "false" out of you, and you have plenty of time to write rabbit trails, so a decent answer beyond the "true" or "false" is overdue.
I am expecting either:
A.) True
or
B.) False
with an explanation at the start of anything you comment further, or your comment may not get published or it may get deleted.
Thanks.
While growing up being held down to be vaccinated forcibly, I was never sicker in my entire life. Horrible ear infections, caught full blown measless just days after receiving the MMR vaccine, parents "concerned" that my speech development had regressed by years, developed uncontrollable nervous 'tics' that got me made fun of all through school until they began to subside in junior high grade level...
ReplyDeleteAfter I became a teenager, I got smart and started suspecting the vaccines for my childhood woes. I began obtaining and reading vaccine inserts to learn what kinds of risks and reactions they had. Low and behold, neurological damage causing tics was just one. Coming down with the illness was another under the "rare" subsection. Guess I was one of those whose body lost in the game of roulette.
I have personally refused all vaccines and boosters since then, and have taken tons of herbs and detoxification methods to undo (at least the best I can) what they did to me through vaccination. The result...
No more bronchitis or ear infections. I used to catch flu every year without fail. Now that I stopped accepting vaccines and boosters, I haven't had the flu since. I used to catch real bad 'colds' twice a year. Since I stopped getting vaccines, I haven't had one in 18 years.
Three years ago, they found I had stage two kidney disease via urinalysis at a D.O.T. Physical, and blood pressure so high that I nearly failed the exam.
I did a water-only fast for 21 days and switched to a Genesis Diet (only raw fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and no meats at all). After just one year of the new diet post-fast, I took myself back to a doctor for a full physical more invasive than the requires D.O.T. physical was. I asked to have a full blood panel done, paid our of my own pocket for an electrocardiogram, everything. The results...
No more kidney disease was detectable. Blood pressure was 110/70. Threw away my glasses as my vision healed back to 20/20 vision. Went from 246 pounds to 187 pounds. Heart rhythm was as good as a teenager's. Blood panel showed perfect on everything including sugars and cholesterol.
Before treating myself with "quackery", they wanted to stick a needle deep into my body to take a kidney biopsy, which carries nasty risks. Before that, a sonogram on the kidneys. Blood pressure medication was recommended. Along with its associated toxicity to the body. I refused it all, refused to take the risks, and went with quackery instead.
Result: "Quackery" has not only likely saved my life, but it has improved my QUALITY of life as well.
Someone I knew well who had kidney issues went the medical route. Nothing they did for him stopped the progression of his kidney disease, only slowed it down a bit. He ended up on dialysis over six years, and is now pushing up daisies in the local cemetary. He didn't believe in any of that "quackery stuff" either.
I did.
I live to talk about it.
He lives NOT, and therefore cannot brag about how great allopathic medicine was in saving his life.
Cheers to "quackery".
Dear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteIt's great that you're alive. That is a wonderful thing.
If you are sure that quackery saved your life, why not get together with some other believers in what you have done--such as those who sell you the herbs, the non-allopathic (thus, homeopathic?) nostrums, etc., and do some double-blind, placebo-controlled tests the way that scientific medicine does? Those promoting what you are arguing for make millions and millions and millions, so there is plenty of cash available to do it. Then you would not have to rely upon testimonials, which prove absolutely nothing.
Here's a testimonial of mine. One time I was very sick. I didn't take any vitamins, any herbs, any nostrums, etc., worked very hard for many hours, and got practically no sleep. The next day, I was totally better. Does this prove that the way to get over being very sick is to get as little sleep as possible and avoid vitamins, herbs, etc.? No. While I am glad you are better, your testimonial proves as little as mine. If what you do works, why not do real tests among those who are the True Believers?
Thanks.
I don't need to do scientific tests. There are dietary laws written in scriptures, which I have followed for my own benefit.
DeleteFor some, man's science is their chosen god. They put that God over the Most High Creator due to their lack of faith.
For me, I have faith in the instructions for eating and living as found in scriptures. I know what it did for me. And for me, that relationship with my Creator and following HIS way to healthy living trumps man's "science" when it comes to medications, genetic engineering, and harmful invasive procedures.
You sound like you are looking to challenge someone. I am not that person because I am not a skeptic like you. I believe in what scriptures say and my Creator will take it from there.
If I die living according to scripture - only treatment of my body, then it simply means that is the day my Creator picked for me to die. And I will not fight Him on this.
I am so ready to get out of man's humanistic scientific 'god complex'. I know who the REAL God is, who deserves my allegiance and worship.
And it sure isn't 'medical science'. I actually avoid doctors as much as possible, only going for lab work to know what is happening in my body. If they find something, I research foods and natural methods and treat myself. Working gently with my body rather than chemically against it. In this way, I treat my body systemically to heal the root of the problem, rather than merely treat the symptoms only.
For me, thus far, it has worked every time. From having removed warts using dandelion stem 'milk' to lowering inflammation system - wide with Curcumin and turmeric, to healing infections by ingesting cold-pressed coconut oil.
EVERY TIME.
Regards
I don't need to do scientific tests. There are dietary laws written in scriptures, which I have followed for my own benefit.
ReplyDeleteFor some, man's science is their chosen god. They put that God over the Most High Creator due to their lack of faith.
For me, I have faith in the instructions for eating and living as found in scriptures. I know what it did for me. And for me, that relationship with my Creator and following HIS way to healthy living trumps man's "science" when it comes to medications, genetic engineering, and harmful invasive procedures.
You sound like you are looking to challenge someone. I am not that person because I am not a skeptic like you. I believe in what scriptures say and my Creator will take it from there.
If I die living according to scripture - only treatment of my body, then it simply means that is the day my Creator picked for me to die. And I will not fight Him on this.
