Daylight Atheism > Do You Really Believe That? (V)

Do You Really Believe That? (V)

Anointing the Sick

The New Testament's Book of James gives some very unusual instructions on how to treat illness:

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

—James 5:14-15

In eras when human knowledge was far less advanced, it's not surprising that people would turn to superstitious practices such as prayer and anointing with oil in an attempt to cure illness. What's far more surprising is how many people still believe in these practices today, despite our far more advanced knowledge of scientific medicine, as well as ample evidence that faith healing does not work.

The Greek Orthodox Church, for example, makes anointing a regular practice, and claims that it offers physical healing:

At the conclusion of the service of the Sacrament, the body is anointed with oil, and the grace of God, which heals infirmities of soul and body, is called down upon each person.

...The Sacrament of the Unction of the sick is the Church's specific prayer for healing. If the faith of the believers is strong enough, and if it is the will of God, there is every reason to believe that the Lord can heal those who are diseased.

The Assemblies of God says the same thing:

In the Assemblies of God we believe neither the laying on of hands nor anointing with oil is indispensable for healing, for often in Scripture healing takes place without either. But at times the touch of a praying person and the application of oil are an encouragement to faith, and such a practice is enjoined by Scripture (James 5:14-16).

And, as Jeffrey Shallit reports, Prof. Clifford Blake of the University of Waterloo is an unabashed believer in faith healing through anointing and other, equally mystical methods:

Some people believe healing was only in the time of the Bible. But he knows it is happening now. When he began to use healing oil, he got more consistent results.

Granted, there are also Christians who believe the anointing is merely symbolic. And the reason they believe that should be obvious: because it is abundantly obvious, to those who know how to think critically, that anointing people with oil is not an effective method of curing illness. If there was any evidence that this was an efficacious treatment, we can be sure it would be universally employed in every Christian church, and would not be explained away as symbolic. But as scientific medicine has progressed and our ability to work real cures has increased, superstitious practices like this have become increasingly superfluous and have gradually faded away (although, as shown, there are still plenty of holdouts).

Certainly, the Bible's description of this does not seem like mere symbolism: it says clearly that "the prayer of faith" will save the sick, and in conjunction with the oil, "the Lord shall raise him up" (the Greek word, egeiro, means "to cause to rise", i.e., from a seat or a bed). My question to modern believers who view this passage symbolically is, if you know this doesn't work, how do you know that - and do you apply that same standard to the rest of the Bible? And to those who still use faith healing and dabs of magical oil, in an age of genetic manipulation, transplant surgery and antibiotics, my question is: Do you really believe that?

Other posts in this series:

Do You Really Believe That?

44 Comments

Well of course it doesn't work. They're *Priests*, and Lay on Hands is a paladin ability. Pity they aren't allowed to multi-class...

(It still makes more sense than the actual beliefs of the religious.)

Comment by: Alex Weaver | March 23, 2008, 12:55 pm

If the faith of the believers is strong enough, and if it is the will of God

And those are the crucial disclaimers that give god an "out" if the person in question does not get better. Either the faith of the believers wasn't strong enough (a harsh assessment that rarely gets made these days, although it plants a monumental self-doubt that can be wrenching in the believers' minds) or, more likely, it wasn't "god's will" and - as we know - god works in mysterious ways.

What's really going on here is that we live in a frightening world that we have little control over. Young, healthy people get diagnosed with terminal cancers. A child steps in front of a car and is killed in an instant. Try as we might, we cannot foolproof our lives or the lives of our loved ones. And confronting that reality is very scary.

So people turn to these magic charms and incantations (which is what faith healing really is) to try and reassert some measure of confidence and control. And even when it fails, they deny the failure so that they can hang on to that magic charm in the future.

Comment by: Karen | March 23, 2008, 1:20 pm

Don't you know God always answers prayer?

But, of course, the bird bath out back says "yes," "no," or "wait" with the best gods ever imagined. Seriously. Try it!

Comment by: mikespeir | March 23, 2008, 1:48 pm

That isn't true Alex- good clerics can cast heal spells as a free ability. However we don't live in D&D (which, ironically, is more self consistant and logical than any theology).

