"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 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew&chapno=10&startverse=34&endverse=38))

• • •

"If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

(Luke 14.26, RSV (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Luke&chapno=14&startverse=26&endverse=30))

From the BBC:

A young mother has died after giving birth to twins, following claims that she had refused a blood transfusion because of her faith.
Jehovah's Witness Emma Gough, 22, from Telford, Shropshire, gave birth on 25 October.

The Royal Shrewsbury Hospital is refusing to comment on reports she had refused a blood transfusion.

Family friend Terry Lovejoy said: "They are going through an immense amount of turmoil and grief."

He added: "We follow the Bible and abstain from blood and I've got no reason to believe that Emma didn't share those views" ....

.... Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions because they believe that God has forbidden it in the Bible. They believe that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin.

Head of Science and Ethics at the British Medical Association, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, said: "If somebody believes that having blood will excommunicate them from their religious beliefs, then they will often say no and accept the risk of death."

(BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/shropshire/7078455.stm))

Is this what Jesus meant?

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

It is to bad she didn't want the transfusion but that is her right as an adult.

If it were her children then the state could step in and demand they be

given the transfusion. If people are that stupid to believe that death is

what their God wanted from them then so be it.

I think it's abhorrent that this woman's mind was so full of religious BS she would see her children live without their mother for the sake of her own peace of mind.

Show's just how twisted you have to be to truly believe.

If people are that stupid to believe that death is

what their God wanted from them then so be it.

I don't contest her right. In fact, it's fine with me. In the end, her religion acted as a form of natural selection, it seems.

But to think she's willing to leave her children without a mother in order to please God? Isn't that just a little greedy? And is that really what Jesus meant? I mean, not protecting a sibling who has murdered someone, I can understand. Turning in a child-molesting husband, I can understand. But this ... suffer the little children, indeed.

Exactly what in the bible prevents the acceptance of a blood transfusion? Outside of my usual healthy skepticism, I find it difficult to believe that a book that was written many centuries ago can be interpreted directly such that a blood transfusion procedure is listed as a sin.

Exactly what in the bible prevents the acceptance of a blood transfusion?

Fair enough, but sort of beside the point. I mean, yeah. It's a great question. But it's a matter of faith. I don't care if it's the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever one chooses to believe, if it encourages them to such greed as to abandon your children, there's something amiss about it. There's nothing like scrabbling e'er closer to your reward over the burdens of suffering you've placed on your own children.

We've all seen what that kind of attitude does to children. And no wonder, what with the lessons it teaches.

It is to bad she didn't want the transfusion but that is her right as an adult.

If it were her children then the state could step in and demand they be

given the transfusion. If people are that stupid to believe that death is

what their God wanted from them then so be it.

I don't accept the theist concept of an afterlife (this life is not a practice run) so the idea of hell is meaningless. But I would do anything for my children.

Fair enough, but sort of beside the point. I mean, yeah. It's a great question. But it's a matter of faith. I don't care if it's the Bible or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whatever one chooses to believe, if it encourages them to such greed as to abandon your children, there's something amiss about it. There's nothing like scrabbling e'er closer to your reward over the burdens of suffering you've placed on your own children.

We've all seen what that kind of attitude does to children. And no wonder, what with the lessons it teaches.

I figured you may have answered as such, and you're right of course...

But figuring it out, at least for me, requires the whole thought process...meaning the exact quote, and how they were able to deduce that biblical writers could come close to approximating a rule for an advanced medical procedure.

If we're speaking of a hypothetical "hell," then I would have to say yes. Since hell is a supernatural concept, I remind those posting in this thread that any preaching, sermons, or evangelizing involving the a priori acceptance that a hell actually exists may be deleted or edited without warning or explanation.

Perhaps more startling is the fact that the mother, so immersed in her religious delusion, would probably have willing protested the transfusion of blood to her children as well. Such child abuse is illegal in many states, but I think there are still those that can get away with abusing their children this way in the name of their religious beliefs.

There are certainly states where it is completely legal for parents to exempt themselves from vaccination due to religious belief, relying instead on the "herd" protection since a large enough percentage of the remaining population of children *are* vaccinated, protecting even the un-vaccinated ones. This population is increasingly in danger, however, since more and more "alternative/holistic medicine" nutters are using the "religious choice" exemption to keep their children from being vaccinated. They do so because of hysteria and fear propagated by idiots like Jenny McCarthy who make pseudoscientific claims about the "danger" of vaccination.

Whatever one chooses to believe, if it encourages them to such greed as to abandon your children, there's something amiss about it.

She didn't "abandon" her children, there are other family members to care for the child.

