Get Vaccinated Against God?

This video certainly chooses its moments.  Unfortunately the good that has been accomplished by Christianity throughout the world is completely ignored.  Many literal vaccines that have saved children from real disease have been administered in the name of Jesus and as a result of Christian Charity.  This video seems to miss all of that.

Advertisements

7 Comments

  1. ” Science is a vaccine against self deception. ”

    Your post is an excellent example of what this video’s message was about.

  2. God has had thousands of years to let us know how to get rid of the diseases HE created. It took science just a short time after it got started to figure out how to do it. Science is saving our bacon on a daily basis…I don’t see god out there helping. Remember two thirds of the world does not believe in Christianity and they also contribute to charity, as do I…an atheist.

    The three largest “belief” groups in the world:
    1. Christianity 2.2 billion
    2. Islam 2.0 billion
    3. Non-believers 1.2 billion

  3. You should quit trying to deceive yourself.

    dsoat going on about the generosity of Christians completely misses the point of the video. The message is, Science is a vaccine against self deception.

    Yes superstitious people can do good things too. Please notice in your example they were handing out cures that have been proven to work.

  4. Christianity has helped the crusade to vaccinate children and disease?

    You couldn’t make a more false statement. Smallpox was seen as god’s creation, punishment for sin and part of god’s natural order. To vaccinate was to defy god.
    http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/whitem10.html
    I quote:

    I hasten now to one of the most singular struggles of medical science during modern times. Early in the last century Boyer presented inoculation as a preventive of smallpox in France, and thoughtful physicians in England, inspired by Lady Montagu and Maitland, followed his example. Ultra-conservatives in medicine took fright at once on both sides of the Channel, and theology was soon finding profound reasons against the new practice. The French theologians of the Sorbonne solemnly condemned it; the English theologians were most loudly represented by the Rev. Edward Massey, who in 1772 preached and published a sermon entitled _The Dangerous and Sinful Practice of Inoculation_. In this he declared that Job’s distemper was probably confluent smallpox; that he had been inoculated doubtless by the devil; that diseases are sent by Providence for the punishment of sin; and that the proposed attempt to prevent them is “a diabolical operation.” Not less vigorous was the sermon of the Rev. Mr. Delafaye, entitled _Inoculation an Indefensible Practice_. This struggle went on for thirty years. It is a pleasure to note some churchmen–and among them Madox, Bishop of Worcester–giving battle on the side of right reason; but as late as 1753 we have a noted rector at Canterbury denouncing inoculation from his pulpit in the primatial city, and many of his brethren following his example.

    The same opposition was vigorous in Protestant Scotland. A large body of ministers joined in denouncing the new practice as “flying in the face of Providence,” and “endeavouring to baffle a Divine judgment.”

    On our own side of the ocean, also, this question had to be fought out. About the year 1721 Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, a physician in Boston, made an experiment in inoculation, one of his first subjects being his own son. He at once encountered bitter hostility, so that the selectmen of the city forbade him to repeat the experiment. Foremost among his opponents was Dr. Douglas, a Scotch physician, supported by the medical professton and the newspapers. The violence of the opposing party knew no bounds; they insisted that inoculation was “poisoning,” and they urged the authorities to try Dr. Boylston for murder. Having thus settled his case for this world, they proceeded to settle it for the next, insisting that “for a man to infect a family in the morning with smallpox and to pray to God in the evening against the disease is blasphemy”; that the smallpox is “a judgment of God on the sins of the people,” and that “to avert it is but to provoke him more”; that inoculation is “an encroachment on the prerogatives of Jehovah, whose right it is to wound and smite.” Among the mass of scriptural texts most remote from any possible bearing on the subject one was employed which was equally cogent against any use of healing means in any disease–the words of Hosea: “He hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.”

    So bitter was this opposition that Dr. Boylston’s life was in danger; it was considered unsafe for him to be out of his house in the evening; a lighted grenade was even thrown into the house of Cotton Mather, who had favoured the new practice, and had sheltered another clergyman who had submitted himself to it.