Comment by: Samuel Skinner | March 23, 2008, 2:41 pm

Oh yes, people believe this all right. Indeed, probably just about as many people believe in some version of this in the comparatively secular north-west Europe as in the religious USA. Faith healing is only very loosely bound to organised religion; it manifests itself in all sorts of forms: Reiki, homeopathy, 'therapeutic touch', strange diets, pilgrimages to Lourdes, etc, etc. Different names, somewhat different manifestations, but ultimately based on the same belief in magic.

Comment by: Stephen | March 23, 2008, 4:50 pm

However we don't live in D&D (which, ironically, is more self consistant and logical than any theology).

No surprise there. After all, the creators of D&D were limited by the requirements of consistency and believability when setting up the rules for their imaginary world.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | March 23, 2008, 5:06 pm

I like fictional gods and religions because, in a fictional universe, the author can depict a god actually doing what gods are supposed to do -- manifesting, responding to prayer, creating, destroying, and so on. Worship in DnD is not a matter of belief.

Comment by: Jennifer A. Burdoo | March 23, 2008, 5:33 pm

I'm not a believer, but I think anyone could explain away any sort of general superstition in this passage. Look at the pronouns of the passage: "any sick" / "he" / "him" / "him" / "the sick" / "him" / "he" / "him." Some people could try and infer from the Bible that magical practices of this sort work, but the passage you wrote here does not indicate that faith healing is a generally applicable method of treatment, only for "any sick among you," the group of people being talked to.

The question in my mind is, why are these sort of religious activities rampant in the Bible (sacrifices, holy war, healings, miracles, etc.) but not taken very seriously by moderates? It seems that they have the same secular common sense that these things just do not work, are meaningless, and could even be immoral - which would appear to be a very large amount of cherry picking to me.

I agree that for moderates it should all boil down to what you asked: "do you apply that same standard to the rest of the Bible?" How do you critically look at the Bible, accepting some things or not others? Do you even thoroughly read the so-called Word of God?

For the more faithful believers who take on belief in supernatural happenings, miracles, healings etc. it probably doesn't come from any sort of rigorous or logical look at reality - it comes from loyalty to your group and therefore its belief system, from emotional acceptance, and from anecdotes shared to them. (Or just simple gullibility and hype-love.) The question is how do you dissuade them from accepting what they have probably psychologically invested themselves in? How do you explain their own feelings and faith to them? That's the problem.

Comment by: Brad | March 23, 2008, 9:25 pm

Faith healing is only very loosely bound to organised religion; it manifests itself in all sorts of forms: Reiki, homeopathy, 'therapeutic touch', strange diets, pilgrimages to Lourdes, etc, etc.

..and I guess where they do work it is due to a placebo effect. Most minor illnesses cure themselves eventually. If you are pre-conditioned by religious conviction to expect annointing or laying on of hands to cure you, up to a point they might. Don't try it on a broken leg though.

Comment by: Steve Bowen | March 24, 2008, 2:29 pm

A wonderful review of how faith and prayer don't help anyone heal--and why religion should be OUT of hospitals and medicine altogether, I recommend Richard P. Sloane's Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine. Sloane's book is great until the last chapter; and the change seems so abrupt, that I wonder if his publisher made him put it in.

Comment by: BletchleyPark | March 24, 2008, 5:14 pm

Call me crazy, but I actually have a part-time job cleaning an Assemblies of God church. Every Wednesday night they distribute a "prayer requests" sheet. It's on regular 8.5x11 paper, and is nearly covered front and back with prayer requests. There are typically more than a hundred of them.

On the back is a tiny space for "praise reports," i.e., answered prayers. Usually, it has nothing in it, although there's sometimes one. Once I saw two. Needless to say, these "answers" are nothing unusual, on the order of "Sister Jones is out the hospital," or some such thing.

I mean, really, these people look at these sheets week after week and it never seems to hit them between the eyes what any sighted person couldn't miss!

Comment by: mikespeir | March 24, 2008, 5:37 pm

"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him."