If she had died, even with all of the medical miracles available, would you still say that she "abandoned" her children ...by dying? Do mothers in Third World countries, without medical care, "abandon" their children if they die in childbirth?

I think, perhaps, tolerance of the beliefs of others is called for in situations like these. How can we ever get along with others if we refuse to allow them to believe as they chose? ...if we continually try to force others to believe as we believe?

Baron Max

I'm sorry, tolerance for such an irrational and illogical belief in a first world nation is not called for. I would no more advocate tolerance for her decision than I would female genital mutilation -which is also a religious custom among some who live in the United States.

People who are allowed to believe as they choose culminate their beliefs in detonating Ryder trucks full of fertilizer at Federal Buildings and blowing up abortion clinics and flying planes into skyscrapers.

She didn't "abandon" her children, there are other family members to care for the child.

Apply that principle to deadbeat parents.

If she had died, even with all of the medical miracles available, would you still say that she "abandoned" her children ...by dying?

No. I actually think the difference is quite obvious. There is a tremendous difference between general natural circumstance and an act of will.

Do mothers in Third World countries, without medical care, "abandon" their children if they die in childbirth?

I think you can tell the difference, Max.

I think, perhaps, tolerance of the beliefs of others is called for in situations like these. How can we ever get along with others if we refuse to allow them to believe as they chose? ...if we continually try to force others to believe as we believe?

Tolerance? Sure. Forcing beliefs? Why raise the issue? I'll tolerate her religion a lot longer, say, than I would the woman who bludgeoned her children to death because she thought God told her to. But one of the keys of this tragedy is the late mother's act of will.

Her children will suffer without her, but at least she gets to go to heaven. Wouldn't that just suck for her if there was enough of an afterlife for her to figure out that she was wrong? You know, like that South Park episode where they all get to heaven and find out that the Mormons were the only ones with the right religion?

I think it's a curious proposition. I'd go to Hell for my daughter. And unlike the Savior this poor mother was trying to impress, I would make the trip with no return ticket if that's what it came down to. Obviously, this woman had different priorities.

The ethics board at most hospitals get ahold of a judge and the parents temporarily lose custody so that medical care can be given. Some parents are ok with this, so they won't be held accountable by god.
Christian Scientists anyone?

But figuring it out, at least for me, requires the whole thought process...meaning the exact quote, and how they were able to deduce that biblical writers could come close to approximating a rule for an advanced medical procedure.

If we ask the Watchtower Society, Watchtower Society (http://watchtower.org/e/hb/article_05.htm) the case starts at Acts 15.28-29.

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!

(NWT (http://watchtower.org/e/bible/ac/chapter_015.htm?bk=Ac;chp=15;vs=28-29;citation#bk28))

• • •

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

(RSV (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Acts&chapno=15&startverse=28&endverse=29))

• • •

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

(KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Act/Act015.html#28))

The phrase also occurs in 15.20, and again at 21.25; the former is when the apostles decide to write a letter; the latter when they recount what they wrote. 15.29 describes the letter itself.

The reference looks back to Leviticus 17.14, which, obviously, speaks nothing of transfusions:

For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.

(NWT (http://watchtower.org/e/bible/le/chapter_017.htm#bk14))

• • •

For the life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.

(RSV (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Leviticus&chapno=17&startverse=14&endverse=)

• • •

For [it is] the life of all flesh; the blood of it [is] for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh [is] the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

(KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Lev/Lev017.html#14))

Ah, I also missed Leviticus 17.11-12. My bad. But this isn't much of a health argument. As the Watchtower Society notes:

God himself explained the principle underlying those sacrifices: "The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: 'No soul of you must eat blood.'"—Leviticus 17:11, 12.

("The Blood That Really Saves Lives (http://watchtower.org/e/hb/article_05.htm)")

Scripturally, it seems a weak case. But that's the thing: it doesn't necessarily matter if there is a scriptural precedent. I see this choice made without rational foundation to refuse treatment that might save one's life, a surrender to "God's will", in order to buy a ticket into heaven.

Interestingly, though, it occurs to me that I'm probably being too hard on her because one of the analogies I came up with is if you truly believed that destroying yourself by committing suicide would get you some divine reward ... and then it struck me that the rest of that sentence would be, "... you'd need severe psychiatric help."

Only problem is that we're not supposed to talk about redemptive monotheistic religious faith as a mental illness.

Perhaps I should have tried that as a topic title: "Religious delusion leaves newborn twins without mother".

Or, to be more politically correct about it: "Brave woman chooses death over motherhood".

There we go. Sounds better, eh?

