Wisconsin parents decide to pray for their daughter’s diabetes instead of getting her medical attention. After a painful miserable month, the poor girl dies.
The girl’s parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann, attributed the death to “apparently they didn’t have enough faith,” the police chief said.
The kicker? They have three other kids, who are still in their custody. The Police Chief explains: “There is no reason to remove them. There is no abuse or signs of abuse that we can see.”
Complete story here.
Related posts:
Woooooooo!
The user submit feature pays off! What would be an otherwise un-noticed story by Gasmonso, get’s turned into a great topic for discussion.
Should religious people be allowed to raise kids? Or should we at least profile religious parent’s as to how far their beleif’s could influence their decision making? I would love to see social services and adoptions center’s start taking greater care in releasing children to religious families. Maybe a how-much-more-do-you-love-your-god-than-your-family questionnaire?
Anyone that values religion/god over love or human life should be shot.
Of course, but they should not be allowed to subject their children to physical harm (or allow their children to come to harm through inaction) for any reasons, including religious ones.
No. I would consider child bearing and raising a right that shouldn’t be interfered with unless there is abuse or gross negligence. The family in the article demonstrated the later. They should loose the right to raise children.
In any society worthy of the title ‘free’, execution, or any criminal punishment for that matter, is completely inappropriate for the ‘crime’ of what one thinks. ‘Thought crime’ is an oxymoron.
“No. I would consider child bearing and raising a right that shouldn’t be interfered with unless there is abuse or gross negligence. The family in the article demonstrated the later. They should lose the right to raise children.”
Alright, but let me ask it from another angle:
Wouldn’t it benefit society as a whole, if all religious people were profiled against past offenses by congregation? Like say if we knew for example, that all Scientologist’s/Mormon’s/etc. would deny their children access to medication or psychiatric help. We could then deny them the right to adopt or raise children, based on their religious teachings; as well as past incidents/crimes commited for each.
But we’ll never know how many Catholics raised serial murder’s, or how much better athiest/gay people raise children, unless we make an effort to profile their choices.
“In any society worthy of the title ‘free’, execution, or any criminal punishment for that matter, is completely inappropriate for the ‘crime’ of what one thinks. ‘Thought crime’ is an oxymoron.”
I didn’t say thought. I said anyone who valued religion over human life should be shot. I’d like to think my statement infers action and choices, not just opinion.
“I’d like to think my statement infers action and choices, not just opinion.”
Generally I think the acts that would be considered harmful already are in many if not all cases illegal, though probably not punishable by death of course (or non-lethal shooting if that’s your preference :) ). Going much further gets into murky waters pretty quick. This case is an exception in that the parents apparently got off on what should indeed at least warrant action on behalf of the other kids if not punishment. For something like this, or for the Jehovah’s Witness that refuses a blood transfusion for their child, as my own doctor says, “Staple the damn parents to the wall and get that kid some blood!”
Snurp:
The actions are defined and illegal for everyone, but I’d like to see people profiling the parents or religion’s in the first place. ie. “You’re part of said cult that teaches destructive/harmful beleif’s, then you don’t get to raise children”
What sickens me enough to warrant a death penalty by firing squad or anal penetration, is the hypocrits who externalize their beleif unto the helpless. If I see you hurting an animal or abusing your kids, not only will I report you to authorities, but chances are I will teach you a lesson as well. I read articles about diabetic/asmatic parents who were forced or who clearly take medicine to stay alive, and then choose a more religious/natural approach to helping their loved ones.
Hello Shaze,
Then I inferred incorrectly. My apologies. But I think Snurp is right in that the actions of people based on under-valuing human life are already illegal and punishable. The method of punishment (shooting, in this case) is really a separate topic, in my opinion.
Would it benefit society? In someways, certainly. In others… I’m not so certain. There is an element of guilt-by-association in such reasoning. Why stop at religion? Why not screen potential parents based on economic philosophies or political beliefs? Some of the practices of the Conservative Party might be deemed harmful to children. Or it could be your party that is ‘harmful’, if the other party happens to be in power.
