Man lets himself die while having faith that God will heal him

reply to post by WarminIndy

The man just seemed to be lazy, in my opinion.

There is nothing to indicate that this man was lazy. It's a common misconception that obese people are obese because they're lazy. Morbid obesity is a disease. This man was obviously incapable of taking care of himself, both mentally and physically, and his family neglected his needs in favor of his depression, hopelessness and apathy, calling it faith.

Morbid Obesity is a Serious Health Condition

Morbid obesity is a serious health condition that can interfere with basic physical functions such as breathing or walking. Those who are morbidly obese are at greater risk for illnesses including diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), gallstones, osteoarthritis, heart disease, and cancer.
www.urmc.rochester.edu...

This man's problems went WAY beyond a torn ACL.

EDIT TO SAY:
It's beyond me how his wife could let him sit in that recliner, naked, in his own excrement, for 8 months. She should be charged with something, in my opinion.

OOPS, quoted instead of edited!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


This is your first post showing on this thread...

What about faith healers who let children die? Got any excuses for those cretins? I just saw a thread recently about nine kids...NINE KIDS...who died because their guardians relied on a higher power to save them. Oh, and this: EXACTLY, which translated means "you do all the work, and God will get half the credit". I tried to say something about that, but this covers it beautifully.

Did you say it on the other thread?

But while we are at it, since you are so determined that science will one day shove away all religion, then should we then say men are not accountable, even if they are scientists?

Have you given a blanket absolution to scientists, who might harm people?

Let me point you once again to the atomic bomb. You have absolved scientists for creating this and using it. The church didn't use the atomic bomb, scientists did. And as long as the atomic bombs remain on this planet, this planet is held in hostage. And you have a problem with a few Christian kooks. Well, who has their finger on the trigger of the atomic bomb?

Have you absolved scientists for the atomic bomb? I would rather the religious debate continue, because religion is at least saying "as long as there is your side, there is our side, and we don't want people to be killed in the name of religion". But in what name was the atomic bomb built?

I also don't absolve Christian kooks, but you can't seem to understand that we are not all kooks, but as we believe all men are accountable for their actions, let's just hope and pray that Christians will stop others from using it ever again. And that's what you can't see, is that there are science kooks. Have you absolved those science kooks as well? Have you absolved them simply because you think science is better?

Nay, science was not better when it built the atomic bomb.

reply to post by windword


My dad was 500 pounds. I know what morbid obesity is.

But he tore a ligament, which means he did something to cause it to tear. But yes, sitting down to do nothing, I have seen that.

Yes, his wife should have at least called an in-home health agency, but perhaps she was a small person, so we don't know her physical strength either. He should have been put into a health care facility. He should have done something, but he didn't. That's the point, he had it within his power to do something, even if it meant he should go to the bathroom by himself. He could have gotten a walker or a cane, but he didn't. A torn ACL was only in one leg.

I've seen what depression does, but even depressed people go to the bathroom by themselves from time to time.

reply to post by trollz


He did not have the money to get the medical help; (the article says)...so he did go for help but was turned away for lack of funds.

I think where his wife went wrong is...she should have pursued every avenue to find someone to help her husband...she gave up too easily.

I think her husband had a strong faith in God; and his intentions were good; and really perhaps his dying was God's answer of healing; because now the man is in Heaven where he no longer is suffering; and he is experiencing all the goodness and beauty he did not have while in this realm on earth.

reply to post by WarminIndy

But while we are at it, since you are so determined that science will one day shove away all religion, then should we then say men are not accountable, even if they are scientists?

I didn't say that. Eventually, they will meld and transform into something that isn't quite science or religion.

Have you given a blanket absolution to scientists, who might harm people?

Let's focus on one thing at a time.

Let me point you once again to the atomic bomb. You have absolved scientists for creating this and using it. The church didn't use the atomic bomb, scientists did. And as long as the atomic bombs remain on this planet, this planet is held in hostage. And you have a problem with a few Christian kooks. Well, who has their finger on the trigger of the atomic bomb?

I have absolved no one for anything. I'm addressing an issue when you are dodging like the plague. I already addressed this matter in another thread and you failed to get back to me on that. If you want, return to that thread and we'll discuss the matter further. I'm not discussing it here. End of story.

Oh, and our wrongs don't excuse your wrongs. Again, we'll work on ours while you work on yours. But you're not working on it, are you? Which means we have to deal with our mistakes AND your mistakes. But your mistakes are finely crafted in just such a manner that they can be excused as an act of God, which makes your mistakes NOT mistakes. In fact, there ARE no mistakes where you are concerned, regardless of who gets hurt or why.