If a person sees a certain portion of scripture (Already posted) and decided that that means they must abstain from blood then so be it. People have been free in this society to refuse medical treatment for a very long time. Forced medical treatment is an abuse of ones personal freedoms.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Forced medical treatment is an abuse of ones personal freedoms.

I think we can all agree on that in this case. I don't think it's even an issue.

Rather, I refer you to the question in the topic post, in consideration of the verses from Matthew and Luke: Is this what Jesus meant?

I suppose that's one of the upshots of not being a Christian: I don't ever have to choose between going to heaven and loving my daughter.

I don't see how she was selfish.

She lives in a religious community so there are plenty of people to look after her children.

These aren't the kind of people who greedily cling on to life.

I don't see how she was selfish.

She lives in a religious community so there are plenty of people to look after her children.

These aren't the kind of people who greedily cling on to life.

I might be able to accept the theory that one's mother is, in fact, worthless, but I can't.

Okay, that's a harsh way to put it. But I think you're reaching.

After all, if I compare two forms of alleged greed--

• Leaving your children without a mother in order to please God and get into Heaven
• Having a blood transfusion to save your life so that you might nurture, educate, raise, and love your children

--only one of them strikes me as greedy. And it ain't loving your children.

I might be able to accept the theory that one's mother is, in fact, worthless, but I can't.

Okay, that's a harsh way to put it. But I think you're reaching.

After all, if I compare two forms of alleged greed--

• Leaving your children without a mother in order to please God and get into Heaven
• Having a blood transfusion to save your life so that you might nurture, educate, raise, and love your children

--only one of them strikes me as greedy. And it ain't loving your children.


Tiassa,

Her refusal of a blood transfusion wasn't a calculated strategy to avoid the hassle and responsibility of raising her children - if it was you are quite right she was selfish and incredibly stupid.

Neither is there enough evidence, I think, for believing she did it solely to 'please God and get into Heaven'.

I'm trying to think of an analogy, perhaps something like this: someone tries to make you do something you consider wrong, for example, committing a homophobic attack on a gay person. You object and refuse to take part no matter how much they insist. The consequences for you are relatively slight... you walk away with your integrity intact and a gay person out there has been saved a beating.

The consequence for Emma Gough refusing to do something she believed was wrong was death.

It was a price she was willing to pay.

Would you pay that price to prevent a wrong being committed?

Does that make her a selfish, religious fanatic or a martyr?

Does that make her a selfish, religious fanatic or a martyr?

It makes her selfish and a religous fanatic.
Her motivation for doing this was only to ensure her salvation according to her beliefs. What else could it be?
In other words save your own butt and disregard the needs of your children

We can all criticize this woman and people like her - but fact is that she had just given birth, was probably more exhausted than ever before in her life, she had lost blood.

It's a tough call to discuss whether she refused the blood transfusion because of her beliefs, or whether the exhaustion messed with her mind.

Her motivation for doing this was only to ensure her salvation according to her beliefs. What else could it be?

To play the devil's advocate - Her refusal to accept the blood transfusion could have been an intent of suicide.

It is not impossible that the experience of pregnancy and childbirth had lead her to some serious introspection, and she found that she doesn't actually believe all those things she professed to believe as a Jehowah's Witness.

She became deeply ashamed of the way she had lived her life so far, and now with the children being born, she didn't think she could go on with that life, nor did she think she'd have the strength to start a new life on her own.

Not being able to resolve the internal conflict, she chose for an option that could bring her death - refusing the transfusion -, while at the same time not being branded as a suicide and her family not being burdened by the suicide.

^^^quite a stretch IMO

To play the devil's advocate - Her refusal to accept the blood transfusion could have been an intent of suicide.

It is not impossible that the experience of pregnancy and childbirth had lead her to some serious introspection, and she found that she doesn't actually believe all those things she professed to believe as a Jehowah's Witness.

She became deeply ashamed of the way she had lived her life so far, and now with the children being born, she didn't think she could go on with that life, nor did she think she'd have the strength to start a new life on her own.

Not being able to resolve the internal conflict, she chose for an option that could bring her death - refusing the transfusion -, while at the same time not being branded as a suicide and her family not being burdened by the suicide.


I stand corrected and should not have said "what else could it be" as what you say is a possible scenario

We can all criticize this woman and people like her - but fact is that she had just given birth, was probably more exhausted than ever before in her life, she had lost blood.

It's a tough call to discuss whether she refused the blood transfusion because of her beliefs, or whether the exhaustion messed with her mind.

I would have to assume that she signed the appropriate papers PRIOR to the hospital admittance. I can't believe that a doctor would refuse to save her life based on what she was saying in such a condition, do you?

