Greedy mother abandons children for God
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
QUOTE=Myles;1647394]
Myles, do you have trouble using the "Reply to Thread" tools?
Jan.[/QUOTE]
I've just noticed my own misuse of them.
Jan.
Myles, do you have trouble using the "Reply to Thread" tools?
Jan.[/QUOTE]
I've just noticed my own misuse of them.
Jan.
Orleander said:
You're right. At least she wasn't gay, right?
Which, I suppose is one positive outcome of this thread. We don't have to put up with Christians moaning about a mother and a father. Oh, right. Like Mitt said, better dead than gay.
So are we done, then, pretending that two-parent families are a better situation for children than single-parent families?
Good. Whatever. It's just sad that it comes to this in order to acknowledge that point.
Flip a coin. As an adopted child, I accept my biological mother's decision that she was incapable of being a fit and proper parent. If Ms. Gough had included that acknowledgment in her decision, I think I would have trusted that assessment.
gay?? What are you talking about. What does her sexual orientation have to do with her choice to not accept blood?
Tiassa?? Do you just not like Christians or is it people who die for their beliefs? Do you really care about her children and their future or are you angry about her Christian decision?
If what she did was unethical and wrong, the hospital had a duty to step in and help her. She didn't, so they didn't.
Dang, I personally think you're being as judgemental as some believers.
Orleander:
Tiassa's ridiculing of hardline Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality has nothing to do with a JW's decision not to accept blood. It's just his way of veering off on yet another tangent, while insulting anyone whose ideology differs from his own.
Tiassa's ridiculing of hardline Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality has nothing to do with a JW's decision not to accept blood. It's just his way of veering off on yet another tangent, while insulting anyone whose ideology differs from his own.
Easy enough, Mountainhare? Good.
I thought I would extrapolate a couple of points from a table included with the article, "What Do They Believe?"
(1) Bible is God's Word and is truth:
(2) Christ set example that must be followed in serving God:
(3) Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws:
(4) Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient:
(5) Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed:
We should probably pause to consider a couple of points at the outset. In the first place, not all of the information above is relevant to our consideration; however, I felt it appropriate to include the justifications as the Watchtower saw fit to provide in support of the relevant points. Additionally, we absolutely cannot presume that these points of faith put forward by the Watchtower are complete; after all, certain issues simply aren't mentioned, and rather than wonder why, we can simply look to that first point of faith I've listed, that the Bible is God's Word and is truth. In fact, that is the only necessary point of faith. The rest they have provided in order to tell us what they think it means.
Thus the first point to consider is that, for these purposes, the Bible is God's word and is true. We might also make a curious note of the passage from 2 Peter referred to by the Watchtower in support of this point of faith. Indeed, it demands scrutiny of the very point of faith in question.
Because if we look at point (3) above, that taking blood into the body through the mouth or veins violates God's laws, we find that the addition of the vein might well be a private interpretation. Indeed, of the justifications offered by the Watchtower, two come from the Old Testament, and one from the New. The two from Old Testament, by the Watchtower's preferred translation, make specifically the point that one should not eat the blood. Turning our attention to the later, New Testament Scripture—Acts 15.28-29—the Watchtower has chosen to isolate one occasion out of three included in the Acts of the Apostles. The passage advises that we should abstain from blood, and what, exactly does this mean? The other two occasions of this abstention from blood occur, as previously mentioned in Acts 15.20, and 21.25. Both involve clear references to the Old Testament:
As neither passage from the Old Testament speaks of the vein, and the New Testament refers back to the Old, it seems the notion of the vein is added. This would be doctrinally inappropriate (Matthew 5.17-18). Furthermore, if God did not want us performing blood transfusions, it would have been easy enough to make them impossible. Right?
This point is worth covering simply because it exists, but in the larger scheme of things, it's not especially persuasive. Even if we accept either that the vein was intended for inclusion but not mentioned so as to not confuse the hell out of the ancients, or that it is irrelevant because private interpretations are the fundamental basis for one's response to God's Word, there are overriding theological considerations.
As Jehovah's Witnesses believe, Christ set an example that must be followed in serving God. One of those examples, of course, is the risk of what is variously described as "Hell", "Hades", and "prison":
Thus we might go so far as to assert that Ms. Gough had an obligation to her daughters, or perhaps it is good enough that the myth of their mother should remain to teach them. But she need not fear condemnation if her motives are just; as the Watchtower makes clear, Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient. And well it should be. Imagine the born-again Christian. Should we pretend that, from that day forward, said Christian cannot be in error? Is that Christian somehow not still human? And after their first sin, do they need to be born yet again? Over and over? How many times? How many baptisms?
