Really, I've ... I've argued with myself about the title. I thought about calling this topic, "Another One," or, "(Insert Title Here)." Whatever; the CNN headline is certainly captivating.

• CNN.com. "Attorney: Woman thought God told her to kill sons." March 29, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/
• Associated Press. "Texas Woman Who Stoned Sons Set for Trial." San Jose Mercury News, March 28, 2004. See http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8299238.htm

Some excerpts:• Deanna Laney, 39, has been charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of sons Joshua, 8, and Luke, 6, and a single count of injury to a child, Aaron, her 15-month-old who survived the attack. (CNN)

• After killing Joshua and Luke, Bingham said, Laney telephoned 911, telling the operator, "I just killed my boys. I don't think I did right by Aaron." (CNN)

• Her husband -- Keith Laney, who has been supportive of his wife -- sat two rows behind the defense table, his head in his hands as the tape was played. (CNN)

• "You will hear that she was a sick person on a quest to be closer to her Lord," Files said. "The only explanation which any of the witnesses can offer for her conduct ... is that Deanna Laney was legally insane."

Files said Laney believed that God had told her the world was going to end and "she had to get her house in order," which included killing her children.

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"

Files said he would present witnesses who would corroborate Laney's love of her children as well as her belief "that the word of God was infallible."

"It destroyed her ability to discern the wrongness of her act," he said. (CNN)

• "The difficulty in this case is getting the jury to go from the position that everybody thinks she's crazy to the position that she is legally insane under Texas law," Dobbs said.

"It's a very hard standard. ... People can be really mentally ill but if they have the capacity to understand that their conduct is wrong, under our law, they are sane." (Associated Press)I don't know, really, where to begin.

How about with some inward irony? If you go back through the history of my posts, there was a time a few years ago when "clean up your own damn house first" was something I used to tell Christians who dared complain about people or groups who offended their sensibilities. Quite obviously, this isn't what I meant. I was struck by that phrase in the CNN article.

How about the cheap argument? Within religions, these things happen from time to time, and we must consider society's obligation unto itself inasmuch as how many is too many?

Of course, that argument holds religions in a vacuum, and ignores such ideas as the inherent diversity of humanity; for instance, I've argued of sex crimes that even if we were to "educate rape out of society," so that we didn't have 70,000 rapes on college campuses each year, didn't have spousal sexual abuse, didn't have rape as a form of machismo, we would still have to endure a certain amount of deviation.

So we can't fairly hold "Christians" accountable; after all, Christians are mortified:This was the work of Baal, the enemy of children.* Women killing their children is a sign of the Fifth Cycle of Discipline . . . .

. . . . Stoning was the method of capital punishment under the Mosaic Law.* The idea of stoning children to death, which is not even remotely near the truth of scripture, was actually believed by a Christian.* The sad thing is that there are Christian stragglers even in doctrinal churches, who are waiting in line to be the devil's lunch.* When Christians don't love the Lord Jesus Christ, they are doomed to slavery to the Cosmic System.* When Christians don't Rebound they are enslaved to the Cosmic System.* And holy rollers who dance around waving their arms don't know the difference between an emotional jag and the Filling of the Holy Spirit.* Rebound or die !

The Baal attack on the 3 Laney children on May 10th was the herald of the terrorist bombings of the 3 compounds* in Saudi Arabia.* Christians under the power of Baal destroy the Client Nation, which destroys the world. (Bible Doctrine News (http://www.biblenews1.com/history3/20030512.htm))(Note: Deferring to administrative request that avatars not be animated, I am presently unsure about inserting an animated smiley here, and one taken from another site at that. Thus, I have omitted the banging of my head against a brick wall.)

At any rate ... what was I saying? Oh, yeah ... something about how we shouldn't get paranoid about a religion based on such occasional events.

Um ... yeah ....

At any rate, if we look past the BDN ... insanity ... er ... I'll find a better Christian response eventually.

Maybe.

I suppose the question really is whether or not this would have happened were she Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or otherwise not Christian?

A last couple links:

• Tyler Morning Telegraph. "Case could add fuel to insanity debate." March 27, 2004. See http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1994&dept_id=341384&newsid=11194214&PAG=461&rfi=9
• San Antonio Express News. "Moms who kill often suffer from psychotic depression." May 13, 2003. See http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00003350.html

Were she a seccularist, she would claim she had a rational explanation. Were she Muslem, it would be the will of Allah. Were she Buddist, it was the wisdom of Buddah. If she was a Satanist... well you get the idea.

It's easy for people to blame a persons religion for their actions. Many Atheists I know and indeed, some Sciforms members do it all the time. What many often miss is that the Bible says that God created us with the free will control ourselves. This answers two questions about the Christian concept of God.

1) Why does God allow bad things to happen?
2) Why do some Christians do things contrary to what they profess?

When the concept of free will is considered and that God created us to have such, then it is also accepted that God leaves it for us to be accountable for our actions. Indeed, the concept of judgement before God for the actions someone took in ones life is a central theme behind the Rapture described in the book of Revelations.

Religion isn't the problem, it is the decisions of it's practicioners which are in cases like this one.

Tiassa I get so angry when I hear about some insane person commiting a crime and then put on trial. It is outrageous that todays' goverment refuses to help mentaly sick people but would rather spend 50k a year incarcerating them for some crime they committed for God or Satan.

If anything bothers me about US is the apathy and inaction towards mentally sick people. When my wife was having problems I desperately sought help for her only to be thwarted time after time by the system. Even though there were many sympathisers all I got was lip service about the inadequate shape of our mental health system. It's a moral disgrace.

Thank you so much Tiassa for your post, I needed your links so much, some christian asses need to be kicked !!

The disgusting thing is that Bible Doctrine News website tried to explain the murder by quoting from the bible:

This was the work of Baal, the enemy of children. Women killing their children is a sign of the Fifth Cycle of Discipline (Jeremiah 7:31;19:4-6;32:35-36).

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Jeremiah+7:31;19:4-6;32:35-36&language=english&version=NASB

http://www.biblenews1.com/history3/20030512.htm

INCREADIBLE !! Stoning for Jesus !!

Now, christians will call this woman insane, if Muslim committed such horrible crime, they will blame ISLAM for it !! :rolleyes:

You never cease from amazing me with you SPOT ON posts !! ALLAH BLESS YOU.

Why am I not surprised, PM's enjoying this? Honestly, this forum, is not the intelligent community it professes to be.

Dont divert the topic, if you dont like it here, you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay.

Now back to the topic, shall we blame CHRISTIANITY as a whole for the murder of these innocent childern ????? :rolleyes:

PM, my hypocritical child. How can you point a finger on others, when your entire religion is built on lies, tyranny, deceit, murder, maim, fanatacism, contradictions and forced conversions. Your religion is literally built over the dead bodies of millions of innocent men, women and children. It surprises me, even knowing this, you support this inhumane religion. You are inhumane yourself, then?

Dont divert the topic, if you dont like it here, you can leave, no one is forcing you to stay.

Now back to the topic, shall we blame CHRISTIANITY as a whole for the murder of these innocent childern ????? :rolleyes:
No - the bitch was mentally unstable - just like you are PM for believing she killed her kids for religion.

I believe PM's point is that people are quick to blame Islam for the acts of Islamic terrorists, while this was obviously a Christian committing "Christian terrorism".

Duh, is it, Jenyar?

His point, or rather lack of point is, to bury the illls of Islam, by showing us the ills of Christianity. Which, proves Christianity has ills too, but it does not disprove the ills of Islam. In other words, it's hypocrisy.

I was addressing Vienna's comment.

What bothers me is that this woman seems to live in a community, Christian or otherwise, who let that kind of mentality go unaddressed an unnoticed.

Did nobody know her? Do they share her apocalyptic worldview? Did she forget that God supplied a replacement for Isaac - that Jesus died so that nobody has to?

Did she forget that God supplied a replacement for Isaac - that Jesus died so that nobody has to?

Did she forget who supplied what for who????

She was too busy killing her kids dammit,

Instability is in its highest when you put your life and actions in something you can't see, can't touch, can't hear and doesn't exist.

"I killed my kids for the sake of the jolly green giant"

Religion is not funny. it's fucking dangerous!

