That’s just another version of “do the research yourself”. Obviously there have been no DBTs on xian “science”. Insurance companies (trust me, your Rockstar knows) won’t cover xian “scientists” most of the time. If they become ill, they never get better.

Proof of Christian Science healing can be found in the following books, periodicals and websites (listed in no particular order):

1. Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy (the Chapter titled Fruitage is specifically dedicated to records of healings)
2. The Christian Science Sentinel (published every 2 weeks)
3. Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer by Yvonne Cache von Fettweis and Robert Townsend Warneck
4. SPIRITUALITY.COM

This is the crux of almost every argument we get into with believers on this blog. Every one of these sources is a Christian Science Publication. Jebus, how gullible do you have to be?

“Christian Science is proven to work because… um, dozens of Christian Scientist publications say so.”

This is a lack of critical thinking beyond my comprehension. Go back to elementary school and start over, friend.

Proof of Christian Science healing can be found in the following books, periodicals and websites (listed in no particular order):

1. Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy (the Chapter titled Fruitage is specifically dedicated to records of healings)
2. The Christian Science Sentinel (published every 2 weeks)
3. Mary Baker Eddy: Christian Healer by Yvonne Cache von Fettweis and Robert Townsend Warneck
4. SPIRITUALITY.COM

These are just a few sources of where people from the 1800s to today have written about their experience and success with using Christian Science for healing.

Christian Science focuses on the lost element of healing that Christ Jesus demonstrated in the Bible. He did not use medicine or material means to heal people (aside from the mud he used to cover the blind man’s eyes).

That’s a pretty big claim Chrissie. Perhaps you’d like to provide some evidence? Until then, I say you made that up.

Well, first, the phrase “letting them die” makes perfect sense in this context, i.e., when one can stop an illness with something easily available (infections and antibiotics), but refuses to administer it due to some wacko belief. Granted, it may not have been one’s intention to have the other person die, but it’s not clear how relevant that intention is given our evaluation of what happened. (That’s why people can be found guilty in court.) Second, the analogy between a failed-prayer-attempt and a failed-medical-attempt is fallacious in two respects. (a) Failed medical attempts occur in radically different contexts, i.e., where prognoses and diagnoses are made given a background of available information, and where it wasn’t clear to any reasonable agent, at that time and given that information, that anything else could have been done or worked. (b) This analogy, if granted, entails a completely unreasonable burden on medical treatments, i.e., unless every person treated medically is cured, then faith-healing is just as justified as medicine.

Quick question, Garrett: Why would anyone ever do such a ceremony at all when it’s completely obvious that you would never have any idea what these DEAD PEOPLE have actually “decided?” Know what, Garrett? Just pass the bong over here, dude, and quit hoggin’ it…

Quit oppressing Sean. He can interpret the word however he wants! I think Joseph Smith was a homosexual axe-wielding serial killer personally.