Greedy mother abandons children for God

Would you go to Hell for your children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 44.1%
  • No

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • I am unable/unwilling to answer the question

    Votes: 13 38.2%

  • Total voters
    34
If one is taught that it is yucky and dangerous, yes. And, frankly, that's an even worse reason to leave your children behind.


But I am sickened by cruelty to animals.

I don't think I was 'taught' to feel this.

Are you absolutely sure that her feelings towards having her blood transfused were simply the result of religious dogma rather than a genuine expression of nature itself to resist violation?
 
DeepThought said:

Are you absolutely sure that her feelings towards having her blood transfused were simply the result of religious dogma rather than a genuine expression of nature itself to resist violation?

In consideration of my associate's remarks about purity, I would suggest it's not so simple. Because my first answer is, "Yes, I'm as sure as I can be without actually being that person." The conditioning involves the assignation of a personal stake larger than anything real. Without that conditioning, I would be more sympathetic to the consideration. To the other, however, what does that say of her regard for her fellow human beings? After all, whence comes the basis for that feeling of violation, that sense of the repugnant? Ms. Gough also made her decision under conditions that includes original sin. So, yes, her fellow human beings are seen as yucky, yucky, yucky.
 
Ms. Gough also made her decision under conditions that includes original sin. So, yes, her fellow human beings are seen as yucky, yucky, yucky.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

"According to Christian theology, original sin (also called ancestral sin, hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin) is the fallen state of humanity. In the history of Christianity this condition has been characterized as something as insignificant as a slight deficiency to something as drastic as total depravity."


How can we be sure of the importance Ms. Gough personally attached to the concept of original sin? Was it some grave misdemeanor that was central to her existence or an example among many to her of the profanity of earthly life?

I don't think we can and I don't see how it is really relevant to this discussion either.

After all, whence comes the basis for that feeling of violation, that sense of the repugnant?


In the sense of nature's natural boundaries being violated?

Maybe her rejection of a blood transfusion was simply her refusal to transgress those boundaries. Surely she was old enough to make such a decision based upon her own feelings and not on the fear of some distant threat of parental rebuke?

Her action could even be interpreted as a confirmation of belief in the highest form of individualistic integrity - a refusal to cross the physical barriers that make us who we are.

Interestingly, one of the most popular children's books of recent times is based upon the concept of blood purity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_purity_(Harry_Potter):

Blood purity is a central concept in the Harry Potter series of books by J. K. Rowling. Wizards who have four magical grandparents are known as pure-blood, etc..
 
DeepThought said:

How can we be sure of the importance Ms. Gough personally attached to the concept of original sin? Was it some grave misdemeanor that was central to her existence or an example among many to her of the profanity of earthly life?

I don't think we can and I don't see how it is really relevant to this discussion either.

In addition to any conscious doctrinal belief, we must also weigh in the more subtle effects that come with living in a culture so permeated by this myth. Given that its "ambient radiation", as such, can be measured even in atheists who grow up within primarily Judeo-Christian societies, I think you're treating it too simply.

In the sense of nature's natural boundaries being violated?

Maybe her rejection of a blood transfusion was simply her refusal to transgress those boundaries. Surely she was old enough to make such a decision based upon her own feelings and not on the fear of some distant threat of parental rebuke?

At least with the religious objection, even if we consider her deluded, there's a pretty big stake involved. If we go with the idea that "nature's natural boundaries" caused her to refuse blood, perhaps it's best that she bailed on the kids. Parenthood is a commitment to violated purity for a period of years.

Interestingly, one of the most popular children's books of recent times is based upon the concept of blood purity.

Yeah. And?
 
In addition to any conscious doctrinal belief, we must also weigh in the more subtle effects that come with living in a culture so permeated by this myth. Given that its "ambient radiation", as such, can be measured even in atheists who grow up within primarily Judeo-Christian societies, I think you're treating it too simply.

I would consider many aspects of secular, scientific culture to be derived from Judeo-Christian civilization. I don't think it's even possible to isolate them or paint them as wholly negative. So the 'ambient radiation' you talk off might well be more along the lines of conspicuous aspects of Christian theology which atheists recognize and find offensive/oppressive.

I must admit I'm a little puzzled by the level of anger exchanged between American atheists and American Christians. In the U.K., apart from Richard Dawkins - who is giving this country a bad name overseas - people are not really that bothered by the whole thing.

A Parenthood is a commitment to violated purity for a period of years.

In what way?
 
Jim Jones also interpreted the bible to possess 'great truths' in his booklet, "The Letter Killeth," and from there manipulated people to their untimely demises by drinking "kool-aid".

JW's have also drank the "kool-aid" by interpreting passages from scriptures that resulted in their own untimely demises.

Now, if we can't really distinguish much difference between these two examples, would we attempt to stop a recurrence of the Jonestown fiasco?

