Greedy mother abandons children for God

[Tiassa]

Okay, but explain to me what you expect in this thread of yours? What is it that you are trying so desperately to say, yet can't say it?

This is not the Politics forum, Max. Nor is this Ethics, Morality, and Justice. Rather, this is the Religion forum. The questions are, in fact, fairly simply stated:

• Is this what Jesus meant?

• What would you risk for your children? Is eternal damnation on the list?​

This is the second time I've reminded you specifically of those questions, and the third time I have posted them in this topic.

And in case you haven't figured it out, I assert that it is not what Jesus meant.

And that, incidentally, makes this whole thing more tragic.

 

[Orleander]

Its tragic if the parent's decision caused the death of a child.
Its not when that person dies themself. Its just stupid. And its only stupid to me because I'm not Jehovah Witness.

 

[Orleander]

To borrow a phrase .... Oh, for the love of God.

:wallbang:

I see nothing wrong with what she did. I don't have a problem with people dieing for their beliefs.

 

[greenberg]

The woman had convictions, and she did what many people won't do ...she had the strength of her convictions and did what she felt was best.

We don't know that, we don't know what actually went on in her mind.

I think this whole thread is about people wanting to prevent the free choices of others. I don't see it as any different to the cancer patient who willingly refuses to undergo cancer treatment. You might not like that choice, but should you interfere with that free choice?

Things look a lot different if one oneself has been the child of such a parent "with strong convictions". Then it becomes obvious that "dying for your convictions is the right thing to do" isn't always the best option for all directly involved - because some convictions, if acted on, are just such that they lead to harm for others.

 

[Baron Max]

The questions are, in fact, fairly simply stated:

• Is this what Jesus meant?

How can anyone know that? And to argue what Jesus meant is ....more foolish than beating your head against a wall. What you believe is what you believe, but you can't ever prove it to anyone. It's like religion, ain't it? Belief?

• What would you risk for your children? Is eternal damnation on the list?

I'd risk most anything for my children. But as I hold that right of decision for myself, I also hold that same right to the parents of others. Their decisions are not mine to make ...it's for them to make their own decisions.

And in case you haven't figured it out, I assert that it is not what Jesus meant.

Fine. And again, you're just saying that you don't agree with that mother's beliefs. Fine.

And that, incidentally, makes this whole thing more tragic.

No, it makes it more tragic FOR YOU. But since you don't have the right to determine what others think is "more tragic", then it's simply your opinion and nothing more. Or do you think your opinion is so much more important than that of the mother in question?

Baron Max

 

[Communist Hamster]

What if the children had needed a blood transfusion, and she had refused to let that happen?

 

[Baron Max]

We don't know that, we don't know what actually went on in her mind.

So, ....what? Should we now make all decisions for all people ...and use the excuse that "...we don't know what actually went on ...(in their mind."?

.... - because some convictions, if acted on, are just such that they lead to harm for others.

And just who would you suggest make that decision? Should everyone's convictions and beliefs be examined in order to determine those "harmful" things that might occur in the future?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

What if the children had needed a blood transfusion, and she had refused to let that happen?

In the USA, the courts have already stepped in on that issue .....and parents can't withhold viable, proven, lifesaving medical procedures from their children because of religious beliefs.

Baron Max

 

[greenberg]

So, ....what? Should we now make all decisions for all people ...and use the excuse that "...we don't know what actually went on ...(in their mind."?

No. I'm saying we can't say things like "She has made her decision in free will", "She acted on her religious beliefs" - we don't know whether this is true or not.

Perhaps she did act on free will.
Perhaps she was blackmailed by the family.
Perhaps she was lying.
Perhaps she used the opportunity to actually commit suicide.
Perhaps ...

We only know some of her stated motives, but not the things that actually went on in her mind.
So we can't make conclusions about her actions.

However, we can discuss the issue of parental responsibility, religious conviction, specifics of medical treatment and related issues in general.

And just who would you suggest make that decision? Should everyone's convictions and beliefs be examined in order to determine those "harmful" things that might occur in the future?

I was stating the obvious.

 

[Orleander]

well, my Mom wants to be unplugged if she is ever in a vegatative state or like Terri Schiavo. I strongly disagree. Is it wrong of my Mom to want that? Or is it wrong of me to want her kept alive? Which one of us is being selfish?

(and in her living will, that's why I have POA over her money, and my brothers have POA when it comes to medical decision. She doesn't trust me, with good reason not to.)

 

[SkinWalker]

That, of course, is absurd. It was the patient and her family's beliefs not to use transfusions. Are you suggesting that doctors should go against the patients' beliefs and requests?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that rationally minded people speak out against superstitions that take the lives of their believers. Indeed, I'm advocating that we ridicule them in the same manner we do nutters that go on about being "anally probed" by aliens from the 9th dimension, those that think Elvis still frequents the local Piggly Wiggly for twinkies, and people who still genuinely think the Earth is flat.

Ridicule is a powerful motivator and, wielded correctly, can shame people into giving up nonsensical superstitions.

 

[Adstar]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that rationally minded people speak out against superstitions that take the lives of their believers. Indeed, I'm advocating that we ridicule them in the same manner we do nutters that go on about being "anally probed" by aliens from the 9th dimension, those that think Elvis still frequents the local Piggly Wiggly for twinkies, and people who still genuinely think the Earth is flat.

Ridicule is a powerful motivator and, wielded correctly, can shame people into giving up nonsensical superstitions.

