Greedy mother abandons children for God

[Bells]

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

No you're right. You really don't get it. The issue here is that Jesus taught his followers to be selfless, not selfish. Do. You. Get. It. Now?

This woman, in preferring to die than be a mother to her children, because to be a mother to her children would have meant being selfless and having a blood transfusion, decided she would rather heed her religion's interpretation of the Bible instead and refuse the blood transfusion... thereby ensuring her own death and preferring to go to heaven then be a mother to her children. In that, she was selfish.

I'll break it down and make it easy for you Baron.

Selfless = take blood transfusion and risk going to hell for her children.

Selfish = refusing blood transfusion because she wants to go to heaven and took going to heaven over her children.

 

[Tiassa]

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

I find such dubious characterizations callous.

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.

Well, Max, maybe someday you'll actually pay attention to what I write.

Consider for a moment, please, your own condemnation of people as liars. Shall we presume that in Christians in general, or Jehovah's Witnesses in general, that we've struck on the one group of people in the world who are a general exception? That this decision, compared to those made by other humans, was the one honest one? Does the stake of eternity have any weight in that decision?

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'm not against her right to make the decision. Personally, I think it was a stupid, greedy, ill-informed decision. And, as I've noted before, I do actually extend some sympathy to her as well. She may well be a victim. Love under duress, after all, is under duress.

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

That's because you're wasting too much energy on irrelevant issues.

 

[Orleander]

...

Selfless = take blood transfusion and risk going to hell for her children.

Selfish = refusing blood transfusion because she wants to go to heaven and took going to heaven over her children.

Both my brothers went to Iraq leaving their children behind. They did as the military told them. Was it selfish of them, wanting to serve their country?
She did as God told her. Was it selfish of her wanting to serve him?

 

[Tiassa]

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.

You would say, then, that the notions of eternal reward and condemnation played no role in her general outlook or specific decision?

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?

Do you know who Crystal Brame is?

What part of my original mention of her death makes you think I actually believe that?

For f@ck's sake, it's like saying Crystal Brame died for the love of a good man.​

Quite obviously, Max, I don't think a woman shot to death in front of her children by her corrupt, abusive husband died for the love of a good man.

You know, when I was in school, we were actually tested on things like context and comprehension. Did you forget your lessons, or was this part of the evil liberal education all us young whipper-snappers were so wrongly subject to?

But as I see it, Tiassa is wanting us all to be the judges of other people's love and convictions.

That's only because the power and right of judgment is so important to you, Max. Remember, you're the one who's already judged the whole of humanity.

 

[Baron Max]

I'm not against her right to make the decision. Personally, I think it was a stupid, greedy, ill-informed decision.

Okay, as I've been trying to get you to say ....it's only your opinion and nothing more.

I happen to disagree with you. It was her decision, and it's not my place to judge her reasons because it doesn't affect me or anyone that I know and care about at all.

All you're doing, Tiassa, is doing what you don't like others to do to you ....judge them or their decisions or opinions. You don't like it, yet you're one of the first to judge others .......why?

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

The issue here is that Jesus taught his followers to be selfless, not selfish. Do. You. Get. It. Now?

Nope, because that's not the way they interpreted it. And since your interpretation has nothing to do with how they believe, your interpretation simply means nothing.

You don't like her decision, and that's fine, it's you opinion, however, and nothing more. You've judged the woman, Bells, and that's it. I just don't happen to agree with you.

Baron Max

 

[Tiassa]

You don't like it, yet you're one of the first to judge others .......why?

It's not about any permanent moral assignation, Max. I think it's tragic. I think the greed she displayed is tragic. I do think she is to a degree a victim of this brutal theology. There will always be, somewhere, children who will never have their mothers. I would hope, in the long run, to forestall some of the more ridiculously stupid tragedies, such as one derived from emotional blackmail and psychiatric abuse in the guise of religious faith.

Anyone, God or otherwise, who says, "You must die now in order to please me," will draw my opposition. If only Ms. Gough's "God" had the balls to check in and respond, I would take this issue up with It.

 

[Baron Max]

It's not about any permanent moral assignation, Max. I think it's tragic. I think the greed she displayed is tragic.

Well, that's fine, Tiassa, you can think what you like. But she and her family didn't think so ....and I don't think so. I think, personally, you're sticking your nose into someone else's life and you have no rights to do that.