Instability is in its highest when you put your life and actions in something you can't see, can't touch, can't hear and doesn't exist.
Such as committing yourself to world peace?

What bothers me is that this woman seems to live in a community, Christian or otherwise, who let that kind of mentality go unaddressed an unnoticedAs much as I might mock that bit about Ba'al, I'm amazed at the things some Christians will write off to the Devil. It might be that folks let their myths cloud their objectivity.

When I read of her husband, a supporting husband, with his head in his hands as the 911 tape is played, I wonder if part of the crushing emotion isn't the realization that he missed perhaps several opportunities to stop this from happening. He's had some time to think about it, and some time to suffer with it.Did she forget that God supplied a replacement for Isaac - that Jesus died so that nobody has to? I hope you don't find sarcastic the note that many faithful throughout history have forgotten such things and more.

Remember that it doesn't have to be entirely literal inasmuch as it could be that beyond Isaac, the Crucifixion, or others she recalled the bit about leaving your family and transposed the bloody tales of the Scriptures into her apparently-damaged conscience.

Additionally, we must remember that God works in mysterious ways. If I taught in a Christian school, I would assign my students to argue how such a thing could be God's will.

Sick people aside, I just have a hard time with the idea of God's Will. Sometimes it makes me want to find God's nutsack and pinch it with His curling iron. I know that sounds like humor, but sometimes I think condemnation would be worth it for the opportunity to stand in front of God and tell Him a few Things He Obviously Dosen't Realize.

I hope you don't find sarcastic the note that many faithful throughout history have forgotten such things and more.

Remember that it doesn't have to be entirely literal inasmuch as it could be that beyond Isaac, the Crucifixion, or others she recalled the bit about leaving your family and transposed the bloody tales of the Scriptures into her apparently-damaged conscience.

Additionally, we must remember that God works in mysterious ways. If I taught in a Christian school, I would assign my students to argue how such a thing could be God's will.

Sick people aside, I just have a hard time with the idea of God's Will. Sometimes it makes me want to find God's nutsack and pinch it with His curling iron. I know that sounds like humor, but sometimes I think condemnation would be worth it for the opportunity to stand in front of God and tell Him a few Things He Obviously Dosen't Realize.
I sympathise with your reservations about people who live in a spiritual world at the cost of the physical. However, cliché's like "God works in mysterious ways" and "the devil made me do it" hardly illuminate God's will. People attribute things to "God's will" at will, which might explain its objectionability.

The simple truth is that everything that happens is not God's will. That's just the wrong logical conclusion from "God can make everything, good or bad, work towards his will". Not everything a believer does is automatically God's will, and not everything an atheist does is automatically against his will.

It follows that what is really damaging (or damaged) is our worldview. You don't "leave" or disagree with family by killing them; you don't transpose bloody tales of survival and conflict into your living room. Unless you are in dire need of help. We need cultural norms to regulate behaviour. God did not subject us to authority so that we can overrule it at will - especially not in His name.

On my part, I object to the notion that 'since all believers are in need of a mental reality check, all mental degeneracy can be attributed to believing in God'. That's a fallacy and you know it.

Such as committing yourself to world peace?

There's nothing wrong with that.

It is a curious thing that every creed promises a paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for anyone of civilized taste.

There's nothing wrong with that.
Even though you can't see it, can't touch it, can't hear it and it doesn't exist?

It is a curious thing that every creed promises a paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for anyone of civilized taste.
What's more curious to me is that people will sympathize with those who disturb the peace rather than those who work towards it. It probably has to do with that "civilized taste", if you look at the example of civilization set by the Romans.

2 Tim 3
But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God -- having a form of godliness but denying its power.

Re: World Peace

Pursuing something that can theoretically be accomplished--e.g. world peace--is considerably different from pursuing something that by nature cannot be known.

World peace may not exist, but I can certainly feel peace. I don't touch peace. Peace touches me.

Pursuing something that can theoretically be accomplished--e.g. world peace--is considerably different from pursuing something that by nature cannot be known.
Well, this is an interesting statement. Has world peace ever been known? We only "know" it by its principles - it's laws and requirements. We "know" that if everyone obeyed what one person who experienced of "peace", it is theoretically possible. So we promote those principles we feel will advance peace, even though we can't imagine what it will look like when we actually get there. After all, we're not trying to accomplish "God", only His will.

I propose that we can know God likewise. After all, what prevents us from knowing Him if He makes himself known - even if it's only in ways that promotes His will, and not ours?
World peace may not exist, but I can certainly feel peace. I don't touch peace. Peace touches me.
Not so different from God then, is it? I know He exists because I can attest to everything He stands for in my life. I know love, which isn't all too defined a concept either. Why should justice, or mercy, or knowledge, or any of God's qualities be any different? I know God through what touches me - what appeals to me, even while my position is far removed from it. Which is where Christ comes in, but that's another topic.

You're right Tiassa, where does one even begin. I read through those links you provided and... well.. I'm left speechless. BDM are, to say the least, a bunch of freaks.

I want to find this woman insane but somehow I cannot. The fact that she rang 911 after committing the act and telling them that she's killed her children and done badly to the third child (because he didn't die) shows to me a mind that was aware of her actions before, during and after the act. Plain and simple, the woman is a murderer. She slaughtered her own children. It becomes a religious issue because she stated that God told her to do it. Now honestly, lets think about this now. For the believers of God out there, if you hear a voice in your head telling you to kill your children, you would not think that voice to be God now would you? I hear such a voice in my head and I'm asking for a referral to the local psychiatrist.

How is it possible that one becomes so entrenched and so enamoured with their religious beliefs or their belief in God that they could actually commit such an act in the name of God? I try to think about it and I keep thinking to myself, my kids are mine, if God ever gave me such an order or choice, God be damned. He'd have to kill me first before I'd do such a thing. This woman was a fundamentalist of the worse sort. Is she a terrorist? In a way yes. She committed a henious act in the name of her God and her sole regret afterwards when she rang the police was that she failed in her quest as the youngest child had survived her attack. A terrorist kills people and feels regret that some got away or survived. Some terrorists also kill in the name of God. All are murderers at the end of the day.

I had a chat with my mother, who is a strict catholic, and I asked her if she'd ever kill me if God ordered her to and her reply was to look at me as though I'd lost my mind and she told me no. That if God asked her to do such a thing then she'd stop believing in God then and there. I left afterwards feeling ashamed at myself for even asking her that question. Now I compare that to Mrs Laney. She was the mother of three young children. She was meant to be their protector and provider. And I think to myself, if God did in fact tell her to do this, how could she listen? If I were ever to have children, they'd come first, no questions asked. God would not even factor into that equation. If he asked me to commit such an act, the answer would be no. I wouldn't care who it was that told me to do it, the answer would be no. Laney is not insane, she was just lost in her religion to such an extent that she failed to recognise that her children should always come first in everything. Such fanatacism is always dangerous and she is yet another prime example of how one's beliefs can end up being very bad.

I believe PM's point is that people are quick to blame Islam for the acts of Islamic terrorists, while this was obviously a Christian committing "Christian terrorism".

Well I am not going to blame christianity, I am not going to ask every christian in this world to stand up and condemn her ( as the hypocrite islamophobes do all the time).

This woman was not insane, she was brainwashed by some sick priests.

Jenyar

When you talk to God you say you are praying - and when God talks to you, you say you are being guided by God.

Tell me - How is this different to the schizophrenic who talks to an imaginary friend and hears voices in his head?


BTW Every human knows what peace is - not every human knows what God is.

This woman was not insane, she was brainwashed by some sick priests.
That stops just conveniently short of "blaming Christianity", doesn't it? Which Imam should we blame for Islamic terrorism?

When you talk to God you're said to be praying, and when God talks to you, you are being guided by God.

Tell me - How is this different to the schizophrenic who talks to an imaginary friend and hears voices in his head?
Although psychodynamic explanations of religious delusions may appeal to some people, I find other explanations more convincing. Current research on schizophrenia points to biological factors playing an important role in the disorder. Heredity, biochemistry, and neurophysiological & neuroanatomical factors distinguish schizophrenic people from other people. These biological factors may be facilitated by environmental conditions, such as trauma experienced while a child, to "bring out" the schizophrenia.