It is difficult to assert that by one sin—e.g., receiving blood—one has earned condemnation. After all, as Jesus famously reminds:
So what does it mean, then, to believe in Him? After all, this is the source of the infamous "deathbed conversion" proposition, a conundrum easily answered but for the state of faith in he who would answer. The answer is to recognize that belief affects one's actions. If one truly believes in Jesus Christ, one will act accordingly.
And this is where the bottom falls out of the notion that we should pander for God's favor. After all, as the aphorism has it, God knows what is in a person's heart. If the basis for our decisions is to impress God, we are not doing it right. The basis for our decisions should be a matter of right and wrong. As I noted elsewhere:
The theological problem Ms. Gough's decision faces comes from an exacting standard. We can fail at any time, and this is why so many churches and so many people of faith depend on the notion of forgiveness. As Jesus explains:
Additionally, it should be noted that point (5) above was included specifically because, while most of the Watchtower's scriptural justifications revolve around putting woman in her place, we should at least acknowledge that, according to 1 Corinthians, greedy people will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
It would be ridiculous for anyone to presume that the argument I've put forth is in any way intended as infallible. Such an argument would be beside the point. Rather, as the question has it, these are among the other obligations Ms. Gough set aside in order to fulfill one obligation which, for lapsing, she could reasonably expect Christ's compassion in God's judgment. These issues are biblically-derived, and thus included in Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs according to point (1) above, that the Bible is God's Word and is truth. Whether or not any person of faith agrees with the outcomes, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the issues have no merit.
Mountainhare said:
I thought I would extrapolate a couple of points from a table included with the article, "What Do They Believe?"
(1) Bible is God's Word and is truth:
(2) Christ set example that must be followed in serving God:
(3) Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws:
(4) Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient:
(5) Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed:
• • •
We should probably pause to consider a couple of points at the outset. In the first place, not all of the information above is relevant to our consideration; however, I felt it appropriate to include the justifications as the Watchtower saw fit to provide in support of the relevant points. Additionally, we absolutely cannot presume that these points of faith put forward by the Watchtower are complete; after all, certain issues simply aren't mentioned, and rather than wonder why, we can simply look to that first point of faith I've listed, that the Bible is God's Word and is truth. In fact, that is the only necessary point of faith. The rest they have provided in order to tell us what they think it means.
Thus the first point to consider is that, for these purposes, the Bible is God's word and is true. We might also make a curious note of the passage from 2 Peter referred to by the Watchtower in support of this point of faith. Indeed, it demands scrutiny of the very point of faith in question.
Because if we look at point (3) above, that taking blood into the body through the mouth or veins violates God's laws, we find that the addition of the vein might well be a private interpretation. Indeed, of the justifications offered by the Watchtower, two come from the Old Testament, and one from the New. The two from Old Testament, by the Watchtower's preferred translation, make specifically the point that one should not eat the blood. Turning our attention to the later, New Testament Scripture—Acts 15.28-29—the Watchtower has chosen to isolate one occasion out of three included in the Acts of the Apostles. The passage advises that we should abstain from blood, and what, exactly does this mean? The other two occasions of this abstention from blood occur, as previously mentioned in Acts 15.20, and 21.25. Both involve clear references to the Old Testament:
As neither passage from the Old Testament speaks of the vein, and the New Testament refers back to the Old, it seems the notion of the vein is added. This would be doctrinally inappropriate (Matthew 5.17-18). Furthermore, if God did not want us performing blood transfusions, it would have been easy enough to make them impossible. Right?
This point is worth covering simply because it exists, but in the larger scheme of things, it's not especially persuasive. Even if we accept either that the vein was intended for inclusion but not mentioned so as to not confuse the hell out of the ancients, or that it is irrelevant because private interpretations are the fundamental basis for one's response to God's Word, there are overriding theological considerations.
As Jehovah's Witnesses believe, Christ set an example that must be followed in serving God. One of those examples, of course, is the risk of what is variously described as "Hell", "Hades", and "prison":
Thus we might go so far as to assert that Ms. Gough had an obligation to her daughters, or perhaps it is good enough that the myth of their mother should remain to teach them. But she need not fear condemnation if her motives are just; as the Watchtower makes clear, Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient. And well it should be. Imagine the born-again Christian. Should we pretend that, from that day forward, said Christian cannot be in error? Is that Christian somehow not still human? And after their first sin, do they need to be born yet again? Over and over? How many times? How many baptisms?