I am so ready to get out of man's humanistic scientific 'god complex'. I know who the REAL God is, who deserves my allegiance and worship.
And it sure isn't 'medical science'. I actually avoid doctors as much as possible, only going for lab work to know what is happening in my body. If they find something, I research foods and natural methods and treat myself. Working gently with my body rather than chemically against it. In this way, I treat my body systemically to heal the root of the problem, rather than merely treat the symptoms only.
For me, thus far, it has worked every time. From having removed warts using dandelion stem 'milk' to lowering inflammation system - wide with Curcumin and turmeric, to healing infections by ingesting cold-pressed coconut oil.
EVERY TIME.
Regards
Dear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteBy rejecting science you are actually disobeying Scripture, because the dominion mandate in Genesis 1 actually requires that man subdue the earth and have dominion over it by learning how the laws God designed work--that is, by doing science. The real God is the Author of science. Good and necessary consequences of the teaching of His Word require doing scientific tests.
Also, by going with your testimonials--which prove nothing--rather than obeying Genesis 1 and doing science, you are going to lead many people to an early death--and that is something that can be proven by verifiable facts, not just testimonials.
Please also read the study of James 5:14-20 here:
http://faithsaves.net/medicine/
which proves that the passage teaches that one is to pray and get the best medicine available when one is sick, so failing to do is actually disobedience, as it is also disobedience to the Sixth Commandment.
Finally, thank you for being honest enough to admit that you are rejecting science and embracing quackery. If more people who reject science and embrace quackerly were as honest as you are, fewer people would die early. Please encourage everyone else you know who believes like you to be just as honest and openly and boldy declare that they reject science and "don't need to do scientific tests."
Thanks.
KJB1611 You, like others, have conjured up your own idea of what scriptures meant "to subdue it". It had nothing to do with poisoning the earth and it's creatures, or to tamper genetically with transgenic biotechnology (taking genes from unrelated species and forcing them into the genome of another). That is an abomination, just as guilty of death as homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was using "quackery" sarcastically in my post. My way of mocking you and your idolatry (putting the science god above the Creator God) and your bring a supporter of sorcery (chemical drugging that alters)... both grave transgressions of the Most High.
Not only do I reject medical science and biotech as much as I possibly can, I personally boycott it along with 32 of my fellow friends and family. We go out of our way to keep our funds from going to support those abominstions.... a blight upon the world and humanity.
You have no idea how satisfying it is to see others who have joined me in withholding our funds from your wicked god of science and sorceries.
You heathen humanists twist scriptures and manipulate them to other listeners. Such will not go severely unpunished.
Bro. Ross - when a commentator calls you a "heathen humanist" who deserves to die, you can be sure that the conversation has run off the rails . . . !
ReplyDeleteDear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteYou responded very quickly to my comment. Did you read the exegesis of James 5:14-20 at http://faithsaves.net/medicine first, or did you ignore it?
Here is the verse that says sodomy is an abomination:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22).
Where is that verse that says that agricultural biotechnology is an abomination? I must have missed it. Can you quote the verse that connects "abomination" with GMO's?
Let's see. GMO crops can be designed to resist bugs better, so that, for instnace, one study has concluded that their use has reduced pesticide use by 37%. Less pesticides--an abomination?
The Golden Rice Project seeks to bring vitamin-A enriched rice to market to help prevent nearly 500,000 cases of childhood blindness and 2 million deaths caused by vitamin-A deficiency in third world countries each year. An abomination?
If you actually have a verse that shows that these 2 million deaths are better than genetically modified rice that has vitamin A, let's see it. If not, let's have the millions of children alive and able to see instead of dead or blind.
You have argued that medical medical science is idolatry, abomination, and sorcery. Can you give the instances of the NT or OT words for sorcery, idolatry, and abomination where the use of medical science is condemned? Since Christ specifically says to go to the physician when sick (Luke 5:31-32), the author of the largest section of the NT, Luke, was a physician, etc. you had better have done this exegetical work to prove your position. Those that are idolaters, sorcerers, and committers of abominations go to hell (Rev 21:8). So, for example, those that modified the rice so that it has vitamin A, so that millions of children are not blind and dead, are going to hell because they did this? Where is the verse?
By the way, the same processes of science that gave us biotechnology also gave us the Internet. If it is evil, why are you using the Internet?
Dear Bro Robbins,
ReplyDeleteNo, you are WRONG--and you DESERVE TO DIE TOO FOR SAYING THAT PEOPLE SHOULD GET MEDICINE WHEN THEY ARE SICK. (My all caps helps PROVE I AM RIGHT, YOU KNOW.)
Anyway,I am only writing these posts because I am on the dole of Big Pharma (just look at my 22 year old car--you can tell), and it isn't Ted Cruz who has Jimmy Hoffa in his backyard--I have him in mine, and I was the one who set Lee Harvey Oswald on, too.
Actually, people like Paul do a great job illustrating that the dangers warned of in the post are spot on.
Furthermore, while Paul's anti-medicine, anti-science stance is very dangerous and must be strongly opposed, he also deserves pity. It is very likely that he will find himself grieving over a dead spouse, child, or other loved one when that person could have lived.
Tyler Robbins: The scriptural dominion mandate to subdue the earth was not permission to poison others and the planet, nor to genetically tamper with living beings. Since reproduction is merely the duplication of genes confined to a specific species, any forceful introduction of genes from outside the species is the same as mating two different species. Pigs with humans. Goats with spiders. Etc.
ReplyDeleteModern "science" is an abomination against creation since it tamper in this way with genes of living beings by forcibly violating genetic barriers our Creator put in place to prevent this very thing.
Everywhere scriptures mention abominations, such as sexual abominations, which biotech actually is ... requires a death sentence and that their own blood be upon them.
In no way did I mean to imply I am one to carry out punishments. Scriptures mean that government is supposed to carry out such death sentences. Too bad they don't anymore. I would like to see a return to it though.