So, I lean toward the view that the person whose schizophrenic delusions include religious imagery is simply using religion as an expression of the altered reality. This is actually a sensible thing to do, given the nature of religious experiences. However desirable they may be, religious visions and feelings of contact with the divine are very private events. If I have a religious experience, I may try to convey that experience to you but any description I offer is unlikely to give you the same sense of awe and wonder that I myself experienced. The ineffable quality of religious experiences renders them intensely personal and private. Little wonder, then, that an individual whose sense of reality is somewhat different from other people's may turn to religious modes of expressing that reality. (Mental Health and religion (http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/mental.htm))

As you can see there are definite differences. God doesn't talk through "voices", but through influence. Influence should be grounded in scripture and not just special "revelation". Special revelation was always limited to special, chosen people (chosen for their righteousness and responsibility, mind you). But if special revelation was God's method of choice after Christ had come to fulfil the reason for personal revelation, scripture would only have been redundant and prohibitive. But instead the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 14:29
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.
God wouldn't have asked the church to moderate itself if He had decided that personal authority outweighs the common authority He placed on the church.
Titus 3
1Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
...and to murder your children? I don't think so.
BTW Every human knows what peace is - not every human knows what God is.
You don't qualify "knowing". Does a person who grew up in the war-torn regions of the DRC "know" peace, or is he just aware of the possibility because he can imagine the absence of conflict, even though it doesn't fit into his worldview? Not everybody knows God, but everyone has a spiritual awareness that makes him wonder about God. Some choose to seek peace, others choose to continue fighting - some choose to seek God, others choose to dismiss Him.

Not knowing what you're looking for doesn't mean it can't or doesn't exist. But the fact that you are even looking should make you wonder - what about the world prompted you to look?

God wouldn't have asked the church to moderate itself ?

Gee how did he do that?

E mail?, voice mail, first class post, phone call EH?

Explain how God ASKED

Jenyar,

Vienna has brought up a great point. There are many many stories where the biblical god directly spoke in an audible voice.

In the link you provided it states, "People who have schizophrenia may believe that they are deity figures, or they may claim some special ability to communicate with deity." Wouldn't this apply to Jesus?

What makes the voices, that being god and the angel, Isaac heard more credible than the one this woman heard? After all it states he heard the angel's voice from the heavens- how do we know he didn't truly suffer schizophrenia or was drunk?

There are many many stories where the biblical god directly spoke in an audible voiceAnd how important is the Pauline evangelization? Paul had a vision.

Much of Christianity is based on unverifiable revelation left to faith.

An already-unstable mind operating within such confines may not have the ability to reconcile that faith with reality or morality.

Few believers, unless truly challenged, examine these issues openly. If they do privately, it doesn't always show. Some of us here at Sciforums understand the difference between what God ordered the Hebrews to do to the Amelekites and Jesus Christ.

However, some don't, and not all of them are obviously crazy.

In that same heartbeat, though, we must remember that defining Christianity is not nearly so simple as it should seem. Labels aside, there are as many "sects" as there are faithful.

Really, I've ... I've argued with myself about the title. I thought about calling this topic, "Another One," or, "(Insert Title HeretHow about, "The kind of things that happen when you think you know God's will"?

~Raithere

Why do you prefer an audible voice? Is the only organ that can hear your ears? The ears are only recepticles for any information that comes in the form of soundwaves. They don't hear, and neither do they discern between truth and delusion. The brain decodes that information and "hears", and even then you have to decide to actively listen to it, and you still have reason at your disposal before you decide to obey it.

The problem with schizophrenia isn't that the voices they hear haven't passed through their cochlea - as if that "verifies" it - it's that they are unable to discriminate between autogenerated information and external information. Have you seen A beautiful mind? Nothing forces them to listen to those voices. Schizophrenia is a dibilitating disease. That makes it hard to function normally even in mundane daily tasks. The voices they hear don't correspond to circumstances either. Why did Abraham set off on a three day journey, climb a mountain, lifted the knife, and only then heard the angel stopping him? A schizophrenic has no control over what they hear and when they hear it. That's why it's so debilitating, and why it's considered an illness. Otherwise it would just have meant having conversation whenever you felt lonely.

Why do you assume that an otherwise audible voice carries more authority? You can't just arbitrarily decide what you consider "authoritive", especially if it concerns God's will. But since the issue seems to be with audible voices, I'll address them specifically.
Exodus 15:26
He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you."
Notice that "the voice of God" is mentioned in the third person. But it might be just a peculiar Hebrewism. But here God orders Moses to listen in obedience to other decrees and commands. God makes it clear that He never overrides anything He has proclaimed, i.e. never goes back on His word.

Think of what that means. Jesus told his disciples that they will have visions and prophecies. Why don't every Christian have them today? Because everything that was revealed to them is already contained in the NT. No doubt God is still making things new, but nothing that has been said before becomes invalid.

The bottom line is: nothing a Christian hears or comes to understand can ever overrule what has already been said (Deut. 4:2) and been made obedient to Christ (2 Cor. 10:5). I've emphasized this over and over: if you deny that Christ made any difference, you're "still in your sins", and unless you're a Jew almost anything goes (religiously speaking). The Romans (especially on Crete) were exhibit A of this kind of civilized freedom.

Moses' greatest challenge was to get his people to listen to God, through whichever "voices" He used - laws, prophets, natural phenomena. In your case, it might be through this forum. Unlike that woman, most people only realize that God has spoken when they are prepared to listen - when something stirs and makes them prop their ears. So, hearing God's voice requires no special abilities - such claims should always make one sceptical. Just a willingness to listen to what has already been said.

Deaf people are not excluded from hearing God, nor blind people from seeing Him. His Word can infuse anything with meaning.

Why do you prefer an audible voice? Is the only organ that can hear your ears? The ears are only recepticles for any information that comes in the form of soundwaves. They don't hear, and neither do they discern between truth and delusion. The brain decodes that information and "hears", and even then you have to decide to actively listen to it, and you still have reason at your disposal before you decide to obey it.


Not so, ever heard something say something like "Gee, I thought I just heard something".

The problem with schizophrenia isn't that the voices they hear haven't passed through their cochlea - as if that "verifies" it - it's that they are unable to discriminate between autogenerated information and external information.


And probably people who "think" thay have heard god speak to them don't want to discriminate between autogenerated information and external information. People who are insecure can become so desperate that they create a false sense of security in their own mind.

The voices they hear don't correspond to circumstances either. Why did Abraham set off on a three day journey, climb a mountain, lifted the knife, and only then heard the angel stopping him?
How do you know Abraham didn't just imagine these voices, or/and made it all up. People make things like this up just to "prove" themselves. just take Mohammed for example - were the voices he heard true?


How do you differenciate between Christian voices in the head, and Muslim voices in the head, each other says the other is wrong - so whats going on?

[A schizophrenic has no control over what they hear and when they hear it.


Are you saying Abraham had control over what he heard in his head?

Deaf people are not excluded from hearing God, nor blind people from seeing Him. His Word can infuse anything with meaning.

How about the talking bush? - whats all that about???

The bottom line is: Mental instability can infuse with anything at all

And how important is the Pauline evangelization? Paul had a vision.

Much of Christianity is based on unverifiable revelation left to faith.
Consider how Paul defended his ministry in 2 Corinthians 10:
13 We, however, will not boast about things that cannot be measured, but we will boast according to the standard of measurement that the God of measure has assigned us--a measurement that relates even to you.
Paul asks that his ministry be measured only by how far the gospel has spread because of him, and nothing else. Not special revelation, or even his great authority, which "amounts to nothing" if the message isn't believed. He asked that the truth and sincerity of his actions be judged only by what could be verified by the churches themselves. in this respect, he appealed to signs and wonders:
12The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance.
Paul's revelation only turned him from persecuting Christians to becoming a Christian - it didn't reveal any new information that added to what Jesus had already achieved. His whole ministry rested on the truth of the resurrection, which was the only reason he would have converted from Pharisee to Christian, and nothing else. However, his revelation didn't reveal anything the Christians whom he was persecuting didn't already know - a fact supported by the fact that he was formally accepted by the apostles themselves fourteen years since he had begun preaching the gospel (Gal.2:9).

Paul appeals to external support in his letter to the Galatians, and denies a personal agenda:
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.

