A hypothetical question

[Vera_Ljuba]

That may be part of the problem, not fully trusting God and instead running to man for help, Im not advising to avoid medical care over prayer, just saying mans lackluster faith may have something to do with why we do not see God healing people left and right in the world today…

Trust needs to be earned. It is the usual approach of con men to say: “Oh I know it sounds outlandish that you can multiply you life savings ten-fold in just a few weeks… but trust me, hand it over and you will be surprised!”.

When was the last time someone even claimed they had a miraculous healing on the level of having a limb grow back, blindness suddenly cured, etc?

You argue my side? Anyone without any faith would start to ponder God’s existence, if people would grow back missing fingers, limbs, etc… Of course re-growing missing body parts is a common occurrence in reality. Plants do it, some simply animals do it.

 

[Bradski]

Then I assume that if there was something wrong with one of your children, you wouldn’t just let nature ‘take its course’. If there was medical help available, you would seek it out.

I just remembered that this wasn’t answered, Christine. Perhaps you’ve been cogitating on it.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I just remembered that this wasn’t answered, Christine. Perhaps you’ve been cogitating on it.

That depends on the illness. If it is simple antibiotics or fixing a broken bone, of course I would see a doctor. But as for cancer… most cancers are hopeless, and you would be a fool to go through all the torture treatments for absolutely nothing. My child is grown now, and actually rarely saw a doctor, as did I when I was growing up. Most people don’t need doctors except for broken bones or antibiotics. The drug industry has doctors in their pockets. Most of the drugs do little good, cost way too much and can even be very harmful, look at those side effects.

Why, are you and your children dependent on doctors?

 

[Bradski]

That depends on the illness.

Heaven forbid that she might have a terminal case of cancer, which in some cases you might refuse treatment. But I really do find it difficult to imagine that you wouldn’t seek treatment if she was diagnosed with something that would definitely kill her without treatment but which could possibly be cured with the right treatment.

But let’s say she had seizures which made her difficult to control which could be cured by a simple procedure that all medical experts agreed was perfectly safe with no side affects. I assume you’d want to help her.

But let’s say that you didn’t trust the medical profession. I’d assume then that you’d pray to God for a cure.

If she was then cured, then all is good. If she wasn’t, then one assumes that it was God’s will that she suffers and that there must be a reason for it.

Does that sum the (hypothetical) situation up accurately?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Heaven forbid that she might have a terminal case of cancer, which in some cases you might refuse treatment. But I really do find it difficult to imagine that you wouldn’t seek treatment if she was diagnosed with something that would definitely kill her without treatment but which could possibly be cured with the right treatment.

But let’s say she had seizures which made her difficult to control which could be cured by a simple procedure that all medical experts agreed was perfectly safe with no side affects. I assume you’d want to help her.

But let’s say that you didn’t trust the medical profession. I’d assume then that you’d pray to God for a cure.

If she was then cured, then all is good. If she wasn’t, then one assumes that it was God’s will that she suffers and that there must be a reason for it.

Does that sum the (hypothetical) situation up accurately?

Sorry but he’s my son not a daughter. So your analogy is kinda goofy. Who said I wouldn’t allow treatment? If it’s a trusted procedure, I am all for it of course. But there are a lot of things that doctors can’t cure, and they know it. And a lot of things they “cure” are better off left alone.

Most “diseases” these days are merely aging. I know I will eventually die of something, and that has nothing to do with my son, so don’t twist things Bradski… We all gotta go sometime, even you.

By the way you didn’t answer my question. Are you and your daughter dependent on drugs from doctors?

 

[Bradski]

If it’s a trusted procedure, I am all for it of course.

So if someone could cure your son, in fact could cure anyone at all who had the same problem and you trusted that person, then I would imagine you’d be somewhat put out if that person refused to help.

Perhaps the reason he’d give was that it was quite beneficial if your son continued to suffer from the problem so it would give him the chance to study the disease. Your son will undoubtedly continue to suffer, but there will be some good to come from it because the knowledge gained would help others.

And no, none of my family are dependent on any medication, although I will take the odd depressant now and then. Generally with ice, tonic and a twist of lime.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So if someone could cure your son, in fact could cure anyone at all who had the same problem and you trusted that person, then I would imagine you’d be somewhat put out if that person refused to help.

Perhaps the reason he’d give was that it was quite beneficial if your son continued to suffer from the problem so it would give him the chance to study the disease. Your son will undoubtedly continue to suffer, but there will be some good to come from it because the knowledge gained would help others.

And no, none of my family are dependent on any medication, although I will take the odd depressant now and then. Generally with ice, tonic and a twist of lime.

You make entirely no sense, but that’s nothing new - Cheers mate!

 

[Bradski]

You make entirely no sense, but that’s nothing new - Cheers mate!

If God could cure your son but refused, then I could imagine that you’d be quite put out.

But if He said there was a greater good, then would it be OK?

 

[goout]

If God could cure your son but refused, then I could imagine that you’d be quite put out.

