Ebola Infected Doctor Mocked for Thanking God for Healing

Crosswalk ^ | 26 Aug 14 | Kent_Brantly

[xzins]

After hearing Dr. Kent Brantly publicly thank God for healing him from the deadly Ebola virus, atheist Sam de Brito posted a scathing article at the Sydney Morning Herald that questions Brantly as a true man of medicine. The article entitled: “Science, Not God, Saved Him from Ebola,” takes issue with Brantly crediting God for his healing. Brantly, a Samaritan’s Purse doctor received experimental Ebola treatments at Emory University Hospital after his emergency evacuation from Liberia. He was released from the hospital on August 21, saying, “I am forever thankful to God for sparing my life.”

While de Brito's perspective is shared by many who doubt the reality of the supernatural, what his critique refuses to grant is the possibility that both aspects of Brantly's healing—the scientific and the spiritual—are compatible. If Dr. Brantly, a trained medical doctor, gives God ultimate credit for saving his life, does that necessarily discount the effort of skilled physicians who used the most of scientific advancements they could in his treatment? No, says Christian apologist Jonathan Sarfati. Such attempts may seem to place Christians on the horns of a dilemma but it is a false dichotomy. Furthermore, anti-theists actually choose not to acknowledge that science pre-supposes the existence of the biblical God.

As Rich Deem at GodandScience.org argues, God uses the advances of science and medicine in the hands of skilled physicians as instruments of healing. Ultimately, every breath is from the Lord, even the breath of those who disbelieve (1 Samuel 2:6).

Your turn: What do you think of Dr. Brantly being mocked for giving God credit for his healing?

Alex Crain is the editor of Christianity.com

[daniel1212]

I have news for you....he is mocked all the time. By the very fact Muslims breath is proof enough.

No sure what you meant by that, but what that text means is obviously not that God is not mocked, but not mocked with no consequence. Assuming you are male and married, saying "my wife does not get insulted" to a man who is doing so carries a connotation that is conveyed in context.

[Spok]

Good question. And why are atheists so obsessed with those who believe? Christians will tolerate atheists, but atheists will not tolerate Christians.

[barney10]

First time I have been ever called an atheist or superficial, I was merely responding to a post, that inferred that God may have used the good doctor’s illness for the purpose of revealing God’s glory.

And, regarding my son in the proverbial jungle... I would want him to follow me, but I would solicit his advice and encourage his questions; just in case I might be on the wrong path.

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

[SkyDancer]

Atheists are scared that G-d does exist and they know that denying Him will damn them - denying there’s a brick wall around the corner they can’t see they’ll still run into it. I pray for them.

[Jim from C-Town]

I would if I was an A-hole like the militant Atheist.

[Vendome]

Boy, this just really boils me...

[Smokin' Joe]

You’re Welcome, Alamo-Girl!

[Springfield Reformer]

 I was merely responding to a post, that inferred that God may have used the good doctor’s illness for the purpose of revealing God’s glory.

The response in question was this:

Well then God must be very dramatic... to give someone Ebola, just to reveal his glory...

That reaction is rather like the reactions we've seen from many an atheist on this topic. It is possible you had some other meaning than what appears to be the case. I am curious, then, as to what exactly you did mean by it.  The problem of theodicy (how can there be evil on God's creation) has been with us for millenia.  Serious theists, I think, tend to see God's interaction with humanity as complex and sometimes inscrutable, but never arbitrary, and certainly not reflecting defective human traits such as the need for drama.  

I'm guessing you know this drill, but it bears repeating. To have man be a genuinely responsible moral agent, there had to be the possibility of dissent from God's will.  If the universe is constructed to favor God's design objectives, such dissent (sin) must necessarily have adverse consequences (the curse).  One of these consequences is disease. But God is also love, and would, as we understand love, desire reconciliation with His morally responsible creatures. To effect this, it seems perfectly reasonable that along with the adverse consequences He would provide us with clues of His love and tokens of His supernatural reality, both of which would be admirably demonstrated by miraculous healings deliberately pointing back to Him as the source of this power to reconcile (His glory). The language is a bit awkward for someone who is by mental habit a "freethinker," as it is sometimes called, but it is perfectly logical, given the premise of the reality of a sentient Supreme Being.

As for whether it is deficient to cite to texts originating from this Supreme Being, versus using "original thought," again, the question hangs on whether or not He really exists and has communicated with us.  Because if He has spoken on a topic, that's probably a good place to start, versus making things up out of our own deficient speculations (aka "original thinking"). Beside, most of what passes for original thinking isn't. Solomon said it.  Nothing new under the sun.

Peace,

SR

[daniel1212]

First time I have been ever called an atheist or superficial, I was merely responding to a post, that inferred that God may have used the good doctor’s illness for the purpose of revealing God’s glory.

But which expressed a superficial understanding typical of atheists seen in their scorning.

And, regarding my son in the proverbial jungle... I would want him to follow me, but I would solicit his advice and encourage his questions; just in case I might be on the wrong path.

The Lord asked many questions of His disciples, encouraging logical conclusions, honesty and communication, but not due to the possibility that He might be on the wrong path, as that was as clear as the sun is bright.

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

My quote was not as a substitute for my own reasoned argumentation, but for support in a theological context. By the reasoning behind your censure, it would be intellectually dishonest to quote founding fathers for support as one greater than thyself, or the Constitution as authoritative in the context of what it means to be constitutional.

[daniel1212]

Good words.

[CAluvdubya]

An atheist becomes a Christian when the plane they’re on has engine trouble!

[cliff630]

Who set up the Big Bang??

[Oratam]

The repeated misuse of the word ‘science’ by its self-appointed champions annoys me.

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

“Science, Not God, Saved Him from Ebola,”

Who gave us scientists?

[xzins]

Well then God must be very dramatic... to give someone Ebola, just to reveal his glory...

You need to read the story of Job.

[xzins]

Also, I think it is intellectually dishonest to quote scripture, as a substitute, for original thought.

Three is no word that gets used that wasn't thought of by someone else. So, applying a quotation (from anything) is simply a shorthand communication acknowledging the origin of an idea.

[xzins]

Whole lot of prayin’ goin’ on!

[xzins]

Three is no word

CORRECTION: There is no word

[Gene Eric]

Yup, so they declare. The agnostic is certainly not as arrogant.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

But ‘three’ is totally a word.