Val Kilmer rushed to materialist hospital as Christian Science fails

[lpetrich]

Actor Val Kilmer, Disputing Cancer Rumors, Is In a Hospital Consulting His “Christian Science Practitioner” by Terry Firma at Hemant Mehta's blog

noting Val Kilmer -- Family Believes Religion Is Killing Him | TMZ.com

He has had a throat tumor since last summer, and it has been swelling and making it difficult for him to speak. Most recently, he started coughing up blood, and he was rushed to a nearby hospital -- a materialist-medicine one, the UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica, CA. The doctors had to cut into the tumor to help him breathe.

He believes in Christian Science, a sect that teaches that the physical world is not real but a hallucination, and that disease is false beliefs. One gets cured by making oneself recognize the falsity of those beliefs.

So materialist medicine is succeeding where Christian Science has failed. Or at least having a little bit of success.


But then again, the founder of the sect, Mary Baker Eddy, reputedly wore glasses and took laudanum, a popular 19th cy. medicine prepared from opium.


In The Stars in their Courses Isaac Asimov related that each Sunday morning in his New York City apartment, he would hear a low rumbling noise. He tracked it down to the air conditioning of a nearby Christian Science church. He laughed long and hard at the presence of this materialist contraption in their house of worship. If disease is false beliefs, then overheating is also, and a whole churchful of Christian Scientists should have no trouble with that.


Christian Science: Its Fundamental Teachings and Practical Use - Cern

Disease Denied Because It Is Unreal

The practice of Christian Science does not disregard matter. It involves a disbelief in matter. Disease is but a phase of the belief that there is matter. Christian Science does not deny disease merely because disease is undesirable, but because it is unreal. Since it is not from God, good, therefore it must be unreal. Let us emphasize that a physical body is but a mental misconception of one’s identity. Consequently, disease is but a mental misconception of one’s condition. Disease is as unreal as the physical body it is supposed to incapacitate. Disease is never a physical condition, but always a mental misconception. Since there is no such thing as an incurable misconception, there can be no such thing as an incurable disease. There is, in fact, no such thing as disease.

Writing on page 421 in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy declares: “Insist vehemently on the great fact which covers the whole ground, that God, Spirit, is all, and there is none beside Him. There is no disease.”

I think that I'll stick with materialist medicine.

What's the harm in Christian Science? lists 15 people known to have died from using Christian Science "therapy" rather than materialist medicine.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Writing on page 421 in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy declares: “Insist vehemently on the great fact which covers the whole ground, that God, Spirit, is all, and there is none beside Him. There is no disease.”

So essentially, Christain Scientists are living in the Matrix. God being the matrix, the programmer, the agents, the oracle and those battery cells where people are jacked into his reality.

Problem is, the Matrix has rules. We can ignore the reality of the content, diseases or overheating, or weapons or tumors, but ignoring the rules is dangerous.

Though 'there is no spoon,' to speak of, if someone sharpens the spoon into a shiv and stabs you in the heart that doesn't exist, you still die.

 

[Earl IV]

Writing on page 421 in Science and Health, Mrs. Eddy declares: “Insist vehemently on the great fact which covers the whole ground, that God, Spirit, is all, and there is none beside Him. There is no disease.”

So essentially, Christain Scientists are living in the Matrix. God being the matrix, the programmer, the agents, the oracle and those battery cells where people are jacked into his reality.

Problem is, the Matrix has rules. We can ignore the reality of the content, diseases or overheating, or weapons or tumors, but ignoring the rules is dangerous.

Though 'there is no spoon,' to speak of, if someone sharpens the spoon into a shiv and stabs you in the heart that doesn't exist, you still die.

Keanu Reeves was in the Matrix.

Val Kilmer is the other talentless hack.

 

[Bomb#20]

Keanu Reeves was in the Matrix.

Val Kilmer is the other talentless hack.

That is so unfair! Val Kilmer was great in Top Secret! and Keanu Reeves was great in Speed. Never confuse minimally talented with talentless.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, Val Kilmer was Batman. Not a great Batman by any stretch of the imagination, but he was still a Batman and therefore worthy of respect and admiration.