I haven't done any checking, but my guess is that this is not the first time something like this has happened. I can remember reading articles in the paper about people refusing such treatments that go against their beliefs ...and the hospitals and doctors must abide by those signed agreements.

Baron Max

Her husband and parents also refused to allow the doctors to give a transfusion once she was unresponsive. That makes them guilty, at least ethically, of something equivalent to manslaughter. They basically killed the woman because of their beliefs. A bit like tossing an unconscious person off of a tall burning building because you don't believe in fire escapes.

I would have to assume that she signed the appropriate papers PRIOR to the hospital admittance.

The article linked to in the OP doesn't say anything specific.


I can't believe that a doctor would refuse to save her life based on what she was saying in such a condition, do you?

DNR's and alike are tricky things. The general trend seems to be that hospitals are afraid of being sued, doctors are afraid of losing their licence - and they'll do a lot to avoid that.

Her refusal of a blood transfusion wasn't a calculated strategy to avoid the hassle and responsibility of raising her children - if it was you are quite right she was selfish and incredibly stupid.

It's not a matter of calculated strategy. It is the notion that her love was anywhere but her children.

At the heart of redemptive monotheism is the drive for salvation. The eternal soul is the most valuable currency these people have. And while some might chuckle if one of these believers refuses a really high-paying job on principle because s/he did not like what it required, at least we can understand the idea of not selling out.

But our children?

Neither is there enough evidence, I think, for believing she did it solely to 'please God and get into Heaven'.

This is redemptive monotheism. I would invite you to propose another reason for making such a decision on faith. One that, while coincidental with redemption, trumps it.

I'm trying to think of an analogy, perhaps something like this: someone tries to make you do something you consider wrong, for example, committing a homophobic attack on a gay person. You object and refuse to take part no matter how much they insist. The consequences for you are relatively slight... you walk away with your integrity intact and a gay person out there has been saved a beating.

Um ... what?

Okay, it's enough to say the analogy fails.

The consequence for Emma Gough refusing to do something she believed was wrong was death.

Right. But why was it wrong? Because she believes God said so.

Would you pay that price to prevent a wrong being committed?

That seems rather an absurd proposition. The "wrong" Ms. Gough sought to prevent was her own condemnation. She died for herself. It's the reason your analogy fails. She didn't take a chance for anyone else. She did it for herself.

Does that make her a selfish, religious fanatic or a martyr?

It makes her selfish. And it might make her a victim. If she's any sort of martyr, she is a testament to the evil of redemptive monotheism and what it does to people.

• • •

A side note on the value of redemption. Now, obviously, not all Christians are this whacked, but things like this don't exactly help the infidels feel secure around their religious neighbors:

So at the 2003 conference, when the abstinence educator Pam Stenzel spoke, she knew she didn't have to justify her objection to sex education with prosaic arguments about health and public policy. She could be frank about the real reasons society must not condone premarital sex. "Because it is," as she shouted during one particularly impassioned moment, "Stinking filthy dirty rotten sin!" A pretty, zaftig brunette from Minnesota with a degree in psychology from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Stenzel makes a living telling kids not to have sex. Rather, she makes a living trying to scare kids out of having sex. As she says in her video, No Screwing Around, "If you have sex outside of marriage, to a partner who has only been with you, then you will pay." A big part of her mission is puncturing students' beliefs that condoms can protect them. She says she addresses half a million kids each year, and millions more have received her message via video. Thanks to George W. Bush, abstinence education has become a thriving industry, and Stenzel has been at its forefront. Bush appointed her to a twelve-person task force at the Department of Health and Human Services to help implement abstinence education guidelines. She's been a guest at the White House and a speaker at the United Nations. Her non-profit company, Enlightenment Communications, which puts on abstinence talks and seminars in public schools, typically grossed several hundred thousand dollars a year during the first Bush term.

At Reclaiming America for Christ, Stenzel told her audience about a conversation she'd had with a skeptical businessman on an airplane. The man had asked about abstinence education's success rate, a question she regarded as risible.

"What he's asking," she said, "is 'does it work?' You know what? Doesn't matter. 'Cause guess what? My job is not to keep teenagers from having sex. The public school's job should not be to keep teens from having sex."

Then her voice rose and turned angry as she shouted, "Our job should be to tell kids the truth!" And I should say that up 'til then, I agreed with her. But here's what she means by the truth:

"People of God," she cried, "can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God.

"Let me tell you something, People of God, that is radical, and I can only say it here," she said. "AIDS is not the enemy. HPV and a hysterectomy at twenty is not the enemy. An unplanned pregnancy is not the enemy. My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"

(Michelle Goldberg (http://www.kuow.org/programs/speakers_forum.asp?Archive=10-18))

This is how valuable redemption is to some Christians. There is no greater currency than the eternal soul.

