Religion in medicine...

[Psycho Doctor]

dood where in the bible does it ever suggest using DEAD intercessors? many times for ppl alive around you.

actually it does have one case in the OT, basically the king raises the dead against Gods will and is cursed... fun fun...

the Bible says Jesus is the only intecessor and mediator between us and the Father.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dynamicrhythm17]

the Bible says Jesus is the only intecessor and mediator between us and the Father.

it does talk about praying to God for other ppl. that is an intercession prayer. it never says to ask dead ppl, infact explicitly against it. never to anyone in heveans or hell. you always pray to God, but you can ask ppl to pray for you to God.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

it does talk about praying to God for other ppl. that is an intercession prayer. it never says to ask dead ppl, infact explicitly against it. never to anyone in heveans or hell. you always pray to God, but you can ask ppl to pray for you to God.

i'm not disagreeing with you; in fact I am agreeing with you. Jesus is the only intercessor but we can pray for others (who are also still alive), in an intercession prayer. These are two different things.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Argghhhh. Catholics and Orthodox Christians do not pray or worship idols.
Icons and images are used to meditate--to humanize the idea of the Virgin, for instance; to realize and contemplate the sacrifice of the Passion. There is also a reason the Virgin is portrayed as white in predominantly white churches and black in predominantly black churches: people can relate; feel a sense of oneness. This enhances prayer.

Prayer is made to Saints and to the Virgin as intercessors. It's not the same thing as worship. Respect is certainly given, but no sins are forgiven except by the Father.

Read up on Catholic and Orthodox theology. There's quite a bit detailing the place of iconography in worship. (It's not as if others haven't shared your views regarding icons; the iconoclasts entirely banned the use of icons in the early church and destroyed many, many early icons throughout the Byzantine Empire.)

Just FWIW, I'm a Protestant who is kind of a Catholo/Orthophile

Hi freaker, this is more meant for me than for Sugarizzy, I suppose. It is one thing to use abstract symbols, like the cross, and it is quite another to arrogate to oneself the right to imitate God in the creative process of producing an image of a heavenly being. Have you read it in the old testament where God speaks against creating images? Why do you think so? Because, very often, people would slip into revering or worshipping these images.

A similar phenomenon is seen with the Bible. The Bible is God's word, but sometimes people are so obsessed with honoring the physical book itself, or even a particular translation (KJV, for example, which I prefer), that it becomes a kind of idol.

How many Orthodox churches have you been in? Recently, my family went to one, and there, they were praying to St. X, so that she would pray to Mary, so that she would pray to Jesus, who would intercede with the Father. Do you see how convoluted this is. As far as I know, we generally don't even pray to the Son - almost always to the Father, THROUGH the son.

And btw, I am an iconoclast, insofar as images may be used as objects of reverence, "reflection," and worship. That is, I would transport these sublime works of art and keep them in museums - they don't belong in churches, because people revere them. The one useful point of images, in times of old, was for illiterate people, as a means of illustration of a biblical story or allegory (many churches have murals, for example); as people are now literate, we can use the Word of God directly and set aside the images.

 

[QofQuimica]

Would you be comfortable, for example, if I discussed religion with you as a patient?

No. It's one thing to have philosophical discussions with friends over a beer. It's another thing if I'm ill or injured, and now I have to deal with my caretaker wanting to talk to me about religion on top of everything else. I don't have any religion. Therefore, as a patient, I don't want any doctor of mine to mention religion to me in the context of my being his patient. Instead, I want to hear about what you, the doctor, are going to do to help me out!

I agree with the people who said that religious patients who bring up the topic themselves should be accomodated to the best of the doctor's ability. So if my patient asked me to pray with him, I'd agree to sit in a moment of silence as another poster suggested, but I would not agree to lead the prayer.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

Hi freaker, this is more meant for me than for Sugarizzy, I suppose. It is one thing to use abstract symbols, like the cross, and it is quite another to arrogate to oneself the right to imitate God in the creative process of producing an image of a heavenly being. Have you read it in the old testament where God speaks against creating images? Why do you think so? Because, very often, people would slip into revering or worshipping these images.

A similar phenomenon is seen with the Bible. The Bible is God's word, but sometimes people are so obsessed with honoring the physical book itself, or even a particular translation (KJV, for example, which I prefer), that it becomes a kind of idol.

How many Orthodox churches have you been in? Recently, my family went to one, and there, they were praying to St. X, so that she would pray to Mary, so that she would pray to Jesus, who would intercede with the Father. Do you see how convoluted this is. As far as I know, we generally don't even pray to the Son - almost always to the Father, THROUGH the son.