Because chemicals have been proven to be one cause of cancers in humans. Genetic alterations are likely to eventually be the cause of new diseases that cannot be explained.
The new upcoming DNA vaccines are being designed to genetically alter human cells in the body, turning them into antigen factories. Of course, they already admit one of the risks will be accidental gene insertion in wrong locations, that they have no control over how DNA behaves in every in vitro case. The outcome WILL be autoimmune disorders where such cells become a perceived enemy to the immune system, where the body will turn against ALL associated cells. Which is what autoimmune disease IS.
And scriptures do indeed mention those participating in abominable practices will receive the just reward WITHIN THEMSELVES as the penalty for their recompense.
Sadly, other human beings who don't want to participate are always having it shoved down their throats (or injected into their bodies) by force of law that protects the perpetrators.
I don't know what others plan to do if a day comes where these things start becoming PHYSICALLY forced on others against their will. I only know what I am prepared to do in defending my Constitutional right to individual sovereignty in being secure in my body and personal effects. It will require a violent physical altercation in which I will engage such enemies threatening my immediate physical person and abode, and they will be entering eternity with me.
I shall not accept any vaccinations. I shall not accept chemical drugs. I shall not be 'hospitalized' because of my religious understanding of scriptures and my constitutional guarantees to being secure in my person.
I reject parts of modern medicine that are abominations against the Most High and His creation.
Though I also know scriptures state not to murder, and that I am not allowed to go our killing or injuring people, I do know scriptures provide for an individual to defend himself against physical assault with violence if needed. Forced medicine (vaccines, chemo treatments, etc) is an assault against the mind, body, spirit and dignity of another human being. And this is WRONG.
Governments may have gotten away from capital punishment over abominable practices. As a matter of fact, they now participate in them and force them on people in exchange for lobby money to fill their coffers. Abominable sciences aren't acceptable to people, so science cannot even stand on its own merit. It is so lousy and abominable, scientists and corporations have to pay off politicians to force it on people.
That is how weak and lame today's "science" is. So good that it has to be forced on people... sometimes even at gunpoint... because in reality it's abominable practices are against nature and nature's God. And the majority of people understand this innately, and are opposed to it naturally with very little thought.
Our Creator put medicine into His plants for us to consume, just as He made them.
You get it? The people who made the rice contain vitamin A so millions of people in the 3rd world don't die or go blind should be killed by the government, says Kurt.
ReplyDeleteWhat better to illustrate the danger of quackery?
I don't cherry pick verses out of scriptures to fabricate things they do not say. I have studied the entire book, including Hebrew (I am of Hebrew Roots belief) and have in my mind a picture in totality of what we are told.
ReplyDeleteSimple things such as not boiling a kid in its mothers milk has everything to do with un healthy protein conjugation that is harmful to the human body if ingested.
Fact... Genesis states all things were made after their own kind. That's genetically. And God declared it GOOD.
Fact.. science agrees that each species has cellular barriers that protect from foreign genes. And that it took many millions of dollars and multiple lifetimes of research to figure out how to violate the Creator's designed barriers. To violate His defined barriers willfully is an abominable practice that makes humanity deserving of near extinction for such arrogance and pride.
Scriptures contain Tom's of instructions about what to breed and what not to breed to preserve genetic integrity.
One doesn't have to attend bible cemetary to understand such simple directives.
Dear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteYou are correct--you have cited no chapter and verse at all, so you are not cherry-picking.
Saying that not boiling a kid in its mother's milk proves that people who make rice more nutritious so that millions of poor people do not die or go blind should be killed by the government does not even rise to the level of cherry picking.
I love Hebrew, and have read the entire Pentateuch in Hebrew, as well as the Former Prophets, etc.; I am in Isaiah right now. I still have not come to the verse that says that people in biotech should be killed by the government for trying to reduce the need for pesticides and for trying to improve the nutritional value of things such as rice to help the poor.
So here are the questions again:
You responded very quickly to my comment. Did you read the exegesis of James 5:14-20 at http://faithsaves.net/medicine first, or did you ignore it?
Here is the verse that says sodomy is an abomination:
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." (Lev 18:22).
Where is that verse that says that agricultural biotechnology is an abomination? I must have missed it. Can you quote the verse that connects "abomination" with GMO's?
Let's see. GMO crops can be designed to resist bugs better, so that, for instance, one study has concluded that their use has reduced pesticide use by 37%. Less pesticides--an abomination?
The Golden Rice Project seeks to bring vitamin-A enriched rice to market to help prevent nearly 500,000 cases of childhood blindness and 2 million deaths caused by vitamin-A deficiency in third world countries each year. An abomination?
If you actually have a verse that shows that these 2 million deaths are better than genetically modified rice that has vitamin A, let's see it. If not, let's have the millions of children alive and able to see instead of dead or blind.
You have argued that medical medical science is idolatry, abomination, and sorcery. Can you give the instances of the NT or OT words for sorcery, idolatry, and abomination where the use of medical science is condemned? Since Christ specifically says to go to the physician when sick (Luke 5:31-32), the author of the largest section of the NT, Luke, was a physician, etc. you had better have done this exegetical work to prove your position. Those that are idolaters, sorcerers, and committers of abominations go to hell (Rev 21:8). So, for example, those that modified the rice so that it has vitamin A, so that millions of children are not blind and dead, are going to hell because they did this? Where is the verse?
By the way, if you are one of the Hebrew Roots people (I am not saying all of them are here) that reject the Trinity and/or justification by repentant faith alone apart from works such as baptism, please read the appropriate material at:
http://faithsaves.net/different-religions/
and believe in the True God and the true gospel, and so receive true salvation.
