For Doctor X - Tumour Solution!

[Loki]

Following up on Dr X's Tumour(tm) Proof:

From Why does God allow innocent people to suffer? (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html)

Neatly, the article basically agrees with the core of Dr X's alternatives :

Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering, or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it.

But, there are answers!

First : We can't know!
We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives
This answer alone sort of invalidates the remaing four, since it clearly states that our comprehension is limited, and therefore we may be missing something. But they press on regardless...

Second : The child deserves it!
As far as babies are concerned ... it is clear from both Scripture and universal experience that they are sinners by nature and thus will inevitably become sinners by choice as soon as they are able to do so.
So the Tumour Child's suffering is just punishing her for the sins she would have eventually gotten around to commiting if the Tumour hadn't killed her. Pre-emptive strike!

Third : Wrong place at the wrong time!
The world is now under God's Curse (Genesis 3:17) because of man's rebellion against God's Word.

This "bondage of corruption," with the "whole world groaning and travailing together in pain" (Romans 8:21, 22), is universal, affecting all men and women and children everywhere.
So the child suffers because of "man's rebellion against god's word". So there's Collateral Damage even in a theological war.

Fourth : Stop complaining, it's not that bad!
The Lord Jesus Christ, who was the only truly "innocent" and "righteous" man in all history, nevertheless has suffered more than anyone else who ever lived.
Hard to see how this was established, and on the face of it doesn't seem all that likely to me. Tumour verses Crucifixion - that's a 6.7 on the Pain-O-Meter.

Fifth : "No pain, No gain "
The sufferings of Christians should always be the means of developing a stronger dependence on God and a more Christ-like character, if they are properly "exercised thereby"
I'm a little confused by the assertion that suffering should make a person more Christ-like, but even if somehow true, this kinda falls flat if the suffering includes death.

So there you have it Doc ... 5 refutations of your Tumour - are you convinced?

[Filippo Lippi]

Heartless b******s.

[specious_reasons]

The sufferings of Christians should always be the means of developing a stronger dependence on God and a more Christ-like character, if they are properly "exercised thereby"

Not even all Christians believe this. One time, in an argument with a person who did not believe in euthanasia, I posed this hypothetical situation:

Suppose the person is, undeniably brain dead, there no potential for recovery. Is it Ok to pull the plug?

The answer was, "No, because the person is suffering, and that suffering will be rewarded in Heaven."

I mentioned this to others, and they were aghast at the idea, because they believed that general suffering isn't rewarded, only suffering for God is rewarded. (You know, being fed to the Lions is rewarded, but not a pontine tumor.)

[Filippo Lippi]

But the rest of it is OK? The child deserves to suffer because of the sins it will commit?

[Yahzi]

Ah... the true purpose of relgion revealed: to induce, prolong, and justify unnecessary suffering.

A bit of a pill for those of us who think that unncessary suffering is the veritable definition of evil.

Nonetheless, by his silence, we can see that Dr. X has been utterly, irrefutably crushed. No doubt he is too busy going to church and reading the bible to post here anymore. ;)

Great post, Loki!

[Doctor X]

The Landover Baptist page has a wonderful satire with No Mercy for the Crippled--I cannot seem to find it. It had a picture of a dejected child in the shadows sitting in a wheelchair.

Of course, if the child is crippled, he must have deserved it!

Or, as one wag put it to me, "Ha! Too many Poptarts!"

The "solution" offered by this leaves us with quite an evil, irrelevent, and rather incompetent deity.

Credit where credit is due, at least this guy tried to answer the question--unlikes some.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Nonetheless, by his silence, we can see that Dr. X has been utterly, irrefutably crushed. No doubt he is too busy going to church and reading the bible to post here anymore.

