Treatable Illnesses

.
● Jas 5:14 . . Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of
The Lord

It's all too common for religious fanatics to allow their underage children to
die from treatable medical conditions on the basis of that verse. Where do
we draw the line with the so-called "freedom of religion" guaranteed in the
US Constitution's first amendment? Answer: We draw the line at the child's
inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; which,
according to America's Declaration of Independence; are not only God-given
rights, but also a self evident truth that men were created with those rights.

The DOI goes on to say that all men are created equal. It doesn't say grown
up men; it says all men, which means that women and children have just as
much right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anybody else.
Parents who deny the truth of those rights are nothing in the world but
wicked despots; and in point of fact the very kinds of twisted monarchs the
DOI targets.

Christ addressed this issue indirectly by means of his teachings on the
seventh day Sabbath; which, in a nutshell, says that the seventh day was
made for man, not the other way around. (Mark 2:27)

● Matt 12:11-12 . . And he said unto them, What man shall there be among
you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day,
will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out? How much then is a man better than
a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath days.

The sanctity of human life trumps the sanctity of the Sabbath. So then,
hospitals, doctors, nurses, firemen, law enforcement, soup kitchens, rescue
missions, Red Cross, Haiti emergency workers, etc. who are busy on the
Sabbath do not sin. Do they break the Sabbath? Yes; but the sanctity of the
Sabbath is secondary to the sanctity of human life.

So then, I would have to say, in accordance with Matt 12:11-12, that people
who deny their children adequate medical care in the name of religion regard
the value of their own flesh and blood as something less than that of a
beast.

It's okay to have elders pray for your child, and it's okay to anoint them with
oil as per James 5:14. But after that, parents really should take their
children to a doctor because the sanctity of human life is far more important
than strict observance of one's religious rituals.

There used to be an old saying going around in Christian circles that went
something like this: When a farmer prays for a crop, he should say amen
with a hoe. In other words, don't just sit back and wait for a miracle when
it's in your power to take some action; and if you don't, then in my opinion,
you deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law when a child in
your care dies from a treatable condition.

● 1Tim 5:8 . . If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his
own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
_

But James 5 cannot be used as a proof text for healing does not always occur.

I didn't get passed "all to common".
Where is this common? Is there any statistics?
I couldn't find a statistic, but I found a few articles. One said 4 children died between 1979 and 1983, then listed a handful more up to the 2000s.
So I mean if this is common and the measure to be used, it's more common for children to die from medical malpractice, but that's not a fair assessment.
What I think is "all to common" is people exaggerating via hyperbolic language a crisis that don't exist. Christians should be honest not shady.
I think there is bigger issues to tackle in the Christian community, like dishonesty.

.
● 1Tim 5:23 . . No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake
of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

In the days prior to the proliferation of antiseptics, antibiotics, inoculations,
and a host of other mass-produced treatments; wine was an important
remedy for just about everything from indigestion to open wounds. (e.g.
Mark 15:23, and Luke 10:34)

Medicine has come a long ways in the last 2,000 years so that even if a little
wine would still help whatever ailed Timothy's tummy, there's probably
much better over-the-counter, non-alcoholic remedies available for his
condition in our day.

Paul mentioned that his friend had other problems too. I have no clue what
those might have been; but I have to ask: Why didn't Paul utilize his
apostolic gift of healing to cure his friend? My answer is: probably because
Timothy's problems didn’t require a miracle. For example Mark 16:13 where
Christ' men utilized oil to treat certain people rather than miracles. In other
words: when First Aid will do, surgery is unnecessary.

I think that Timothy simply wasn't taking proper care of himself and/or
getting enough rest. His diet may have been inadequate too. The old
adage-- God helps those who help themselves --is very true in some cases.
My view is: if you can fix your own flat tire, then don't expect God to fix it
for you. Like when a farmer prays for a good crop, he really needs to say
amen with a hoe.

What else might be taken from 1Tim 5:23? Well; I would say do NOT rely
upon so-called faith healing. Too many children are being lost these days to
treatable conditions because their parents are putting so much trust in their
church's interpretation of passages like Jas 5:14-15. If Paul recommended a
remedy for Timothy's tummy; don't you think he would recommend a
remedy for your child's treatable condition? Yes; of course he would. In
many, many cases; people don't need a miracle; they just need a doctor.
_

.
● Jas 5:14 . . Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the
church

I underlined the pronoun "him" to emphasize that the passage instructs the
sick person themselves to request help from church elders rather than the
sick person's friends and/or family speaking for him. In other words: the sick
person's consent is required in this matter.

Christianity is a consensual religion, In other words; Christianity was never
meant to be forced on people against their will; most especially underage
children. If parents want to entrust their own care to a ritual, fine; but
forcing an underage child to follow their religious practices without the child
first being old enough to fully understand the risks, and given other
options, is just downright unchristian.
_