Oh do scriptures certainly tell the truth, that the simplicity of the law and commandments would truly confound the learned and the wise. Those with "formal education" in science and "theology" think themselves to be wise, when in reality they are filled with arrogance and pride, making them dumber than a box of rocks.
ReplyDeleteSadly, they lead the test of humanity... indeed all of creation... to eventual ruin.
Your "golden rice" argument is without merit. It is no excuse to genetically alter rice, which then becomes man's erroneous design rather than the Creator's wise design. Science may have saved off blindness, but it cannot promise their gene manipulations won't cause other problems in the bodies of those who ingest it, still leading to a miserable death via disease or internal biochemical injury anyway.
I am making this my last post. As scriptures say, the proud and arrogant "God wannabe preppies" will never listen to reason. And for that reason, how mighty they do fall.
Science-sympathetic Christians have turned Satanists. For the great sin of Satan was to say in his heart that he would rise above the stars of the heavens and ... etc... and be "like the Most High." Those who agree and argue on behalf of the biotech agriculture and medical abomination are infected with the same pride and arrogance. They say in their heart, "He isn't so wise. His creation is insufficient. We are far wiser than He. We can do better than the failures He has made. And we will make all of humanity partake of our iniquity, and we will be called Kings and Wise Ones by the nation's for our craftiness and our handiwork."
What the author of the three-part article has done is earned Samaritan Ministries a new ardent supporter. They care about working with the body rather than against it.
The comments have reinforced to my why o will go out of my way in keeping my dollars out of the hands of those committing abominations against humanity and nature. And I will educate many others so they will follow my lead.
Dear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteIf formal study of theology makes one full of arrogance, pride, and ignorance, than you had better renounce the Apostle Paul. If formal study of science does the same, you had better renounce Luke the Physician, author of Luke and Acts.
It is consistent with your argument that you would say that several million people should die in order to avoid the terrible evil of having vitamin A in rice. Indeed, you think those who put the vitamin A in the rice in order to save millions of lives should be killed by the government. This shows very confused priorities--and enriching the rice, not the death of millions, is, to you, the abomination.
You accuse me of pride, Satanism, sorcery, etc., yet you never show how any of what you say is actually taught in Scripture. It is much easier to attack me personally than defend what you have stated from Scripture--for, indeed, that is impossible.
Indeed, your refusal to deal with the Scripture I brought forth, and refusal to produce the Scriptures for your baseless assertions, is itself evidence of tremendous pride--a pride that may lead you and those you care for to an early death.
Furthermore, if you are one of the people in your movement that rejects the Trinity and the true gospel of justification by faith alone (e. g., 1 John 5:7; Romans 3:28), then you will not just face an early death, but an eternal hell.
Kurt, I call on you, in Christian love, to repent.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read every word of this give and take between Thomas and Kurt. I believe that Thomas's warning is worth considering. However, I've got one addition that mainly concerns the Christian worldview. There has, I believe, developed an understanding of Christianity that pits spirituality with science as if they are two ends of a spectrum. This is not true. There is one view of the world, one truth, total truth. True science doesn't contradict the Bible. My reading of Kurt is that science is opposition to the Bible. False science is in opposition to the Bible. The Bible is science and not in contradiction to it. I wonder if Kurt uses electric lights, because that isn't in the Bible. I wonder if he drives a car, because that isn't in the Bible. He's typing on a computer and that isn't in the Bible. Since it isn't in the Bible, does that make it Satan and evil and harmful? No. There is a basis for judging, using the Bible, that is right in tune with true science. They are not in contradiction to one another.
I think it's pertinent that (pardon my relative ignorance of Biblical languages here) that the Greek translated "science" in 1 Timothy 6:20 is GNOSIS. Would this word be so translated today? We should remember that the current meaning of science was not in use prior to the eighteenth century. Before that - in other words in 1611 - science usually meant "knowledge acquired by study". This is in line with what I take to be our understanding of GNOSIS. It seems to me that "Science in today's Natural Philosophy sense - the systematic arrangement of information concerning God's creation" was decidedly not considered a proper translation of GNOSIS in 1 Tim 6:20. Does either Kurt's or Thomas' argument assume it was? Many things I'm reading in this thread are troubling for one who seeks edifying discourse and I sense that I'm not alone.
ReplyDeleteStephen Hollowood
Hi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I appreciate it. It is gnosis. My point is that truth is not bifurcated into science and then values. There is one truth and it is all God's. I believe it is wrong to bifurcate science, say, the truth about physical things, from the moral teachings. The law of gravity and the law against stealing are from God, both true. That was my point. This is premodern view of the world.
I don't mind if you give a specific example of the lack of edification. I'm not sure that Kurt is a believer. He came on here, and I think was providing an example of what Thomas writes about. There are many out there, but I think Thomas would appreciate if you would point out how he has sinned, if you think he has in what he is written. I mean that sincerely.
Sorry but I cannot stay silent when someone feels I am an unbeliever.
ReplyDeleteI was raised in an enangeliCal family. When I hot out on my own, I began attending a pentecostal church as I wanted to be free to praise my Creator without feeling chained to a pew.
In my late twenties, I felt church wasn't telling the whole story truthfully. I felt something was missing. I left the church with a rebellious attitude and delved into mysticism and occult sciences (yes, I said sciences) in a quest to find that which I felt deep within to be missing from mainstream Christianity.
Sadly, I found more than I bargained for. I came across beings who stated that they were going to seize all creation in the physical and spiritual realms. I learned they were going to give man technology to undo and remake creation into something "wonderful" ... a utopia the "sinister god of the bible" stole away from humanity just because man wanted to be knowledgeable like He is... to be like gods. The entities readily state that the God of the Bible is actually Satan... the adversary against man bring free. That Satan in the bible is actually the true merciful god who seeks to set man free from the mean-spirited god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
That is when I was shown how all living things would be genetically altered and remade as a way of mockery against Him, to show His created beings can be more crafty than He was. I was also shown that part of the mark of the beast is actually a vaccine for longevity that is administered through some kind of tattoo technology upon the skin. The vaccine modifies the human being into something other than a being in the image of the Creator. The promise will be that man may accomplish eternal life through it.