I would like to see explicit laws that require parents to provide their children adequate healthcare. If such laws already exist, I’d like to see them enforced, especially on the family in the article. I would also be in favor of denying adoption if the potential parents will not sign a health providing agreement. But I can’t support having a requirement based solely on group affiliation.
Membership in a group does not always define a person nor predict their behavior. I am certain, for instance, that there are many JWs that think the no-transfusion rule is silly and ignore it will accepting most of the other beliefs of the group.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and say I have absolutely no problem with these parents and their actions. I see it as evolution working its wonders, to be blunt (and possibly crass). I’ll use the Shakers as an example. They taught that sex — even when inside the bounds of marriage — was wrong. As a result, there are (if memory serves) four or five followers of the Shaker religion left in the entire world. Similarly, each of these religions that teaches against medicine gets exactly what it deserves. I feel for the child, certainly; but I also see that these belief systems are, ultimately, their own undoing.
I know, that seems cruel, uncaring, and possibly even thoughtless to many of you. But freedom also means the freedom to fail; the freedom to make stupid choices.
Let’s look at it from another perspective: there is some evidence which has convinced parents to not innoculate their children, for fear of autism. Either these parents, or the ones who innoculate, are making the wrong choice. Would you force innoculation upon all? Where do you draw the line? I would prefer a world where — sad as it may be on the individual level — stupid people are allowed to remove themselves (and, more importantly, their genes) from the gene pool.
The alternative is the Nanny State. That isn’t freedom, boys and girls. Better even anarchy than the Nanny State.
I’d be okay with it if the adults died, Kurt, but the victim was 11. As Dawkins has pointed out repeatedly, that’s too young for someone to decide what their beliefs are. For all we know, she would have grown up to become an atheist. So the person who paid the penalty has not yet committed to the beliefs that cause her demise.
I also disagree with the idea that a State that looks after it’s citizens is necessarily a bad thing. Sure, people should be free to fail, but not everyone fails because of their choices, many fail because of circumstances and many more because of lack of opportunities. But this isn’t PoliticalFreaks ;)
“But freedom also means the freedom to fail; the freedom to make stupid choices.”
But when it’s a person who isn’t at a level to take care of themselves who suffers death because someone else (the caretaker no less) fails, I think most would say things are much more complicated.
As for your example, you kind of weaken it yourself by starting with the statement that there is evidence that autism is linked to inoculations (how much I don’t know, though it would bear on this quite a bit). I’m not a medical expert in the slightest and don’t know about diabetes or autism, but if there’s room for reasonable doubt then denial seems acceptable. The example in the article sounds much more straightforward. “Your child is dying from a completely treatable problem.” “That’s okay, we’ll pray!” If they had seen a doctor I would think it acceptable for the doctor to say, “No, we’re going to help her live by using what we know works.”
Sid —
I’m sure you’re aware of the concept of the “selfish gene.” What we have here is a manifestation of one of two things: 1) an instance where the selfish gene is not present (unlikely in the extreme), or 2) an instance where a particular “idea virus” has overpowered the selfish gene. Either way, it adds up to an individual tragedy. And, either way, while the death of this girl is tragic, it can actually be immediately beneficial, as well as in the long term evolutionary sense I spoke of in my initial post.
How? Simple: by convincing the parents of at least two children to change their religion and accept medicine. It seems a long shot, as people seem to rather be dead than admit they’re wrong (literally); and in this case, they aren’t even the ones dying. Still, the hope is there.
Again, I’m not saying that this was a good thing. Good might come from it — there is always hope — but I don’t see how it can be *forced* without intruding too far into the rights of parents.
Finally — to keep the politics at a minimum — when I say “nanny state,” I’m not talking about help, but rather force.