We used the atomic bomb twice for the same reason. The problem was resolved. The atomic bomb hasn't been used again. But you know what will be used again? Religion. To ruin childrens' lives again and again. To kill the sick again and again. To suppress knowledge again and again. To breed hatred and sow discontent and squeeze our awareness again and again and again.

I don't have a problem with spirituality. But when religion costs us the life of a child because of pride and hubris, something has to give.

reply to post by WarminIndy

But he tore a ligament, which means he did something to cause it to tear.

At 550 pounds, standing and turning to walk in another direction could have torn is ACL.

Yes, his wife should have at least called an in-home health agency, but perhaps she was a small person, so we don't know her physical strength either.

I don't care if she was only 3 feet tall and weighed only 80 pounds, she should have called someone.

He should have been put into a health care facility. He should have done something, but he didn't.

He didn't do anything because he suffered from an overwhelming sense of hopelessness.

This is what his wife said in the article:

"They were gonna give him an appointment, but they wanted $300 up front, and we didn't have the money," said Webb.

So was it lack of $300, faith, assisted suicide or worse?

That's the point, he had it within his power to do something, even if it meant he should go to the bathroom by himself. He could have gotten a walker or a cane, but he didn't. A torn ACL was only in one leg.

How do you know that he "had it within himself" to do something? They had to saw and cut his body out of the recliner? I doubt that he could have gotten out of it by himself.

I've seen what depression does, but even depressed people go to the bathroom by themselves from time to time.

Come on! His wife let him sit there, no telling what hell his physical and mental health had descended into, in his own excrement for 8 months! That's neglect, perhaps negligent homicide. Her actions, or lack thereof, was unconscionable!

This man, ultimately, died because of hopelessness and apathy.

caladonea
reply to post by trollz

 

He did not have the money to get the medical help; (the article says)...so he did go for help but was turned away for lack of funds.

I think where his wife went wrong is...she should have pursued every avenue to find someone to help her husband...she gave up too easily.

I think her husband had a strong faith in God; and his intentions were good; and really perhaps his dying was God's answer of healing; because now the man is in Heaven where he no longer is suffering; and he is experiencing all the goodness and beauty he did not have while in this realm on earth.

She should have screamed at him to get off his duff...but maybe she did and got tired of it.

But I don't see how she could even stand to be in the same place with him stinking like that. If this were my husband and I saw he just sat down and wouldn't get up, that would last one day with me.

I took physical therapy for MS, and even though I still use an electric wheelchair going out, I still have to make myself go to the bathroom, by myself. I live alone, I don't have the comfort of someone else here helping me. How did he get to weigh 500 pounds in the first place? I've seen people like that. All of them do nothing until it strikes in their brain to do something. That's why one of the most popular shows on TV is The Biggest Loser.

In the end, he was 800 pounds. From the first moment he sat down and gave up, that's his own fault. But she should have told him to get up and get some help.

I should use all the excuses I am hearing on this thread and tell people that I need to sit here and give up. See how well that flies.

I'm not sure which is more despicable: The fact you feel the need to gloat over a dead man, or the fact you feel the need to gloat over his faith.

Gloat while you can.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

I'm not sure which is more despicable: The fact you feel the need to gloat over a dead man, or the fact you feel the need to gloat over his faith.

Gloat while you can.

You think we're happy with this? You have no idea at all.

I liken faith to work. If you are hired and believe that you will get paid at the end of the week, you better go to work or you won't get the $$$. You have to work for what you want, faith follows that same principle.

reply to post by windword


At the beginning, he had it within himself.

He drove to the doctor, didn't he? He walked into the doctor's office, didn't he?

Do you think maybe it was more than the $300? Why didn't he have Medicaid and SSI if he were in such a bad condition to begin with?

Maybe a doctor somewhere told him that he needed to lose weight? He could have gone to a clinic, that would not have cost $300.

I agree it was negligence, but she was still feeding him. She helped him get to 800 pounds. But from day one, he should have said "I weigh too much and need to do something about it now". Whose fault would it have been if he had gotten diabetes or heart problems because of his weight? His own fault.

They both are at fault in this situation.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

I'm not sure which is more despicable: The fact you feel the need to gloat over a dead man, or the fact you feel the need to gloat over his faith.

Gloat while you can.

You think we're happy with this? You have no idea at all.

edit on 16-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Here's an idea, why don't you go out and pay someone's medical bill so they can be treated effectively. Then we won't have any reason to feel bad anymore.

Why don't you drive around your neighborhood to find people to drive them to the doctor at your expense. Do this every day, because sick people are everywhere, every day.

We see the problem and you are upset at the problem, but where's the solution? I am offering a solution, what do you think about it?