It is difficult to assert that by one sin—e.g., receiving blood—one has earned condemnation. After all, as Jesus famously reminds:
So what does it mean, then, to believe in Him? After all, this is the source of the infamous "deathbed conversion" proposition, a conundrum easily answered but for the state of faith in he who would answer. The answer is to recognize that belief affects one's actions. If one truly believes in Jesus Christ, one will act accordingly.
And this is where the bottom falls out of the notion that we should pander for God's favor. After all, as the aphorism has it, God knows what is in a person's heart. If the basis for our decisions is to impress God, we are not doing it right. The basis for our decisions should be a matter of right and wrong. As I noted elsewhere:
All of this is because people think they are impressing God. If I save a life, it should be because a life needed saving, and I was there to do it. If I give a dollar to a homeless man, it should be because a homeless man asked and I had a dollar to give. The idea that I should do these things for God? That goodness is merely a way to pander for God's favor?
The theological problem Ms. Gough's decision faces comes from an exacting standard. We can fail at any time, and this is why so many churches and so many people of faith depend on the notion of forgiveness. As Jesus explains:
Additionally, it should be noted that point (5) above was included specifically because, while most of the Watchtower's scriptural justifications revolve around putting woman in her place, we should at least acknowledge that, according to 1 Corinthians, greedy people will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
It would be ridiculous for anyone to presume that the argument I've put forth is in any way intended as infallible. Such an argument would be beside the point. Rather, as the question has it, these are among the other obligations Ms. Gough set aside in order to fulfill one obligation which, for lapsing, she could reasonably expect Christ's compassion in God's judgment. These issues are biblically-derived, and thus included in Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs according to point (1) above, that the Bible is God's Word and is truth. Whether or not any person of faith agrees with the outcomes, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the issues have no merit.
Do you really think it's so simple?
Frankly, after so many years of hearing Christians and conservatives argue about the need for two parents—a line that comes up in such conservative favorites as blasting "welfare mothers" and denouncing homosexuals—I find it ironic that someone is suggesting that a one-parent family should suffice. While you and I might agree that a one-parent home can be sufficient just as a two-parent home can be insufficient, in the context of the basic assertion it's hard to apply your point without wondering why we must betray expressions of family values in order to defend personal values.
Neither. I would think you're smart enough to recognize that there's more at issue here.
For instance ....
I do think it sad that these children will grow up without their mother. I do think it sad that her departure was a choice. But for all the discussion at Sciforums about what's wrong with Christianity, or religion in general, how is it this topic that has everyone freaking out? One possibility is that, in examining a single, human decision, in giving "Christianity" a human face, I've made it harder for atheists and anti-Christian critics to simply hack away. And, of course, Christians and their sympathizers tend to defend their brethren beyond wisdom or good health.
One of the great tragedies of my opposition to Christianity is that, especially as I reside in the United States of America, this conflict need not exist. I can certainly try to ignore Christianity, but the last fifteen years, at least, have made that dangerous. The flip-side of that, of course, is that Christians can insert their faith into the debate whenever and however they feel like it, and, as you would have it, to question the nature and outcome of that faith is somehow inappropriate.
So there are a couple of ways, at least, to view the situation. To the one, as a Sisyphan Camusite, I am pained to see human beings locked in fruitless, pointless turmoil. If my Christian neighbors are to give away their youth, their joys, their all they have, yes it brings an ache to see them piss it all away for sad misinterpretations. To the other, as I've pointed out elsewhere°, Ms. Gough's decision is "symbolic of where Christianity ran afoul in the world". That point of departure affects most conflicts related to Christianity today. That change, that shifting of priorities and perspectives, is at the heart of why I asked, "Is this what Jesus meant?"
I find it rather sad that you require this topic to resemble some cookie-cutter, simpleton's argument about yes and no, right and wrong, black or white. I find your frownie-face emoticon even more sad for the fact that you're not really paying attention to what I write.
After all, I have defended her right to make the decision. And I have, in fact, offered a scale for what it means to "hate" (in Jesus' words) one's family. (See #4.) I have even considered the notion that she is a victim. (See #28, 82, 87, 197.)
I would hope you understand that this issue is more complicated that the petty form suggested by your either/or approach.