—James 5:14-15

That last part is what gets me. Back then, people thought that sins caused illnesses. Illnesses were Gods punishment for sins. Still today in some churches, you can get that same message.

Also, a side note: I have noticed in most churches that olive oil is specifically used for annointing. One AG pastor I talked to said that no other kind of oil will do. Is there some superstition concerning olives? If the AG said that oil is not required for healing, shouldn't it be just as effective to use soybean, corn, canola, sesame, baby, or motor oil?

Comment by: Robert Madewell | March 24, 2008, 8:56 pm

The question is how do you dissuade them from accepting what they have probably psychologically invested themselves in? How do you explain their own feelings and faith to them? That's the problem.

An excellent question, Brad. As it happens, I'm planning a post for later this week with some thoughts on that subject.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | March 24, 2008, 11:53 pm

Ebon, "My question to modern believers who view this passage symbolically is, if you know this doesn't work, how do you know that - and do you apply that same standard to the rest of the Bible? And to those who still use faith healing and dabs of magical oil, in an age of genetic manipulation, transplant surgery and antibiotics, my question is: Do you really believe that?"

This "modern believer" believes that absolutely. The sicknesses described in the Bible are spritual. One place that is clearly shown is in Mark 8:24 which is right after Jesus heals a blind man - blind being spiritually blind.
Mar 8:24 And he looked up, and said, I see men as trees, walking.
This parable helps in understanding "The trees of eden." I do apply the "same standard" to the rest of The Bible. Jesus Christ(The Word) the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It works and holds togethor beautifully from Genesis through Revelation once you understand The bible is truly spiritual, not carnal.

When I get sick, I go to a doctor and use anything that modern medicine has to offer to feel better. If the doctor says, "I can't help you, you are terminal," I say "No problem, thanks anyway."

Comment by: dutch | March 25, 2008, 12:52 am

Oh, so he was "spiritually blind." Thanks for the good news, Dutch!
Once one accepts that anything in the bible can be read as literal (if inaccurate) history, or as wide, nearly content-free metaphor, one realizes that it can be perceived as consistent...if one stands bent over, looking at it askew with one eye covered, one thumb in one's mouth, and one's head up one's ass. The bible can in fact be twisted to meet any interpretation, with surprisingly little effort. As long as we accept that "spiritual" = "extremely metaphorical or imaginary,"
and "carnal" = "real," I would agree with most of what you said.
Your final two sentences tell the tale, though. When sick, you do what anybody else would do. You seek practical treatment from trained professionals, while still bracing yourself for the worst. Same as the hypothetical atheist dying next to you. If Jesus or faith or god enter into this process anywhere, it is only in the space between your ears.
If you're game, I do have a biblical question. Was Lazarus just "spiritually" dead? And if so, why did his asshole friends stick him in a tomb? Hate to nitpick, but you got me curious.

Comment by: Neil | March 25, 2008, 3:00 am

Neil,

Yes, he was "spiritually" dead. The tomb you refer to is our earthly plane(earth)
They stuck him in a tomb because he was dead. Christs's body was laid in a tomb - who/what is Christ's body? There is no other interpetation of the Bible. You and I can quite literally rip apart any carnal interpretation of The Bible, albeit from different ends. The Bible falls apart when believed carnally which is why Ebon delights in Christian apologists attempting to uphold their beliefs.
I don't need to "brace myself for the worst."

Addressing the announting of oil: According to The Bible, oil is wisdom. Obtaining wisdom will indeed open your eyes. I don't expect you to believe this, indeed, it is much more convenient for you to discredit The Bible your way.

Anyway, this is my response to this article. It can be dismissed as the rantings of a lunatic, it doesn't bother me. Been there, done that.

Comment by: dutch | March 25, 2008, 10:55 am

Thanks for linking to my site regarding the issue of being annointed with oil, and I appreciated your fair treatment of the issue.

Much of what you write on this issue is correct. For too long many Christians have taken a hocus-pocus attitude when it comes to the Bible's mention of being annointed with oil. Such superstition is ridiculous, silly, anti-intellectual, and a misreading of the Christian documents.