And if so, then shouldn't we also be putting a stop to the JW's atrocities?
 
DeepThought said:

I would consider many aspects of secular, scientific culture to be derived from Judeo-Christian civilization. I don't think it's even possible to isolate them or paint them as wholly negative. So the 'ambient radiation' you talk off might well be more along the lines of conspicuous aspects of Christian theology which atheists recognize and find offensive/oppressive.

I live in a nation where our prisons have the general effect of hardening criminals, thus making a mockery out of notions such as "houses of rehabilitation". At the same time, people spent much worry about crime. You might not recall, but before this ridiculous "war on terror", many political voices used the "war on drugs" and its attendant problems to accuse their opponents of being "soft on crime", which to a certain degree contributes to the problem of prisons as crime factories.

And all of this fits very conveniently with the dominant ideology of Original Sin, that people are born evil and only God can save them. The behavior cyclically empowers the myth that validates the belief that empowers the behavior that empowers the myth that validates the belief that ....

I must admit I'm a little puzzled by the level of anger exchanged between American atheists and American Christians. In the U.K., apart from Richard Dawkins - who is giving this country a bad name overseas - people are not really that bothered by the whole thing.

Richard Dawkins doesn't embarrass the U.K., at least not among Americans who aren't already embarrassingly superstitious.

In what way?

Almost any personal standard of impurity, disgust, and repugnance will eventually be challenged. Before long, the parents learn to stop comforting themselves by saying, "It could have been worse". Eventually, it will be. My daughter's first written words, for instance, were "I joy". The words were painted on the walls in shit. One of the most important rule of early-childhood parenting is that silence is dangerous. Either someone is about to get hurt, or you're about to have a huge, repulsive mess to clean up. Shit and vomit are just the beginning.

Which leads back to the essential question of what we will do for our children. Among Americans, at least, the social myth holds that children are a great source of joy, that they are our future, that they are the most important thing going on. I've always suspected this was just a political ruse when it came to the Christians, and more and more that reality is showing. To give children such prominent respect is unbiblical and unchristian.

Perhaps British folk have moved beyond such myths about their children. Maybe it's a cultural confusion taking place here. After all, if we accept the proposition that children just aren't all that important in the U.K., that their purpose is the satisfaction and fulfillment of the parents, the decision to leave one's kids behind in pursuit of mythical rewards makes a lot more sense.
 
This woman made an oath to follow her God and his commandments. No matter how fictional they may be, she is still bound by her word.

you know you make me giggle at times, you wont belive that certain medical conditions excist but you think its totally ok for a woman to kill herself after giving birth leaving her children wihtout a mum!! :rolleyes:
 
Perhaps British folk have moved beyond such myths about their children. Maybe it's a cultural confusion taking place here. After all, if we accept the proposition that children just aren't all that important in the U.K., that their purpose is the satisfaction and fulfillment of the parents, the decision to leave one's kids behind in pursuit of mythical rewards makes a lot more sense.


You are right about the British and their approach to children. Here there is an old saying, 'Children should be seen and not heard'. An old maxim which simply means children have neither the knowledge or experience to talk as equals with adults or to be equals amongst them. Encouraging premature development of the human ego is an unwise and dangerous affair Tiassa.

Since Ms. Gough was British you might have had a point about the cultural confusion if it wasn't for the fact this has happened in the U.S and Canada several times.

Furthermore, how do you account for the actions of her husband in refusing to give his permission for the transfusion?

Surely a greedy act on his part would be to allow the transfusion to go ahead so that he wasn't left the very real burden of raising the children alone in the hope of some vague reward at the end of his life for which not a shred of physical evidence exists? I wish you would also clarify exactly in what sense your using the term 'greedy' because throughout history that term has been used exclusively to describe people who desire material wealth over 'spiritual wealth'.

And just to return briefly to the notion of bodily violation there is this from a similar case over a year ago:
He [Dr. Fitzpatrick] was told the woman had said that during the transfusion process, people were around her terrifying her, that she wanted to fight the medical staff off before the transfusion was given but was unable to, that she was held and sedated before the transfusion was administered and had described the experience as like a rape.....she experienced massive blood loss following the birth of her baby boy at the Coombe Women’s hospital on September 21, 2006....The woman may be identified only as Ms K. She is 24 years of age and from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19576/jehovah-s-witnesses-26
 
DeepThought said:

You are right about the British and their approach to children.

Poor kids.

And just to return briefly to the notion of bodily violation there is this from a similar case over a year ago

Also from that article:

Dr Fitzpatrick said he “found it difficult to reconcile” what had happened with that account of events. Staff at the hospital were “at pains'’ to support the woman during what was a difficult time for everybody concerned, he said.

(RNB, "Top doctor")

Additionally, you're talking about Ireland, where the doctors aren't allowed to simply let the woman die:

Believed to be the first case of its kind involving an adult in Ireland, the court ruled the Coombe Hospital must put the interests of the child first and save the mother`s life.