And in his defense before Agrippa Paul declared emphatically that his message was "true and reasonable", appealing to the king's own knowledge of what had happened (Acts 26:24). If anybvody had reason to believe he was insane, they would have thrown away his letters and his arguement before Agrippa falls flat.

Besides, if his delusion included the belief that "murderers, adulterers, perverts, slave traders, liars and perjurers" were "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Tim.1:10), lying about his conversion would only get him into greater trouble than he was before (not to mention the damage it would do the credibility to which he appeals in his epistles).

And Vienna, if he wanted so badly to prove himself, why would he justify his conversion by boasting about his suffering and rejection by his own people? What is there to be insecure about if you consider those strengths? The only security he had was his faith.

Sorry Jenyar - but its all a pile of crock

[QUOTE=Jenyar]Consider how Paul defended his ministry in 2 Corinthians 10:
13 We, however, will not boast about things that cannot be measured, but we will boast according to the standard of measurement that the God of measure has assigned us--a measurement that relates even to you.
*************
M*W: Psychobabble.
*************
Paul asks that his ministry be measured only by how far the gospel has spread because of him, and nothing else. Not special revelation, or even his great authority, which "amounts to nothing" if the message isn't believed. He asked that the truth and sincerity of his actions be judged only by what could be verified by the churches themselves. in this respect, he appealed to signs and wonders:
*************
M*W: Paul spoke with forked tongue. The only signs and wonders Paul experienced were hallucinated.
*************
12The things that mark an apostle--signs, wonders and miracles--were done among you with great perseverance.
*************
M*W: Paul was NOT an apostle of Jesus, he was only a self-proclaimed apostle of Jesus. Jesus never knew Paul nor lived in the time Paul lived. This is the second biggest lie of Christianity. The first big lie is that Jesus died on a cross to save mankind. Just didn't happen.
*************
Paul's revelation only turned him from persecuting Christians to becoming a Christian - it didn't reveal any new information that added to what Jesus had already achieved. His whole ministry rested on the truth of the resurrection, which was the only reason he would have converted from Pharisee to Christian, and nothing else. However, his revelation didn't reveal anything the Christians whom he was persecuting didn't already know - a fact supported by the fact that he was formally accepted by the apostles themselves fourteen years since he had begun preaching the gospel (Gal.2:9).
*************
M*W: Paul's "revelation" was only Paul's hallucination. The man was insane. He invented Christianity, but his Christianity didn't survive. Christian's believe in the Emperor's New Clothes. That's it. They believe in a lie. That's sad.
*************
Paul appeals to external support in his letter to the Galatians, and denies a personal agenda:
8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
*************
M*W: More psychobabble. He's a PR man for his own wealth. Everything he says is a lie.
*************
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
*************
M*W: Sounds like a homosexual to me!
*************
And in his defense before Agrippa Paul declared emphatically that his message was "true and reasonable", appealing to the king's own knowledge of what had happened (Acts 26:24). If anybvody had reason to believe he was insane, they would have thrown away his letters and his arguement before Agrippa falls flat.
*************
M*W: Paul has no defense before Agrippa.
*************
Besides, if his delusion included the belief that "murderers, adulterers, perverts, slave traders, liars and perjurers" were "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God" (1 Tim.1:10), lying about his conversion would only get him into greater trouble than he was before (not to mention the damage it would do the credibility to which he appeals in his epistles).
*************
M*W: He lost his head, didn't he?
*************
And Vienna, if he wanted so badly to prove himself, why would he justify his conversion by boasting about his suffering and rejection by his own people? What is there to be insecure about if you consider those strengths? The only security he had was his faith.
*************
M*W: He was a hype-artist, a phony, a sham AND the ANTICHRIST! Every Christian who believes in the merits of Paul is also an ANTICHRIST!

Sorry Jenyar - but its all a pile of crock
How can I argue against such immutable logic.

Whenever I hear of a story like this I can't help but think about the irony of it and people's reactions to it.

Tell this story to your common Christian, and you will likely get a reaction that basically attributes her actions to either being a manifestation of insanity or a result of being in the devil's grasp (not counting the ones that would vote for vengance out of anger).
However, if they read the same story (God told me to kill my children) in the Bible, they would see it as a test of faith that someone has to go through in order to prove their obedience or faith in God.

It just makes me wonder...

If this woman is insane or in the grips of the devil, why are those in the Bible believed to have actually been doing God's will?

Why is not that either she actually a messenger of God, or the biblical equivalent insane or posessed?
Why are those from the bible not discounted as "crazy people who actually thought God was talking to them"?

What defines when you should apply the double standard?

I am sorry if this question was asked and I didn't see it.
It is late and I have insomnia. :)

If this is true:
Psychiatric experts concluded Laney had four psychotic episodes before the killings and probably had suffered from delusional psychotic disorder for at least three years.
Do/Should those around her have any accountability (legally or otherwise) to this for not interveneing in some way?

It would have been a good question if such a correspondence actually existed. Why do we accept behaviour in the Bible that we object to in our lives? Killing children, wars, stoning...

The truth is that they weren't even acceptable in the Bible. They were cultural realities, just like the death penalty might be a reality in some states, and like wars are still a reality (despite - or because of? - America and the UN's best efforts).

The only instance in the Bible we're the sacrifice of a child (i.e ritual and slaughter - not "murder" as we call it today) is acceptible is the one instance where God says: "No! Even when I order it I do not require you to fulfil it - I will provide the sacrifice myself." And it's such a clear reference to the sacrifice Jesus made that it's impossible to read anything else into it (unless you've already lost the plot).

Without God, we are continually at odds with ourself: is it justice to stand by as Saddam or Mugabe kills his own people, or is it justice to oppose them for the sake of world peace? At which point does the injustice of an individual become a threat to the ends of justice for all people? And every time the answer is: when the initiator takes judgments that belong to God into his own hands.

Outside of a living relationship with God, any decision can be a loose cannon. That's why Christian ethics aren't the same a biblical ethics. As we respond to new threats and new demands, love does guide us into new territories - but it's the same love that guided the Israelites, and which guided Jesus.

Do/Should those around her have any accountability (legally or otherwise) to this for not interveneing in some way?
I think definitely - at least as Christians they have such a responsibility. Although legally I don't think they had any obligation unless she was in their care. The husband might be complicit through negligence if he was aware of her condition, since he shared responsibility for the care of their children.

And the church leaders should be charged if they promoted her motives.

tiassa,

How about the cheap argument? Within religions, these things happen from time to time, and we must consider society's obligation unto itself inasmuch as how many is too many?

What makes you thik this is a religioius act? What we're actually being told is that she said while on the phone to the police; "i've killed my boys..." then it goes on to say; She said God made her do it, which is not an actual quote, but a statement made by the sherrif. There is no actual quote of her making the latter statement nor is there any reason her act was "religious."

I suppose the question really is whether or not this would have happened were she Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or otherwise not Christian?

Apparently she has been diagnosed as having bipolar disorer, and has had 3 or 4 psycotic outbreaks previious to the murders. Under those circumstances, i think this could happen to anyone.

Jan Ardena

Jan

• What makes you thik this is a religioius act?

It is the cornerstone of her legal defense.

• "There is no actual quote of her making the latter statement nor is there any reason her act was 'religious.'"

Power of attorney; opening arguments; statements by her attorney to the court and press. This is what she's pleading.

Additionally, please note the first sentence of that quote you cited: How about the cheap argument?

You know, how after I said I didn't really know where to begin, and then "suggested" inward irony and then the "cheap argument"?

And then I go on to directly disarm the "cheap argument" - How about the cheap argument? Within religions, these things happen from time to time, and we must consider society's obligation unto itself inasmuch as how many is too many ?

Of course, that argument holds religions in a vacuum, and ignores such ideas as the inherent diversity of humanity; for instance, I've argued of sex crimes that even if we were to "educate rape out of society," so that we didn't have 70,000 rapes on college campuses each year, didn't have spousal sexual abuse, didn't have rape as a form of machismo, we would still have to endure a certain amount of deviation. (Topic Post)I just think you're splitting hairs on that one. Because--
Apparently she has been diagnosed as having bipolar disorer, and has had 3 or 4 psycotic outbreaks previious to the murders. Under those circumstances, i think this could happen to anyone.--that's sort of the point from the get-go. Please also see my remarks regarding the Pauline evangelization: "An already-unstable mind operating within such confines may not have the ability to reconcile that faith with reality or morality."

