Magus55

Of course, I think God gave us medicine so we could take care of each other. God gave us responsibility over the world, and humanity. He wants us to use our abilities to aid each other. If God did everything, you can't really take care of your neighbor now can you? Nobody would care about anyone else if God did everything, because they wouldn't need to.

Magus55

Why would you see "in a church" there? The concept of a church being a big building with pews where everyone prays together didn't exist in the 1st Century. The chapter in question refers to preachers, apostles and the teacher of Gentiles. A church was nothing more than a congregation of people with a lead preacher or apostle who was teaching matters of faith and doctrine, and leading in prayer.

And for one, no one said translations are infallible - and 2, why would you being able to take verses out of context, make the Bible fallible? All it means is you're fallible and has no bearing on whether the Bible is or not. This is a Non-Sequitor.

converted

I see nothing in the passage above that implies "Thou shall not go to a doctor nor take medicine. Thou shall only pray if you are sick...". When a person takes individual sentences from the Bible (or any book for that matter) and ignore the general theme/message, a person is a fool. God actually dislikes "religious legalism". This can be seen in interactions between Jesus and the Jewish religious leadership.

Biff the unclean

I'm sorry but he is not ignoring the general theme, you are. I hope that does not make you a fool.
The Bible is quite clear that illness is the result of either sin or a demonic infestation. Jesus and his Apostles cure decease by forgiving sin, through sympathetic magic (such a spitting a Holy lugy in a blind man's eye) or driving the demons that cause schizophrenia into a herd of pigs and then drowning them. Or just chasing the imps that are behind bipolar conditions away.
The Bible does not have a clue as to what the actual causes of these problems are. Jesus never heard of a germ, he didn't know a thing about brain chemistry or optic nerves.

jbernier

That is because I do not think of the text as a legal document which can be read straightforward and unambiguously. In short, I embrace the complexity of the text (and if it is somehow divinely inspired we should not expect a lack of complexity); the cost of complexity is that one cannot accept simple answers.

I would take a look at James' context and at my own context. What is different? Well, in James' context a physician was just as likely to effect a cure as the prayers of the elders; in our context a physician is significantly more likely to effect a cure as the prayers of the elders. As a result, I would argue that one should definitely go to the physician. I would also state that I have no problem with "prayers for the sick"; I am not even prepared to rule out that they could in some fashion aid in the healing process. However, this cannot stand as a barrier to that which is more likely to effect a cure: Medical treatment from qualified physicians.

I cannot think of a source off the top of my head; this is stuff that I am studied over the years but a precise source eludes me (especially as it is not my area of expertise). I am sure that I could scrounge something together, although it would have to be after the weekend when I am next at work and can slip over to the university library.

That question is problematic from my perspective. It is not that something is "eliminated" in the sense that a law is overturned, for instance. I am an ethicist at heart; I tend to look for the ethic underlying the text much more than the theology or practice which is evident on the surface. Note that it is not simply enough, though, to say that the ethic underneath the text is always all good; for instance, ethics which support genocide need to be critiqued. I think that it is most correct for me to say that I see the scripture as the history of the faith much more than as the content of the faith.

Anyways, in this text there is still an operative ethic that I think can greatly enrich Christian life today: Namely, that the whole community must rally around its weakest members, which includes the sick. To me, what that means in contemporary context is (keeping with the health and wellness motif of James 5) is that the Christian community has an obligation to ensure that its members have adequate health care. In Canada that might as simple as the church helping out the elderly with their drug expenses (as drugs here are only partially covered under provincial health plans). In the U.S. it might entail a more serious committment. It is difficult, of course; however I have to suspect that if the church was to spend more time on such practical means of enriching peoples' lives instead of trying to get constitutional amendments passed to prohibit gay marriage that we might not only be more fully living out the gospel but also might be a whole lot more respected.

Asha'man

Just a point of confusion, is this the same God who was unwilling or unable to reveal the mystery of soap to us?

Harry Bosch

Jbernier: you continue to put out thoughtful and logical arguments. I wish that you theists would go back to the dogmatic and illogical arguments that are so easy to dispatch! Fortunately, there are many other theists on this post that aren’t so formidable!

jbernier

I will try harder to accomodate

Let us see...how about this? God in Greek is theos which is the root for Theodore which was one of the Chipmunks (along with Alvin and Simon), therefore God must exist. Thus I have incontrovertibly proved the existence of God based upon the authority of Alvin and the Chipmunks.

blt to go

I absolutely agree. :notworthy

(and by the way, the chipmunk argument is supported by the concept that there are Three chipmunks, and a Triune God, making it uncontroverted proof of a triune god.)

Uni

actually, it is not...maybe i was not clear enough.
if the bible was perfect it would not be able to be made imperfect by fallible humans because to take away from the perfection of something that is perfect is beyond the capabilities of something that is imperfect. the bible cannot be perfect if a fallible being can make it imperfect...there has to be a way that i can state that so that it is not a fallacy...