The Instigator
ZBestDebater
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mfigurski80
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should healing children by faith be illegal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 596 times Debate No: 77739
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (0)

 

ZBestDebater

Pro

In the bible, it says that God helps those who help themselves. See, when a child is sick, You should give him modern medicine, but you should also have faith in god. Asking God for an instant miracle is treating him like a Tool. It's not right, you're not only insulting god by doing that, but you're also damaging a child. Sure, do it to yourself, but A child? A child does not have the option to say yes or no to this, it has to do what the parents say. So I say it should be illegal, To not give a child modern treatment when he or she is sick or injured.
mfigurski80

Con

I accept and thank my partner for making this debate. BoP is fully on PRO, as he is the instigator and arguing that something should be changed. I also ask my partner to make haste with the posting of arguments, as I will not be steadily available by Saturday untill the end of next week.

RESOLUTION: "Healing children by faith should be illegal"

I will be CON, arguing that "Healing children using faith cannot be illegalized." Notice that I said "healing using faith", not the standard "faith healing". My version allows for use of normal medicine as well as religous medicine: prayer.

Rules:
1) No trolling
2) No new arguments in final round
3) No offensive statements in debate and in chat
4) No changing of rules without public assent of both debators

Breakage of any of these rules will result in forfeiture of the entire debate (all seven points should be given to the opposite side) unless a middleground is publicly agreed upon by both debators.
*END OF SETUP


"In the bible, it says that God helps those who help themselves" - No it doesn't. This is a common heresy that 75% of American's believe in, yet it proclaims the exact opposite of Christian views. For example: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight" Proverbs 5-6, according to the new International Bible (1)

"You should give him modern medicine, but you should also have faith in God." - If you live according to the bible, you should have faith in God first, and then the modern medicine will be provided. Not really heresy.

"Asking God for an instant miracle is treating him like a tool" - Heresy again. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" Matthew 7:7 (2).

"You're only instulting God by doing that" - No you aren't, see above. Simply asking means that we have some small belief that it may come true. Therefore we are leaning on God, letting him take away our troubles as he wants us too. Heresy.

"You're also damaging the child." - Heresy. Asking God for a miracle cannot even logically do any damage to a child. And if you're Christian, you believe that asking God for help makes it surely come.

"A child does not have the option to say yes or no to this, it has to do what the parents say" - Considering the context, another heresy. You say this as if it was a bad thing, yet it is good for the child to do what the parents say, as the parents care about the child and know what to do better than the child. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right" Ephesians 6:1 (3).

"it should be illegal [t]o not give a child modern treatment when he or she is sick"(spelling courtesy of mfigurski). First off, this is what madatory healthcare is for. You can't make it illegal because that would restrict freedom, so the government simply pushed the public to use medicine by issuing mandatory healthcare and making it seem cheaper.
Secondly, thise does not pertain to the debate, as the resolution is: "Healing children by faith should be illegal", not "Healing children ONLY with faith sould be illegal".
Besides, prayer could push God to help the family get and use modern medicine.

(1)http://biblehub.com...
(2)http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...
(3)http://www.openbible.info...;

Thanks to all viewers. Awaiting further posts from PRO, hopefully we'll get this done quickly...
Debate Round No. 1
ZBestDebater

Pro

Did you read what i said? I said that you should both have faith in God and give the child modern medicine, but if you just let your child lay there in bed, sick, and in pain, just asking god to instantly heal the child, Well, i think that's wrong. See, I don't mind having faith in God when you are also giving the child modern medicine: You should have faith, actually. But when you ask God to help you when you aren't even trying to help the kid, just no. Now, my main point isn't that the bible says you should help yourself: My point is that kids have died over this belief, and i know we have freedom of religion, but do you really think this is right? If you had a 7 year old child, that has Tuberculosis, and he is lying in bed, In pain, would you choose to only ask God for help and not do anything else? Do you really think that's right? No. Also, parents don't always want what's best for you. Ex: All the fathers who rape their daughters, all the mothers who kill their sons. See, I believe in God, and i always ask him for help, but i also do the best i can to help myself too. And I believe that God will help me pull through all of this trouble: And he does. Everytime there is something bad in my life, I pray to God, and everything's fixed by the next week. But, I would never just sit there and wait for god to make a miracle immediately. And i don't think you would either.
mfigurski80

Con


I have read what you wrote. You did not say that "you should have both faith in God and give the child modern medicine", especially since this is what I am arguing.
You are PRO for the RESOLUTION, which states that "Healing children by faith should be illegal". Therefore you have to prove that praying to heal someone should be illegal and nothing more.