One issue, that you may have overlooked, is the ancient nature of the Christian documents. IF the passage regarding oil is indeed referring to applying medical care first (before prayers), as most Evangelical Christians believe, then the passage makes more sense. Oil was a medicinal property 2,000 years ago in the Roman world. No scholar of the period doubts this (Christian or otherwise). Thus, the contemporary application of the passage would be to see your doctor before you resort to praying for healing. There is much in the Bible that is specific to that culture (e.g. the commands to greet one another with a holy kiss---doesn't happen much in American churches today because it doesn't work in our culture. We simply shake hands). The letter of James was not written directly to the church today, but rather to a very specific and limited group of people in Jerusalem over 2,000 years ago. While we can learn things, we must remember that we were never intended to be its direct audience.

Personally, I think it is symbolic. Your treatment of the issue betrays an unfamiliarity with Old Testament literature and culture. Oil was highly symbolic in the Old Testament, and also within the records of Jesus ministry (e.g. the prostitute who annointed Jesus' feet with oil). Don't forget when discussing the Bible you must strip yourself of a modern, Western mindset and try to enter into an Easter, ancient mindset and culture.

You have a great mind, and you ask fair and reasonable questions. In the spirit of free inquiry, let reason and evidence lead you. Personally, I believe they will lead you to Christianity (as they did me). I might also recommend the recent book by Tim Keller on the issue of the reasonableness of Christianity.

Comment by: Josh Gelatt | March 25, 2008, 12:20 pm

In that case, please dismiss Dutch's comments as the rantings of a lunatic.

We, indeed, have "been there, done that" with him, numerous times, unfortunately.

Good grief! I don't know about anyone else, but I've grown very tired of hearing about those "spiritual" and "earthly" planes of yours, Dutch!

Comment by: Judy | March 25, 2008, 2:08 pm

Dutch,

According to The Bible, oil is wisdom. Obtaining wisdom will indeed open your eyes.

And how does one annount someone with wisdom? I've been rubbing myself with oil all day and I don't seem to be getting wiser. The metaphor doesn't seem to work very well in real life.

Yes, he was "spiritually" dead. The tomb you refer to is our earthly plane(earth)

So where was he before he was put in the tomb? Was he in this other plane you keep talking about? That would mean all his friends who put him in the tomb were not on earth either, and also have the power to move people from plane to plane. It would seem your interpretation leads one to think the story bounces back and forth between different realms of existance without mentioning it once. Did you come about this revelation through the olive oil (and in this case, oil is metaphor for crazy)? Isn't it also just a little strange how no one, except you, up to this day and age has been presenting this view point?

Can we please just admit it's all made up?

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | March 25, 2008, 2:53 pm

Yeah, I remember when Dutch left another thread three weeks ago, saying he was leaving and never coming back. He had gathered enough material from us stupid atheists to finish his book. He's baaaaack!
Dutch, why are you trying to come at us with another way of interpreting the bible, when it doesn't matter, WE DON'T BELIEVE ANY INTERPRETATION OF IT.

The Bible falls apart when believed carnally which is why Ebon delights in Christian apologists attempting to uphold their beliefs

Guess what? The bible falls apart when believed spiritually also.

Comment by: goyo | March 25, 2008, 3:28 pm

I wouldn't say "lunatic," though he certainly does seem to be inordinately obtuse. O.o

Comment by: Alex Weaver | March 25, 2008, 4:51 pm

Personally, I get a little tingle every time I read the word "carnal". I hope she or he continues to post here for a while -- using that word, of course.

Comment by: Thumpalumpacus | March 25, 2008, 5:12 pm

I've also wondered about the oil in these ceremonies. It shouldn't make any difference, an omnipotent god would be able to perform no matter what. Of course, with an omnipotent god, why would you need oil in the first place?
I know in the baptist church, they take communion with grape juice, instead of real wine. I always wondered if that changed anything.
The same with holy water. It comes right out of the tap.
I can remember prayer services in "spirit-filled" churches where so many people were laying hands on me, I felt intimidated not to proclaim some kind of victory over some sort of problem.
As I've said before, for some reason, it seems to make your god more real if you can participate physically in some kind of ceremony with him or her.