 

[Shadowy Man]

He believes in Christian Science, a sect that teaches that the physical world is not real but a hallucination, and that disease is false beliefs. One gets cured by making oneself recognize the falsity of those beliefs.

So materialist medicine is succeeding where Christian Science has failed. Or at least having a little bit of success.

How do we know that Christian Science has failed and not his ability to recognize the falsity of his belief he has a tumor?

 

[J842P]

He believes in Christian Science, a sect that teaches that the physical world is not real but a hallucination, and that disease is false beliefs. One gets cured by making oneself recognize the falsity of those beliefs.

So materialist medicine is succeeding where Christian Science has failed. Or at least having a little bit of success.

How do we know that Christian Science has failed and not his ability to recognize the falsity of his belief he has a tumor?

Along those lines, how do we know that the materialist medicine really works? The patient (the soul) has merely indulged in the falsity of its beliefs.

 

[ShannyFan]

He was also in " The Salton Sea" and "Real Genius." Both of which I really enjoyed.

 

[thebeave]

I'm ashamed to admit that CS was prominent in my family ancestry. Thankfully, they have all died off now, and the subsequent generations did not continue the tradition. The last one to die off was the cousin of my grandfather who always had a big bandage covering her nose at all family functions as far back as I could remember. Came to find out it was some kind of cancer/tumor she left untreated for years and years. Blech.... Never saw underneath the bandage, but I was told by others that it was not pretty.

 

[Underseer]

How do we know that Christian Science has failed and not his ability to recognize the falsity of his belief he has a tumor?

Along those lines, how do we know that the materialist medicine really works? The patient (the soul) has merely indulged in the falsity of its beliefs.

Obviously, his false belief in the tumor is caused by the fact that he has sinned in some way. If he does not get that sin out of his soul, he will die and go straight to Hell.

*sigh*

 

[Perspicuo]

Sad.

Sad to be so famous, millions will no your own duhhh killed you. And saying that I'm not making fun--it's sad.

Once again, that is the importance of being outspoken advocates for science, in particular medical science.

Hold
No
Punches

Respecting all people, respecting no beliefs, you may call it scientism all you want... This sht saves lives.

 

[Keith&Co.]

He believes in Christian Science, a sect that teaches that the physical world is not real but a hallucination, and that disease is false beliefs. One gets cured by making oneself recognize the falsity of those beliefs.

So materialist medicine is succeeding where Christian Science has failed. Or at least having a little bit of success.

How do we know that Christian Science has failed and not his ability to recognize the falsity of his belief he has a tumor?

Christian Science has failed Val Kilmer. Either it doesn't work at all, or it is not able to be conveyed to Val in sufficient clarity to be efficacious.
If nothing else, it should have taught him the warning signs to determine he was insufficiently CSed to ignore a life threatening condition before it became life threatening.
Like that rapid voice at the end of Male Enhancement commercials, 'do not use Gansta' Goatweed if you have high blood pressure, or a tendency to wait for permission to penetrate. Erections lasting more than four hours should be seen to by one doctor or four nurses..."

There should be something for the observant CStist, just in case his faith is insufficient to rise above the sin. "Denial is not the same as disbelief. For discomfort lasting through more than four days of active disbelieving, consider seeking relief from less trendy medical professionals who think scalpels and CAT scanners reflect reality."
As long as they just blame the victim, and keep encouraging him in behavior that is no producing results, they're failing him.

 

[PyramidHead]

Sad.

Sad to be so famous, millions will no your own duhhh killed you. And saying that I'm not making fun--it's sad.

Once again, that is the importance of being outspoken advocates for science, in particular medical science.

Hold
No
Punches

Respecting all people, respecting no beliefs, you may call it scientism all you want... This sht saves lives.

I went to Rhode Island College. Before my time there, the president of RIC, a devout Christian Scientist, died of untreated diabetes or something stupid like that. As part of my philosophy major, I took a medical ethics class, and the professor actually said she admired the former president's wife (not a Christian Scientist), who even after her husband lost the ability to function, adamantly refused to consent to medical intervention on his behalf--because it would have violated her husband's religion. And everybody in the class was nodding their heads about how strong and loving a wife she was. If it had been a case of something equally delusional but not religious (suppose he believed that his diabetes could only be cured by eating specifically blue M&Ms), would they still be nodding in approval?