Regarding my earlier discussion wih Vienna...

It now seems she wasn't hearing inexplainable voices - she was interpreting observations about her environment according to her state of mind...
Tyler, Texas - A mother has testified that the first sign that God wanted her to kill her three boys came on Mother's Day weekend when she saw her 14-month-old playing with a toy spear.

...The baby came to her with a rock, and later in the day squeezed a frog, and she believed God was suggesting that she should either stab, stone or strangle her children.
That sounds more like superstition than religion. Un unstable mind doesn't need religion, or God, to justify their interpretation of reality. They can justify it themselves.

Regarding my earlier discussion wih Vienna...

It now seems she wasn't hearing inexplainable voices - she was interpreting observations about her environment according to her state of mind...
Tyler, Texas - A mother has testified that the first sign that God wanted her to kill her three boys came on Mother's Day weekend when she saw her 14-month-old playing with a toy spear.

...The baby came to her with a rock, and later in the day squeezed a frog, and she believed God was suggesting that she should either stab, stone or strangle her children.
That sounds more like superstition than religion. Un unstable mind doesn't need religion, or God, to justify their interpretation of reality. They can justify it themselves.

"...The baby came to her with a rock, and later in the day squeezed a frog, and she believed God was suggesting that she should either stab, stone or strangle her children."

Y'know this line sounds like it came straight from a Bible.

Jenyar

Do you claim that your faith is logical?

tiassa,

It is the cornerstone of her legal defense.

It may be the cornerstone of her legal-teams defence. She has not quoted anything (to my knowledge) other than "i've killed my boys".

Power of attorney; opening arguments; statements by her attorney to the court and press. This is what she's pleading.

Where as she said that is what i'm pleading?

And then I go on to directly disarm the "cheap argument" - I just think you're splitting hairs on that one.

You called the title of this thread; "Texas mother kills children for God," yet the only mention of God in the press releases, refer to the fact that she was a christian, and at some stage in the 20 minute phone conversation, she is alledged to have said God told her to kill her boys. After reading up on the case, how do you come to the conclusion that she killed for God?
And why choose the religious forum, when there is nothing religious about it (as yet anywayz).
All you have done, is reinforce negative ideas in negative people.

Because----that's sort of the point from the get-go.

It isn't.
The point from the get-go, is that she killed her sons, in one article and in the other, that she could well be mentally ill. The point about God, comes later when they describe her as a religious woman, and it is alleged that she said God told her to do it.

Jan Ardena.

All you have done, is reinforce negative ideas in negative people.That's their problem.

In the meantime ... hot off the presses:A housewife said the first sign that God wanted her to kill her three boys came Mother's Day weekend when she saw her 14-month-old playing with a toy spear.

Deanna Laney said she resisted at first, but the signs kept coming. The baby came to her with a rock, and later in the day squeezed a frog, and she believed God was suggesting that she should either stab, stone or strangle her children.
A sobbing Laney recounted in a videotape played at her capital murder trial Wednesday how she smashed her sons' skulls with rocks to prove her faith to God.

"I was telling him no, and each time it was getting worse and worse, the way that it would have to be done," Laney said. "I thought it was the Lord saying to me, 'You're just going to have to step out in faith. This is faith. You can't see why. You just got to.'" (News Observer (http://newsobserver.com/24hour/nation/story/1255663p-8320118c.html))

Jo Jenyar,

J - "That's why Christian ethics aren't the same a biblical ethics. As we respond to new threats and new demands, love does guide us into new territories - but it's the same love that guided the Israelites, and which guided Jesus."

What exactly do you mean here Jenyar? Are you rejecting Biblical ethics?

Allcare.

Yo again jenyar dude,

J - "That sounds more like superstition than religion. Un unstable mind doesn't need religion, or God, to justify their interpretation of reality. They can justify it themselves."

Amongst the most common delusions in schizophrenic and psychotic behaviour are religious in nature.

Allcare.

"...The baby came to her with a rock, and later in the day squeezed a frog, and she believed God was suggesting that she should either stab, stone or strangle her children."

Y'know this line sounds like it came straight from a Bible.

Jenyar

Do you claim that your faith is logical?
I know the Bible quite well, and there are no examples of someone making a superstitious deduction like that. Wherever nature provides "signs" they are described as nothing less than miraculous - any sort of omens, signs or "hints" from nature is equated with divination. In fact, such superstition is seen as nothing less than lack of faith and idolatry.

Deuteronomy 18
Detestable Practices
9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Rambam lists the different kinds of magical and superstitious practices that are prohibited under the general category of the laws (halakah) forbidding idol-worship because of the conceptual similarity between the two. The prohibited actions are:
Nahash - Signs & Omens.
Kosem ? The Use of Oracles to Tell the Future, Divining.
Meonein ? Using astrology to fix Auspicious Times, Horoscopes.
Hovver ? The Use of Magical Spells and Incantations
Doresh El Hametim - Inquiring of the dead.
Ov and Yidoni, Divination.
Mekhashef - Sorcery, Performing 'black' magic.

A very common superstitious and forbidden practice is for a person to take mundane events that occur and make them into magical signs to help him or her decide which decisions to make in life. For no rational reason a linkage is placed between a previous occurrence and a future one. Instead of running ones life according to the Torah and reason a person runs it according to arbitrary omens. This is classic superstition.

(Superstition and Magic (http://home.earthlink.net/~etzahaim/halakha/Superstition.htm))


Yes, Vienna, my faith is logical - but I can see you are aware that logic by itself is insufficient, and unfounded logic even dangerous, to justify actions with. My faith is founded on a history of faith and revelation, culminating in Christ's resurrection and recorded in the Bible - not momentary flashes of insight or so-called "enlightenment". And like any form of knowledge it requires responsible study and understanding.

You might claim the premises of my faith are illogical (such as believing in God's existence), but that's no more dangerous than believing in, say, peace. Because some people think peace only comes through war and conflict, while others think it comes through love and understanding. Ignorance is the main problem.

The irresponsible use of ideas (however noble) and reason (however logical) is always dangerous, wherever your justification lies - whether seen or unseen, real or imagined.

PS. I'm not rejecting Biblical ethics - I'm applying it.

tiassa,

that's their problem.

Helped by you.

In the meantime ... hot off the presses....

Tell me something.
What does this thread have to do with religion?

Jan Ardena.

You're right Tiassa, where does one even begin. I read through those links you provided and... well.. I'm left speechless. BDM are, to say the least, a bunch of freaks.


OOooooh im speechless too. Why, 1 person in 2 billion christians actually killed for God. Amazing eh? :D

tiassa, isnt good for you to see a non-muslim mother that is as sick is this muslim mother below?

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura2.jpg

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura1.jpg

In the name of God.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura11.jpg

In the name of God.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura12.gif

In the name of God.

Christianity: 1 (of 2 billion)

Islam: 4 (of 1.2 billion)

Who is sicker than who?

What does this thread have to do with religion?The very question you're complaining about.Helped by you.Hey, take a look at Dr. No here. Would you prefer that he never face his demons?

They've gotta deal with it sometime, Jan. Hiding won't help anyone.

They've gotta deal with it sometime, Jan. Hiding won't help anyone.

Ya said it, sweetheart. The Demons of Islam can no longer remain hidden. Thanks to people like me, eh? :D

tiassa,

The very question you're complaining about.

I'm not complaining, i'm questioning, and you have not answered my question. Why is this thread in a religion forum?
Does the word "god" when put into a sentence, automatically transform the subject into religion?

Hey, take a look at Dr. No here. Would you prefer that he never face his demons?


I'm not quite sure what point Dr. No is trying to prove here, i see children with blood coming from their head.
Maybe he should point out the explanation in the Qur'an, then his point can be generally understood.

They've gotta deal with it sometime, Jan. Hiding won't help anyone.

What exactly do they have to deal with, and who is hiding??

Jan Ardena.

I'm not quite sure what point Dr. No is trying to prove here, i see children with blood coming from their head.

My point?