Again, I know I’m going to be really unpopular for this position, but I wouldn’t be me if I weren’t true to my principles. Evolution ain’t pretty, and I don’t have to like it; but it sure does win in the long run.
The problem is that these people would probably be among the first to cry foul if they had known that my family made the decision to stop the medications keeping my brain-dead grandfather ‘alive’ (we, unfortunately, had to leave him on the machines) allowing him to die with what dignity he had left.
Hello Kurt,
I understand what you are saying, but I think you might be mixing memes and genes a little too much. Ideas originate, spread, and die off at a much faster rate than genes. So fast, in fact, that I doubt that memes have an affect on genes at all. The fact that this event may have caused the death of certain memes in the parents will not have any impact on their descendants, who’s memes are likely to be very different in just a couple of generations anyway.
BTW, I certainly don’t think less of you for holding your opinion and am glad that you try to stick to your principles. I’m also glad that you’re willing to debate on this topic.
Having one person suffer (in fact, die) for the benefit of others, even if they are greater in numbers, is utterly wrong. In cases where a certain number of individuals are doomed anyway and the decision is to be made wether this number is small or large that may be an appropriate way of thinking, but in this case the child was not destined to die and the connection to other parents making up their minds about modern medicine is pretty weak – why would they need the death of another child to come to reason?
About the gene pool idea: Evolution is just an ecologic mechanism. It happens and is not aimed at anything. Think about it like you think about gravity: Sometimes you want to make things go downhill (in a pure physical meaning) and gravity is your friend. In other cases you want to lift something and have to overcome gravity. Stating that something is evolution, thus natural, thus good is fatalistic and means denial of your human ability to decide for yourself what is good (called “ethics”).
Oh, and the death penalty is totally unacceptable for anyone under any circumstances. That’s one of the few points I am dogmatic about.
Sid —
Ah, but ideas *do* play a role in evolution. The Amish, as one example, are seeing an increase in recessive diseases, primarily due to their isolationism and inbreeding (which is primarily due to their religious beliefs). And I note that ideas do tend to stay within families for more than just a couple of generations . . . Italians, for example, tend to be Catholic. That seems to have been perpetuating itself for about 2,000 years. There is an inertia to ideas, particularly within the realm of religion. This can, as this story points out, have catastrophic effects.
I agree that people *should* stop believing this nonsense, and I would include Christian Science, Nazism, Communism, etc. Where I come down against most of these posts is the idea of using *force* to effectuate this change, instead of debate and reason. The example of a dead child should be used as part of the argument against this particular sect of beleivers. But force? No. The reason being: who gets to make the choice? The majority? If the “majority” makes the choice, then atheists would hear knocks on their doors as well (seeing as most people aren’t atheists). What about the Nazis or KKK idiots? Sure, their belief systems include hatred and violence at the core. So you happily take away their freedom to raise children based on their beliefs. But where then do you draw the line? Do you take my children away from me because I teach them to hunt, or because I show them how to defend themselves? What about when muslims who admire sharia become the majority? Freedom of religion is too important to break over a statistically insignificant group of nutbags.
Again, like Shakers, it is self-limiting and self-defeating. I’m *not* saying it is good thing. I’m just saying that *force* is the greater evil here.
@Kurt:
“Where I come down against most of these posts is the idea of using *force* to effectuate this change, instead of debate and reason. The example of a dead child should be used as part of the argument against this particular sect of beleivers. But force? No.”
I agree that the use of force is wrong, but I can see the reasoning behind it. It’s obvious that religion is harming people and society as a whole, and reasoned discussion isn’t helping. Of course, resulting to force is almost always wrong.
I think the proper path to reason and the abolishment of crap like this is through education. The only way to fight ignorance is with knowledge, so that knowledge must be provided. Hopefully, plenty of common sense can somehow counter the indoctrination parents give their children.