 

[Perspicuo]

PyramidHead,
I'd do the same as the Christian Scientist's wife, but on practical grounds. You can't save someone who doesn't want to, and he would have been very sore and bitchy with me had he survived.

Also, if people deserve respect, not religions, then I will argue against what I peceive as groundless and absurd, but I will not violate a person's right to self-determination. When reason fails to convince, should I then feel justified in resorting to duress?

 

[PyramidHead]

PyramidHead,
I'd do the same as the Christian Scientist's wife, but on practical grounds. You can't save someone who doesn't want to, and he would have been very sore and bitchy with me had he survived.

Also, if people deserve respect, not religions, then I will argue against what I peceive as groundless and absurd, but I will not violate a person's right to self-determination. When reason fails to convince, should I then feel justified in resorting to duress?

I get that side of it, but I can't agree with it. Sore and bitchy is better than dead--and it's not like he wanted to die, he just didn't think taking insulin would save him, any more than we think praying over a cancer patient would work. If my wife had a treatable disease and thought the only way to survive was to chant the theme song to The Brady Bunch, she will have revoked her right to self-determination about her medical decisions. Ordinarily, society doesn't treat people with dangerous, self-destructive delusions as capable of making medical decisions for themselves--UNLESS they are religious. I would cure my wife of her disease whether she thought the cure would work or not (again, it's not like she wouldn't want to be cured). And I would spend the decades of life she gained in the process trying to fix her mental disorder, so that one day she might apologize to me for being sore and bitchy, and thank me for not letting her die over a foolish superstition. I respect people's capacity to change their minds, even if they can't fathom that possibility in their current state.

 

[Perspicuo]

Equally valid position. Equally defensible.
Now I feel undecided.

 

[thebeave]

Yep. Though Steve Jobs was not a CS, he believed in some wacky alternative medicine nonsense to "cure" his pancreatic cancer. Despite having been blessed with a rare, but fairly curable form of it. When his alt med treatment was obviously failing, he got wise and went the Western medicine route, but it was too late at that point. I kind of wonder if his wife and close friends had dope slapped him enough times early on, he might have gone with the doctor's advice from the very beginning.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Equally valid position. Equally defensible.
Now I feel undecided.

While i can see respecting someone's self-destructive wishes, i don't feel a moral burden to help them into destruction.

While it's the patient's decision, he can decide based on medical authority, or religious tradition, or he can roll dice to 'make save vs. cancer' or any damned thing he wants.
If the decision falls to me, i'm honor bound to make the best one _I_ can make, based on criteria _I_ accept, because I'm going to have to live with myself afterwards. If my respect for the patient exceeds my disrespect for his medical choices, I suppose i can live with leaving him to die IAW his wishes. Otherwise, i'll have to do my best to keep him alive.

 

[Perspicuo]

Yep. Though Steve Jobs was not a CS, he believed in some wacky alternative medicine nonsense to "cure" his pancreatic cancer. Despite having been blessed with a rare, but fairly curable form of it. When his alt med treatment was obviously failing, he got wise and went the Western medicine route, but it was too late at that point. I kind of wonder if his wife and close friends had dope slapped him enough times early on, he might have gone with the doctor's advice from the very beginning.

Isn't it mesmerizing how very smart people can fall for that sort of things?

We're all susceptible to them. The only way to avoid the pitfalls of socially shared delusions is to be skeptical to the point of near-cynicism, and that can become painful because it feels as if you're on the social fringe, it feels "anal", the eternal "no".

Lately I think faith is the "normal" state of man, that humans have an instinctive drive (subjectively felt as a "need") to believe and to share in the beliefs of the social group in order to feel "connected". The ability to believe the absurd theologies and pseudoscience comes from that and the sense of a mysterious beyond with "the answers", just beyond the grasp of understanding and hard evidence. Quien sabe.