"Also, parents don't always want what's best for you." - Doesn't matter. A child should stay obedient to it's father and mother, regardless of what happens, according to the bible. Once he/she becomes an adult, he/she can choose for herself/himself which way is the right way, but beforehand it doesn't fully understand and cannot correctly judge between right and weong

"I also do the best I can to help myself too" - Then you aren't living fully in God. When you have problems you can trust God to solve them, and that trust along will prove your faith and your resignation towards God. Did not Jesus say: "Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move" Matther 17:20 (1). God wants us to trust in him, and he will help us if we do.


"Every[ ]time there is something bad in my life, I pray to God, and everything is fixed by next week. But, I would never just sit there and wait" - Well, that's good. No quarrel there.



Debate Round No. 2
ZBestDebater

Pro

When i said Healing children by faith, I meant (OBVIOUSLY) that you shouldn't just sit there and hope that god works his miracles without doing anything to help the child with modern medicine, should be illegal. Healing with both faith and Modern medicine is fine, just modern medicine too, but with JUST faith is wrong. you can't just ask god to make miracles instantly, it's unnatural. If you read "Having faith in god while healing children should be illegal", then you are a clod. i specified, "Healing children by faith" and i only said faith, nothing else. i am against this, and if you are against this too, as you already said "you should have both faith in God and give the child modern medicine", especially since this is what I am arguing. " And this looks like you admit at being against faith-only healing.
mfigurski80

Con

Why are all of my debates becoming kritik debates?

The RESOLUTION is: "Healing children by faith should be illegal", as stated in the title. Notice, the RESOLUTION does not say "healing with only faith", or even "without use of medicine". The RESOLUTION is against praying to heal children.

You are PRO, so you have to argue for the RESOLUTION. Therefore, you have to convince the viewers to believe that praying to heal someone is bad, and should be illegalized. Nothing more.

I am CON. I have to prove to all that it should be legal to pray for the healing of the sick children.

And since you are the instigator and you are trying to change something in the world, BoP is fully on you. So far, you have not provided as single backed and valid argument that contributed to your position.
*END OF KRITIK

And I am not totally against faith-only healing, especially when it is done correctly. But that is irrelevant and not pertaining to this debate.
Debate Round No. 3
ZBestDebater

Pro

Did I say "Should praying to god to help a sick child be illegal?"? No. I didn't say that. If you don't understand what "Faith healing" means, then you shouldn't have accepted the argument, if you couldn't recieve the message, then you shouldn't have accepted this argument. Healing children only by faith can't be done "incorrectly or correctly" It's hoping. Everyone knows how to do that as long as they have a brain. I believe that you should have the freedom to pray for help to god, but you also need to try to help the child with modern remedies.
mfigurski80

Con

mfigurski80 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
ZBestDebater

Pro

I guessed so. When you came, you should've agreed with me instead of opposing me and then giving up.
mfigurski80

Con

I'm very sorry for the forfeit. I went on a short sightseeing trip to Washington DC, and it prolonged itself a bit. Anyway, back to the debate.

"Did I say 'should praying to [G]od to help sick children be illegal'? No. I didn't say that." - Yes you did. It's actually in the title, which I presumed to be the full RESOLUTION and then stated so clearly in my first round. The title, for those who wish it to change, reads: "Should healing children by faith be illegal?"

This, in order to be a proper resolution, should be in the form of a statement, so the final version reads: "Healing children by faith should be illegal" Notice the similarity between the title and the accepted RESOLUTION.

I will outline this again. You are PRO. You say 'yay' to the RESOLUTION, so you want healing children to be illegal. Notice that "faith healing" and "healing by faith" are two very different things. You chose the latter, and so you are specifically against praying to heal children. Not faith healing.

And I am CON, so I say 'nay' to the RESOLUTION. BoP is on you, since praying to heal is normal and accepted and since you are the instigator. Throughout this debate, you have failed to demonstrate how or why the audience should accept and support your side over the standard.

Therefore, you have lost the debate.


"If you don't understand what 'faith healing' means, then you shouldn't have accepted the [debate]." - That is why I have accepted. I do very much understand what faith healing is, yet you make no connection to "healing by faith" and "faith healing", and so faith healing is irrelevant.