And btw, I am an iconoclast, insofar as images may be used as objects of reverence, "reflection," and worship. That is, I would transport these sublime works of art and keep them in museums - they don't belong in churches, because people revere them. The one useful point of images, in times of old, was for illiterate people, as a means of illustration of a biblical story or allegory (many churches have murals, for example); as people are now literate, we can use the Word of God directly and set aside the images.

also when people bow at the altar, isn't that worshipping an idol? people think they are doing it out of respect but in actuality they are breaking one of God's direct commandments.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

No. It's one thing to have philosophical discussions with friends over a beer. It's another thing if I'm ill or injured, and now I have to deal with my caretaker wanting to talk to me about religion on top of everything else. I don't have any religion. Therefore, as a patient, I don't want any doctor of mine to mention religion to me in the context of my being his patient. Instead, I want to hear about what you, the doctor, are going to do to help me out!

I agree with the people who said that religious patients who bring up the topic themselves should be accomodated to the best of the doctor's ability. So if my patient asked me to pray with him, I'd agree to sit in a moment of silence as another poster suggested, but I would not agree to lead the prayer.

it definitely should be left up to the patient, unless the doctor knows the beliefs of his/her patient. Don't most admissions ask your religion for this very purpose? If the patient asked me to lead a prayer i would oblige; if i did not believe in his/her beliefs I would make the prayer very general or refer someone else to their bedside who can pray in like manner. I certainly would not deny him the connection with his belief system.

 

[VPDcurt]

hey psycho,
keep in touch for the next 10 or 12 yrs or so. i wanna find out where you are practicing so i can come to you whenever i've got a problem.

 

[ElKapitan]

i don't but why take a chance? Only God truly judges but he also commands us to spread the gospel message.

Now let me ask you, if you knew a person had a disease but he didn't believe he did and you knew if he didn't get treatment, he would die, would you try to convince him your views? Is that being arrogant.

I have been away from the forum for awhile. I thought this thread was dead a long time ago, but it seems that it keeps comming back, just like a bad case of genital herpes.

I was wondering why a moderator didn't put this in the general discussions forum?

I did want to address the post above. God commands us to spread the gospel. How much force are we allowed to use. Can we hold guns to peoples head,

Religous Psycho, "take jesus into your heart motherf*cker, or I blow your brains out."

reply, "You can't do this it's not right"

Religous Psycho, "shut up, God commands me to do this"

It sounds more like a schizophrenic than a true christian. Speaking of Schizophrenics, did you know that the temporal lobe seems to be very active in people struck by bouts of religiousity, as well as people suffering from schizopnrenia. In fact if you go on a psych ward, one of the most popular delusions of gradeur are that the schizophrenic is actually Jesus.

 

[superdevil]

Religous Psycho, "take jesus into your heart motherf*cker, or I blow your brains out."

nicely put.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I have been away from the forum for awhile. I thought this thread was dead a long time ago, but it seems that it keeps comming back, just like a bad case of genital herpes.

I was wondering why a moderator didn't put this in the general discussions forum?

I did want to address the post above. God commands us to spread the gospel. How much force are we allowed to use. Can we hold guns to peoples head,

Religous Psycho, "take jesus into your heart motherf*cker, or I blow your brains out."

reply, "You can't do this it's not right"

Religous Psycho, "shut up, God commands me to do this"

It sounds more like a schizophrenic than a true christian. Speaking of Schizophrenics, did you know that the temporal lobe seems to be very active in people struck by bouts of religiousity, as well as people suffering from schizopnrenia. In fact if you go on a psych ward, one of the most popular delusions of gradeur are that the schizophrenic is actually Jesus.

please don't put words in my mouth; the profanity is not part of my vocabulary

 

[Psycho Doctor]

hey psycho,
keep in touch for the next 10 or 12 yrs or so. i wanna find out where you are practicing so i can come to you whenever i've got a problem.

thanks

 

[ElKapitan]

please don't put words in my mouth; the profanity is not part of my vocabulary

religious psycho was not meant to be the handle "psycho doctor". It is meant to be religious psycho's in general.

 

[leechy]

I have been away from the forum for awhile. I thought this thread was dead a long time ago, but it seems that it keeps comming back, just like a bad case of genital herpes.