    • Christianity right now as I write this is saving victims in Japan, Is vaccinating children in Africa, is providing clean drinking water to the world. I personally know many people because of there Christian faith who are vaccinating children. I am sorry but an outdated example of feeble minded religious people does not negate the enormous amount of good that is being done now because of faith in God. You really are desperately grasping at straws here.

      Christianity has vaccinated many children from disease and continues to do so. To say that Christianity is not doing this is a complete denial of facts.

      George Washington was bled to death because “science” said it was necessary for his healing. A Bible was not far from his deathbed and had the doctors read from its pages that the “life of the flesh is in the blood” his life could have been spared.

      I am not denying that you can find examples of stupid religious people. But are you saying there are not stupid atheist? That there aren’t terrible atheist? Stalin comes to mind.

      This is a good example of religion being used in the wrong way but, that does not negate the enormous amount of good that is being done by Christianity and it certainly does not make my true statement false.

      • >>Christianity right now as I write this is saving victims in Japan, Is vaccinating children in Africa, is providing clean drinking water to the world.

        That’s fine, but it doesn’t address the fact that Christianity was diametrically opposed to vaccines and medicine in the first place. You are also forgetting that Christianity spreads misinformation to Africans that their condoms have holes, cause impotence, are a sin, etc. in the middle of an HIV outbreak.

        You can tout the good done in the name of your faith, but please encompass all the facts.

        >>I am sorry but an outdated example of feeble minded religious people does not negate the enormous amount of good that is being done now because of faith in God. You really are desperately grasping at straws here.

        Am I? A number of Christians today leave their children to die because medicine is considered unnecessary due to prayer. There is a recurring anti-vaccine stigma because Rubella vaccines require embryonic cells, and a number of Christian groups actually oppose vaccines that would lessen the spread of sexually transmitted disease. I suppose they feel our kids should suffer disease as punishment. Did I mention the whole anti-condom propaganda campaign in Africa in the middle of a major HIV outbreak?

        >>George Washington was bled to death because “science” said it was necessary for his healing.

        No, not science. Greek and Roman medicine. You see, it’s quite telling that the best medicine we had in Europe (which spread to the US) was over a thousand years out of date, once Christianity took control of the area. Suddenly medical research stopped, so did science. All we had were theories from a long-dead society.

        >>A Bible was not far from his deathbed and had the doctors read from its pages that the “life of the flesh is in the blood” his life could have been spared.

        Again, that’s not science. If it were science, and the bible were an authoritative guide on nature, we wouldn’t have had to salvage medicine from a 2000-year old culture. We would have had all our scientific revolutions during the middle ages. Instead we had almost two-thousand years of painfully slow discovery due to the ignorance and superstition spread by the church.

        >>I am not denying that you can find examples of stupid religious people. But are you saying there are not stupid atheist? That there aren’t terrible atheist?

        When a religious person is stupid, as per my examples, it is because of the religion twisting their common sense. When an atheist is stupid or terrible, it is because of the ideology they are following which has twisted them. Atheism is not an ideology, it is a state of nonbelief. Like how baldness is a lack of hair, not a type of hair or color.

        >>This is a good example of religion being used in the wrong way but, that does not negate the enormous amount of good that is being done by Christianity and it certainly does not make my true statement false.

        At best it means that Christianity is making up for all the bad it has done throughout the centuries. At worst it means that it is just people doing the right thing regardless of their religion, thus giving Christianity no saving features.

        Remember that Christianity was opposed to vaccines and violently (violently!) fought against them. You can’t claim that it was a force for good in this area. Would you call Islam a force for democracy because of Turkey? No. Because Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. are all examples of what an Islamic state actually is.

      • “I am sorry but an outdated example of feeble minded religious people does not negate the enormous amount of good that is being done now because of faith in God. ”

        What criteria were those feeble minded religious people using when they determined that Vaccinations were bad? Their religious belief and many of the other people who shared those same belief was telling them they were doing the right thing by opposing vaccinations.

        DSOAT by what criteria do you use to say now that they were incorrect in the past?


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s