The hospital's responsibilities here are beside the point. I do believe it has already been acknowledged that forcing a transfusion on this patient would be wrong. Hell, if she'd been in Ireland, for instance, they would have forced her to have a transfusion. Whose religion do you respect in that case? (See DeepThought #129 and Tiassa #130.)
Probably because that's the only context in which you're willing to view this discussion.
Actually, I'm just glad society's done beating up the single mothers and gay parents. I find it interesting, though, that it takes questioning a Christian's decision to chase heaven instead of raise her daughters to finally move us past the old myth of the insufficiency of single parents. We all owe Orleander great thanks.
Frankly, I find her question—"They have their father. Is he less of a parent than a mother?"—rather quite beside the point. It seems the kind of diversion one drags out when desperate to pretend to have a point. Strangely, in asserting that Ms. Gough "didn't harm anyone and its arrogant to presume she did", Orleander has presumed the woman's entire value to her children would, in life, have been nil at best.
I mean, come on. I'm not a fan of Christians, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to call the woman worthless.
______________________
Notes:
° pointed out elsewhere — 'Tis a shame, Orleander, that you didn't give the point any consideration then, especially as I was responding to you. Perhaps, had you given what I wrote then better—or, say, any—consideration, the questions you put before me would, perhaps, be rational, or even reasonable.
Orleander said:
Frankly, after so many years of hearing Christians and conservatives argue about the need for two parents—a line that comes up in such conservative favorites as blasting "welfare mothers" and denouncing homosexuals—I find it ironic that someone is suggesting that a one-parent family should suffice. While you and I might agree that a one-parent home can be sufficient just as a two-parent home can be insufficient, in the context of the basic assertion it's hard to apply your point without wondering why we must betray expressions of family values in order to defend personal values.
Neither. I would think you're smart enough to recognize that there's more at issue here.
For instance ....
I do think it sad that these children will grow up without their mother. I do think it sad that her departure was a choice. But for all the discussion at Sciforums about what's wrong with Christianity, or religion in general, how is it this topic that has everyone freaking out? One possibility is that, in examining a single, human decision, in giving "Christianity" a human face, I've made it harder for atheists and anti-Christian critics to simply hack away. And, of course, Christians and their sympathizers tend to defend their brethren beyond wisdom or good health.
One of the great tragedies of my opposition to Christianity is that, especially as I reside in the United States of America, this conflict need not exist. I can certainly try to ignore Christianity, but the last fifteen years, at least, have made that dangerous. The flip-side of that, of course, is that Christians can insert their faith into the debate whenever and however they feel like it, and, as you would have it, to question the nature and outcome of that faith is somehow inappropriate.
So there are a couple of ways, at least, to view the situation. To the one, as a Sisyphan Camusite, I am pained to see human beings locked in fruitless, pointless turmoil. If my Christian neighbors are to give away their youth, their joys, their all they have, yes it brings an ache to see them piss it all away for sad misinterpretations. To the other, as I've pointed out elsewhere°, Ms. Gough's decision is "symbolic of where Christianity ran afoul in the world". That point of departure affects most conflicts related to Christianity today. That change, that shifting of priorities and perspectives, is at the heart of why I asked, "Is this what Jesus meant?"
I find it rather sad that you require this topic to resemble some cookie-cutter, simpleton's argument about yes and no, right and wrong, black or white. I find your frownie-face emoticon even more sad for the fact that you're not really paying attention to what I write.
After all, I have defended her right to make the decision. And I have, in fact, offered a scale for what it means to "hate" (in Jesus' words) one's family. (See #4.) I have even considered the notion that she is a victim. (See #28, 82, 87, 197.)
I would hope you understand that this issue is more complicated that the petty form suggested by your either/or approach.
The hospital's responsibilities here are beside the point. I do believe it has already been acknowledged that forcing a transfusion on this patient would be wrong. Hell, if she'd been in Ireland, for instance, they would have forced her to have a transfusion. Whose religion do you respect in that case? (See DeepThought #129 and Tiassa #130.)
Probably because that's the only context in which you're willing to view this discussion.
• • •
Mountainhare said:
Actually, I'm just glad society's done beating up the single mothers and gay parents. I find it interesting, though, that it takes questioning a Christian's decision to chase heaven instead of raise her daughters to finally move us past the old myth of the insufficiency of single parents. We all owe Orleander great thanks.