I do think she is to a degree a victim of this brutal theology.

Fine. But your adamant preaching against theology is not much different to the preaching theology. You're preaching what you believe, they preach what they believe. Where do you see such a difference?

I would hope, in the long run, to forestall some of the more ridiculously stupid tragedies, such as one derived from emotional blackmail and psychiatric abuse in the guise of religious faith.

How? By doing your own form of preaching? ...trying to convince others that what you say is the right thing to do or to believe?

All that kinda' makes me think that you have a "religion", too, Tiassa.

Baron Max

 

[SkinWalker]

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

If that were actually true, you wouldn't have taken the time to create a post about it. It would seem that at least some of that water is clinging.

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

You already do, Baron. I've observed consistent ridicule and "denigration" for others who hold beliefs that differ from your own. Indeed, your protestations here in the Religion forum make you out to be both hypocritical and a liar. Hypocritical because you pretend to be opposed to "denigrating or ridiculing" those of different beliefs. A liar because you claim to be opposed to this. Yet you have no qualms about "denigrating and ridiculing" those who believe different than you about politics, economics, historical accuracy/revision, etc.

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

Reason decides. If you can hold a reasoned argument that presents sound and valid premises that support a conclusion of nonsensical superstition, then you've allowed reason and logic to decide. Religious superstition is not tenable. Religious superstition is wacky. Its batshit. And if the religious superstitious were willing to keep it to themselves and not seek to convert others to their superstitions or dare criticize reason and the rationally minded for not accepting their batshit, there would be no need for the reasoned to speak out, criticize, demand inquiry and accountability or even ridicule them.

[/QUOTE]

But your adamant preaching against theology is not much different to the preaching theology. You're preaching what you believe, they preach what they believe. Where do you see such a difference?

The difference is one belief is supported by reason and logic. The other is complete and utter batshit and supported by superstition.

All that kinda' makes me think that you have a "religion", too, Tiassa.

That is a common response that the superstitious provide when they are faced with arguments based on reason and logic. Rather than respond in kind and defend their beliefs, they say things like, "well... your just a religion too!"

Two things are notable with that accusation: 1) the argument is a logical fallacy, it's a type of ad hominem called tu quoque; 2) it admits that the one who uses this special type of ad hominem fallacy understands that the very word "religion" is, itself, "denigrating."

 

[Tiassa]

How? By doing your own form of preaching? ...trying to convince others that what you say is the right thing to do or to believe?

In a way. But again, it's not as simple as you think.

• Ms. Gough believes (X)
• Tiassa believes (Y)
• Tiassa does not oblige anyone to believe (Y)
• Tiassa does, however, believe (X) to be erroneous
• (A) through (W), and also (Z) are separate issues to be considered as they present themselves​

All that kinda' makes me think that you have a "religion", too, Tiassa.

In a way I do. I believe that there is a potential condition that can be called "right". I haven't figured out what that is yet, but it's clear to me that certain ideas lead to other conditions.

In other words, that we're arguing on the road to Portland doesn't mean I'm in Portland, but if someone proposes that we drive in the exact opposite direction ...? I may not know how to treat a severely injured person in the street, but I'm pretty sure getting in my car and repeatedly running over his skull won't help things.

I'm not the ultimate arbiter of what right is. But it's pretty clear that certain things are wrong. Take Bells' note, which is, essentially, at the heart of why I think Christian faith is dishonest:

Selfless = take blood transfusion and risk going to hell for her children.

Selfish = refusing blood transfusion because she wants to go to heaven and took going to heaven over her children.

Whether torching witches, abducting tribal children, or justifying slavery°, ad nauseam, the ultimate stake of one's eternal soul really does challenge the idea that one's movives are genuine. One of harsh analogies I use is the rape at knifepoint. To call faith in the Christian God an exercise in free will is a bit like saying nobody was raped: she chose to be f@cked insanely instead of have a knife put through her chest, therefore she consented, ergo she was not raped. If I believe in God because I am afraid of the punishment, it is not a free-will choice.

I'm sure there is at least one Christian out in the world who defies this, but I'm not about to take up a lantern, get a dog, and go in search of that one honest Christian. In truth, Christianity should not be so important to me at all. I can only ask that Christians stop going out of their way to make it so important.