To those who truly believe in their convictions. Ridicule is like water off a ducks back. No effect at all.

LOL Actually it can be a very confirming thing to one who expects persecution for their beliefs.

The only people who are moved by Ridicule are those who seek the approval of men and who are half hearted in their beliefs.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Tiassa]

How can anyone know that? And to argue what Jesus meant is ....more foolish than beating your head against a wall. What you believe is what you believe, but you can't ever prove it to anyone. It's like religion, ain't it? Belief?

Well, if one of the Catholic priests decided to say that Jesus wanted him to sleep with the little boys, what would we say?

I'd risk most anything for my children. But as I hold that right of decision for myself, I also hold that same right to the parents of others. Their decisions are not mine to make ...it's for them to make their own decisions.

Wonderful. Good for you. Good for your theoretic children.

But since you don't have the right to determine what others think is "more tragic", then it's simply your opinion and nothing more. Or do you think your opinion is so much more important than that of the mother in question?

What is this thing with your constant focus on what you think my rights are? It's beside the point. The only reason it's part of the discussion at all is because you insist on bringing it up.

Think about it this way: She believed what she believed. I consider it very difficult to draw the line connecting the Biblical precedent to the belief. The Biblical precedent is about eating blood. And, like rules about tattoos, bodily waste, flagellation, and incest, there are seeds of truth wrapped inside the superstition.

Just imagine ... if she gets to Judgment and God says, "What the hell were you thinking? Be gone!"

Wouldn't that just freakin' suck?

Dying for beliefs is one thing. But I still have a hard time believing people are willing to compare it to being a Marine.

For instance ....

• • •​

I see nothing wrong with what she did. I don't have a problem with people dieing for their beliefs.

And that's fine. It's not mine to object to that. However, I think you're reaching a little when you say she died for the love of God. As I pointed out to Max, that's akin to saying Crystal Brame died for the love of a good man.

Imagine a tragic play:

• And now the darkness comes, and as my soul fades it is the love that conquers my sadness. Good-bye. Good-bye.

• And now I approach my eternal reward. I cannot wait to receive it. Hello. Hello.​

She believed she was going to heaven. It's not like leaving her children behind was any real sacrifice. Why romanticize it?

She doesn't trust me, with good reason not to.

Tragic.

 

[Orleander]

....However, I think you're reaching a little when you say she died for the love of God.... .

she did. She loved God so much she did exactly what he told her to do...not accept blood. She loved him ,she believed him, and she made her peace. She knew she would die and she was ok with that apparently.
God's will be done. Everything happens for a reason. and all that blather.

 

[Baron Max]

Ridicule is a powerful motivator and, wielded correctly, can shame people into giving up nonsensical superstitions.

Excellent suggestion and advice. May I begin to do that on sciforums with issues that I think are "nonsensical superstitions"?

Or are you the one who decides what those "nonsensical superstitions" are for all of us? If not, who decides?

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

She loved God so much she did exactly what he told her to do...not accept blood.

And Crystal Brame died for the love of a good man.

Would you argue that being conditioned to believe in eternal reward and punishment had nothing to do with her decision?

It's a very curious definition of love that people offer in defense of Christianity. Is love given under duress truly love?

 

[Baron Max]

Originally Posted by Orleander: "I see nothing wrong with what she did. I don't have a problem with people dieing for their beliefs."

And that's fine. It's not mine to object to that. However, I think you're reaching a little when you say she died for the love of God.

What the hell difference does the particular reasoning make to you or anyone?!

Tiassa, I don't get it, I don't get you, I don't get what the hell you're so entrenched with this issue. It seems to me that you're just totally NON-religious, thus anything to do with it, you're adamantly against.

And yet, you're not against the woman's decision to accept death rather than take a blood transfusion???? Nope, I don't get you at all ...unless it's just your radical hatred of anything or anyone being religious.

I get the feeling that you're arguing in circles, and worse, not making a lot of sense doing it.

Baron Max

 

[Orleander]

Conditioned? I suppose. But I've been conditioned to obey my parents, obey the laws. My Dad was conditioned to obey his squadron leader, as were my brothers.

she didn't love him only under duress. She loved him at all times, just like he loved her. He loved her so much he gave his only son so that she could go to heaven. So that her children could go to heaven. People die for far worse reasons than self-sacrifice and love. I would die for my children, she died for her Father.

I think its a sad waste, but I understand it and I don't judge it.

 

[Baron Max]

And Crystal Brame died for the love of a good man.

Would you argue that being conditioned to believe in eternal reward and punishment had nothing to do with her decision?

It's a very curious definition of love that people offer in defense of Christianity. Is love given under duress truly love?

Tiassa, that makes no sense! If Crystal Brame died for the "love" of a good man, and you accept that, why can't you accept that someone else might want to die for their love of another good man - Jesus?

I don't get you, Tiassa, but I think I can see that you've argued yourself into a corner and you're squirming in trying to get out of it. Is that it?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Conditioned? I suppose. But I've been conditioned to obey my parents, obey the laws. My Dad was conditioned to obey his squadron leader, as were my brothers.

she didn't love him only under duress. She loved him at all times, just like he loved her. He loved her so much he gave his only son so that she could go to heaven. So that her children could go to heaven. People die for far worse reasons than self-sacrifice and love. I would die for my children, she died for her Father.

I think its a sad waste, but I understand it and I don't judge it.

Exactly! But as I see it, Tiassa is wanting us all to be the judges of other people's love and convictions. I don't get his reasoning, do you?

Baron Max