Fartzi

HA LOL! I HAV DEBUKD U ANTI-A-THEIST THEORIES ALL OF THEM I AM THE LIVING PROOF OF THE POWER OF DIANETICS I CA TIPE LIKE THIS FOREVER!!!LOL:D :cool: :mad: :eek: ANY ARGUMENT YOU MAKE I DEBUK ALREADY LOL ANI TING U SAY TOMORRO I DEBUNK YESTERDAY LOL!

U ARE SO STUPID AND LUV SHEEP AN REELY SLIMMY THINGS LOL I BET U BELIVE WORLD IS OLD!!! LOL!

U MAKE POO!!!
U MUST POO!!!
POO CONTROLS U!!!!!!

ALREADI I LAUGH AT U AND UR ANTI-GOD Y DO U HATE GOD WHEN THE BRAT PROBABLY WAS A LESBIAN OR EVEN A POST-MODERNIST PERFORMANCE ARTIST LOL!?

--j.d.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Not even all Christians believe this. One time, in an argument with a person who did not believe in euthanasia, I posed this hypothetical situation:

Suppose the person is, undeniably brain dead, there no potential for recovery. Is it Ok to pull the plug?

The answer was, "No, because the person is suffering, and that suffering will be rewarded in Heaven."

I mentioned this to others, and they were aghast at the idea, because they believed that general suffering isn't rewarded, only suffering for God is rewarded. (You know, being fed to the Lions is rewarded, but not a pontine tumor.)

I'l answer from experience, not hypothetically.
My father was on life supports after his 4'th heart attack.
The EEG showed no responses to stimuli.
Two of the tests involved touching a nerve with a needle.
It's a direct pain response test.
There was no response. The 'suffering' in a case like this would be directed toward a 'soul consciousness' which doesn't reveal itself on an EEG if it exists.
The family decided to pull the plug then. I was there when it was done. I was warned there may be involuntary gasping for breath and/or convulsion. Absolutely nothing occurred of that sort. There was simply a dramatic increase in pulse rate followed by fibrillation and then finally nothing.
Brain dead is really dead, trust me on this one.

[Ceinwyn]

justsaygnosis:

I know what you went through. My mom was incapacitated for a large portion of her life (MS) and when she finally died, I was there and I saw...nothing.

She went into the hospital for the fifth time in a year, I think it was. I was given the option of keeping her going, or just letting her go. I chose the latter. She gasped sometimes during the day and a half she was dying, but that was probably due to the medications she was given to make sure she was comfortable. Otherwise...quite anticlimactic.

So I guess I did pull the plug. I don't feel bad about it at all.

That's sick:mad:

[Doctor X]

Trust me to attempt humor just when the conversation becomes serious. . . .

I assume Pie refers to the attitude of the linked page as sick rather than the choices made by the two posters.

I probably mentioned it before, but it bears repetition: while the tumor is an all too frequent case, decorum dictates that one support the family in any way that helps them.

One does not enter into a theologic discussion!

--J.D.

[Agammamon]

I can't see crucifixion as being a particularly painful way to go, exhausting, definately. But the body tends to dull pain awarenes for major injuries. The crucified tend to die of asphyxiation with in about 48 hours as exhaustion coupled with dehydration and of course the privations associated with prison life. There is no denying that the crucified suffer, but the assertion that they suffered more than anyone else is farfetched.

[Yahzi]

Doctor X.
Fartzi
Curse you! I thought my user name was immune to twisting!

Quick, delete this thread before WhoDummi or MucusMan sees it!

[Yahzi]

Also from the site:

All true science and history, if rightly understood, support the fact of God. This evidence is so strong that, as the Bible says: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" (Psalm 14:1).

Most atheists, therefore, without any objective evidence on which to base their faith in "no God", must resort finally to philosophical objections. And this problem of suffering is the greatest of these

Well, nice to get that out of the way! Once you rightly understand science, it objectively proves the existance of God! Aethism destroyed in 2 sentences!

:rolleyes:

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Trust me to attempt humor just when the conversation becomes serious. . . .

I assume Pie refers to the attitude of the linked page as sick rather than the choices made by the two posters.

