Last edited:
Greedy mother abandons children for God
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Notes Around
Notes Around ....
To start with:
Greenberg
Bravo. I do not say this sarcastically. I do, in fact, appreciate your response in #189. I'm also well aware that I was baiting you in #187.
If I venture to say the primary difference between what I perceive in your posts and what I think, feel, and believe in response to this strange phenomenon called Christianity is a question of inner profit, or whether something has a useful point, I'm aware the assertion treats the whole issue simplistically.
To use a harsh and difficult contrast, if we look at the domestic abuser who asserts—and our modern era still finds some of these among us—that the violence is an expression of love, I would not argue that the abuser should not love, but that the criteria and commitments of love contradict the nature of love. While I have witnessed parents infuriated by their offspring's sexual conduct, I am hard pressed to figure out why—and again, I must disclaim the severity of the contrast—the parent would kill the child. In the contemporary first world, for instance we do not hear of Christians invoking the Old Testament and lopping off a child's hand. Hell, my daughter caught me with an amazing left haymaker Friday night. Should she feel lucky that I'm not a Christian? There are far better reasons for that; I wouldn't invoke the Bible and take off her hand. And perhaps that would be to the peril of my own soul (e.g. topic citations of Matthew and Luke), but I would posit that as faith asserts Christ has died for our sins, it would be better to place my trust in God and know that my daughter's "sin" would be reckoned as the Lord saw fit. And if that means she is forgiven, should I really be upset about that?
Why would I? The Origin of Species has no relevance here. As to Dawkins, I don't expect that The God Delusion will cover much that I'm not already familiar with. I'll get to it in time.
While I am frequently accused of sermonizing, I confess your accusation brings a smile. Normally, the accusations are slightly more metaphorical. And I figure if I'm going to answer you about the "commercial", I should probably ask what you mean, because you can't possibly be suggesting the first thing that comes to mind.
I post a theological assertion, and this is what you come up with?
Let's consider a pro athlete who signs a contract: he shows up to practice, scores twenty touchdowns, rushes for a thousand yards. He fulfilled his contract, right? Why is he being thrown off the team, seeing the rest of his contract cancelled, and hearing that his right to play in the league is being suspended? Could his violation of the league drug policy have anything to do with it?
What I'm after is that, while Ms. Gough certainly aimed to fulfill a clause of her "contract", as such, she also violated several others. Where you praise her for following through on an obligation, I challenge the foundation and scale of that obligation while simultaneously questioning the relationship of that specific obligation in relation to her other obligations in faith.
I would suggest that you're viewing that decision according to a demonstrably narrow perspective on her obligations.
Notes Around ....
To start with:
Greenberg
Bravo. I do not say this sarcastically. I do, in fact, appreciate your response in #189. I'm also well aware that I was baiting you in #187.
If I venture to say the primary difference between what I perceive in your posts and what I think, feel, and believe in response to this strange phenomenon called Christianity is a question of inner profit, or whether something has a useful point, I'm aware the assertion treats the whole issue simplistically.
To use a harsh and difficult contrast, if we look at the domestic abuser who asserts—and our modern era still finds some of these among us—that the violence is an expression of love, I would not argue that the abuser should not love, but that the criteria and commitments of love contradict the nature of love. While I have witnessed parents infuriated by their offspring's sexual conduct, I am hard pressed to figure out why—and again, I must disclaim the severity of the contrast—the parent would kill the child. In the contemporary first world, for instance we do not hear of Christians invoking the Old Testament and lopping off a child's hand. Hell, my daughter caught me with an amazing left haymaker Friday night. Should she feel lucky that I'm not a Christian? There are far better reasons for that; I wouldn't invoke the Bible and take off her hand. And perhaps that would be to the peril of my own soul (e.g. topic citations of Matthew and Luke), but I would posit that as faith asserts Christ has died for our sins, it would be better to place my trust in God and know that my daughter's "sin" would be reckoned as the Lord saw fit. And if that means she is forgiven, should I really be upset about that?
• • •
Myles said:
Why would I? The Origin of Species has no relevance here. As to Dawkins, I don't expect that The God Delusion will cover much that I'm not already familiar with. I'll get to it in time.
While I am frequently accused of sermonizing, I confess your accusation brings a smile. Normally, the accusations are slightly more metaphorical. And I figure if I'm going to answer you about the "commercial", I should probably ask what you mean, because you can't possibly be suggesting the first thing that comes to mind.
• • •
Mountainhare said:
I post a theological assertion, and this is what you come up with?
