Actually, having thought about it, I'm now of the opinion that this may be a good thing. Their mother was the worst parent imaginable, prepared to let her ridiculous beliefs trump the welfare of her children. Good riddance. Hopefully Dad will see sense and bring his kids up away from such antediluvian values.
-------------------- If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors: Actually, having thought about it, I'm now of the opinion that this may be a good thing. Their mother was the worst parent imaginable, prepared to let her ridiculous beliefs trump the welfare of her children. Good riddance. Hopefully Dad will see sense and bring his kids up away from such antediluvian values.
That link proves that religion kills? No it doesnt. It shows how 1 particular aspect of 1 particular religion could lead to someone dying. And even then no one is going out of their way to kill anyone, rather their policy about blood transfusions could lead to someones death, which isnt the same as killing, since that's no ones intention.
I dont agree with refusing blood transfusions either, but if you want to make such false generalisations as "Proof that religion kills", just remember that its just as easy to "proove" that science "kills". I could say that science is against animals just because some people do tests on them, but that would be equally ridiculous. Think beore you post.
i don't understand how an anorexic under the delusion of being 'fat' can be sectioned and treated against their will, as can a psychiatric patient (who might equally be claiming the 'god' told them not to take any medecine) but religion is some sort of exception???
Originally posted by leafar: That link proves that religion kills? No it doesnt. It shows how 1 particular aspect of 1 particular religion could lead to someone dying.
I think it's pretty obvious that in this circumstance "religion kills" is shorthand for "religious belief can lead to deaths where secular values would not and indeed would classify such deaths as unnecessary and against the norms of general morality". It's trivially true because there is no such thing as "religion", it's a collective noun. So your objection is not worth the pixels it's written on.
quote:
Think beore you post.
Oh the irony.
Indeed, "oh the double irony" because of the spelling mistake
-------------------- If you feel like you're always in the dark - switch the lights on!
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill
Originally posted by Heselbine: So, anyway, back to the point.
This story is conclusive incontrovertible proof that holding a particular view because of a religious conviction can lead to death.
How's that?
hm, good for concrete thinkers but we can't pander to the lowest common denominator all the time. how about something a bit shorter and snappier, like...
hm, good for concrete thinkers but we can't pander to the lowest common denominator all the time. how about something a bit shorter and snappier, like...
Originally posted by Heselbine: Any christians want to wade in and explain why JWs are not 'true believers'...?
Where's Mr W ? he should be here explaining how it's satan work, causing these people to interpret the good book in this fashion
BTW, I have been led to believe that the courts (?) can over rule this kind of decision in certain circumstances, much to the relief at time of the JW parents (for example). Takes the decision out of their hands !!!
My My but the compassion is fairly flyin' out of you lot!
The almost gloating tone by some is, I think, disgraceful. So much for the oft spouted humanist values.
Whilst it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the woman's motivation or principles, we have to accept her right to retain mastery of her own life and remember that she was a unique human being with thoughts and desires, hopes and aspirations and someone who probably expressed love and was loved by others; someone whose passing be grieved.
Originally posted by ballyboneman: My My but the compassion is fairly flyin' out of you lot!
The almost gloating tone by some is, I think, disgraceful. So much for the oft spouted humanist values.
Whilst it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the woman's motivation or principles, we have to accept her right to retain mastery of her own life and remember that she was a unique human being with thoughts and desires, hopes and aspirations and someone who probably expressed love and was loved by others; someone whose passing be grieved.
I think it is tragic that the children have been deprived of a mother. If a blood transfusion would have saved her (implied, but not clear from the link) the tragedy is that she threw her life away and deprived her children of a mother as a result of a human mis-interpretation of an old book that clearly, obviously is nothing to do with blood transfusions. As I understand it, the JW refusal of blood transfusion comes from the Leviticus 'health code' which outlaws eating blood (from where halal/kosher slaughter comes). There is nothing which literally outlaws blood transfusion and any intelligent interpretation should be done in the context of the food hygiene of the time, not modern medical practices. If an omnipotent god did not wish us have blood transfusions he could either, make all the bibles magically say that, not make us ill such that we need a transfusion, created us able to regenerate instantly any lost blood or not give us the brains to figure out who we work and how to do transfusions. All trivial for a creator god. He has not done any. We have to therefore conclude that is not his wish, or he does not exist. I don't like the gloating but this is a clear case where a spade must be called a spade. Any other type of delusion that leads a person to deprive their children of a mother would be quite rightly condemned. Why should religious delusion have any kind of special pleading?
Originally posted by ballyboneman: My My but the compassion is fairly flyin' out of you lot!
The almost gloating tone by some is, I think, disgraceful. So much for the oft spouted humanist values.
Whilst it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with the woman's motivation or principles, we have to accept her right to retain mastery of her own life and remember that she was a unique human being with thoughts and desires, hopes and aspirations and someone who probably expressed love and was loved by others; someone whose passing be grieved.
What is disgraceful is you defending the principle of religious belief even though you don't actually agree with what she believed.
It is compassion for the person that leads me to despair of what religion can do to people. Don't lecture me on compassion.
Originally posted by Heselbine: Any christians want to wade in and explain why JWs are not 'true believers'...?
Where's Mr W ? he should be here explaining how it's satan work, causing these people to interpret the good book in this fashion
BTW, I have been led to believe that the courts (?) can over rule this kind of decision in certain circumstances, much to the relief at time of the JW parents (for example). Takes the decision out of their hands !!!
Hi, sorry: Busy busy. Well, I had a visit from the JW's a few weeks back. I invited them in for coffee, which took them back a bit. I was keen to understand why they did what they did. They are of course very committed (opportunity for a cheap shot there for someone) and sincere in their beliefs. Had quite interesting chats over about 3 or 4 weeks with them, actually. Main differences are the blood thing, their belief or otherwise in the trinity, and the chain of events after death: Has ramifications in their belief or otherwise in hell. What makes me suspicious is that their version of the Bible, with subtle differences, was written after the KJV etc, without, as far as I could tell, reference to "more original" documents. ie It seemed to be "made up" in parts. I was unimpressed with the blood thing implication, and can see that denying your child a blood transfusion when there is no biblical warrant for that would be pretty unfortunate. However, in this case, I can't fail to be impressed by this woman's faith and strength of belief, and hope that God takes pity on her, and allows her the eternity with Him which she so clearly craved.
Originally posted by Mr Woolf:However, in this case, I can't fail to be impressed by this woman's faith and strength of belief, and hope that God takes pity on her, and allows her the eternity with Him which she so clearly craved.
I wonder if her husband and children will be equally "impressed". I hope they don't grow up wondering why she chose her fate over the rest of her life (potentially) giving her children a loving mother!
They are of course very committed and sincere in their beliefs.
Kind of reminds me of someone else!!!
quote:
However, in this case, I can't fail to be impressed by this woman's faith and strength of belief, and hope that God takes pity on her, and allows her the eternity with Him which she so clearly craved.
A consistent and measured response. Would you extend the same hope to fervent Muslims? Is it just a strong faith and belief that you hope is required to get you into heaven? I thought your criteria were a bit tougher than that?
smokeAndMirrors: ...It's trivially true because there is no such thing as "religion", it's a collective noun...
so in other words the is actually no proof the religion kills...and you've just confessed to being trivial by starting the thread in the first place...
You speak about morality...although you show little concern for this persons lost life smokeAndMirrors. Instead you use this tragic event to bolster your own agenda...