Frankly, I find her question—"They have their father. Is he less of a parent than a mother?"—rather quite beside the point. It seems the kind of diversion one drags out when desperate to pretend to have a point. Strangely, in asserting that Ms. Gough "didn't harm anyone and its arrogant to presume she did", Orleander has presumed the woman's entire value to her children would, in life, have been nil at best.
I mean, come on. I'm not a fan of Christians, but I wouldn't have gone so far as to call the woman worthless.
______________________
Notes:
° pointed out elsewhere — 'Tis a shame, Orleander, that you didn't give the point any consideration then, especially as I was responding to you. Perhaps, had you given what I wrote then better—or, say, any—consideration, the questions you put before me would, perhaps, be rational, or even reasonable.
No there's not. She died for her beliefs and it offends your beliefs, so she becomes a greedy mother who abandoned her children.
Orleander said:
What sort of bigotry pretends that religious beliefs are so simplistic? Oh, right, the same kind that presumes a mother is worthless.
Wait, you're a mother aren't you? So is it all mothers that are worthless, or just religious ones?
I have no idea what you are ranting about. Bigotry?? Worthless? What?
Yeah, I'm a Mom. If I join the Army and died in Iraq, was I being selfish? Was my life worthless? I would have been dying for my beliefs, just as she did. They are just not YOUR beliefs, which makes her a greedy mother abandoning her children. If you were against the war in Iraq, I guess the same could be said for every parent who died over there.
Orleander said:
Of course you don't. Why would you?
You seem to have it in your mind that religious beliefs are somehow simplistic notions. They are ideas, and, like other ideas, they are complicated in their essence, expression, and origin. Like other ideas, religious ideas are dynamic, reflective, and even symbiotic. You have chosen to ignore a broad range of theological considerations in order to declare that she has "died for her beliefs". Not only has she chosen to die for only one belief, that belief must be isolated from all other related beliefs in order to apply. Your simplification of religious belief in this topic reflects your outlook. And I find your demand that religious beliefs are so simple as your argument presents them both ignorant and bigoted.
As you wrote in post #220:
As I noted to Mountainhare in#228 above,
Strangely, in asserting that Ms. Gough "didn't harm anyone and its arrogant to presume she did", Orleander has presumed the woman's entire value to her children would, in life, have been nil at best.
Your assertion depends on the notion that at best, Ms. Gough could do zero good, be of zero worth to her children. That's a horrible estimation of a mother.
Iraq? I wouldn't say you were selfish. Then again, it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq.
If I should to treat your ideology, outlook, and intellect as simplistically as you treat others, I would just say that it wouldn't make you selfish but stupid. However, unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge that there's more to the decision than the immediate, simplistic retort would suggest.
And that's the giveaway symptom of your bigotry: You treat both Ms. Gough's decision and the analysis thereof as if religious ideas are absolutely simplistic. That you refuse to consider the depth and power of religious beliefs any more closely than your few paltry, inconsiderate lines suggest only undermines the validity of your assertion. It may be what you believe, but apparently that belief is superficially founded.
You haven't answered the question yet, Orleander: Is it all mothers that are worthless, or just religious ones?
Do we need to get more specific? Christian mothers? Jehovah's Witness mothers? Or is it just this one mother who, conveniently for your hostile and simplistic regard for religious beliefs, was worthless?
...And I find your demand that religious beliefs are so simple as your argument presents them both ignorant and bigoted.
Maybe I am being ignorant or naive, but bigoted? LMAO! You rant against Christains over and over, but I'M bigoted?
As you wrote in post #220:
Umm, yeah. Where does it say 'worthless?'
As I noted to Mountainhare in#228 above,
Strangely, in asserting that Ms. Gough "didn't harm anyone and its arrogant to presume she did", Orleander has presumed the woman's entire value to her children would, in life, have been nil at best.
Your assertion depends on the notion that at best, Ms. Gough could do zero good, be of zero worth to her children. That's a horrible estimation of a mother.
So you are saying she selfishly abandoned her children and I'm saying she didn't. She refused a medical procedure and died. People refuse medical procedures all the time. She went after the eternal life, so she could see them eternally. She wanted to be with them forever, not the maybe 60 yrs she had here. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. It doesn't make me rabid to know this is what her decision was. If that makes me a stupid bigot because its too simple for others to understand, fine.
Iraq? I wouldn't say you were selfish. Then again, it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq.
Depends on what?
