5 ms·

So books that promote unscientific cures are not allowed now? Interesting. "And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him

by Grue3 8y ago

So books that promote unscientific cures are not allowed now? Interesting. "And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up" -- The Holy Bible (James 5:15) http://www.fox8live.com/story/22052729/second-child-dies-after-parents-use-prayer-instead-of-seeking-medical-treatment/ http://www.fox8live.com/story/22052729/second-child-dies-aft...

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Think we're overdue some scientific validation of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of this alternative cure. :)
everdev 8y ago
I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just the line you quoted.
- Hamuko 8y ago
  Where do you draw the line though?
  - sofal 8y ago
    The comment you responded to literally gave an argument about where the line could be drawn. Do you not agree? I see this "where do you draw the line?" question asked a lot, and it seems that the usual intended purpose of it is to somehow give weight to the idea that it's too hard to draw a line somewhere and therefore we should maybe not even make the attempt. The fact is that there is an entire legal system we have set up to "draw the lines" on a huge number of ethical issues, and on top of that we have a whole world of extralegal organizational policies that can be argued back and forth. If you think there should not be any laws or policies concerning public safety on a particular issue, make an argument for it. Just because it is difficult to write policy or laws that take into account the right balance of freedom and safety doesn't mean we give up entirely.
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    Wherever you want. That's the beauty of being a private commerce platform like Amazon. It is your platform, you can do anything your heart desires, including remove products you don't like.
  - Paul-ish 8y ago
    Wherever you have the most positive impact for your customers. Removing the bible from Amazon wont stop idiots from abusing it, the bible already has reach that exceeds Amazon. Removing pseudoscience health books from Amazon delegitimizes those books and reduces the harms they cause.
  - alxlaz 8y ago
    It's hard to say. What's not hard to say is that crap like “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” belongs on the other side of the line. Stuff like this baffles me. Like, yes, it's hard to say where you draw the line between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad), but no one (who is also sane) wonders where you draw the line when discussing Hitler. (Yes, I know about Godwin's law. I'm not being hyperbolic here, I think this is a good comparison.)
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
identity-haver 8y ago
Taken by themselves these words seem to be talking about curing physical disease, but the words that follow, "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him", speak expressly of a spiritual effect on the receiver. Also relevant is that most of the New Testament epistles are about the condition of the soul (as believed), and not a workout and health guide for the condition of the body.
sweden 8y ago
What is the definition of "sick" there? Is it "mad mood" or is it "cancer"? Does it specify? No, it doesn't. So it's not the same thing.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
crooked-v 8y ago
The key difference here is that the Bible as a whole has plenty of material to the effect of "don't expect God to make all your worldly problems go away", consistently enough that all major Christian denominations hold that faith healing isn't something you can depend on.

by Grue3 8y ago

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Think we're overdue some scientific validation of the effectiveness, or otherwise, of this alternative cure. :)

everdev 8y ago

I think a reasonable argument can be made that the books they pulled are entirely about unscientific cures and the Bible is about much more than just the line you quoted.

Hamuko 8y ago
Where do you draw the line though?
- sofal 8y ago
  The comment you responded to literally gave an argument about where the line could be drawn. Do you not agree? I see this "where do you draw the line?" question asked a lot, and it seems that the usual intended purpose of it is to somehow give weight to the idea that it's too hard to draw a line somewhere and therefore we should maybe not even make the attempt. The fact is that there is an entire legal system we have set up to "draw the lines" on a huge number of ethical issues, and on top of that we have a whole world of extralegal organizational policies that can be argued back and forth. If you think there should not be any laws or policies concerning public safety on a particular issue, make an argument for it. Just because it is difficult to write policy or laws that take into account the right balance of freedom and safety doesn't mean we give up entirely.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  Wherever you want. That's the beauty of being a private commerce platform like Amazon. It is your platform, you can do anything your heart desires, including remove products you don't like.
- Paul-ish 8y ago
  Wherever you have the most positive impact for your customers. Removing the bible from Amazon wont stop idiots from abusing it, the bible already has reach that exceeds Amazon. Removing pseudoscience health books from Amazon delegitimizes those books and reduces the harms they cause.
- alxlaz 8y ago
  It's hard to say. What's not hard to say is that crap like “Healing the Symptoms Known as Autism” belongs on the other side of the line. Stuff like this baffles me. Like, yes, it's hard to say where you draw the line between patriotism (good) and nationalism (bad), but no one (who is also sane) wonders where you draw the line when discussing Hitler. (Yes, I know about Godwin's law. I'm not being hyperbolic here, I think this is a good comparison.)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

identity-haver 8y ago

Taken by themselves these words seem to be talking about curing physical disease, but the words that follow, "and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him", speak expressly of a spiritual effect on the receiver. Also relevant is that most of the New Testament epistles are about the condition of the soul (as believed), and not a workout and health guide for the condition of the body.

sweden 8y ago

What is the definition of "sick" there? Is it "mad mood" or is it "cancer"? Does it specify? No, it doesn't. So it's not the same thing.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

crooked-v 8y ago

The key difference here is that the Bible as a whole has plenty of material to the effect of "don't expect God to make all your worldly problems go away", consistently enough that all major Christian denominations hold that faith healing isn't something you can depend on.