(For a larger excerpt of Ms. Goldberg's discussion, see post #1586886 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1586886&postcount=283). The citation link will lead to an audio recording.)

• • •

I should have made the poll public. (I'm accustomed to private ballots.) It would be interesting to know who won't go to hell for their children, whether they have children, and the rationale behind their decision.

It's not a matter of calculated strategy. It is the notion that her love was anywhere but her children. ...
I would invite you to propose another reason for making such a decision on faith. ...
That seems rather an absurd proposition. The "wrong" Ms. Gough sought to prevent was her own condemnation. She died for herself. ...

You have a right to your opinion, Tiassa, but have you no compassion for the freedom of choices that others make for which you might not agree?

Yes, you think she was wrong in her decision. But it's her right of choice. Would you take that choice from us all ...just because you don't agree with those choices?

Baron Max

Her husband and parents also refused to allow the doctors to give a transfusion once she was unresponsive. That makes them guilty, at least ethically, of something equivalent to manslaughter.

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?

If, for example, a patient has cancer and he opts to live out the remainder of his life as is. Are you suggesting that doctors and hospitals should force that patient to have cancer treatments? Because I don't see any difference between the two conditions. A free person has some rights, don't he?

Baron Max

Jehova's witnesses have to be the most fanatical religous people out there. When you are a JW, you are either extremely religious, or you are not a JW. There is no in between!

Jehova's witnesses have to be the most fanatical religous people out there.

Does that include the Muslims who blow up other Muslims in the Middle East?

I don't know any Jehovahs Witnesses who've even done anything remotely like that, have you?

And don't you agree with the rights of people to believe as they choose?

Baron Max

Would you take that choice from us all ...just because you don't agree with those choices?

Where the hell does that come from?

Where the hell does that come from?

Well, Tiassa, you wanted to take the choice away from that woman, didn't you? And if you take it from her, why not take other choices for others that you don't agree with? What's the difference?

It's about choice, Tiassa, unless you missed that part of your own OP.

Baron Max

Shame it's not open, I'd like to see who voted what.

Now I clicked 'yes' without even reading the opening post because, if such a place and god existed, I would happily go to hell if it somehow helped my children, (indeed I brought this up in one of my threads).

However, I hadn't read the post. Now that I have let's be frank and honest and state that when it comes to the religious [real] - kids, mothers, fathers and any other human always takes a back seat to sky daddy. I personally think it's disgusting, indeed I asked jan or jenyar, (I forget), the question a few years back: "do you love god more than your own children".. When I got a yes I almost puked.

Well, Tiassa, you wanted to take the choice away from that woman, didn't you?

On what do you base that?

However, I hadn't read the post. Now that I have let's be frank and honest and state that when it comes to the religious [real] - kids, mothers, fathers and any other human always takes a back seat to sky daddy. I personally think it's disgusting, indeed I asked jan or jenyar, (I forget), the question a few years back: "do you love god more than your own children".. When I got a yes I almost puked.

Okay, you don't like the woman's choice, but would you deny her that choice? I think that's the important question here .....no whether you agree with her choice or not, but do you wish to deny her or others that choice to make?

It's all about choices ......not yours, but theirs.

Baron Max

On what do you base that?

So this whole rant of yours is just to say that you don't agree with the choice that the family made? That's it? ...just that you don't agree? And you posted this rant because of it? ...LOL!!!

Baron Max

Okay, you don't like the woman's choice, but would you deny her that choice? I think that's the important question here .....no whether you agree with her choice or not, but do you wish to deny her or others that choice to make?

Ok, I appreciate and understand the question, but let me pose it to you from my perspective.

I personally know a lady that hears a voice that tells her to kill herself. She has tried to do so many times.

Should we not deny her that 'choice'?

Now, you might argue that there is a difference, that one does not really have a choice whereas the other is making a personal decision - but no, they are both succumbing to an invisible authority - and that is where the problem lies.

I could say that there is an invisible entity that tells me to go out and kill black folk. No, I will never, (or would have never), have my sanity questioned - and yet I am harming others because of an invisible authority. This woman is doing the exact same thing. She is harming others because of an invisible authority. The only reason it's forgiven is sheer numbers.

Should it be allowed?

No.

Unfortunately sometimes 'choices' must be refused and disallowed. Sure, life would be grand if we could all do what we wanted to, but it simply does not work that way. So we allow certain things under the basis that it does no harm to others. But then every action that results in death ultimately does cause harm to others.