Let's consider a pro athlete who signs a contract: he shows up to practice, scores twenty touchdowns, rushes for a thousand yards. He fulfilled his contract, right? Why is he being thrown off the team, seeing the rest of his contract cancelled, and hearing that his right to play in the league is being suspended? Could his violation of the league drug policy have anything to do with it?
What I'm after is that, while Ms. Gough certainly aimed to fulfill a clause of her "contract", as such, she also violated several others. Where you praise her for following through on an obligation, I challenge the foundation and scale of that obligation while simultaneously questioning the relationship of that specific obligation in relation to her other obligations in faith.
I would suggest that you're viewing that decision according to a demonstrably narrow perspective on her obligations.
Last edited:
Hi Thiassa,
I read your reference to New Translation of Holy Scriptures....Watchtower, etc. as a commercial. How silly of me. You were only referirng to your source which is the New Translation of the Holy Scriptures at Watchtower etc., etc.
I now share your guilt
I read your reference to New Translation of Holy Scriptures....Watchtower, etc. as a commercial. How silly of me. You were only referirng to your source which is the New Translation of the Holy Scriptures at Watchtower etc., etc.
I now share your guilt
Last edited:
Tiassa:
You're quite right, Tiassa. You're a waste of my time. It seems that you can't appreciate those who have the strength of character to follow up on their convictions.
You're quite right, Tiassa. You're a waste of my time. It seems that you can't appreciate those who have the strength of character to follow up on their convictions.
Mountainhare said:
The problem with simply repeating your accusation is that you've ignored a direct response to it. To reiterate:
What I'm after is that, while Ms. Gough certainly aimed to fulfill a clause of her "contract", as such, she also violated several others. Where you praise her for following through on an obligation, I challenge the foundation and scale of that obligation while simultaneously questioning the relationship of that specific obligation ... to her other obligations in faith.
Thus, even if we set aside my challenge of the doctrinal foundation of Ms. Gough's decision, I also question the idea of this one obligation so isolated from many other, interrelated obligations of faith.
• • •
Myles said:
Well, let's clear them up directly, sir. What was the point of invoking Darwin and Dawkins? On the one hand, what do they have to do with the topic? Your "open mind" crack suggests that Dawkins' book will inform me of something I need to know. What is that something?
I think we'll both be better off in this discussion if we get that cleared up as soon as we can.
Last edited:
Myles said:
Fine with me, I suppose. Do a better job of it next time.
Seriously. I mean, I'm hard-pressed to see your comparison between recommending someone just give up so that religious supremacists can have their way, and considering the theology ... what, without condemning it strongly enough? I mean, what's your basis of comparison?
Everybody wants to be so accusing, yet so few will consider the theology involved. I admit I find this strange, and at least a little humorous.
But as you see a comparison between surrender and inquiry, I'm anxious to learn what that is.
Tiassa:
No Tiassa. You failed to respond with anything even remotely relevant. You merely erected a giant strawman argument, garnished with a weak analogy.
What others are they? I want you to be very precise here, instead of engaging in your typical verbal masturbation. What other 'contracts' did she fail to fulfil? Are these 'contracts' included in the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness?
It's not your place to question or challenge how this woman prioritized her obligations. That is strictly between her, her conscience, and God.
What other obligations are these? Remember, keep it precise. Even better, bullet points.
A wise move, because the doctrinal foundation is irrelevant. Ms. Gough held the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness, and that's all that matters.
No Tiassa. You failed to respond with anything even remotely relevant. You merely erected a giant strawman argument, garnished with a weak analogy.
What others are they? I want you to be very precise here, instead of engaging in your typical verbal masturbation. What other 'contracts' did she fail to fulfil? Are these 'contracts' included in the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness?
It's not your place to question or challenge how this woman prioritized her obligations. That is strictly between her, her conscience, and God.
What other obligations are these? Remember, keep it precise. Even better, bullet points.
A wise move, because the doctrinal foundation is irrelevant. Ms. Gough held the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness, and that's all that matters.
Tiassa:
When considering the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, we only take into account their interpretation of scripture, not your interpretation. After all, they are responsible for upholding their interpretation, not yours.
Understand, grasshopper?
When considering the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, we only take into account their interpretation of scripture, not your interpretation. After all, they are responsible for upholding their interpretation, not yours.
Understand, grasshopper?
I don't see what it matters. They have their father. Is he less of a parent than a mother? I don't know why it would have people mad if you followed your own personal beliefs. She didn't harm anyone and its arrogant to presume she did. Just because it isn't what I personally would have done, doesn't mean what she did was selfish.
If she had given the twins up for adoption, so they would never know her, would that make people mad as well?
If she had given the twins up for adoption, so they would never know her, would that make people mad as well?