"Healing children by faith can't be done 'incorrectly or correctly'[.]" - Yes it can. For example, some people take healing by faith much too seriously. You may have heard of it, they call it simply "faith healing". Those people will accept nothing less then a flash of light and a deafening lightning bolt from God to heal their child. This is the "incorrect" way to heal someone with faith.

On the other hand, some people will pray for a sick child but will also accept outside help. If a man came to a child with cancer, claiming that he has discovered a cure and wants to try it on the child, and it does indeed work, this man could be regarded as sent by God, and so the healing by faith has succeeded. This is the correct way to faith heal.

The second is obviously much better, because it allows God to have other people do good things, possibly making them turn towards him. Healing by faith is an opportunity God usually gives to other people, helping them through it and 'milking' the situation for all it's worth.

"It's hoping." - It matters what you hope for. That's the difference between correct faith healing and incorrect faith healing.

"When you came, you should've agreed with me instead of opposing me and then giving up" - I'm sorry if this is the impression I transmitted with my FF. You shouldn't've worried, I have a lot of forfeits spread throughout my debates, yet I don't every give up.


*SUMMARY
I personally think that PRO has failed to provide for the BoP, and that he turned this debate into an argument as to what the REOLUTION means. At least he doesn't heresy as much as before, so I guess something useful happened here.

VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Faith isn't really any kind of standard that can be tested for reliability. Claims about faith can be used to justify and defend absolutely anything on an equal " and equally unreasonable " basis. This means that faith ultimately justifies and defends absolutely nothing because after we're done with all the faith claims, we're left precisely where we were when we started: faced with a set of religions that all appear to be about equally plausible or implausible. Since our position has not changed, faith obviously added nothing to our deliberations. If faith added nothing, then it has no value when it comes to evaluating whether a religion is likely true or not.
Therefore claims about the truth of religion or the existence of some god cannot be defended to a skeptical nonbeliever or freethinker on the basis of faith. It means that faith is not an adequate or reasonable defense of any belief or belief system which purports to have any empirical connection to the reality which we all share. Faith is also an unreliable and irrational basis for singling out one religion and claiming that it is true while all other religions, as well as any competing secular philosophies, are false.
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Naw, of course the sky isn't blue. Who told you that?
Posted by makormk 1 year ago
makormk
The same reason why you believe that the sky is blue when it really isn't.....i guess we all are fooling ourselves are't we ?
Posted by mfigurski80 1 year ago
mfigurski80
Some people think that "belief determines reality". If you truly believe something happened, or is happening, it becomes real for you, because you fool your "real" senses into adapting for your belief.
Posted by makormk 1 year ago
makormk
okay but you see the thing with faith is the same way you say 'see you tomorrow 'to your friends or perhaps your girlfriend is as a result of your faith....you have a strong belief or confidence that tomorrow you will see your loved ones.The 2 definitions rather go hand in glove and im unable to observe their difference.And as a result you and up seeing your friends the next day and the fact that it comes to pass may also be a credit of our faith.....FAITH is rather a powerful weapon though you might be correct about it not being a tool of knowledge but it has results as compared to anything in this world. so i believe that Faith is a more powerful healing weapon
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith: "1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."
The reason I have trust in doctors, is the way they acquire and use knowledge to heal. Faith is not a reliable path to knowledge.
The two meanings of the word "faith," are not only different, they are exact opposites.
Posted by makormk 1 year ago
makormk
.My view to this debate is that making it illegal is indirectly taking away our liberty which we christians are constantly fighting for in this illuminated world.People like Moses and Elijah didnt use medication but only faith and if the bible says that same anointing tht they had is upon us then why should we use modern medicine on our kids.....besides If one has faith and no doubt then all is possible.i would also like to state out that the same faith that you have in your doctors and Painkillers is the same faith i have in the word and its miraculous wonders
Posted by Alpha3141 1 year ago
Alpha3141
This is the fallacy of Bifurcation that people fall into. It isn't simply "Either God heals me or medicine heals me". Why can't it be both, God healing someone through the use of medicine? That's at least what I say. It would save a lot more peoples lives.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
It would seem odd to me that god would take time out from killing little kids with car accidents and cancer to save one because someone kissed his asz with prayer. Prayer looks like your doing something when in fact your doing nothing.
Posted by ZBestDebater 1 year ago
ZBestDebater
Well If you're confused: Here is a short version- I think healing children By Faith ONLY should be banned, since many children have died because of this. If they have faith and give the child modern medicine, too, then it's okay. If they do it to themselves, okay too. But if they do it to a child, who can't say yes or no, then i don't think that's right.
No votes have been placed for this debate.