I experienced several frightening things than caused me to leave occultism and returned to church and scriptures. (Part II follows)
Part II
ReplyDeleteAs I was studying scriptures not long after that, I came across a peculiar verse that mentioned those who received the mark of the beast received grievous sores on their bodies. I remembered what I was shown in my occult days about a vaccine given through some kind of a tattoo-like technology that modifies skin DNA to affect the entire body. I know any kind of injury such as tattoos tend to fester, fill with pus, and scab over while healing. Which could account for the "grievous sore" that appears on the bodies of those who receive this "mark" upon their flesh.
My faith in the God of Abraham. Isaac and Jacob grew tremendously, as I had communicated with the agents of the enemy and was found still wanting.
I developed a deep love for Yeshua (Jesus) and wanted to be baptism via immersion. I was baptism in a pentecostal church and felt such a wonderful renewal and forgiveness.
Since I learned about the holidays of pagans in my occult journey, I became troubled with Christmas, Easter, etc. Interestingly, I had for the first time noticed that Catholicism introduced pagan customs which carried over into the protestant church world.
I eventually came into a tint movement called "Hebrew Roots" who are adamant that the church teaching of grace-onlyism is a false teaching. That grace is a gift, but only extended to those who truly love Creator and Messiah to the point they want to keep the Law and reenact the appointed times and feasts as an act of demonstrating love and awe to The Most High and His son Yeshua. There is still an understanding that the law cannot earn a way into the Kingdom, so there is still a need for grace and mercy. However, grace is not a license to engage in living licentiously.
Back in the early 1990s, transgenic biotechnology was unheard of, so I figured the beings I corresponded with were just proud arrogant liars about remaking all living things to steal them away from the creator. I couldn't see it actually ever happening.
But now I am watching it happen in a very big way. They have indeed turned Christianity toward having faith in the biological technologies the enemy has given to man via ideas from the spiritual realm. They have succeeded in convincing the idea came from the Creator and that it is a gift to humanity. They have succeeded in manipulating governments to authorize releasing it into the wild and into agriculture.
The most shocking thing I am watching now is the new "DNA Vaccine technology" being fast-tracked for use in human beings. Vaccines designed to modify the genetic code of human beings. Precisely as I learned from the beings in the early 1990s who promised they would remake all of creation and bring about a government utopia that would restore peace and eternal life to humanity. That the curse of death from a "vengeful God" would be cured.
Another scripture mentions that, during the wrath, men would seek death, but would not be able to die. Sounds like the DNA modification will be extremely successful.
Thsnkfully, no being will be able to withstand the all-consuming fire that will be used to burn up all the "remade" creatures and "newly eternal fleshly man". The Creator will burn it all up with unquenchable fire and make a new heaven and earth to replace the ones corrupted by man and his sinful arrogant ways. Those who received the mark will never again live, having been sent into everlasting punishment.
This is what every post I have made on here hinges upon.
You better believe I am a believer. I love my Creator, His creation, and the Messiah. And I am very zealous in speaking against the damnable "remaking of all loving things" because I know who is really behind it.
Shalom
P.S. My apologies for the glaring typos. Didn't do so hot typing all that with a "spell-guessing" phone.
ReplyDeleteDear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteThe Bible states:
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
in relation to justification, grace and works are opposites. Grace is not something received by people who keep the law well enough. Grace is utterly and totally unmerited. Grace will also lead a person to live a holy life, but justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ--the true Christ who is the second Person of the Godhead, equal in nature to the Father and the Holy Spirit (Romans 3:28).
Also, if you think you were made clean when you were baptized, please read:
http://faithsaves.net/baptismal-regeneration/
as this is a false gospel, and if you believe it, you are not clean, but lost (as, for that matter, are many evangelicals and Pentecostals).
Finally, it is extremely unwise to use what demons taught in the occult to get any kind of doctrine. What the demons say is true is not true because they said it, and what they said is false is not false because they said it. That demons said so and so would happen in the book of Revelation tells Christians exactly nothing about what the book of Revelation teaches. Even if one is, in his mind, reacting against what the demons are saying, allowing demonic teaching to influence one's doctrine in any way is still acting on the basis of "doctrines of demons" (2 Tim 4:1).
Kent,
ReplyDeleteI'm willing provide examples as to the edification issue - whether anyone's sinned here I can't say - perhaps it's a matter of insufficient attention. Perhaps sometime I will have opportunity to comment on what you write about “the law of gravity” and explain how I see the relation of science and truth.
I find the use of a word like "quackery" to limit the edification value of a discussion. If there is a valid point to be made it ought to be possible to make it using terms one's opponents would consider fairly and respectfully representative of what they believe. “Quackery” does not fill the bill.
If we go by his words (and he gives us little choice) and accept that Kurt is not a believer, reading this exchange in conjunction with Titus 3 should make it plain why one might be concerned to see him dealt with using the half-truths and mocking silliness method you seemed to object to in the now-deleted Donald Trump thread. I hesitate to make a list for public posting – but there would be at least a dozen statements of this sort in the exchange between Thomas and Kurt (and, yes, there are others earlier in the thread – some by Thomas's opponents). I would encourage you in your role as blog moderator to read the Thomas-Kurt exchange to verify this. I trust none of us disagree as to the appropriateness of the “half-truths and mocking silliness” approach.
I have tried to be responsive to your suggestion and if you or Thomas asks for a list I will provide it. (Thomas's last comment above was unobjectionable and on-point, I thought.) Thank you for considering my point on 1 Timothy 6:20.