Now I will say ok, you want to jump off a bridge that is your own choice, but before allowing you to do so surely we must investigate why you would want to, what harm you will cause others in doing so, and if we can possibly change your attitude. I have never seen a decent argument against survival. The only arguments I have ever seen come from those barely in a position to offer an argument.

If the best argument for death is an invisible authority, I'm sorry, but it's just not sufficient to let those people die.

So this whole rant of yours is just to say that you don't agree with the choice that the family made? That's it? ...just that you don't agree? And you posted this rant because of it?

I asked you a question.

On what do you base your statements about taking away the woman's choice?

In the meantime, to answer yet more misguided, presumptuous questions, the actual purpose of this topic is fairly simple, and stated in as simple a manner as possible:

• Is this what Jesus meant?

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

I'm sorry that was too complicated for you, Max.

Luke 22:42.. "Not my will be done, but yours"..

Says a lot in this instance, doesn't it?

What would you risk for your children? Is eternal damnation on the list?
For my children? I would risk everything and anything. Damnation be damned, so to speak. My personal beliefs or desires would not even enter into the equation.

Did this woman act selfishly? I personally think she did. But then again I value my children above everything else. She obviously valued her religious beliefs more. But her children were born and were safe, in that she was not selfish. Had she refused the blood transfusion with direct consequence to her children's health during the birth, then that would be something else entirely.
She made her choice in free will and her family upheld her choice. I am sure her doctors did likewise. She chose to die rather than have a blood transfusion. Some do worse. Her children are safe and well. They will survive without her. No one can judge her. She made her choice and died as a result.

I personally think it's disgusting, indeed I asked jan or jenyar, (I forget), the question a few years back: "do you love god more than your own children".. When I got a yes I almost puked.

That is awful. I wonder why such people choose to have children in the first place. I mean, if already before they had children, they loved God more than they would their future children, why did they have them then at all? In such a case, having children is unspeakably cruel. It's like they have basically planned to betray their children, planned to betray what they believe are God's creatures.

I could understand if someone begun to believe in God some time later after having had children, and only then chose God over their children. It would still be cruel, but far less cruel than knowing in advance one will choose God over one's future children but having children nonetheless.

I mean, if already before they had children, they loved God more than they would their future children, why did they have them then at all? In such a case, having children is unspeakably cruel. It's like they have basically planned to betray their children, planned to betray what they believe are God's creatures.

If I understand it correctly--as explained by Christians--I would go so far as to say that they believe they are honoring God by having children.

Although it is probably best left for another topic, I am compelled to mention that the idea then puts the Christian-political "think of the children!" campaign (sex ed, birth control, homophobia, &c.) in a very strange light.

If I understand it correctly--as explained by Christians--I would go so far as to say that they believe they are honoring God by having children.

So - they are honoring God by
(1) having children
(2) choosing God over the children.

In a creepy way, this makes sense, with all that about free will regarding the choice of belief in God.

So - they are honoring God by
(1) having children
(2) choosing God over the children.

Well, there is a bit in there somewhere about "go forth and multiply". I suppose I can look it up but I really don't want to. And there are instructions to "raise up a child in the way he should go". At one point, if I recall, God says to lop off the hand of the child who strikes the father, or some-such. And ... uh ... er ... oh, hey ... there are also those passages from Matthew and Luke in the topic post.

It's just that, especially with that last, I'm not sure this sad tale is what Jesus meant.

I just don't see what the big deal is. She died for her convictions.
Is it any different than a person dieing doing a dangerous job they love? What about men with children who join the Marines to go to Iraq? Are they abandoning them?

From the BBC:



Is this what Jesus meant?

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

I think that Jesus would welcome with open arms any mother who would put everything on the line to be with her children and be good to them. This thing about blood in the Bible, I don't believe in it at all. They tried very hard to tell me that and I told them that I wasn't going for it. Their references didn't even say that there was anything all that wrong with eating or drinking human or animal blood. Just because someone drained the carcasses of cattle doesn't mean that. It's just one more way to make people jump through hoops.

I just don't see what the big deal is. She died for her convictions.
Is it any different than a person dieing doing a dangerous job they love? What about men with children who join the Marines to go to Iraq? Are they abandoning them?

I do not die stupidly for my convictions. It is one thing if I actually accomplish something by dying but if I die that way all that I am doing is helping them exert social control over the people who have faith in them.

I just don't see what the big deal is. She died for her convictions.
Is it any different than a person dieing doing a dangerous job they love? What about men with children who join the Marines to go to Iraq? Are they abandoning them?