Why make an issue of one unique atrocity by an insane christian when similar atrocities are much more common in their own islamic religion?

I'm not complaining, i'm questioning, and you have not answered my question. Why is this thread in a religion forum?
Does the word "god" when put into a sentence, automatically transform the subject into religion?Are all paradigms the same? Religious? Political? Social?

Obviously not. You'll notice that there is a major vein within this thread struggling to pick apart the pieces of religous faith and mental illness that is, unfortunately, harder to pick out with the Special Olympics going on at the same time.

When we pause to consider that religions touch people in a way that no other paradigm can--all else can become subordinate to the necessities of the soul--it is fair to wonder if the effects of a religious paradigm can inflame existing problems within a person to a different degree than other ideas.

If something so simple as "heavy metal" or "rap" can be examined for its role in people's conduct, why not their faith? Would those kids in the infamous 1980s lawsuits have killed themselves if they were listening to Stryper instead of Judas Priest? Bananarama instead of Ozzy Osbourne? It's a fair question to a certain degree; what nobody could understand at the time was that the music didn't excuse the crappy parenting. (e.g. - "You're both drunk, you fight all the time, you have no money, you're physically violent ... what's making your kid miserable? It must be the music.")

In the discussions of Apocrypha and heresy in Christianity, one will come across the odd point of the Pauline evangelization. Most think about it in terms such as we find in Jenyar's response to my invocation of Paul, but we see that some people do realize: Here is a man vital to the faith whose experience started with a hallucination (vision). Paul gets a certain credibility on faith not awarded elsewhere.

I see all sorts of symbolism in the world. But none of it's doctrinally bound. And I'm inclined by experience to bet against visions and divine revelation. So if I look at my world, no I'm most likely not going to think God is at any point telling me to kill my children. But if I'm already unstable enough, and ensconced in a religious paradigm that venerates visions and revelation, and operating from a position of "Original Sin" which leaves me forever deficient of the standard I've adopted . . . .

If her obsession was "stamp collecting," would Madonna Ciccione have spoken to her from a St. Kitts & Nevis postage stamp?

It's hard to say. There are people in the world for whom yes, Madonna would tell them to kill their children. But is this woman one of them, or was her condition exacerbated by her faith?

It's happened in America before, inasmuch as there's some point in history that an entire town came apart after they painted themselves into a corner at the intersection of faith and conscience. I'll dig up the reference later.

And what of the faith of those around her? Everybody seems to acknowledge there's something amiss with this woman, but it will be revealing, in the long run, to find out what was and wasn't done on her behalf that might have stopped this from happening.

There are some people I've known who would say "Hallelujah" about someone getting revelations and never see the ugly punchline coming.

And in identifying the separation that exists between religion and the acts of the religious, we can only increase understanding.What exactly do they have to deal with, and who is hiding??You seem worried about a number of bigots. How ever will they resolve their issues if they never face them?

You wrote: All you have done, is reinforce negative ideas in negative people.O! ye of little faith. Is the solution, then, to leave the negative folks with their negative ideas?

If I could wave a fire wand and shout, "Abracadabra!" and make it happen in a puff of logic and compassion, I would. But I can't, and these things take time. Lifetimes, in some cases. And all along the way, there will be someone to say that you're only reinforcing negativity.

That might be the best you can do. But ....

Writing the attack off to Ba'al, as the one website did, doesn't help anyone. It might make a few self-righteous idiots feel better about themselves, but it doesn't actually help anyone in any real sense. Christians, who know their faith, will have certain insights to any possible relationships between faith and deed.

So hey ... let's make a new question out of it, just to satisfy you:

• What is the responsibility of a religious community to the mental health of its congregations, and therefore the overall health of its communities and neighbors?

As this case goes along, we'll find out more and more about what "warning signs" may have existed. That will guide the discussion to a certain degree. But this story isn't finished playing out yet, and it's not yet time to point fingers and say, "This or that Christian blew it."

The connection is that a religious paradigm may have exacerbated mental illness. Is the method and degree of exacerbation unique to this paradigm, or to religious paradigms in general?

The questions present themselves. It's all a matter of not letting the bigots set the terms.

OOooooh im speechless too. Why, 1 person in 2 billion christians actually killed for God. Amazing eh? :D
What is your problem? You've resorted to trolling threads to try to validate your hate?

And as to your charming little pictures, why don't you post some of Jewish babies being circumcised? Oh and of course, you shouldn't forget to post pictures up of the number of abortion clinics that have been bombed or doctors who have been shot by Christian zealots... all in the name of God of course. Amazing eh?

[QUOTE=stretched]Yo again jenyar dude,

Amongst the most common delusions in schizophrenic and psychotic behaviour are religious in nature.
*************
M*W: Religion is a mental illness. It's an addiction. I've seen this occcur in my own family (the ones' who still claim to be Christians). They don't go to church and lead nice, quiet, respectable lives. They're out there everywhere obsessively talking up Jesus by day, and by night, they mostly hang out in sleazy bars with sleazy people (and I doubt trying to convert them). He was diagnosed schizophrenic when I divorced him, and he's a religious fanatic now. He's educated but can't hold a job, so he lives off his elderly father. He is a member of a local cult and goes off in preaching rages about the second coming and the end of the world. And wouldn't you know it? He claims I'm the Antichrist! Oh, well.

See the cool-smiley tiassa assigned to this thread. I'd say she is all too pleased that an insane mother crushed two young skulls and made a third boy permanently mentally damaged. And see how her fellow mulims agree with her. They are just as sick as this woman...

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura2.jpg

What is your problem? You've resorted to trolling threads to try to validate your hate?

Im just having some fun mocking YOUR hatred. At how you muslims here (so far) rejoice with tiassa's pleasure of hearing about the massacre committed by an insane christian.


And as to your charming little pictures, why don't you post some of Jewish babies being circumcised?

As soon as a jew comes here and makes a similar cruel joke as tiassa did I promise you I will post jewish pictures.


Oh and of course, you shouldn't forget to post pictures up of the number of abortion clinics that have been bombed or doctors who have been shot by Christian zealots... all in the name of God of course. Amazing eh?

The point is for every christian zealot there are more than a hundred muslim zealots. For only in Islam is fundamentalism mainstream. As admitted by the muslim Irshad Manji.

tiassa

You'll notice that there is a major vein within this thread struggling to pick apart the pieces of religous faith and mental illness that is, unfortunately, harder to pick out with the Special Olympics going on at the same time.

I do not see anything regarding religion in this thread, only some people saying "see i told you...".

When we pause to consider that religions touch people in a way that no other paradigm can--all else can become subordinate to the necessities of the soul--it is fair to wonder if the effects of a religious paradigm can inflame existing problems within a person to a different degree than other ideas.

But in this case there is no evidence to say that religion or God was responsible for the woman's actions. If i said i won a million dollars and it was God who gave me the winning numbers, would my claim be believed/accepted as easily as this woman's claim is believed/accepted?

If something so simple as "heavy metal" or "rap" can be examined for its role in people's conduct, why not their faith?

That is a contradiction, it is due to faith that they become suseptible to those genre's. We all have faith, it is not subjected to religion or God. We simply choose to develop our faith in whatever we like.

Would those kids in the infamous 1980s lawsuits have killed themselves if they were listening to Stryper instead of Judas Priest?

Probably! People have been known to kill themselves without listening to such music.
What ACTUALLY made them commit suicide?

But if I'm already unstable enough, and ensconced in a religious paradigm that venerates visions and revelation, and operating from a position of "Original Sin" which leaves me forever deficient of the standard I've adopted . . . .

Then we cannot put this in the religion pigeon-hole. And if someone claimed Albert Einstein told them to kill someone, we couldn't put that in the modern science pigeon-hole. My point is, deal with the situation for what it is; even if her court testimony is true and she thought God was talking to her, as opposed to using that as an excuse to get-away with the death-penalty or life-imprisonment, it is still not a religion issue.


And in identifying the separation that exists between religion and the acts of the religious, we can only increase understanding.

For this we need to understand Religion, and human nature on a day to day basis, in accordance with the changing face of society. This thread lumps the two together, which is IMHO, serioiusly inconsistent.

You seem worried about a number of bigots. How ever will they resolve their issues if they never face them?