This is the most hilarious analogy I have heard in a long time
This thread is indeed as pernicious and indomitable as a case of herpes - though now I'm equally culpable for prolonging its virulence. I love too how the thread has devolved into a debate about idolatry between different subsects of the same religion... seems to prove me to me why religion shouldn't be a (public) part of any secular workplace.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I have been away from the forum for awhile. I thought this thread was dead a long time ago, but it seems that it keeps comming back, just like a bad case of genital herpes.

I was wondering why a moderator didn't put this in the general discussions forum?

I did want to address the post above. God commands us to spread the gospel. How much force are we allowed to use. Can we hold guns to peoples head,

Religous Psycho, "take jesus into your heart motherf*cker, or I blow your brains out."

reply, "You can't do this it's not right"

Religous Psycho, "shut up, God commands me to do this"

It sounds more like a schizophrenic than a true christian. Speaking of Schizophrenics, did you know that the temporal lobe seems to be very active in people struck by bouts of religiousity, as well as people suffering from schizopnrenia. In fact if you go on a psych ward, one of the most popular delusions of gradeur are that the schizophrenic is actually Jesus.

Last time I checked, it isn't the Christians who are holding guns to peoples heads. But aside from that, I certainly wouldn't advocate preaching in that way. If anything, it's you who are trying to paint us as "madmen," "psychotics," "fanatics," "freaks," etc. all dehumanizing terms. In my opinion, it is those who can both sentence a man to death (partly) for killing an unborn child, and at the same time sanction and even encourage the mother to do so if she feels like it, who have the "mental" issues, not people who have a sound AND CONSISTENT moral theory, something that is lacking in the rabid faux-liberalism that prevails.

 

[leechy]

Last time I checked, it isn't the Christians who are holding guns to peoples heads. But aside from that, I certainly wouldn't advocate preaching in that way. If anything, it's you who are trying to paint us as "madmen," "psychotics," "fanatics," "freaks," etc. all dehumanizing terms. In my opinion, it is those who can both sentence a man to death (partly) for killing an unborn child, and at the same time sanction and even encourage the mother to do so if she feels like it, who have the "mental" issues, not people who have a sound AND CONSISTENT moral theory, something that is lacking in the rabid faux-liberalism that prevails.

I support both the death penalty and abortion rights, and physician-assisted suicide. I wasn't psychotic last time i checked, and in fact I know plenty of people with similar views. I'm consistent, too - I'm just pro-death!

But I agree, blaming Scott for the murder of the fetus is inconsistent with abortion rights. You could argue from a pro-choice perspective, however, that Scott infringed on Laci's right to do what she wished with the fetus. Taking this argument, the fetus "belongs" to Laci, and you could argue that Scott infringed on her property rights. This is not the same as murder, however.

 

[shaggybill]

mercaptovizadeh

Its nice to see someone standing up strong for their beliefs. (psycho doctor and others as well), I agree with nearly everything you posted, save a few things.

I have a question for you though. You wrote that you dont believe in violence as an act of self-defense. I dont understand this. Are you saying that if you were being beaten to death with a tire iron, you wouldnt fight back?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

religious psycho was not meant to be the handle "psycho doctor". It is meant to be religious psycho's in general.

ooohhh ok, sorry, my apologies that i jumped to incorrect conclusions. since it was written in response to my post (and you even quoted my post) I assumed it was directed at me.

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I love too how the thread has devolved into a debate about idolatry between different subsects of the same religion... seems to prove me to me why religion shouldn't be a (public) part of any secular workplace.

then how else would you ever learn...?

 

[Psycho Doctor]

I support both the death penalty and abortion rights, and physician-assisted suicide. I wasn't psychotic last time i checked, and in fact I know plenty of people with similar views. I'm consistent, too - I'm just pro-death!

But I agree, blaming Scott for the murder of the fetus is inconsistent with abortion rights. You could argue from a pro-choice perspective, however, that Scott infringed on Laci's right to do what she wished with the fetus. Taking this argument, the fetus "belongs" to Laci, and you could argue that Scott infringed on her property rights. This is not the same as murder, however.

um, he still murdered her...and knowing she was carrying a fetus-baby, he chose to murder her then rather than waiting for the baby to be born..so yes, i think he murdered his baby.

 

[leechy]

um, he still murdered her...and knowing she was carrying a fetus-baby, he chose to murder her then rather than waiting for the baby to be born..so yes, i think he murdered his baby.

Right, if you're pro-life, then you can say Scott murdered his baby. If you're pro-choice, then you should think (as I think) that Scott can't be held accountable for the murder of two people. Just one person. I think I agree with mercapto on this one.

 

[leechy]

then how else would you ever learn...?