(RNB, "Hospital ordered")

Now you can certainly argue that Ireland violated her human rights by protecting her life, but given that the world--especially Ireland's European neighbors--have tolerated its balancing act on the status of women in society, don't expect people to take that argument seriously. I'm sorry, but the violation of a myth about one's body is not the same as the violation of the body.
 
Is this what Jesus meant?

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

To answer your question no that isn't what Jesus meant. The scriptures you quote from Matthew 10:34-38 and Luke 14:26 have nothing to do with the woman refusing a blood transfusion. Those scriptures are directed to an entirely different matter.

BTW as for your poll question 'would you go to hell'. There is no hell, when we die we cease to exist. We do not have an immortal soul that goes on living when we die. There is nothing after death.
 
Strangeness on both sides of the aisle

DeepThought said:

So would you breed with your sister or cousin?

At 34, I've only been around a blood relative for about five years. My cousins and I are related by law only, and I have no sister. My only blood relative is my daughter, so it's easy enough for me to say "no". Incestuous breeding brings difficulties that are not mere myths. However, if one of my cousins were to force me to have sex with them, my complaint would be the lack of consent. The incest would be a secondary issue, all things considered, because it doesn't matter who you are when it comes to lack of consent.

I have to admit, DeepThought, the question strikes me as rather depraved.

• • •​

Laser Eyes said:

The scriptures you quote from Matthew 10:34-38 and Luke 14:26 have nothing to do with the woman refusing a blood transfusion. Those scriptures are directed to an entirely different matter.

While I agree this is not what Jesus meant, I dispute the notion that these scriptures have nothing to do with the woman refusing a blood transfusion. I'm questioning the greed of the situation. She took up her cross, followed Jesus as she believed, straight into death. She certainly did not love her children more than she loved Him. And it's a fair consideration to wonder if she hated her children, having chosen her belief in eternal glory over her children's need of a mother.

BTW as for your poll question 'would you go to hell'. There is no hell, when we die we cease to exist. We do not have an immortal soul that goes on living when we die. There is nothing after death.

:wallbang:

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. I don't think that mattered a hell of a lot to Ms. Gough, however.

Your answer on that count is nonetheless enlightening.
 
Last edited:
She certainly did not love her children more than she loved Him. And it's a fair consideration to wonder if she hated her children, having chosen her belief in eternal glory over her children's need of a mother.

You're really stretching here to make your self-righteous point, aren't you, Tiassa?

Since you have a strong belief in many things, why is it so difficult for you to grasp that this woman had a strong belief in something? That you don't happen to like that belief, and are arguing so strongly about it, is simply your self-righteousness rearing it's ugly fuckin' head.

Is it your contention that everything that everyone does must meet with your approval, else you'll deride them for it?

Aren't you one of those liberal pricks who claims that all people should love all others, and care for and help them? And yet you're here bringing down the "Wrath of Tiassa" on this poor woman ...not to mention all the other people on whom you bring down the "Wrath of Tiassa".

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:

You're really stretching here to make your self-righteous point, aren't you, Tiassa?

Demonstrate that you have a clue what that point is.

Go on, I dare you.

Double dare you.

Double dog dare you.

(chortle!)
 
I have heard and totally disagree of Jehovah families refusing blood tranfusions for their children who need them cause of their beliefs. Surely its there childs choice if they want to live or not. I totally disagree with the Jehovah's way of thinking - its brain washing. And I get pissed off that they always come to my door trying to brain wash me to read there dumb magazines etc.

However, if I chose not to go to hell for my child, would I go to hell for not wanting to go to hell for my child?!?1 confused and hungry!
 
Strap_ON said:

However, if I chose not to go to hell for my child, would I go to hell for not wanting to go to hell for my child?!

God only knows.
 
Didn't mean to confuse you

Baron Max said:

YOU don't know? Tiassa, you know every-fuckin'-thing .....how could you admit not knowing something?

Sorry to shatter your illusion.
 
Incestuous breeding brings difficulties that are not mere myths.

But what would be the problem if you liked your cousin and ended up marrying her? No one is saying every generation has to do it. You seem here to be suffering from some myths yourself.

However, if one of my cousins were to force me to have sex with them, my complaint would be the lack of consent. The incest would be a secondary issue, all things considered, because it doesn't matter who you are when it comes to lack of consent.

So we're back now to her being forced? She was an adult. She made her own decision.

By the way you've never properly explained what 'greed' has got to do with it.

I have to admit, DeepThought, the question strikes me as rather depraved.

Interesting that you have strong feelings on this matter.

Because when it comes down to it the only thing which stops us from having sexual relations with our nearest and dearest (still an important custom in Asia and Africa) is a prohibition from scientists - and one suspects the hand of capitalist interests in this as well.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top