If I should to treat your ideology, outlook, and intellect as simplistically as you treat others, I would just say that it wouldn't make you selfish but stupid. However, unlike you, I'm willing to acknowledge that there's more to the decision than the immediate, simplistic retort would suggest.
And that's the giveaway symptom of your bigotry: You treat both Ms. Gough's decision and the analysis thereof as if religious ideas are absolutely simplistic. That you refuse to consider the depth and power of religious beliefs any more closely than your few paltry, inconsiderate lines suggest only undermines the validity of your assertion. It may be what you believe, but apparently that belief is superficially founded.
My beliefs are superficial? Why because I believe religions have as much right to pontificate as you do? Because I believe in personal freedom and if someone wants to be stupid, they can?
You haven't answered the question yet, Orleander: Is it all mothers that are worthless, or just religious ones?
Do we need to get more specific? Christian mothers? Jehovah's Witness mothers? Or is it just this one mother who, conveniently for your hostile and simplistic regard for religious beliefs, was worthless?
Again, I have no idea where this worthless crap is coming from. And I have a hostile regard for religious beliefs?? LMFAO!!! :shrug:
and as a mod, don't you think it would better serve this forum to attack the idea instead of the poster?
So this is what you are?
Hey, at least I can give theological support for my objections. You, on the other hand, treat religious beliefs as if they are simplistic toys, game pieces to be manipulated and pushed around without regard to anything. Even dishonest Christians try to make a theological or doctrinal case. You won't even consider theological or doctrinal arguments.
How many times should I explain it so that you can pretend to not get it?
You said she did no harm. That means nothing has been lost. Would you say that you have had a net zero effect on your children? They would not be hurt by your absence?
Your argument that Ms. Gough did not hurt anyone presumes that her children, in losing a mother, have lost nothing.
Your argument is most effective if we ignore some fairly important aspects of faith, such as what the Bible says, and what Jesus (remember him?) says.
Apparently you missed it the first time? Here, allow me to reiterate, since it was apparently too subtle:
Seriously ... did you miss it this time?
Your beliefs about Christian faith are apparently superficial, since ...
Of course you don't.
I noticed you removed this. I guess it didn't go well with your revised, erroneous approach?
As a member of this community bothering to post, don't you think you ought to put at least some effort into your vitriol? For instance, asking, "Depends on what?" Seriously, what was so hard about the phrase, "it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq"?
Oh, and look at the statements you quoted:
Did I miss any? Seems like those points address the ideas, and not the poster. You know, your demand, instead of you? That belief is superficially founded, instead of you are superficial?
Toward the end of your post, Orleander, you noted, "Again, I have no idea where this worthless crap is coming from." Strangely, in responding to that portion of my post, you changed the subject:
It doesn't surprise me that you have "no idea" where a certain argument comes from when you simply ignore the explanation.
Orleander said:
Hey, at least I can give theological support for my objections. You, on the other hand, treat religious beliefs as if they are simplistic toys, game pieces to be manipulated and pushed around without regard to anything. Even dishonest Christians try to make a theological or doctrinal case. You won't even consider theological or doctrinal arguments.
How many times should I explain it so that you can pretend to not get it?
You said she did no harm. That means nothing has been lost. Would you say that you have had a net zero effect on your children? They would not be hurt by your absence?
Your argument that Ms. Gough did not hurt anyone presumes that her children, in losing a mother, have lost nothing.
Your argument is most effective if we ignore some fairly important aspects of faith, such as what the Bible says, and what Jesus (remember him?) says.
Apparently you missed it the first time? Here, allow me to reiterate, since it was apparently too subtle:
Then again, it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq.
Seriously ... did you miss it this time?
Your beliefs about Christian faith are apparently superficial, since ...
(1) ... you advocate the most superficial possible interpretation, and ...
(2) ... you decry any deeper examination of Christian faith and doctrine.
(2) ... you decry any deeper examination of Christian faith and doctrine.
Of course you don't.
I noticed you removed this. I guess it didn't go well with your revised, erroneous approach?
As a member of this community bothering to post, don't you think you ought to put at least some effort into your vitriol? For instance, asking, "Depends on what?" Seriously, what was so hard about the phrase, "it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq"?
Oh, and look at the statements you quoted:
• And I find your demand that religious beliefs are so simple as your argument presents them both ignorant and bigoted.
• It may be what you believe, but apparently that belief is superficially founded.
• It may be what you believe, but apparently that belief is superficially founded.
Did I miss any? Seems like those points address the ideas, and not the poster. You know, your demand, instead of you? That belief is superficially founded, instead of you are superficial?