This isn't any new belief, Max. I'm rehashing for you the things that I've said over and over again.
_____________________

Notes:

° justifying slavery - There did exist in American slavery the idea that slaves should not be taught to read, because this would cause them undue stress, and would therefore be cruel and "unchristian". Men tried a similar argument with women and the vote: it was cruel to ask women to think about politics. I'm not sure how Christian the vote argument was supposed to be. The coincidence of women's suffrage in the U.S. and the rise of fundamentalist Christianity appears to be exactly that, mere coincidence. I have never connected the two reasonably enough to make the case, but then again, I've never really tried.

 

[Bells]

Nope, because that's not the way they interpreted it. And since your interpretation has nothing to do with how they believe, your interpretation simply means nothing.

So you are saying Jesus did not preach selflessness and was not selfless? Gee, I guess he was not the one who was nailed on the cross for the sin's of man then, huh?

Kind of goes against the Christian ethos, does it not? Was it not supposedly Jesus who said "not my will be done, but yours"?

But you are saying to be selfless only up to the point where one's soul might be in danger of going to hell, then be done with the consequences and become selfish to ensure one's soul greets its father in heaven? The essence of being selfless is to not be selfish. For a mother to choose the sanctity and place of her own soul over her children, that is not selfless. It is selfish. Which goes against the grain of Christianity.

If she truly followed the Christian doctrine of selflessness, she would have chosen to have the blood transfusion. What do you think a God, who expects selflessness of its followers, would do when faced with a woman who put her own selfish needs over that of her children? Or is that up to interpretation as well?

You don't like her decision, and that's fine, it's you opinion, however, and nothing more.

Indeed.

I put my children above all else. I guess that would make me a bad Christian.

You've judged the woman, Bells, and that's it.

So did you:

"I'd risk most anything for my children." Link​

I just don't happen to agree with you.

So you would do "most anything" for your children, but you don't think her decision was selfish and against the very essence of Christianity... what's that word again.. ah yes.. selflessness..

 

[Tiassa]

I put my children above all else. I guess that would make me a bad Christian

I wouldn't say it makes you a bad Christian. Rather, and this is just as I read it, you're no Christian at all.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; [and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

(Matthew 10.34-38, RSV)

 

[nova900]

So you are saying Jesus did not preach selflessness and was not selfless?:

That theme of selflessness is apparent throughout the bible,that and showing unconditional love but the way I see it the early orthodox elements in the first century changed the concept to a "personality cult religion" whereby giving verbal acknowledgement to Jesus to bear your sins to gain access to heaven took precedent above all else. So many conservative Christians sadly,seemed focussed on this concept and the reward/threat principle rather than the good spiritual messages that would enrich all our lives if practiced effectively.

 

[lucifers angel]

i think she was selfish, she has left her 2 newborn children without a mother, i think that the witness faith is selffish anyway. The god that i was taught about ddint want us to die before our children, we are not suppose to die before them

 

[Orleander]

You would say, then, that the notions of eternal reward and condemnation played no role in her general outlook or specific decision?...

Yes they did, so? :shrug: I don't see why it was selfish of her.

 

[lucifers angel]

Yes they did, so? :shrug: I don't see why it was selfish of her.

because she left two newborns without a mum?

 

[Orleander]

because she left two newborns without a mum?

So if one of my brothers had died in Iraq, leaving their kids behind, would that have been selfish of them?

 

[lucifers angel]

So if one of my brothers had died in Iraq, leaving their kids behind, would that have been selfish of them?

no because he fought for a cause, dieing for nothing but what a bunch or words say in a quite frankly re written book is selfish!

she died for nothing leaving her husband to look after the children. (which is part of his dad role) but it was a waste

 

[Orleander]

Ah yes, it was a waste. But I don't think it was selfish.
My brothers were over there because they were told to go. That's it. They didn't have to believe in the reason they were over there.
She believed in the reason she died for.
I understand that.

 

[DeepThought]

So if one of my brothers had died in Iraq, leaving their kids behind, would that have been selfish of them?

They're all for dying for material gain.

It's when people die for spiritual reasons - what they call 'nothing' - that they become infuriated.

Very few people have the courage to do what this woman did.