Alcari–
I agree with your assesment as regards education completely. As regards force, I am a firm believer that force is the last resort, and only against force (or the immediate threat of force). If these parents had *actively* caused the death of their child (by, say, human sacrifice or beating), I would believe in intervention. However, they *passively* caused death (by not doing anything medical), even though they were “actively” praying for their child’s recovery.
I have some personal history which has shown me doctors aren’t always right . . . even though it looks to me like they were right in this instance; and yes, the parents should have used insulin (from my viewpoint). But that’s exactly my point: the parents have their own world view (and every right to have one of their own choosing). It has cost them at least one child. One can hope that’s the only price they have to pay for their foolishness; but I doubt it.
it’s funny/sad though.
If the parent would have kept het home because the pink elephant is allergic to stethoscopes, they would have been carried away in straight jackets. But if if’s because they think God doesn’t want it, it’s perfectly alright.
Alcari —
Verrry interesting point. I will ponder that. At what point do we consider opposition to modernity evidence of mental instability? I can’t recall offhand if the DSM IV addresses that . . .
Hello Kurt,
Even so, I don’t think the Amish religious beliefs will have any impact on biological evolution. Too many Amish leave that lifestyle because their ideas change. The leave the Amish community, but they take their ‘Amish’ genes with them. Furthermore, the more devastating their beliefs are on their community, the more Amish will abandon those beliefs and will do so without changes in their genes. Again, it’s a matter of time scales. Ideas change so much more quickly than genes.
A similar case can be made for the Shakers. They were not genetically different from non-Shakers when their ideas mutated. Thus eliminating their genes from the pool had zero impact on genetic variation in the population.
Sid–
Evolution occurs on the individual level as well as on the group level. Each new mutation has to develop in *one* person’s gametes, and can as often as not be restricted to one individual offspring (if it gets passed on at all). We can trace every human on the planet to one tribe some 60,000 years ago, after all. Whole families joined the Shakers and did not have any offspring. Who knows what genes they had?
How about Carthage? The Carthagenians worshipped Ba’al, who “demanded” the sacrifice of infants. This self-destructive behavior — while not being the primary determining factor — contributed to the eventual downfall of the city-state (robbing it of potentially useful warriors to use against Rome). The Romans killed everyone in Carthage. Will you say that the destruction of an entire population had zero impact on the overall genetic variation? Or I could use the “hobbits,” who apparently died off due to lack of iodine . . . though they were within walking distance of the shore and seafood which could have supplied it. Whether that was due to a Viking-style disdain for eating fish or to a predator they could not overcome is debatable, but that shortcoming certainly played a role in their survival as a group.
Evolutionary Psychology has fairly well demonstrated a number of behaviors that are genetically linked. While it takes a long time for most genetic changes to manifest on a grand scale, certain adaptations can occur within a fairly short time-frame . . . granted, usually following a mass extinction; however, humans have developed in a fairly rapid space of time (we are, at most, 100,000 years old as a species), and no one can predict the where and when of mutation . . . aside from certain gross markers like radiation and chemical pollution. While I agree that one or two generations is probably too short a time, and these particular religious nuts’ behavior is probably restricted to too small a segment of population for it to be of great importance, I still must note that we cannot be sure that there *isn’t* some genetic factor which plays a part (however small); perhaps we could refer to it as the “gullibility gene.” And, on a family level, the members of this family — if they remain in this religion (an important caveat, I would admit) — are probably doomed to lose their unique combination of genes (since they have shown they carry the dangerous Diabetes gene already) due to their behavior.
And, besides, I initially said that I *view* these idiots foolishness as evolution in action. I also view Jonestown in the same light. Why? Because I must view it as dispassionately as possible to retain my hopeful outlook for humanity. I’ll be the first to admit that, regardless of how well I argue the position, and how many I might convince of it’s correctness, it might just be my way of coping with this kind of tragedy (that *doesn’t* change the fact that this really boils down to a freedom of religion case in terms of policy demands, though).