Comment by: goyo | March 25, 2008, 5:15 pm

Mr. Gelatt,

IF the passage regarding oil is indeed referring to applying medical care first (before prayers), as most Evangelical Christians believe, then the passage makes more sense. Oil was a medicinal property 2,000 years ago in the Roman world.

Odd that god would tell them to do something that doesn't work. I think you are explicitly admitting that the Bible is man-made here.

Thus, the contemporary application of the passage would be to see your doctor before you resort to praying for healing.

Hindsight is 20/20 isn't it? What I mean is, it's easy to go use your modern knowledge and then impart that knowledge back onto the Bible and say, "Oh, that musta been what they meant." But, you also said this:

Don't forget when discussing the Bible you must strip yourself of a modern, Western mindset and try to enter into an Easter, ancient mindset and culture.

Which makes your comments contradictory. You wish to reinterpret the Bible with a modern understanding while simultaneously arguing that it should be interpreted with an ancient understanding.

Comment by: OMGF | March 26, 2008, 5:40 pm

You wish to reinterpret the Bible with a modern understanding while simultaneously arguing that it should be interpreted with an ancient understanding.

OMGF wins the thread for that comment.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | March 26, 2008, 5:55 pm

You can make a consistent interpretation of The Holy Bible, given the "right" supposed metaphors and meanings. You should keep in mind, though, that you should be looking for the *correct* interpretation, regardless of how your opinion of the Bible may change. This does not mean being on the lookout for the easy way out. In fact, I think pure, literal consistency (under stringent or flexible interpretation) is relatively unimportant compared to the believability of the Bible and its messages, history, commands, creeds, prophesies, and so on. How does it lend its credence to the reader?

[Note: Ebonmuse pointed out that the "sick" literally rise, as in get our of a seat or position. It is more likely this is physical, not spiritual.]

Comment by: Brad | March 26, 2008, 7:22 pm

Robert Madewell:

Maybe we can start a new religion using syntetic motor oil for healing?...:)

Comment by: Doy | March 26, 2008, 11:41 pm

This post, as well as faith healers, totally misinterprets this passage. It is talking to those about to die. It isn't saving them from sickness, it is saving them to everlasting life. They rise not from their bed but up to heaven. This interpretation makes more sense, because otherwise, the last clause doesn't make sense. Why should sick people that get better be forgiven all their sins? When the sick are about to die, they should call their preacher, be prayed over, be annointed, be saved, and have their sins forgiven.

Comment by: driveby | March 27, 2008, 10:46 am

There are multiple instances in the Bible where the forgiveness of sins is clearly associated with physical healing. See, for example, Luke 5:24.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | March 27, 2008, 12:58 pm

Sure thing Doy! Can we call it Valvolinism?

Also, I think baby oil might be better for annointing than olive oil. It smells nice. :)

Comment by: Robert Madewell | March 27, 2008, 7:58 pm

Mr. Gelatt:

One issue, that you may have overlooked, is the ancient nature of the Christian documents

No, we haven't overlooked that. As a matter of fact, we are constantly referencing the fact that indeed, these are ancient documents, obviously written by ancient, ignorant people.

Oil was a medicinal property 2,000 years ago in the Roman world

As mentioned by OMGF above, why was oil used as medicine, when it doesn't work? Why did god allow this misbelief to continue? You wouldn't rub oil on your child stricken with cancer or diabetes today. Why didn't god simply inform his people about science?

There is much in the Bible that is specific to that culture (e.g. the commands to greet one another with a holy kiss—doesn't happen much in American churches today because it doesn't work in our culture. We simply shake hands). The letter of James was not written directly to the church today, but rather to a very specific and limited group of people in Jerusalem over 2,000 years ago. While we can learn things, we must remember that we were never intended to be its direct audience.

Really? And how did you decide that? Please tell us how you can tell which passages in the bible are meant for today, and which ones are meant for years ago? Also, please tell us which ones are symbolic and which ones are literal.