Toward the end of your post, Orleander, you noted, "Again, I have no idea where this worthless crap is coming from." Strangely, in responding to that portion of my post, you changed the subject:
It doesn't surprise me that you have "no idea" where a certain argument comes from when you simply ignore the explanation.
Hey, at least I can give theological support for my objections. You, on the other hand, treat religious beliefs as if they are simplistic toys, game pieces to be manipulated and pushed around without regard to anything. Even dishonest Christians try to make a theological or doctrinal case. You won't even consider theological or doctrinal arguments.
Theoretical support. That's what you have? Isn't that the same as a theory? As speculating? An hypothisis? FINE! My theory is that she valued eternity with her children more than she valued her time here on Earth with them. My theory is she had doctrinefor that decision.
How many times should I explain it so that you can pretend to not get it?
I'm not pretending.
You said she did no harm. That means nothing has been lost. Would you say that you have had a net zero effect on your children? They would not be hurt by your absence?
My kids would be hurt because they know me. She died at their birth. I think my kids are gonna miss me a bit more than her kids will.
Your argument that Ms. Gough did not hurt anyone presumes that her children, in losing a mother, have lost nothing.
And presuming her children are raised with her and her husban'd faith, they will look at her sacrifice as a gain, not a loss. They get to see their Mom for eternity. Oh, that's my theory, based on the doctrine their religion is based on
Your argument is most effective if we ignore some fairly important aspects of faith, such as what the Bible says, and what Jesus (remember him?) says.
I don't care what the bible or what Jesus says. I care about her beliefs, no matter how much I don't understand them. People have no more right to demand she take blood than believers do that I repent. After all, according to doctrine, isn't that how my life truly gets saved?
Apparently you missed it the first time? Here, allow me to reiterate, since it was apparently too subtle:
Then again, it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq.
Seriously ... did you miss it this time?
No, I got it. It depends on what? I did it to kill people? I did it for money? I did it for God and country? WHAT??!! What does it depend on?
Your beliefs about Christian faith are apparently superficial, since ...
(1) ... you advocate the most superficial possible interpretation, and ...
(2) ... you decry any deeper examination of Christian faith and doctrine.
OK :shrug:
Of course you don't.
I don't because the word 'worthless' was no where in any post I made adn yu just kept hammering away at it. So, no, I don't know where it was coming from.
I noticed you removed this. I guess it didn't go well with your revised, erroneous approach?
No, I remembered you're a mod and saying it wasn't a risk I wanted to take.
As a member of this community bothering to post, don't you think you ought to put at least some effort into your vitriol? For instance, asking, "Depends on what?" Seriously, what was so hard about the phrase, "it all depends on why you joined the Army to go to Iraq"?
see above.
Oh, and look at the statements you quoted:
• And I find your demand that religious beliefs are so simple as your argument presents them both ignorant and bigoted.
• It may be what you believe, but apparently that belief is superficially founded.
Did I miss any? Seems like those points address the ideas, and not the poster. You know, your demand, instead of you? That belief is superficially founded, instead of you are superficial?
Toward the end of your post, Orleander, you noted, "Again, I have no idea where this worthless crap is coming from." Strangely, in responding to that portion of my post, you changed the subject:
Yes, I have no idea where the 'worthless' crap was coming from. I never said it, but you kept going on about 'worthless'. You even referred to one of my posts.
It doesn't surprise me that you have "no idea" where a certain argument comes from when you simply ignore the explanation.
I'm not ignoring it. I'm not understanding it. You're getting hostile at me instead of explaining your theory.
I guess we are just not gonna agree. She's dead. Nothing to be done about it.
Unless you want the laws changed?
(Insert title here)
Orleander
We need to start with a very simple review:
Now then, in what language are the words "theological" and "theoretical" the same?
You do raise a valid assertion, however:
Very well. Explain that doctrinal basis, then. It's a fine theory, but can you support it?
Then perhaps you should quit being so hostile. After all, if you're imagining my hostility to such a point that you can no longer understand sentences or paragraphs, I'd say the problem isn't mine. As I've repeatedly stated, your argument presumes that Ms. Gough's net effect on her children would, in life, have been zero.
Okay. Now, would you say that your net contribution to their quality of life has been zero? Would you say that, had you been gone since their birth, they would have lost nothing?