I'm not sure what you mean by "learn"... I've learned a lot about world religions through private study and reading. I don't think religion needs to be a public part of the workplace. People still end up talking about it, but I think it's risky because you risk offending people, and when those people are your patients and colleagues, it could make things very uncomfortable.

 

[ElKapitan]

Last time I checked, it isn't the Christians who are holding guns to peoples heads. But aside from that, I certainly wouldn't advocate preaching in that way. If anything, it's you who are trying to paint us as "madmen," "psychotics," "fanatics," "freaks," etc. all dehumanizing terms. In my opinion, it is those who can both sentence a man to death (partly) for killing an unborn child, and at the same time sanction and even encourage the mother to do so if she feels like it, who have the "mental" issues, not people who have a sound AND CONSISTENT moral theory, something that is lacking in the rabid faux-liberalism that prevails.

What about people who bomb abortion clinics? Don't they claim to be christians?

If you believe that there are no violent christian radicals you are dreaming. David Koresh, Waco Texas, ring a bell to anybody. I know that Koresh doesn't exemplify the average Christian, I'm just saying that there are people who use god as an excuse to do whatever the hell they want. Furthermore, the christain movement was originally very violent, if you knew anything about the history of your religion you would know this.

As far as religion in medicine, I feel there is room for it, but as I have said before, to impose those beliefs on others is wrong. My biggest problem with people who are religious is the "my **** don't stink" syndrome.

 

[dopaminophile]

Right, if you're pro-life, then you can say Scott murdered his baby. If you're pro-choice, then you should think (as I think) that Scott can't be held accountable for the murder of two people. Just one person. I think I agree with mercapto on this one.

Roe vs. Wade doesn't actually make any assertions as to whether an unborn fetus is an individual with rights or not. It takes on both possibilities. 1) If the fetus has no rights, then abortion is not murder and can be carried out at the mother's discretion. 2) If the fetus is an individual with rights and all the constitutional protections of an individual, abortion is still justified because a fetus poses an immediate risk of serious bodily harm or death to the mother. A mother has the right to protect herself, violently if necessary, from that threat. Sadly, in this instance, the threat is ever-present during the pregnancy and only way to remove that threat safely is by killing the fetus. Even in full-term pregnancies, often giving birth can be more dangerous than an abortion, so an abortion ought to remain an option.

Thus, regardless of whether the baby is an individual with rights, a human, or not, a mother is constitutionally allowed to protect herself in this instance at her discretion.

-dope-

 

[dopaminophile]

My point was, before I got on the high-horse, that it is perfectly legitimate to be pro-choice and agree with the double-homicide verdict because a fetus can be viewed as an individual with rights while in the mother's body without violating pro-choice doctrine.

-dope-

 

[VPDcurt]

It sounds more like a schizophrenic than a true christian. Speaking of Schizophrenics, did you know that the temporal lobe seems to be very active in people struck by bouts of religiousity, as well as people suffering from schizopnrenia.

Are you just joking around here or not? I am not saying this from a religious viewpoint, but I have a neuroscience final tomorrow and we were taught the exact opposite. Schizophrenia shows a significant "thinning" of the medial temporal lobe.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

What about people who bomb abortion clinics? Don't they claim to be christians?

If you believe that there are no violent christian radicals you are dreaming. David Koresh, Waco Texas, ring a bell to anybody. I know that Koresh doesn't exemplify the average Christian, I'm just saying that there are people who use god as an excuse to do whatever the hell they want. Furthermore, the christain movement was originally very violent, if you knew anything about the history of your religion you would know this.

As far as religion in medicine, I feel there is room for it, but as I have said before, to impose those beliefs on others is wrong. My biggest problem with people who are religious is the "my **** don't stink" syndrome.

1.) Your first argument is invalid.: what some people who claim to be members of a group, say or do, in no way reflects on the entire group. Besides, I would say that those people are certainly not Christians. In any case, their actions are immoral and illogical: how can you make a stand against the murder (of babies) by committing murder (of adults)? So, I hope we've left this argument to rest.

2.) David Koresh was not a Christian. In fact, he claimed to BE Christ/God. So that would make him an ANTI-Christ. Also, he encouraged things like polygamy, arms stockpiling, etc.... things that Jesus didn't really support.

3.) The Christian movement was NOT originally violent. Read any of Jesus' words or Pauls' writings, and NONE of them encourage violence. In fact, Christians were the victims of violence. In the first several HUNDRED years during and after Christ's life, Christians were persecuted by both Jews and Romans, the former accusing of sacrilege and blasphemy, the latter of insubordination to the state. They were crucified, beheaded, blamed for the fire of Rome in 64 A.D., fed to animals in the circuses, etc. So your argument falls flat there too.