I am not worried by bigots, if i was to be worried at all, it would be at the lack of understanding being banded about in general. We are,most probably, all bigoted, in some way. I believe, in a situation such as this, we should try and see the big-picture instead of defaulting to the lowest common denominator, fear.
Media lies, and manipulation, is common place as i'm sure you can apreciate, and as such i think caution should be taken when dealing with such sensitive issues. If this kind of propoganda is believed on a grand-scale, the next move would be to outlaw belief in God, which is the wish of some people here. This is why we should understand what religion/God actually is.

You wrote: O! ye of little faith. Is the solution, then, to leave the negative folks with their negative ideas?

That is not what i'm saying. Don't give them the ammunition, think about what we say and how we put it across. They may always be negative, but this kind of propoganda is not going to help them in becoming positive for the better.

And all along the way, there will be someone to say that you're only reinforcing negativity.

Then first be sure that what you are saying is valid, then if they are still negative, it would not be your doing.

• What is the responsibility of a religious community to the mental health of its congregations, and therefore the overall health of its communities and neighbors?

It should be the same as it is to their loved ones, whatever that is. Mental health is not a religious issue.
Religion is a code of living for humans according to time, place and circumstance. All major religious books adhere to peace, love, compassion and empathy for its followers. Violence, under extreme circumstances is also taught, but as i said, religion is connected to time, place and circumstance.

The connection is that a religious paradigm may have exacerbated mental illness. Is the method and degree of exacerbation unique to this paradigm, or to religious paradigms in general?

Are there people with mental health problems, who do not believe in God, and are not, nor have ver been religious?

Jan Ardena.

And as to your charming little pictures, why don't you post some of Jewish babies being circumcised?Do you know "that" picture, too? The grim black and white one that I won't bring out because I don't believe it an accurate representation but shows a ghoulish moment in faith and history . . . .

I ain't hauling it out; I'm not sure what good it would serve.

Im just having some fun mocking YOUR hatred. At how you muslims here (so far) rejoice with tiassa's pleasure of hearing about the massacre committed by an insane christian.

My hate? LOL. Who am I supposed to hate? The only hate I'm seeing here is yours for Muslims. If you're implying that I hate Christianity, then think again sonny boy. I don't hate any religions and I don't judge any religion either.

And just to give you a tidbit of information, I'm not a Muslim. And you make a comment about Muslims rejoicing with pleasure at the thought of this murder? Read through the thread again. They were merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like you. You get so riled up when someone points out to you that a God fearing Christian killed her children in the name of God. Would make her a terrorist if she were a Muslim and a murderer if she's a Christian. But then again, I also think that Christians who blow up abortion clinics or shoot abortion clinic staff members are also terrorists. If you're going to point the finger at one group in society, just remember that other groups also commit atrocities in the name of God. Christians will say that this woman is not a Christians for committing this crime, just like Muslims will say that Muslims who kill others in terrorists acts are not real Muslims but individuals with their own agenda. Just keep that in mind. You should never blame the whole for the actions of the few.

See the cool-smiley tiassa assigned to this thread.Wow. It only took four years for someone to notice.

Moving on to more important things:

Jan ArdenaI do not see anything regarding religion in this thread, only some people saying "see i told you...".That's a little like me saying I don't see anything about love in Christianity; only a bunch of people saying "Our way or no way."

Don't let the narrow minds define so much of the landscape.

Some points of this topic not related to the unspeakable phrase:• I suppose the question really is whether or not this would have happened were she Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or otherwise not Christian? (Tiassa)

• Were she a seccularist, she would claim she had a rational explanation. Were she Muslem, it would be the will of Allah. Were she Buddist, it was the wisdom of Buddah. If she was a Satanist... well you get the idea (Xevious)

• It's easy for people to blame a persons religion for their actions. Many Atheists I know and indeed, some Sciforms members do it all the time. (Xevious)

• . . . I get so angry when I hear about some insane person commiting a crime and then put on trial. It is outrageous that todays' goverment refuses to help mentaly sick people but would rather spend 50k a year incarcerating them for some crime they committed for God or Satan. (Greco)

• Now, christians will call this woman insane, if Muslim committed such horrible crime, they will blame ISLAM for it !! (Proud Muslim)

• Now back to the topic, shall we blame CHRISTIANITY as a whole for the murder of these innocent childern ????? (Proud Muslim)

• I believe PM's point is that people are quick to blame Islam for the acts of Islamic terrorists, while this was obviously a Christian committing "Christian terrorism". (Jenyar)

• What bothers me is that this woman seems to live in a community, Christian or otherwise, who let that kind of mentality go unaddressed an unnoticed. (Jenyar)

• Remember that it doesn't have to be entirely literal inasmuch as it could be that beyond Isaac, the Crucifixion, or others she recalled the bit about leaving your family and transposed the bloody tales of the Scriptures into her apparently-damaged conscience. (Tiassa)

• However, cliché's like "God works in mysterious ways" and "the devil made me do it" hardly illuminate God's will. People attribute things to "God's will" at will, which might explain its objectionability. (Jenyar)

• Pursuing something that can theoretically be accomplished--e.g. world peace--is considerably different from pursuing something that by nature cannot be known. (Tiassa)

• Well, this is an interesting statement. Has world peace ever been known? We only "know" it by its principles - it's laws and requirements. We "know" that if everyone obeyed what one person who experienced of "peace", it is theoretically possible. So we promote those principles we feel will advance peace, even though we can't imagine what it will look like when we actually get there. After all, we're not trying to accomplish "God", only His will. (Jenyar)

• It becomes a religious issue because she stated that God told her to do it. Now honestly, lets think about this now. For the believers of God out there, if you hear a voice in your head telling you to kill your children, you would not think that voice to be God now would you? I hear such a voice in my head and I'm asking for a referral to the local psychiatrist. (Bells)

• I had a chat with my mother, who is a strict catholic, and I asked her if she'd ever kill me if God ordered her to and her reply was to look at me as though I'd lost my mind and she told me no. That if God asked her to do such a thing then she'd stop believing in God then and there. I left afterwards feeling ashamed at myself for even asking her that question. Now I compare that to Mrs Laney. She was the mother of three young children. She was meant to be their protector and provider. And I think to myself, if God did in fact tell her to do this, how could she listen? If I were ever to have children, they'd come first, no questions asked. God would not even factor into that equation. If he asked me to commit such an act, the answer would be no. I wouldn't care who it was that told me to do it, the answer would be no. Laney is not insane, she was just lost in her religion to such an extent that she failed to recognise that her children should always come first in everything. Such fanatacism is always dangerous and she is yet another prime example of how one's beliefs can end up being very bad. (Bells)The above is taken from what equals "page 1" on my browser--specifically, the topic post and first 19 responses. (Personal settings may vary.)

In fact, the told-you-so arguments don't seem at all apparent to me. Perhaps you could point them out? I see M*W putting up the argument that "religion is a mental illness," but that's the fifty-ninth response to the topic. Most of the rest of the fighting seems to have to do with how people regard the acts of individuals within differing faith paradigms. But, I do think you're overstating the case, especially at the point that you addressed me to "question" (not "complain," apparently):
All you have done, is reinforce negative ideas in negative people. You sure about that "questioning," Jan?But in this case there is no evidence to say that religion or God was responsible for the woman's actions. If i said i won a million dollars and it was God who gave me the winning numbers, would my claim be believed/accepted as easily as this woman's claim is believed/accepted?You're putting the cart before the horse.

• If you claimed that God revealed the winning numbers to you, yes.
• However, that doesn't mean that God actually revealed the numbers to you.

Go back and read the first twenty or so posts of this discussion, such as those I quoted earlier in this post.That is a contradiction, it is due to faith that they become suseptible to those genre's. We all have faith, it is not subjected to religion or God. We simply choose to develop our faith in whatever we like.So ... we should never look at the underlying faith and the conflicts it presents within a given individual?