I’d like to sidestep the whole discussion by stating that no one should be allowed to have kids.
If everyone stopped having kids, there would be no more human suffering. Are parents then not even partly responsible for the suffering of their kids? They know it’s a suboptimal world, but “that’s life”, huh?
First there is the fact that a child is a new human being. Kids that aren’t born won’t miss any of the arguably good things in life.
Second there is the fact that human beings need maintenance. Once a kid is born, it’s gonna be hungry unless it’s fed. Then after a while, the kid’s supposed to carry the burden of its existence on its own, a burden that was created by the parents.
It’s like giving someone a lethal disease and telling them to go work to pay for those expensive medicines that will put off death for a little while. How can that be an inalienable right?
Kids are born with nothing but their bodies to sell, and the pimps are proud of it and applauded by society.
Hello Kurt,
That was a good response. You’ve made some great points. I would have to agree that some ideas have a non-zero relation ship with some genes. But, as you pointed out, we really don’t know which ideas have a genetic component nor do we know the extent to which each has such a basis. “The presents of gene X gives a y% probability that the individual will acquire belief z.” I’ll adapt my position and state the y is extremely small for almost all beliefs. My rational remains the same: genetic change happens too slowly in comparison to changing ideas.
So I would now say that I agree that ideas/beliefs could play a small roll in evolution, but it is an insignificant one compared to environmental factors.
I have a few thoughts, somewhat tangential, on other parts of your comment.
Did they really? They didn’t take any of the women as sex slaves? I truly don’t know but I know its common for a vanquisher to take sex slaves which would certainly preserve the genes of the vanquished.
Behaviors, certainly. Beliefs though? Behavior psychology has demonstrated that many of our beliefs and thoughts about a behavior are made up after the behavior takes place. We rationalize our behavior more often then we rationally choose our behavior. Since distinct sets of beliefs can be used to justify the same behavior, I’d argue that the behavior is selected for or against, not the rationalization.
Sid–
I certainly buy your proposition about the likelihood of beliefs changing more quickly than genes, and on environmental factors outside of behavior playing a more important role in evolution, on a general level at least (we might find somehting at some point which would be an exception to the general proposition, but that would take more information than we currently have on the subject; I’m afraid I’m all out of grant money at the moment).
The reason I remember that everyone in Carthage was killed is because when my High School Latin teacher (don’t ask me to identify the tense of any verbs, it’s been 22 years since I last did that trick) said that, a kid in the class brought up the very point you do. My teacher said, “No, I mean everyone. Men, women, children, Greek and Egyptian merchants visiting the city, even Archimedes the great inventor were all put to the sword, the city razed, the crops burned, and the fields sown with salt.” We were suitably in awe of such a thing. The Romans *really* hated the Cartheginians (one Roman senator finished every speech he made to the senate — no matter what it was about — with the phrase “Carthage must be destroyed”).
And you’ve obviously done your homework on behavioral psychology, but my point was precisely that behaviors which might seem foolish when seen from outside can appear perfectly rational from within, because our brains operate much more on a level of anecdotal thinking than we like to “believe” (yeah, I know, I’m being snarky . . . sorry about that). Partly because of that, most societies have “chosen for” behaviors which include obeying authority figures . . . which, as we can see from the story we’re commenting on, can be a very bad thing when the authority figure is full of crap. And furthermore, we have an adaptability which is truly astounding, re-shuffling instinctual adaptations to meet new challenges with a fairly decent success rate (after all, we are still here) . . . which, as we can see from the story we’re commenting on, isn’t up to 100% quite yet.
But in many ways, your example is how the behavior/belief net gets started: we do the behavior, the belief comes after, then the belief is used to influence future behavior in a positive feedback loop (The basic fight/flight reaction comes to mind: warrior cultures praise one and condemn the other, even though they’re really the same thing). And, again, we’re still learning about such things (there are some replication issues going on with many recent psychological experiments that the mainstream media aren’t reporting . . . as usual), and we’re not sure if any new instincts/genotypes/beneficial mutations/etc. have come along in the last 60,000 years or not . . . but time will tell.