But if He said there was a greater good, then would it be OK?

Question #1 for coherent discussion:
What is the greatest good in the Christian outlook?

 

[minkymurph]

Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?

Can’t vote in the poll as I can’t agree with either answer.

Would I implement the technology? Probably - but under strictly controlled conditions and I think it would be like putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound.

If non-violent thoughts are not tempered with then you would have to keep using the technology over and over again perhaps on the same person. I would say I wouldn’t have a problem with this in the case of pedophiles and rapists, but only as a short term solution and perhaps to save costs in terms of putting them in prison. I would continue to look for a long term solution - ideally one that would result in their capacity to resist committing these crimes of their own volition on a continual basis.

Torture and murder? - Depends on who they want to torture and murder.

Evil laugh.

 

[minkymurph]

I would protect free will in all cases. It is what makes us human.

Sorry Christine I can’t run with that.

Free will must be subject to restriction at least in some cases.

If my child were about to raped or murdered I’d use the technology - but as they tried it in the first place I’d want something more permanent put in place.

We would intervene in many other ways to protect our children so why not in the immediate use the technology?

 

[goout]

Sorry Christine I can’t run with that.

Free will must be subject to restriction at least in some cases.

If my child were about to raped or murdered I’d use the technology - but as they tried it in the first place I’d want something more permanent put in place.

We would intervene in many other ways to protect our children so why not in the immediate use the technology?

Free will is not the ultimate good. Free will serves something greater. It facilitates something greater than itself. If not, then free will is all about self serving power.

What is the ultimate good?

 

[minkymurph]

Free will is not the ultimate good. Free will serves something greater. It facilitates something greater than itself. If not, then free will is all about self serving power.

What is the ultimate good?

Love of God and love of neighbour?

 

[goout]

Love of God and love of neighbour?

In the Christian outlook, yes.
The highest good is unification with God, and at the same time with all others. Free will is the “stew” in which love can flourish, but it is not the thing itself, obviously. Our atheist friends can hopefully hear this.

The highest good in the Christian outlook is to be united with God.

The highest good is not: results.
Results are the stuff of utilitarianism. The gumball machine God. "we give you X and you give us Y. God is not a gumball machine.

Not: an end to suffering and illness and temporal death. No one is promised an in-human life. if we look around, everyone dies as part of the human condition. Everyone suffers. Still, a higher good is to be, even in the face of temporal death and suffering. We ought to contemplate where our existence comes from and where it leads, and what it means

Love is the fulfillment and answer to all those questions. Unification.
That is the Christian outlook anyway.

The attempt to alleviate suffering/evil, and the attempt to respect free will, all leads us to relationship, not to utilitarian ends such as the hypothetical OP suggests.

 

[minkymurph]

Love is the fulfillment and answer to all those questions. Unification.
That is the Christian outlook anyway.

The attempt to alleviate suffering/evil, and the attempt to respect free will, all leads us to relationship, not to utilitarian ends such as the hypothetical OP suggests.

As Christian, yes we respect free will but also resist evil and alleviate suffering when and where we can.

 

[goout]

As Christian, yes we respect free will but also resist evil and alleviate suffering when and where we can.

Yes. Both/and.

The hypothetical violates basic common sense and Christian philosophy from the start in that it reduces the stuff of relationship to mechanistic means.

We are talking about persons here, not technology.
Human beings are not machines.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes. Both/and.

The hypothetical violates basic common sense and Christian philosophy from the start in that it reduces the stuff of relationship to mechanistic means.

We are talking about persons here, not technology.
Human beings are not machines.

That’s my difficulty with the poll questions. The considerations involved are too complex to give a, ‘yes I would,’ or ‘no I wouldn’t’ answer.

 

[goout]

That’s my difficulty with the poll questions. The considerations involved are too complex to give a, ‘yes I would,’ or ‘no I wouldn’t’ answer.

The question attempts to fit Christian questions into a framework that is absurd to Christianity.

There needs to be an option 3:

 

[minkymurph]

The question attempts to fit Christian questions into a framework that is absurd to Christianity.

There needs to be an option 3:

I would say it’s not too difficult to fit any question concerning anything into a framework that is absurd to the anything.

 

[inocente]

Suppose that the technology advances to a point when people’s thoughts can be monitored. If someone is about to commit a violent act (like a rape, torture or murder), then a device can be activated, which will make the person to forget that intent, so the act will never be carried out. Non-violent thoughts would not be tempered with.

Would you implement that technology?

One objection is the invasion of privacy. Reading and changing someone’s innermost thoughts is about as strong an invasion of privacy as can be imagined.

Another objection is the technology could be used to make someone commit murder, by getting the murderer to forget everything except his desire to kill. Scale it up and it would make the attack of the mutant zombies look like a teddy-bear’s picnic. Presumably with a bit of tweaking, the technology could also get victims to kill themselves, avoiding the need for murderers to ever leave their armchairs.

All technology can be used for good and evil, and the more powerful it is, the greater the potential evil.