I agree. I see people here doing nothing but condemning the choices of others ...and worse, many are even advocating actively preventing some choices which they see as "not too good".

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.

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?

Baron Max

I do not die stupidly for my convictions.

Then you have no strength of your convictions ...so then, why bother to have those convictions if you just change your mind whenever something arises?

It is one thing if I actually accomplish something by dying but if I die that way all that I am doing is helping them exert social control over the people who have faith in them.

Well, that's fine for you, but are you advocating that all others must foloow your beliefs and convictions(or lack of them)?

Baron Max

I think that Jesus would welcome with open arms any mother who would put everything on the line to be with her children and be good to them.

You know Jesus pretty well, do you? Even to knowing what he'd want for mothers and their children?

Baron Max

I don't understand.
Soldiers with young families, leave those families to go off to a war and die for people they have never met. Why are they heroes?


And don't even get me started on Dales Earnhart!

I don't understand. Soldiers with young families, leave those families to go off to a war and die for people they have never met. Why are they heroes?

I don't think they're "heroes", they're just doing a job that they feel strongly about doing.

You might not think it, but anyone going out on the highways to go to work each day are taking a chance of getting killed in an accident. Why are they doing that?

And don't even get me started on Dales Earnhart!

If race car drivers want to go out and race cars on a track, of what concern is it of yours?

Should we all cringe in fear, cuddle up in a corner, to stay perfectly safe at all times to keep death at bay?

Baron Max

...Should we all cringe in fear, cuddle up in a corner, to stay perfectly safe at all times to keep death at bay?

Baron Max

Yes. Because I fear I may get hurt in an auto accident with you, get horribly maimed and you will put me out of my misery, all for the good of humanity! :p

....If race car drivers want to go out and race cars on a track, of what concern is it of yours?..

He knowingly risked his life every time he got on that track, all for fame and glory...and the love of it.
This Mom lost her life for the love of God. No fame, not glory.

This Mom lost her life for the love of God. No fame, not glory.

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

:wallbang:

He knowingly risked his life every time he got on that track, all for fame and glory...and the love of it.
This Mom lost her life for the love of God. No fame, not glory.

The woman knew the risks when she got pregnant. She chose to get pregnant and risk the medical problems when she went into the hospital. She knew that there could be problems, so she and her family outlined their wishes to the medical staff. She chose what she chose willingly in no way differently to Dale Earnhart's choices.

Baron Max

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


Well, Tiassa, you might not like her choice, but should you be permitted to make all choices for everyone? Is that what you want?

Baron Max

Well, Tiassa, you might not like her choice, but should you be permitted to make all choices for everyone? Is that what you want?

You know, Max, support this stupid fantasy of yours, now, or drop it.

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

You know, Max, support this stupid fantasy of yours, now, or drop it. For f@ck's sake, it's like saying Crystal Braeme died for the love of a good man.

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?

"Greedy Mother Abandons Children for God" ....okay, nice title. And I keep saying, so what? What's the big deal? Okay, you don't like it. What else is there to say? What is it, Tiassa, that you're trying to say?

Baron Max

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.

....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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

...

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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?:confused: 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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1620435&postcount=65)

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..

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 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=citation&book=Matthew&chapno=10&startverse=34&endverse=38))

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.

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

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.

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

because she left two newborns without a mum?

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?

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

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.

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.

no because he fought for a cause,


Yes,

Oil.

That's far more important than the origins of the cosmos and all our knowledge.

Consider what would happen if the doctors would give the woman the transfusion anyway and she had survived -
Would she and the family sue the hospital for robbing her of salvation?

She'd have every right to. Its no different than a DNR order and ignoring it. yeah, you can save the person, but that's not what they want.

She'd have every right to.

It would be odd, to say the least. Because all that they could get in a lawsuit would be worldly compensations - which (by the Christian definition) can't outweigh or at least even out the divine.

They would have just postponed her salvation.

She wouldn't have to prove anything. They were her medical wishes and they didn't follow them.

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.

if your brothers signed up for the army then they had a chance of going to war, it was down to them, they fought for what they thought was right, the woman we are talking about was selfish because she left newborns without a mum.

the woman we are talking about was selfish because she left newborns without a mum.


But she insured there would be others to look after her children before she died.

Isn't that beautifully unselfish?

But she insured there would be others to look after her children before she died.