You sound like pussy cat, lolzzz
“Of course, resulting to force is almost always wrong.”
That’s funny, but also true. Since are disagreement has come down to the extent to which ideas can impact evolution, we really won’t be able to reach a conclusion without some research.
Sid–
Yes, and a great deal more than has actually been done. One of the reasons I want to live as long as I possibly can (with a healthy mind and body, of course; drooling idiocy in an adjustable bed while being spoon-fed rancid jello is a personal nightmare of mine): I have always wanted to see what’s around the corner. With another 100 years of psychological research under our belts, we might actually begin to understand the complexities of human behavior. Got to find my shades; the future looks bright. ;)
Oh, and might I say that I find you to be one of the most cogent and well-read posters on this site . . . it’s always a pleasure to read your posts and interact with you; between you, Alcari, Irish, and the great Gasmonso lies a large amount of the reason I de-lurked and joined in the fun . . . not to disparage any other posters on the site, including muslim boy (whom I do not agree with per se, but respect and value as one of the “religious voices of moderation and concscience” on this kooky little corner of the web).
Hyrocket –
To whom was your comment directed? And “pussy cat?” Seriously? :)
Thanks Kurt. The respect is mutual. I’m glad you de-lurked. I certainly wouldn’t leave jagannath out of your list. His knowledge of the Bible (both it content and history) is indispensable.
Sid –
That’s why I’d do terrible at award shows. I always forget to name everyone, and they feel left out. Sorry, Jagganath and anyone else I forgot to mention! :)
Thats creepy.
“The user submit feature pays off! What would be an otherwise un-noticed story by Gasmonso, get’s turned into a great topic for discussion”
I saw Gasmonso’s name in some other topic. That debate made me get back to searching for the truth. I was using my crown chakra and my third eye again! Without even knowing!
I too am a freak, and yes I do believe in a God that performs miracles, with every reason to. Ok, I was born with a life-threatenning condition. A physician told my parents that i wasn’t gonna make it, and I could pop in any second. My old folks cried out thier silly Rubbah-Shubbahs! Lo’ and behold! Stop the press! Whoopy-Do! I was cured. Doogie hauser over here flipped out, quit his day job, and went fishing. Ok, now, some of you might say this guy is abundant with horse manure, or it was just the devil’s luck. If I had that kind of luck, or that much fertilizer, then I’m being cheated. I should be filthy, and/or even filthier rich by now growing a huge field of “Hierba”, but I’m not. According to the parent’s beliefs, I think they probably failed to realize the slight possibilty that maybe God sent them a Doctor with the “know how” on saving thier child’s life. So, thier mistake was not trusting the doctor that the good lord sent unto them; and relying on thier own bad call. I mean, no medicine was made to cure me, so is my mom evil for relying on the same belief to save me? I assume this girl’s parents prayed for her because they loved her. If my mom really hated me, she would’ve had me boxed up and ready for sale, rather than praying to put up with my spoiled, arrogant attitude for 18 years. So, I feel it’s bad Karma to condemned these parents to be shot for relying on thier beliefs. They’re already suffering for thier mistakes. Isn’t that punishement enough? C’mon you guys have heart, eh? I thought liberals were supposed to be compassionate. Ha Ha! Just a little bi-partisan joke there. God bless America, but not before he blesses you all. You guys are awesome, and thank you for reading!
You don’t get to use God as an excuse to let your children die. They are in your care, and that means you do everything in your power to help them. To do otherwise is negligence.