Don't forget when discussing the Bible you must strip yourself of a modern, Western mindset and try to enter into an Easter, ancient mindset and culture.

What you've just admitted is that a person simply opening the bible is unable to understand it properly without the knowledge of ancient, eastern mindsets and culture, which is the majority of xtians in the U.S.
So when I hear advertisements for different ministries about the bible having the answers to all of life's problems, how do I know that I am intepreting the bible correctly? How do I know if it applies to my current, modern-day life, or is simply some old news that doesn't apply to me?
I have a question about the issue of civil rights. Where do I find that in the bible? Surely, the bible tells me what to think about discrimination, slavery, those kinds of things, right?
What about stem cell research? Where in the bible does it talk about that?
Did they talk about things like that 2,000 years ago?
So the bible really doesn't have the answers to life's problems in the 21st century, because it is an ancient book, written in an ancient language, with an eastern mindset that I simply cannot comprehend, because I don't really know what the author's original intent was.
What do you think?

Comment by: goyo | March 28, 2008, 9:41 am

When you read that Assemblies of God statement, it's plain there's some pretty oily language at work there. It's practically a "This demonination makes no claims to cure disease or treat symptoms" disclaimer. This way the hierarchy keeps its hands clean in the most disingenuous of ways--but, boy, the rank and file sure swear by annointing's medical efficacy. Of course, I have only anecdotal personal experience to go by--I've had family and family friends in that church for all of my adult life.

Comment by: nfpendleton | March 28, 2008, 5:15 pm

Friday I came across a news article concerning a child who had died because the parents prayed for her rather than seek medical attention. Here is a link to the follow up article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer;_ylt=As.rtJMUr7IFwXrSpRkRil.s0NUE

What I find mind boggling is the fact that these people still continue to pray to this god that allowed their child to die. Do they not have any respect? Do they have no anger? I mean frak this a-hole who said he would grant any prayer and then turns his back on your child and lets her die while you are on your knees begging...

This is as sad as reading posts on this thread that try to justify the ramblings of 3000 year old superstitious manuscripts as having current moral relevance.

Comment by: Jeff T. | March 29, 2008, 11:45 am

To OMGF

Your wrote: "Odd that god would tell them to do something that doesn't work."

But this is where you are wrong. Oil was a medicinal remedy. There are medical treatises written from Greek and Roman physicians on the subject. It DID work, to a limited degree. All medicine is limited in its application. Even our modern day "wonder-drugs" have very narrow and specific uses. Whether or not we wish to believe the passage is correct in its supernatural assumptions, we cannot intelligently deny that it was good medical advice for the 1st century period.

You wrote: Which makes your comments contradictory. You wish to reinterpret the Bible with a modern understanding while simultaneously arguing that it should be interpreted with an ancient understanding.

How is this contradictory? Interpretation necessarily must take into account authorial intent. Thus, since the document was written in the first century for first century hearers, our interpretation must seek to understand this first-century situation. Yet, since we are moderns seeking continued application and relevancy for the document, application seeks to make the bridge from ancient to modern.

So yes, we need to understand the ancient mindset to interpret, while simultaneously knowing our own modern context to apply.

Comment by: Josh Gelatt | April 10, 2008, 12:16 pm

Josh,

Oil was a medicinal remedy. There are medical treatises written from Greek and Roman physicians on the subject. It DID work, to a limited degree.

So do sugar-pills. Got any evidence that oil is a better remedy than a placebo? I'm wracking my brain and can't seem to come up with a single illness oil cures. Would you ever advise annointed with oil in a hospital?

Whether or not we wish to believe the passage is correct in its supernatural assumptions, we cannot intelligently deny that it was good medical advice for the 1st century period.

If it's not good now, why would it be good then? What's changed?
Likewise, why would god suggest it? Didn't he know anything about the world he created in terms of illnesses, viruses, bacteria and the like?

Interpretation necessarily must take into account authorial intent.

It's claimed to be the world of god; why should it have to be interpretted, or have a non-existant rate of being right?