Isn't that beautifully unselfish?

no, they dont anyone else to look after them, they're mum is suppose to that. imagine when they are older, "daddy where is my mummy? oh i'm sorry littel timmy your mum died because she didnt want to have blood! how is that child going to feal? pretty shitty i dare say

That kid is gonna be raised with the same ideas as Mom was.

no, they dont anyone else to look after them, they're mum is suppose to that. imagine when they are older, "daddy where is my mummy? oh i'm sorry littel timmy your mum died because she didnt want to have blood! how is that child going to feal? pretty shitty i dare say


Try this:

Father: There's something I have to tell you son. Your mother died when you were born because she refused to give up her faith in God.
Son: Where is she now Dad?
Father: God passed her into Paradise.
Son: My mum was very brave.
Father: Yes she was son. An example to us all.

and that's exactly how its gonna be.

*************
M*W: The question is misleading. Would I go to hell for my children? Don't most parents go through hell, because of their children?

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"I'm not a bad guy! I work hard, and I love my kids. So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I'm going to hell? ~ Homer Simpson

Father: There's something I have to tell you son. Your mother died when you were born because she refused to give up her faith in God.
Son: Where is she now Dad?
Father: God passed her into Paradise.
Son: My mum was very brave.
Father: Yes she was son. An example to us all.

You characterize exactly what is distressing about Orleander's note that, "That kid is gonna be raised with the same ideas as Mom was."

Consider another possible conversation:

Daughter: Why did Mom have to die?
Father: She was very brave. She refused to give up her faith in God.
Daughter: You mean like when Daniel refused to give up his faith, and the King tried to murder him?
Father: Not exactly. A doctor tried to convince her to commit a sin in order to save her life, and she wouldn't.
Daughter: What was that sin?
Father: She would not have a blood transfusion.
Daughter: Where does God say she should not have a blood transfusion?
Father: Right here, in the Bible. See?
Daughter: It says "consume", like "eat". That's different than a transfusion.
Father: No, it's not.
Daughter: I can consume pig's blood. I c--
Father: No, you can't.
Daughter: Just listen, please.
Father: It would be a sin.
Daughter: I get that. Just listen, please.
Father: And it would be wrong to sin.
Daughter: Daddy!
Father: Don't use that tone with me, young lady!
Daughter: But you're not listening. You don't ever listen.
Father: I don't ever listen? Fine. I'm listening now.
Daughter: Look. I can consume pig's blood, but I can't put get a transfusion of it, right?
Father: No. I told you already, it would be a sin to--
Daughter: Daddy, you're not listening to me.
Father: Do not interrupt your father!
Daughter: I'm sorry, Daddy.
Father: Why do you hate your mother like this?
Daughter: Why--?
Father: How can you let the Devil tempt you like that? You need to go to your room and pray.
Daughter: But--
Father: Now!
Daughter: Fine. I just don't see why God made us so we could share blood in the first place if it's so bad.
Father: Well, maybe you should just ask Him.
Daughter: I have. Every day and every night for years. And He won't answer.
Father: That's because we don't ask those questions. You need to learn the meaning of faith.

and that's exactly how its gonna be.

or it could go the other way, and the kids could hate her, it doesnt matter who brings the kids up, and raise them, they will always be without they're mother and she with they're dad is/was the most important person in they're lives!

You characterize exactly what is distressing about Orleander's note that, "That kid is gonna be raised with the same ideas as Mom was."

Consider another possible conversation:


Tiassa,

A rather cynical but not impossible version of what might happen.

It raised an uncomfortable question however: should we bring up our children with the complete freedom to question authority?

(And perhaps you are imputing to the child a level of critical free thought that most children do not possess)

(And perhaps you are imputing to the child a level of critical free thought that most children do not possess)

I suppose that depends on the age we assign the child.

• • •

Interestingly, yesterday I encounted a suggestion I had not thought of before. I was hanging out with a retired police psychologist, and we generally tend to spend some portion of our time talking about politics and society. He made an assertion that I haven't entirely pinned down, that this was, at its root, about the mother's sense of purity, which reframes her desire to please God as something even more fundamental than I had been considering.

The assertion recasts the players and brings us back to, at least in my opinion, mental health. I can accept that this was not a greedy decision, but around here political correctness demands that we not consider Christianity in the context of a mental health disorder.

He made an assertion that I haven't entirely pinned down, that this was, at its root, about the mother's sense of purity, which reframes her desire to please God as something even more fundamental than I had been considering.


Do you think that accepting someone else's blood into your body might cause you feelings of violation?

Do you think that accepting someone else's blood into your body might cause you feelings of violation?

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

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.

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?

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..

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?

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

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 (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/19576/jehovah-s-witnesses-26)")

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 (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/15982/jehovahs-witness-blood-transfusion-2)")

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.

I'm sorry, but the violation of a myth about one's body is not the same as the violation of the body.


So would you breed with your sister or cousin?

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.

• • •


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 diff