Stephen Hollowood
Hi Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your science and truth dealing. I'm very interested in that kind of thing, and I believe that what you've said here is clear enough for someone to know. I never thought about the word "quackery." Perhaps I assume too much and thought it was a technical term. I can see how it might not be productive with someone to start.
Thanks again.
Dear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteYou can use the "contact us" button at faithsaves.net to send me an email. It is my desire always to be open to biblically-based constructive criticism, so if you have some such to offer to me, please send it to me there, and I will be grateful for it.
Thanks.
Also, Stephen, to find out the semantic range of gnosis, I would suggest looking it up in BDAG. An excerpt:
ReplyDelete1. comprehension or intellectual grasp of someth., knowledge as possessed by God
2. the content of what is known, knowledge, what is known
3. a dissident variety of knowledge, knowledge
I would not reach too much more into the word "gnosis," as the word on its own as the semantic range quite similar to the broadness of the English word "knowledge."
Thanks.
Finally, I agree that the term "quackery" is not neutral, but is a negative term. However, advocating things such as taking vitamins to cure Ebola – despite the even admitted total absence of evidence for such a practice – does not deserve a neutral term, but a negative one. We are not talking about a minor issue here, but about something that will cost people their lives and will produce widows, widowers, and orphans to the great dishonor of God.
ReplyDeleteKent,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your remarks on my comment and will discuss "truth" more later.
Thomas,
Thank you for the matter and tone of your responses. If health permits you will hear from me by email soon. Glad to know what I wrote on gnosis in 1 Timothy 6:20 seems correct.
As to "quackery" I would argue that this being a major issue with lives at stake would make it more important that we, obeying Titus 3:2-3, not use words that could be easily taken as brawling, unmeek, ungentle or negative speech (actually I consider the use of Biblical words to be generally superior even though it's not always possible) as being more likely to persuade and less likely to alienate from the start. I continue to hold that we should strive to use terms our opponents would consider fairly and respectfully representative of what they believe. I find it curious that you don't seem to agree with the position expressed in this paragraph. Will you explain?
Thanks again.
Stephen Hollowood
Dear Bro Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. Certainly it is very important to obey Titus 3:1-4, and obedience to God's Word will always be the best thing. I do not want to employ any words that violate Titus 3:1-4. Furthermore, it is certainly very easy to be blinded to one's own sins and faults. We know by looking at Matthew 23, Acts 8, and other passages of Scripture that it is permissible at times to employ very strong language, and Christ was certainly not being a brawler or not being meek when He called the Pharisees snakes and vipers, etc. I do not want to be using Matthew 23 as an excuse to just do whatever I want, but I think that the texts do provide a Scriptural basis for using strong terms when warning about a strong danger.
My concern about using terms that are softer to warn about something that has caused the death of many, many people and will cause the death of many, many more--namely, the rejection of Biblical and scientific medicine for corrupt lies and pseudoscience--is that people will not see how bad it is if strong terms are not used. When people claim that HIV does not cause AIDS, when doctors recognized as menaces to society are promoted, when taking vitamin supplements is alleged to cure Ebola, etc., if I speak to softly, people will think that it is not that bad or that perhaps there really is a case to be made for such dangerous, life-threatening ideas. I do not believe that calling such life-threatening ideas "quackery" is any more unjustified than having a very strong warning label on a bottle of poison.
If, however, I am wrong in my reconciliation of the words of Christ in Matthew 23, of Peter in Acts 8, etc., I trust I am open to correction here.
Perhaps you could give an example of how you would warn about the claim that taking supplements will cure Ebola, but this "fact" is being suppressed by a vast conspiracy, and also explain how you reconcile the passages above.
Also, while I want those who are willing to be convinced by facts to listen, there are some people who simply will not listen no matter what, and they will conclude all sorts of negative things about me no matter how I make the warning--including numbers of those who have attacked me in the comments above.
Thanks.
I have to agree that we live in an era that people seem to be more concerned about tone than they are about blatant error that kills and damns people. The false doctrine sometimes doesn't hear or receive a peep, but the confrontation does. I've found false doctrine doesn't like light, responds to it in a horrible way, and then you come back strong, and someone thinks you've gone over a line. For the sake of someone listening, we can use better words at times, and I'm very open to that critique, but the generalizations don't aid that much. You've got to get specific or that's a problem. The critique of the critique is a problem.
ReplyDeletePart of it is a generation without certitude. It's uncomfortable for someone to be sure. "Quackery" is very sure. I'm not sure it's the best word, but what is it then? Look up "quackery" online, this is what comes up:
Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medical practices. A quack is a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan".
Doesn't that fit?
Dear Pastor Brandenburg,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment--it fits bulls-eye.
Dear Brother Thomas,
ReplyDeleteI'm slow in my response – having some trouble discerning your position and am not wanting to misread or build a caricature. I will respond to the more central issue later, but for now I'm hoping for clarification. You've written a lot of posts in this thread that address parts of this and stitching them together could lead me to conclude your position is something than it is.
Is your position as follows? There is something called “the Christian Worldview” which has a component called “the Biblically-based scientific method” that 1) the Bible requires, 2) is so good at giving us truth that using medical treatments outside of it is a sin and 3) the positive results of which must be accepted as proof that something is a good thing; else we sin against the dominion mandate. Opposing 1, 2, or 3 deserves a strong-language response such as Matthew 23 or Acts 8 as it will lead to early deaths.
Am I misrepresenting you? Please correct where I'm wrong.
Thanks for your help.
Stephen Hollowood
Dear Bro Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the question. It is good to be slow to speak, slow to wrath, and quick to hear--that is great.