AfterInfinity
I didn't say that. Eventually, they will meld and transform into something that isn't quite science or religion.

Actually you did and this, to me, doesn't really sound like a melding at all.

AfterInfinity
And when we're finished working on ours, we'll eliminate yours. Science will shove religion off the wheel and steer us to a safe landing. Because that's what science is for. Giving us answers when our blindfold fails to make the problem go away

reply to post by trollz


The Bible also says that if you believe in Jesus Christ , then you can drink poison and live.
Then again, SOME faith healings DOES work but others don't. So even if it is real, Jesus is not the one who makes it work or all their faith healings would work with faith in Christ.

reply to post by Josephus


The subtleties of my responses clearly escape you. The first step is taking world control away from religion in order to stabilize the damage it has already done. Note that I said "world control", not "self control". The point is not to enslave religion or destroy it, but to declaw it and stopper up the storm. The next step...

Ah, but there's no point explaining it. It's not like you would appreciate my opinions or insights.

reply to post by six67seven

Then I look at your avatar closer and realize it's Eddie Vedder, or Tommy Lee Jones, or a random hippy. Threw me for a loop is all.

Hehe, That's actually late comedian George Carlin in his young and "hippie" days.
And yes, in that painting he does look a bit Jesusy, that's why I chose it as my avatar in the first place.

I warmly reccomend you watch some of his material, which at times can be a real eye-opener on human beings and the little neat society they've created for themselves.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


No, the problem has not been resolved.

Out of the atomic bomb came nuclear energy. Isn't that a huge deal today? That reactor in Japan, now people are saying it wasn't such a great idea. Hmmm, we are all in danger because of that, aren't we?

Oh, and our wrongs don't excuse your wrongs. Again, we'll work on ours while you work on yours. But you're not working on it, are you? Which means we have to deal with our mistakes AND your mistakes. But your mistakes are finely crafted in just such a manner that they can be excused as an act of God, which makes your mistakes NOT mistakes. In fact, there ARE no mistakes where you are concerned, regardless of who gets hurt or why.

And our wrongs don't excuse yours either, but you are going to have to hold secular people as accountable as religious people for their mistakes as well.

And yes, there are mistakes by religious people and at no time do I ever justify them. EVER. But you fail to understand the core of the problem lies within the heart of man. No matter if that man is religious or secular, his heart can be evil and do evil things, no matter if it is in the name of science or religion.

And that's what we have been telling you all along. People do wicked things because their hearts are wicked, there is no justification for their wicked acts. But you seem to think that secular absolves the wicked acts. And yes, science has done evil things to people in the name of science. And who paid for evil acts done in the name of science? The whole entire planet.

At no time have I ever said science was wrong, I have said that individuals within the scientific community have done as much harm as those within religions. And if I am required to stand up to the individual within religion, to hold them accountable, as you are doing, then why do I have no right to stand up to the individuals within the scientific community as well? When I do, you say "don't pick on science, you religious bully". I say, hold your scientists who harm others as accountable because they do it in the name of science.

Are you willing then that genocide of the future be acceptable, because genocide of the future will come from science, as it is proving to do now?

Why is genocide wrong for religious people, but OK for science? How many inhumane experiments should continue until science gets it right? All we have learned in anatomy was from gravediggers not only selling bodies, but killing people in order to sell them. But science reconciles that with understanding today anatomy. But should a person have been killed, just so science can learn?

If you really knew the inhumanity of Nazi science experiments, then I would think you would be opposed to that ever happening again. I am opposed to it, and I will say so. Don't ask me, as a human being, to turn away from inhumane treatment of people. My religion dictates that I am my brother's keeper, he's not my science experiment. And the Act of God, then you don't really know what my God has said.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Josephus

 

The subtleties of my responses clearly escape you. The first step is taking world control away from religion in order to stabilize the damage it has already done. Note that I said "world control", not "self control". The point is not to enslave religion or destroy it, but to declaw it and stopper up the storm. The next step...

Ah, but there's no point explaining it. It's not like you would appreciate my opinions or insights.

edit on 16-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Your opinions and insights...what are they?

So far all you have presented is "Religion is evil because religion does this...." and yet can't reconcile your opinions in the opposite direction. Are you hoping for a world of scientific domination? How did science get to where it is now?

Insights and opinions of scientists...that's how.

Do you want a world a Nazi experimentation again?

And the Nazis were not religious, they were a solely political ideology.

Well.... the poor man gets 'the Darwin Award' for this week.
I can't mock him. Anyone of us could easily have mental health issues
or get indoctrinated into cult like beliefs that are wonky.