And your theory is valid, except that you seem to have rejected the idea of actually supporting it (e.g., your previous rejection of doctrinal exploration). If you would like to actually support that theory with some doctrinal considerations, there's plenty to start with. (See posts #1, 14, 92, 197, 227. These are the doctrinal considerations I have put up; there are others scattered through the topic, and, of course, there is the whole of the Bible to consider as well. I look forward to your doctrinal analysis.)
Well, the three possibilities you listed there would not speak highly of such a decision.
I disagree that nobody has been hurt, that nobody has lost anything. To reiterate:
(chortle!)
Seriously, do you really fear James, Cris, and Skin that much? I hadn't realized things had gotten so tight around here.
To borrow a phrase, see above.
And again.
Doesn't mean I don't look forward to your doctrinal analysis. Who knows? Maybe you'll teach me something, put forward a valid point I've missed.
I hope to learn something from her death. I would think that's more than nothing.
This is, perhaps, the most disappointing thing about this discussion. It's not about changing the laws. If you'd bothered to give any consideration to our relevant discussion of motives in another topic, perhaps you wouldn't ask such baseless questions.
And, you know, if you'd paid attention to what I have written in this very topic—material that I have specifically reminded you of—perhaps you wouldn't ask such baseless questions.
Of course, there is also another possibility, that you are in fact aware of that material and just don't care. At present, I'm presuming your participation in this discussion sincere. And this despite the evidence to the contrary. Help me out here, Orleander: Why are you ignoring what I've written?
Orleander
We need to start with a very simple review:
Now then, in what language are the words "theological" and "theoretical" the same?
You do raise a valid assertion, however:
Orleander said:
Very well. Explain that doctrinal basis, then. It's a fine theory, but can you support it?
Then perhaps you should quit being so hostile. After all, if you're imagining my hostility to such a point that you can no longer understand sentences or paragraphs, I'd say the problem isn't mine. As I've repeatedly stated, your argument presumes that Ms. Gough's net effect on her children would, in life, have been zero.
Okay. Now, would you say that your net contribution to their quality of life has been zero? Would you say that, had you been gone since their birth, they would have lost nothing?
And your theory is valid, except that you seem to have rejected the idea of actually supporting it (e.g., your previous rejection of doctrinal exploration). If you would like to actually support that theory with some doctrinal considerations, there's plenty to start with. (See posts #1, 14, 92, 197, 227. These are the doctrinal considerations I have put up; there are others scattered through the topic, and, of course, there is the whole of the Bible to consider as well. I look forward to your doctrinal analysis.)
Well, the three possibilities you listed there would not speak highly of such a decision.
I disagree that nobody has been hurt, that nobody has lost anything. To reiterate:
• As I've repeatedly stated, your argument presumes that Ms. Gough's net effect on her children would, in life, have been zero.
• Now, would you say that your net contribution to their quality of life has been zero? Would you say that, had you been gone since their birth, they would have lost nothing?
• Now, would you say that your net contribution to their quality of life has been zero? Would you say that, had you been gone since their birth, they would have lost nothing?
(chortle!)
Seriously, do you really fear James, Cris, and Skin that much? I hadn't realized things had gotten so tight around here.
To borrow a phrase, see above.
And again.
Doesn't mean I don't look forward to your doctrinal analysis. Who knows? Maybe you'll teach me something, put forward a valid point I've missed.
I hope to learn something from her death. I would think that's more than nothing.
This is, perhaps, the most disappointing thing about this discussion. It's not about changing the laws. If you'd bothered to give any consideration to our relevant discussion of motives in another topic, perhaps you wouldn't ask such baseless questions.
And, you know, if you'd paid attention to what I have written in this very topic—material that I have specifically reminded you of—perhaps you wouldn't ask such baseless questions.
Of course, there is also another possibility, that you are in fact aware of that material and just don't care. At present, I'm presuming your participation in this discussion sincere. And this despite the evidence to the contrary. Help me out here, Orleander: Why are you ignoring what I've written?
Um ... Thpbpbpbpbt?
Okay. That's ... fine with me.
It's not about superior intellect, Orleander. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I don't want to disrespect your beliefs. So ... yeah ... um ... er ... so, uh .... So there! Take that! And don't you forget it, Missy! (Is that better?)
Orleander said:
Okay. That's ... fine with me.
It's not about superior intellect, Orleander. Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I don't want to disrespect your beliefs. So ... yeah ... um ... er ... so, uh .... So there! Take that! And don't you forget it, Missy! (Is that better?)