Others who talk of “where does it end, what else do we lock parents up for” are committing a “slippery-slope” fallacy. We decide where it ends. Nothing other than our own preference decides where we draw the line. Obviously you can’t bar religious people from procreating or raising children. That is silly. Parents have the right to teach their children any set of moral and religious values. They do not, however, get to force their values on a child to the point where the child dies due to harmful action or negligence. Had those parents said to that little girl, “honey, would you rather enjoy a long and healthy life, filled with everything that we got to experience and more, or would you rather die a slow and painful death, just so we can feel pious and holy?” I’m sure she would have chosen different then her parents.
mistakes, mans understanding. are we right in our ways? we do the things that seem right in our eyes but at the cost of someone else. i wonder what is it worth, is it value to someone else. do we just need to lean on someone? the things we do will cost someone something someday. who is to show us and not to lean on our thinking, for it will cost or will it? she is of value to someone.
God is sovereign. Our ways are not His ways.
Aaron, which particular god fable is it that you believe in?
There’s ONLY ONE Korgan and it is Jesus – say, say it with me and let the Truth rule your ways -for if so will be His ways- always, His ways, for He is sovereign in ALLWAYS.
The hyrocket-bot has already been dealt with in many prior posts, such as this one. No new material, just more spewing of the same old unsupported nonsense, is in its latest posts.
Religion is for the gullible and the stupid, and those who would profit from them.
And yes, there is “ONLY ONE Korgan”, but no, I am not Jesus.
Okay, about this disgusting”lets not take our kids to the docter filth”
These people are crazy. Sure, we pray to God for healing, but he gives the docters the required knowledge and abilities to do so! If you have the flu, go to the docter! There have been sights of miraculous healings from God, such as cancer completely disappearing, but (duh) this kid died from parents’ stupidity! Sheesh! I hope the kid went heaven to be with God though…..
“God loves you”
Maybe a very good solution to the religious freaks problem would be to clean police first from their presence.
It is obvious that the Police chief was abused himself by his religious freaks parents and he is unable to use logic.
Maybe a good start would be start shooting these sons of bitches if they are working in some serious social security institution, like Police for example.
HEH HEH,DARWIN STRIKES AGAIN!
Jag, I believe I never answered what you said.
“Take a little wine for your stomach’s sake” is in the Bible too. :D
Showing that people are to take remedies, and yes, even wine to settle the stomach.
I believe I never can answer anything. The bible makes people sick cuz they have to eat the shit it is full of.
This is truth here: http://evilbible.com
Fail evilbible is fail.
Evolution and athiesm both share a common ancestor. Retardation.
I believe I never can answer anything ever. The bible makes people sick cuz they have to eat the shit it is full of.
This is truth here: http://evilbible.com
Great quality lots of variety http://www.pornhub4u.com
I believe these parents were sincere, but wrong. I am a believing Christian with life long serious health issues and I believe the Bible is correct. God promises to heal. God does heal. But healing takes a long time. God told me to go to the doctor for the medication I need, and seek the Lord for permanent healing. Only God heals. After 30 years of seeking the Lord, I think I am beginning to understand how all the emotional wounds I have suffered have made me sick physically. However, healing emotional wounds is a hard and difficult process. It requires going back to the original wound (memory) and bringing it before the Lord. I’ve discovered that I always have to forgive the people who hurt me, and repent of trying to handle it myself. Then healing comes. When all the emotional healing has been completed, then the physical healing begins. So, I have found that it really was unforgiveness and a lack of faith that caused me to be sick. But discovering this took time, and until then I need the medication. Faith isn’t somthing you can will yourself to have. You have to have faith in a real loving God. And once you have spent time with God, then you will know Him and be able to trust him and have faith in Him. It takes time spent seeking the Lord (reading your bible and praying).
For assistance on getting emotional healing, I recommend theophastics. That is what helped me the most. Many churches and couselors do it.
Uhh, Jen,
You needed god to tell you to go to a doctor? Really? Most people know to do that themselves, no divine intervention required. So are you special to god, or just plain fucking stupid?
From the rest of your post, looks like the latter.
Neither faith nor god have ever healed a damn thing.
It’s 2010. Fuck your stupid god stories.