I probably mentioned it before, but it bears repetition: while the tumor is an all too frequent case, decorum dictates that one support the family in any way that helps them.

One does not enter into a theologic discussion!

--J.D.
Agreed!!!! A decision of that magnitude is not made lightly.

Actually that was 16 years ago last August but some memories are forever vivid.
There is another point worth noting here also.
I can't say if this is Federal Law or just Rhode Island Law or even if it's still in effect.
All members of the immediate family must concur. One member dissenting prolongs life support.
That's entirely understandable from an emotional level but there are no recorded cases of people recovering from flat line EEG's.
Actually I got really charged up when Fool posted about his daughter refusing to die. Re-engaging all resources available in that circumstance is completely justified in my opinion.
The tragedy that can also occur is there are only so many life support system's available per hospital. Maintaining a brain-dead individual on life supports denies another with a fighting chance for life access to the technology.
Generally the only reason a hospital will prolong supports is the deceased has volunteered to be an organ donor so the systems are maintained while tissue compatabilities are made.

[c4ts]

The answer is basically "We can't know, but here's some speculation anyway: maybe God is mean and possibly just despite being the loving God we know He is. Besides, it's not as bad as crusifixion, so quit whining about it."

Wow. Religion really does help in a time of crisis.

[c4ts]

That is, [atheists] say, how can a God of love permit such things in His world as war, sickness, pain, and death, especially when their effects often are felt most keenly by those who are apparently innocent? Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering, or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it. In either case, the Biblical God who is supposedly one of both absolute power and perfect love becomes an impossible anachronism.

What's this? They're actually trying to handle a summary of a real argument? Could this mean they're going to refute it with a valid argument supported by more than supposition, bible quotes, and the dogmatic assumption that their arguments are correct before they are even made?

This is a real difficulty, but atheism is certainly not the answer, and neither is agnosticism.
And this is because...

While there is much evil in the world, there is even more that is good.
Opinion, such as this, verifies nothing. You should be able to omit that statement and see their argument works fine without it, and can sometimes be improved by it because the exclusion of opinion helps prevent bias.

This is proved by the mere fact that people normally try to hang on to life as long as they can.
While this may be a fact, I'm not sure what it proves.

Furthermore, everyone instinctively recognizes that "good" is a higher order of truth than "bad".
I like good things and I don't like bad things, but what does that have to do with what's true or not? Disney World is "good" and east St. Louis is "bad," so would that mean Disney World is somehow truer than a real city? How is this refuting the arguments

I seem to have missed their arguments to refute the atheistic ones they presented earlier. They said it was difficult, and got sidetracked proving their opinion that there was more good in the world than bad. Apparently optimism kills skepticism.

We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.
And they appear to have dropped the subject entirely.

This is what they set out to refute:
Either He is not a God of love and is indifferent to human suffering, or else He is not a God of power and is therefore helpless to do anything about it.
And then they stopped talking about God and went on trying to prove their optimistic opinion, and ignored all the philisophical questioning they vaguely mentioned. I perscribe 12900 milligrams of Plato, not to be taken orally.

[Doctor X]

Sorry . . . busy as the office. . . .

Right, a few things:

Brain Death:

Brain death legally--in most jurisdictions--requires the following:

1. Complete Cessation of Both Hemispheric and Brain Stem Function.

2. Irreversible Condition.

Remember, if you drink enough or listen to enough Country-Western music, you can have an reversible cessation of both.

Now, from a physiologic, religeous, and philosophical standpoint, death occurs rather before that. One can "live" on a brain stem and . . . well . . . maybe vote Democrat, but other than that, forget it.

Confirmatory Exams:

At least in the US, brain death remains a clinical exam. Very important--NO ONE has made it after meeting the clinical criteria. Clinical criteria means:

1. Coma--no consciousness.
2. No cranial nerve function.
3. Failure of apnea trial--"apnea trial" demonstrates that the brain stem cannot drive ventilation.