I believe that the following from the Westminster Larger Catechism is a good summary of what is required in the Sixth Commandment. The Sixth Commandment requires that we do whatever we lawfully can to preserve our life and that of others:
Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves[721] and others[722] by resisting all thoughts and purposes,[723] subduing all passions,[724] and avoiding all occasions,[725] temptations,[726] and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any;[727] by just defence thereof against violence,[728] patient bearing of the hand of God,[729] quietness of mind,[730] cheerfulness of spirit;[731] a sober use of meat,[732] drink,[733] physic,[734] sleep,[735] labour,[736] and recreations;[737] by charitable thoughts,[738] love,[739] compassion,[740] meekness, gentleness, kindness;[741] peaceable,[742] mild and courteous speeches and behaviour;[743] forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil;[744] comforting and succouring the distressed and protecting and defending the innocent.[745]
Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves,[746] or of others,[747] except in case of public justice,[748] lawful war,[749] or necessary defence;[750] the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life;[751] sinful anger,[752] hatred,[753] envy,[754] desire of revenge;[755] all excessive passions,[756] distracting cares;[757] immoderate use of meat, drink,[758] labor,[759] and recreations;[760] provoking words,[761] oppression,[762] quarreling,[763] striking, wounding,[764] and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.[765]
Furthermore, Genesis 1 commands man to subdue the earth and have dominion over it, and a good and necessary consequence of that command is that we determine the laws and find out as much as possible about the creation, which requires the scientific method, which is nothing other than determining how God has caused the world to function.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to medicine, James 5:14-20 (as expounded here: http://faithsaves.net/medicine/) and other passages require that we use the best medicine possible in obedience to God and the Sixth Commandment. Failing to use the best medicine possible is rebellion and disobedience.
As to whether science determines "truth," Scripture is truth (Jn 17:17) and Christ is truth (Jn 14:6), while science proceeds by induction. Science is thus extremely, extremely useful, and one can call theories such as gravity "true," but they are not logically and deductively necessary truth in the same sense that the statements of the Bible and logical deductions from those references are true.
Thanks again for the questions.
Wow, Thomas!
ReplyDeleteIt seems you're backing off from what you wrote above:
“By rejecting science you are actually disobeying Scripture, because the dominion mandate in Genesis 1 actually requires that man subdue the earth and have dominion over it by learning how the laws God designed work--that is, by doing science. The real God is the Author of science. Good and necessary consequences of the teaching of His Word require doing scientific tests.”
I asked an honest question. Why are you unwilling to give me a yes/no answer? Why do you spend so much effort avoiding honest questions?
Dear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteFor some reason one half of my comment got published and the second half did not--it is now there, but it wasn't for a long time. I'll wait to see if you still draw the same conclusion from my entire comment that you did from the first half.
Thanks.
Thank you Thomas. That's more helpful. Whether i understand your position enough to express my concerns with what you've written, time will tell.
ReplyDeleteDear Brother Thomas,
ReplyDeleteWhat remains troubling is whether you are justified by Matthew 23 and Acts 8 in speaking as strongly as you do in condemnation of those who are against GMOs when you would, it seems, admit that the proposition “GMOs are a good thing” is “not logically and deductively necessary truth in the same sense that the statements of the Bible and logical deductions from those references are true” - when Matthew 23 and Acts 8 WERE in defense of such truths.
Can you explain?
Thank you.
Dear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. Even gravity is not as certain as logical deductions from the statements of scripture, for the law of gravity are based upon induction, and, after all, we have discovered that Einstein was correct and Newton was wrong after all. That does not mean that we should be hesitant to encourage people to act in accordance with the law of gravity by not doing things such as jumping off buildings, or that we should refrain from strong language in dissuading people from jumping off buildings.
Since God made man to rule over the Earth, plants have no rights but people are image bearers of God of immense value. Nothing in scripture indicates that making a plant more nutritious by ruling over that plant to make it produce Vitamin A is ungodly, and the fact that it will result in thousands and thousands of lives saved indicates that it is a positive good.
Thanks for the question.
Thomas....you're not being criticized for using strong language to dissuade people from jumping off buildings.
ReplyDeleteNo, but it is induction that shows it is a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteThomas – I can grant that induction shows it to be a bad idea to jump off a building. Some of us would know this by common sense, but I suppose different minds work in different ways.
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is whether when, after one speaks as you did to Kurt on an issue like GMOs where no Church anywhere holds that Scripture has spoken definitively and is criticized for it on the basis of Titus 3 or for that matter 2 Timothy 2, saying “I'm being like Christ when He was preaching to the Pharisees” is responsible handling of God's Word. I'd like to know if anyone reading this thread thinks you've even begun to show that it is.
You've established two categories of justified strong language: 1) preventing what all agree would be imminent death, 2) in response to someone's rejection (as in Matthew 23 and Acts 8) of a doctrine that a Church claims the Bible teaches. I'm sure there are other such categories but GMOs as argued against by Kurt don't fit in either of these and these are the only ones you set forth. Are there others?
Dear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteThe third world people have been dying by the millions for years. If they use GMO rice with Vitamin A, they won't die. Do you disagree? So what is vague about this?
By the way, "common sense" that says not to jump off a building is an application of induction.
By the way, Stephen, did not say that it was unclear that the people would die. He said that they should die because making the rice have Vitamin A so that they would not die was an abomination to God. He even said that the people who improve the nutritional value of the rice should be killed also. So this deserves weak language, not strong language?
ReplyDeleteOr are you saying that it really is a clear that they will die, like they have been by the hundreds of thousands for years and years because of vitamin A deficiency? What is your basis for this?
KJB1611 : You are severely misquoting me, putting words into my mouth that I never said (er, typed). Further, you are twisting and picking portions out of context.