Thus, since the document was written in the first century for first century hearers, our interpretation must seek to understand this first-century situation.

Compare the first century to medical advances now, would you say our medicial knowledge and ability is better or worse? Also, please remind me which advances came from science, evidence, and experimention, and how many came from the bible.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | April 10, 2008, 3:29 pm

Your wrote: "Odd that god would tell them to do something that doesn't work."

But this is where you are wrong. Oil was a medicinal remedy. There are medical treatises written from Greek and Roman physicians on the subject. It DID work, to a limited degree. All medicine is limited in its application. Even our modern day "wonder-drugs" have very narrow and specific uses. Whether or not we wish to believe the passage is correct in its supernatural assumptions, we cannot intelligently deny that it was good medical advice for the 1st century period.

I agreed with OMGF about this. Again, you have to answer the question:
Why didn't god tell man about science(medicine)?
WHY NOT? You're refusing to answer the question. Forget about the time period...god could have told man how to make medicines that would be much better than oil. That was simply what their medicine was at the time, which makes the bible no better than any other writing at the time.

How is this contradictory? Interpretation necessarily must take into account authorial intent. Thus, since the document was written in the first century for first century hearers, our interpretation must seek to understand this first-century situation. Yet, since we are moderns seeking continued application and relevancy for the document, application seeks to make the bridge from ancient to modern.

So yes, we need to understand the ancient mindset to interpret, while simultaneously knowing our own modern context to apply.

Again, this begs the question, who wrote the bible? If it was man, then it indeed seems appropriate for it to be incorrect. If it was god, then it should have been a book that would have been totally appropriate for the ages. That includes not having to be re-interpreted today in the 21st century, but still being relevant.

Comment by: goyo | April 10, 2008, 3:57 pm

Josh Gelatt, why do doctors say the Hippocratic Oath instead of some Christic Oath? Why does modern medical practice have MUCH more in common with Hippocrates's rationalistic school of medicine than with exorcism or magical spit therapy or faith healing? Hippocrates supposedly claimed that the reason that people claim that epilepsy is caused by some god or other is because they don't really know what causes it -- an early recognition of the weakness of "god of the gaps" arguments.

Yes, the Bible tells us that jesus Christ had practiced magical spit therapy: Mark 7:32-35, Mark 8:22-25, John 9:1-7.

And why is a supposedly perfect and universal textbook like the Bible written in the obscure fashion that Josh Gelatt claims it is? Why should it take such an enormous amount of detective work?

Comment by: lpetrich | April 11, 2008, 7:13 am

goyo, you wrote: "If it was god, then it should have been a book that would have been totally appropriate for the ages. That includes not having to be re-interpreted today in the 21st century, but still being relevant."

OK, what would a "timeless" document look like? Have you ever seen one? Even our US Constitution isn't considered timeless and--just 200 years later--has to be reinterpreted to fit our contemporary context. The mere fact that it is written in a time and culture based language means it must be a product of its time. Your asking for something that is logically impossible, and have therefore reduced your argument to the nonsense argument of "can God make a rock so big that he can't move it". I find it interesting that no philosopher uses the argument against scripture that you are using. Why? Because it doesn't make logical sense. You are, in fact, saying that God (who by definition is where logic is derived from) must do something illogical (produce a timeless document that somehow 'transcends' language & culture for all time) before you will believe it.

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to? What requires God to have HAD to given medical advice acceptable by today's standards? He did, in fact, give medical advice that was acceptable to the standards of thousands upon thousands of years of human history. So he did give good medical advice that was applicable and helpful to the overwhelming majority of human history. But, he didn't even have to do that. The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

If I write a book about flowers, I would be surprised to find people angry because I didn't talk about rocks. Or if I did briefly refer to a rock, would be surprised to find people angry because I did not use the precise language of a geologist.

Getting made because Jesus didn't tell people about penicillin seems silly. In 2,000 years penicillin will probably be seen as simplistic as we now see oil.

So, by your definition the only way it can be God's Word is if it hands us, all at once, the full and final book of medical knowledge, the final stage of scientific research, and the sum total of all that can be known on any subject.