Four cases exist in the literature where the patient demonstrated breaths at super maximal stimulation. Three of them died--met the criteria, met the criteria through confirmation--one "lived" in that he has no neurologic function and requires a tracheostomy with ventilation. One might call that life, I would not.

To make a long story short, confirmatory tests ease the diagnosis and help in areas of uncertainty--did the patient have a drug overdose?

The rational of confirmatory tests is to demonstrate that the brain and brain stem do not receive blood flow. EEG is generally never used--despite the "Hollywood" attraction of "FLAT LINE!!!!" Problem was, EEG was all one had in the dark ages. EEG has many problems. First, it cannot diagnose brain death--it cannot tell you whether or not the patient is over sedated. It can also demonstrate multiple artifacts, particularly in an intensive care.

The two main tests are angiography and a nuclear medicine study. The second is easier to get and is becoming the "gold standard."

No blood flow . . . no brain.

Again, despite the reports, no one "turns off" anyone. Brain death is legally dead. One does not need family permision to end care--physicians generally wait for patient's family to be there if they wish.

Persistent/Permanent Vegetative State:

This is more in line with what posters have discsussed. Brain death is death and not much controversy exists there on what to do--donate organs or not.

PSV is a state where one has no consciousness of quality--here we play with definitions. That a person recognizes a stimuli and moves his hand to it but does nothing else other than watch Jerry Springer Reruns, really is not much of a life. Controversy exists because who defines "quality of life."

Unfortunately, people do not "wake up from a coma of thirty years and go one to become Prime Minister" except in France. . . . Such patients--when actually investigated--have NOT been in comas NOR have they been in a PVS.

Enough lecturing, carry on.

--J.D.

[specious_reasons]

Now I don't have to ask my wife about it.

Now, from a physiologic, religeous, and philosophical standpoint, death occurs rather before that. One can "live" on a brain stem and . . . well . . . maybe vote Democrat, but other than that, forget it.

I'd be offended if it weren't funny. ;) Although, in my area, one does not need even to have a brain stem to vote Democratic.

[Loki]

[quote]Although, in my area, one does not need even to have a brain stem to vote Democratic./quote]
It was my understanding that having a brain stem actually disqualifies you from voting Republican? Or is that only in Florida?

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Loki
Although, in my area, one does not need even to have a brain stem to vote Democratic.
It was my understanding that having a brain stem actually disqualifies you from voting Republican? Or is that only in Florida?

I'd agree. ;) But mine was a very American joke. The politics in Chicago are notoriously corrupt, particularly in the past 100 years. Dead people were known to vote in elections.....

So, if dead men vote in elections, are they controlled by the laws of physics?

On a non-thread hijacking note, and in regards to Doctor X's definitions, the same argument I had with the anti-euthanasia Catholic, he brought up the anecdote that "a father of a friend" was in "a coma", the doctors predicted that he would never recover, and they wanted the family to "pull the plug".
Well, the father recovered. This showed euthanasia was wrong, because the Doctors can't guarantee that the patient is "as good as dead".

[Doctor X]

"Pulling the Plug"

Then there was a family who said, "You said he would never recover" and pointed to a relative who could not talk nor move most of his body. . . .

"Recover" is a relative term.

Also, physicians need to know as much as they can prior to making predictions. With the brain, unless the answer is very obvious--roached or ready to go home--there exists a considerable amount of grey area.

"Not-working brain" looks like dead brain--it does not work. It can prove hard to determine "when" "not-working" will, if ever, become working.

Which, incidentally, has considerable implications for souls and all of that.

--J.D.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Loki
[quote]Although, in my area, one does not need even to have a brain stem to vote Democratic./quote]
It was my understanding that having a brain stem actually disqualifies you from voting Republican? Or is that only in Florida?

If you think with your spine, you'll just end up voting for the candidate whose hole you could correcly puncture on the ballot.