4.) I repeat my argument, it is possible to witness to a person in a loving, dignified, and tactful way. That is the way I advocate and intend to employ, Godwilling.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

Are you just joking around here or not? I am not saying this from a religious viewpoint, but I have a neuroscience final tomorrow and we were taught the exact opposite. Schizophrenia shows a significant "thinning" of the medial temporal lobe.

Most of what he wrote were unsubstantiated and erroneous claims anyway, so why do you take him up on this one? Heck, calling David Koresh a "Christian" is far more absurd...

 

[Psycho Doctor]

1.) Your first argument is invalid.: what some people who claim to be members of a group, say or do, in no way reflects on the entire group. Besides, I would say that those people are certainly not Christians. In any case, their actions are immoral and illogical: how can you make a stand against the murder (of babies) by committing murder (of adults)? So, I hope we've left this argument to rest.

2.) David Koresh was not a Christian. In fact, he claimed to BE Christ/God. So that would make him an ANTI-Christ. Also, he encouraged things like polygamy, arms stockpiling, etc.... things that Jesus didn't really support.

3.) The Christian movement was NOT originally violent. Read any of Jesus' words or Pauls' writings, and NONE of them encourage violence. In fact, Christians were the victims of violence. In the first several HUNDRED years during and after Christ's life, Christians were persecuted by both Jews and Romans, the former accusing of sacrilege and blasphemy, the latter of insubordination to the state. They were crucified, beheaded, blamed for the fire of Rome in 64 A.D., fed to animals in the circuses, etc. So your argument falls flat there too.

4.) I repeat my argument, it is possible to witness to a person in a loving, dignified, and tactful way. That is the way I advocate and intend to employ, Godwilling.

amen to all your points!! exceelent, excellent post!!

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

mercaptovizadeh

Its nice to see someone standing up strong for their beliefs. (psycho doctor and others as well), I agree with nearly everything you posted, save a few things.

I have a question for you though. You wrote that you dont believe in violence as an act of self-defense. I dont understand this. Are you saying that if you were being beaten to death with a tire iron, you wouldnt fight back?

My mind says that I would do one of two things:

1.) Escape.

2.) If that's not possible, shield myself somehow.

my heart, of course, dictates defending myself with force. I hope I won't have to face being beaten to death, and that I would follow the convictions of my faith rather than the "default," "human," reaction.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I support both the death penalty and abortion rights, and physician-assisted suicide. I wasn't psychotic last time i checked, and in fact I know plenty of people with similar views. I'm consistent, too - I'm just pro-death!

But I agree, blaming Scott for the murder of the fetus is inconsistent with abortion rights. You could argue from a pro-choice perspective, however, that Scott infringed on Laci's right to do what she wished with the fetus. Taking this argument, the fetus "belongs" to Laci, and you could argue that Scott infringed on her property rights. This is not the same as murder, however.

Now let me see, why DIDN'T the prosecutors argue that "Laci's right to chose was infringed upon by Scott"?

I can only imagine the outrage, the visceral anger, that would errupt over such an argument. And I am sure that you are quite aware of that as well.

Because people feel it's OK to suck out baby brains with a vacuum cleaner if mommy says so, but if mommy wants baby, then it's 2nd degree murder and off to the gallows! Hypocrites.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

In any case, this really isn't about Christians, or David Koresh, or abortion, or Scott Peterson.

What it comes down to, is whether a doctor can share his/her beliefs to a receptive patient, even if those beliefs happen to be exclusive of other notions of God (or no-God if you are an atheist) and the afterlife.

One last point: the whole "moment of silence" thing is just trash. If someone wants you to pray with them, say yes or no, but don't try the whole "multifaith" prayer/"silence"/"tolerance prayer" nonsense. It isn't heartfelt, is meaningless, and actually demeaning to both the doctor and the patient, not to mention the fact that it's insulting to God.

 

[VPDcurt]

Most of what he wrote were unsubstantiated and erroneous claims anyway, so why do you take him up on this one? Heck, calling David Koresh a "Christian" is far more absurd...

I wasn't commenting on anything about David Koresh. I was just discussing a topic relevant to neuroscience.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

I wasn't commenting on anything about David Koresh. I was just discussing a topic relevant to neuroscience.

Don't worry, I was just poking fun at him, not you. I'm glad you brought up the neuroscience point, because I for one did not know that, and now I know that that, too, is a false claim.