Hmmmmm......am I the only one seeing a logical problem with this argument?

Comment by: Josh Gelatt | May 9, 2008, 9:55 am

So, by your definition the only way it can be God's Word is if it hands us, all at once, the full and final book of medical knowledge, the final stage of scientific research, and the sum total of all that can be known on any subject.

That is absolutely correct. What's the problem with that?

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to? What requires God to have HAD to given medical advice acceptable by today's standards? He did, in fact, give medical advice that was acceptable to the standards of thousands upon thousands of years of human history. So he did give good medical advice that was applicable and helpful to the overwhelming majority of human history. But, he didn't even have to do that. The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

Then why did god go into such detail in the old testament to explain how the priest was to cure leprosy? Is that not medical advice? What about the intricate details of food preparation; clean, unclean animals; social interaction, including how to take care of your slaves; etc...?
Let's look at god's knowledge: OT: cure for leprosy, animal sacrifice. NT: cure for everything else, annointing with oil.
What do you think?

Comment by: goyo | May 9, 2008, 10:54 am

I've already won the thread, but...

The mere fact that it is written in a time and culture based language means it must be a product of its time.

Why do you assume that a timeless, omni-max being can't create a book that will magically adapt to the time and language of the viewer? It is NOT logically impossible for an omni-max god to do something along these lines.

You are, in fact, saying that God (who by definition is where logic is derived from)...

I wonder, can we co-opt Euthyphro's dilemma for logic? Is it logical because god says it is, or is there some absolute logic that god just tells us about? Either way, I have a problem with saying that an illogical idea such as god is by definition where logic is derived from.

As to the charge, "why didn't God tell man about science?". I have my own question, why does he have to?

Because he has a moral obligation to do so. Science and medicine have saved lives. Telling us to put oil on ourselves to "heal" ourselves obviously doesn't work, and cost some people their lives due to their ignorance of medicine. If god had that knowledge and withheld it from us on purpose, then he is guilty of homicide, which even you should agree is immoral.

Comment by: OMGF | May 9, 2008, 11:34 am

Josh Gelatt, I invite you to read some mathematics textbooks some time -- their content is as close to timeless as one can get. And one does not have to reveal everything -- only the more important things. And one can structure one's revelations like a textbook, starting with elementary stuff and going on to more advanced stuff.

Josh Gelatt, your fellow Xian apologists often brag about all the fulfilled prophecies the Bible contains, and sometimes about its supposedly-great scientific knowledge. But now you are turning around and saying that the Bible has been dumbed down for its audience. Seems to me a case of heads I win, tails you lose.

Comment by: lpetrich | May 9, 2008, 1:11 pm

Ipetrich: Great comment. There's a local church who advertises their Sunday morning bible study on the radio by saying, "the bible has all the answers to the questions of life". Well obviously, not all of them.

Comment by: goyo | May 9, 2008, 4:14 pm

The purpose of the Bible isn't to offer medical advice or advance medical knowledge of human DNA. The purpose of the bible is to declare that God exists and how we may know him.

The problem with your argument, Josh, is that the Bible doesn't simply stop at declaring that God exists. It does give medical advice, as well as many other factual claims relating to different areas of human life. And the problem is that many of the factual claims which the Bible makes are demonstrably wrong - and not just wrong, but unmistakably derived from superstitions common in the societies in which it was written.

In short, not only does the Bible lack any content which would give us reason to believe it was written by someone who knew more than the human beings of the time, but its similarity to common, erroneous beliefs of the past give us a positive reason to believe it was written by those ignorant human beings. If you think it's unfair to criticize the Bible for making erroneous claims, your quarrel is not with us, but with the authors of the Bible for putting those claims in it in the first place.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | May 10, 2008, 1:21 am

. Your asking for something that is logically impossible, and have therefore reduced your argument to the nonsense argument of "can God make a rock so big that he can't move it".

Hmmmmm......am I the only one seeing a logical problem with this argument?

Logically impossible...logical problem?

Two words: Talking snake.

Comment by: goyo | May 10, 2008, 5:44 pm