ReplyDeleteFooling around with genetics by forcibly modifying them in ways that could have NEVER occurred in nature is not the way to go about saving people from vitamin A mortality. Such deaths are the result of greed and lack of sharing by humanity. Vitamin A deficiency can be solved if governments wouldn't blockade imports. Then nations could ship in dehydrated potato flakes made out of yams and other foods that already NATURALLY contain vitamin A. Kale contains a great amount of vitamin A. Carrots can grow almost (I said almost) anywhere. Vegan forms of vitamin A supplements exist which weren't produced or extracted via transgenic biotechnology and sold with a GMO-Free label guarantee. The same supplements could be sent to those areas of the world. Just like ascorbic acid supplements have helped lower cases of scurvy worldwide.
Your example of why transgenic biotechnology to irreversibly modify living organisms falls flat on its face.
And now a warning given to me in the spirit: The biotech science was given to man by demonic entities bent on destruction of God's creation via defilement, and the destruction of humanity. He is exceeding angry with those who perpetuate it, and will not be held guiltless or blameless on the great day in which each must face his judgment.
Believe it, or dont. If you want to mock me for simply passing along the message, so be it. But your attempts at whitewashing your proud ego will not postpone your payment for the error of your ways. He hates what man has done to his creation, and will not let it stand. He will incinerate it with fervent heat straight from His own fingertip. Even the mountains will melt like wax on the great day of His righteous burning wrath.
Pardon me: "or are you saying that it really is a clear that they will die" should have been "really not clear that they will die."
ReplyDeleteDear Kurt,
Your "revelation" is not from God because it adds to Scripture and because God is not giving new revelation today. Please see:
http://faithsaves.net/pentecostal-charismatic/
for the proof.
You are correct that there are other ways 3rd world people could not die. If they were rich enough to buy kale and potato wedges from yams (potatoes from yams?) they would probably be fine. They can't afford to do it, so they will continue to die because you are adding to Scripture your own ideas about how it is a great sin to make rice have Vitamin A.
By the way, please do not ignore the links I give you. Be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath, that you might be saved.
Thanks.
Thomas....you haven't been accused of using vague language. It seems you're confused about this.
ReplyDeleteLet's rewind to yesterday and see if you can respond without putting words into our mouths:
The issue here is whether when, after one speaks as you did to Kurt on an issue like GMOs where no Church anywhere holds that Scripture has spoken definitively and is criticized for it on the basis of Titus 3 or for that matter 2 Timothy 2, saying “I'm being like Christ when He was preaching to the Pharisees” is responsible handling of God's Word. I'd like to know if anyone reading this thread thinks you've even begun to show that it is.
You've established two categories of justified strong language: 1) preventing what all agree would be imminent death, 2) in response to someone's rejection (as in Matthew 23 and Acts 8) of a doctrine that a Church claims the Bible teaches. I'm sure there are other such categories but GMOs as argued against by Kurt don't fit in either of these and these are the only ones you set forth. Are there others?
Thanks
You really believe man can "improve" upon what an infinitely more intelligent Creator has made, all things AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, genetically unique and compatible, declaring the result GOOD? How arrogant. How pompous. What pride for men to say in their hearts, "We will be like the Most High".
ReplyDeleteNothing I have said is a new revelation. It is in scriptures already. It has to do with the root ... the WHY... of every instruction and commandment in scriptures dealing with sexual conduct and breeding practices. Genetic purity of every species.
Transgenic biotechnology is nothing more or less than replacing sex or breeding acts with lab techniques to do what the Creator made barriers to protect against.
All normal sex is, is genetic exchange between opposite sexes of the same soecies. Transgenic biotechnology is against normal genetic continuance. They take desired genes from one species and break through the barrier of another species to splice it into the genome.
It is the same thing as if those unrelated species had sex. Which, of course, dies not happen in nature.
This is an abomination against the sexual code of conduct set forth in scriptures. Scriptures also state what the penalty is for those who transgress that code of conduct.
I already have begun rejecting vaccines since finding out about the new "DNA Vaccines" they are planning to replace the older ones with. I have decided to defend my body against anyone who dares attempt to coerce me into accepting them regardless of any "mandates".
I also will not spend my money on garbage produced by biotech sympathetic farmers. Going so far as to grow my own food items from heirloom varieties if I must.
I will not be a a part in this abomination against the Most High. Nor will I subject my body to it.
End if story.It is final.
Dear Kurt,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are going to be convinced, but for other readers, there is a huge difference between our current fallen and cursed world and the original creation. Improving human life by subduing and having dominion over the Earth can look different in a fallen world then in the unfallen one. Nobody was going to die of malnutrition in the unfallen world. It is clearly illegitimate to conclude that because something exists in a fallen world one is attacking God's created order by changing it for the benefit of mankind.
Dear Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI actually don't get how I am avoiding your question or putting words in your mouth. Perhaps if you answer the questions I asked I will know in a better way where you are coming from. At this point, since no church has ever put in its doctrinal statement that one should not jump off from a building, perhaps one should not use strong language even for that. I'm guessing you would not agree with this conclusion, but I have no idea why.
Thanks.
Also, let's remember that Kurt said: "Modern "science" is an abomination . . . Everywhere scriptures mention abominations . . . requires a death sentence and that their own blood be upon them. . . . Scriptures mean [sic] that government is supposed to carry out such death sentences. Too bad they don't anymore. I would like to see a return to it though.
So does saying scientists should be put to death when they try to make food more nutritious or involve less pesticides mean that these scientists should be executed? I won't put any words in your mouth--just answer "yes" or "no" and then explain. Should I condemn this advocacy of violence and murder with strong language, or not? I won't put words in your mouth--just say "yes" or "no" and explain.
Thanks again.
Oh--one thing that COULD look like my putting words in your mouth, Stephen, was the sentence:
By the way, Stephen, did not say that it was unclear that the people would die
that should have said "Kurt," not "Stephen." I think I was using a dictation program and went back to correct some errors, but some were missed.