Additionally ... someone chooses to invest a certain degree of faith in heavy metal or rap; it's a different situation from those that are taught to believe in God at the stake of punishment; part of it indeed is how religion is passed from one generation to the next in this country. It is still the people; one need not blame Christ or "Christianity," but it might profit us to pause every once in a while to examine the relationship between a religious paradigm and the believer, especially after something like this happens, when religious faith and mental illness meet in such a spectacularly morbid result.Probably! People have been known to kill themselves without listening to such music.
What ACTUALLY made them commit suicide? There you go. I just don't understand why you're so upset about it.Then we cannot put this in the religion pigeon-hole. And if someone claimed Albert Einstein told them to kill someone, we couldn't put that in the modern science pigeon-hole. I don't think you have an accurate comparison. Most Americans don't learn as children that Albert Einstein is waiting to punish or reward them after death. If they did, we'd have a nation of super-bright physicists killing one another over the applicability or inapplicability of General and Special Relativity. In the name of the Einstein, the Oppenheimer, and the Harry S . . . .

At some point the discussion can examine not only the idea of a specific religious paradigm, but the idea of religions in general. I may be a Sisyphan Camusite, anarcho-pacifist, bleeding-heart, artist, and these things might support the platform by which I view and judge the world--my basis for thought and action--but none of it is empowered by a declaration of divine Truth. Is one's identity as a Christian or as a Democrat, as a Christian or an American, as a Muslim or a subject of Shah Reza Pahlavi . . . which identity will take precedent?For this we need to understand Religion, and human nature on a day to day basis, in accordance with the changing face of society. You'd be amazed at how many people claim such understanding; a topic like this gives them an opportunity to show it or go back to the library. You'll notice that nobody's laying large psychiatric articles into the topic yet; this isn't something that can be undertaken and judged lightly.This thread lumps the two together, which is IMHO, serioiusly inconsistent.It is if we let the "negative" people define the course of the debate. Otherwise, the appearance of inconsistency resolves itself to fluid union as one draws closer and closer to the underlying reality.I am not worried by bigots, if i was to be worried at all, it would be at the lack of understanding being banded about in general. We are,most probably, all bigoted, in some way. Something about questioning goes here. Are you sure about that, Jan?I believe, in a situation such as this, we should try and see the big-picture instead of defaulting to the lowest common denominator, fear.Before us is a chasm. We can call it "ignorance," except that really pisses some people off. And it's hard to call it "ignorance," when some of us know that the Abyss does indeed have a bottom, and are aware of some of the wonders hiding inside the murk. And yet there are those who look into the Abyss and are afraid. Certes, they will find the fruits of their daring should they leap into the Abyss with an eye toward discovery, but if they're truly unwilling to do that, we can either complain about their lack of resolve, or carve some comfortable steps to lead them partway into the darkness until they find that no, they're not blind when delving the mysteries of the deep.That is not what i'm saying. Don't give them the ammunition, think about what we say and how we put it across. To a certain degree yes. But to use the Palestinians as an example: if you don't give them ammunition, they'll still throw rocks.They may always be negative, but this kind of propoganda is not going to help them in becoming positive for the better. Have you ever had that kind of "too much to drink" that leaves your friends looking at you strangely the next day and you don't remember why?

Let them be negative. They'll either figure it out or they won't. If it's that important to us, we will continue to try to communicate across the gap.

Neither enlightenment nor the search for enlightenment are intended to be easy. If it was, humanity would have evolved past these issues ages ago.Then first be sure that what you are saying is valid, then if they are still negative, it would not be your doing.If you dislike the open question of the relationship between this specific, any religious, or any paradigm and the individual who believes in it, show us, please, how the issue is invalid.

I think what you're "questioning" is a valid consideration to an extent, but I see necessity where you apparently see extraneity. I see vital, integral connections to examine where you apparently see negativity and propaganda. I may be missing the degree of your disagreement, but to me the connection to religion is the very idea that the catalyst for the murders was allegedly a religious delusion. From there we can start extricating the idea of religion--clearly people are inclined against blaming religion. Even if we look to the part of the discussion that most people are looking at as a "pissing contest" by this point, I'm rather impressed by the implications for that portion of the discussion that our discussion raises.Mental health is not a religious issue.Are you sure about that? Consider:Religion is a code of living for humans according to time, place and circumstance. I won't quibble the definition; it works and I don't object. Some, however, would. But mental health within one's community is a religious issue where that community is defined in any way by religion. Family, a circle of friends ... a church congregation .... Especially Christiainity: Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25.34-ff, RSV)I just think mental health is definitely an issue for the religious to consider.Violence, under extreme circumstances is also taught, but as i said, religion is connected to time, place and circumstance.What can I tell you? If I pass a religious notion on to my child, but do it incompletely because "I don't have the time," or, "It's just not important enough," that's all of the religious idea that gets handed down, and with that incomplete guidance she may or may not continue along a religious path. Religions, even if we choose to not believe in them, constitute disciplines unto themselves. Part of the circumstance of the religion is the method of its transmission and growth. From there, all manner of problems can result in the execution.Are there people with mental health problems, who do not believe in God, and are not, nor have ver been religious?Imagine . . . .

After the trial is done the family and friends come together and say, "What happened?" They talk about the Devil, they talk about bad television, they talk about whatever. But it has nothing to do with religion, right? So they never look at how her faith constrained her more legitimate outlets for her feelings.

Think of the myth of America. What these United States of America are "supposed to be" has nothing to do with what's going on in the world today, but what America "is" has much to do with it. Regardless of what the Religion of America says on paper--"Liberty and Justice for All," "all men are created equal," &c.--we cannot hold those ideas responsible for an American soldier in Iraq punished for improperly handling Iraqi prisoners of war. But what he thinks America is may well have contributed to the acts.

• Religion/God
• Nation
• Ethnicity
• Politics
• Capitalism

Just a short list of things that can, when unleashed by a deviant and unstable conscience, can have wicked effects on others.

But as I read your Argument, ethnicity has nothing to do with the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Religion and God have nothing to do with militant extremism that abuses religious paradigms in order to con weak faith into compliance.

Why are there so few Democrats in militias in the US? Because Democrats allegedly (are supposed to, are purported to, something like that) believe in standards for judgment, choice, and action that lead to different ends.

And, of course, we shouldn't pause at any point to consider that American society, valuing so greatly the accumulation of wealth and possession, might have something to do with the fact that people are willing to steal extraneously. In fact, that we place value on something has nothing to do with why someone else might value it as well.

I hope these last few paragraphs read absurdly. They certainly look that way to me.
____________________

• The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

But as I read your Argument, ethnicity has nothing to do with the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Religion and God have nothing to do with militant extremism that abuses religious paradigms in order to con weak faith into compliance.
That is generally the whole crux of the argument. The West has been quick to point the finger at one's religion as being the cause of the 'militant extremism' that we now label as terrorism. We no longer judge the individual but the religion of the individual. We look at Bin Laden and see him as an Islamic terrorist, but we look at McVeigh for example and see him as a militant and a murderer, regardless of the fact that he was an extremist ultra right Christian who was against the Government. We do not label him as being a religious terrorist because we have become so used to seeing religious terrorist stemming from Islam. The media further pushes this point across with each headline. What results is a situation where both ends tackle the issue with the 'my god is better than your god' or 'my religion is better than your religion' arguments. The weak fall into the trap of not seeing the extremists for who they really are. Instead the weak see them as the embodiment of their religion or religious background. Look at DoctorNO's argument above that Islam has 100 terrorists for every million people as an example. If we look in the history of all religions, we would find actions that would amount to terrorism. But in reality they are merely individuals rebelling against society by becoming extremists and by becoming militants.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura12.gif[/img]

In the name of God.

Christianity: 1 (of 2 billion)

Islam: 4 (of 1.2 billion)

Who is sicker than who?

The pictures are for SHIA Muslims during their ASHORA celebration, this is NOT from Islam, show me where in the quran it tells to wound your kids ??

Plus, why you dont show the picture of the SHIA adults doing the same ?? you LIAR !!

http://www.ansar.org/images/ma3rad/pic5-1.jpg
SHIA ADULTS DOING THE SAME..

Another lie for doctorno was EXPOSED !! I love to expose those christian's LIARS. :cool:

From what I've lately, I suggest we all cut ourselves to statisfy our lust for blood.

Bin Laden is seen as an Islamic Terrorist, not because he is a muslim, but because he commited the crime to fullfill his Islamic duties. Bells, don't underestimate the problem. Although many muslims would not do such a thing, many also support Bin Laden. It only takes consent, or a blind eye, to produce a mass murderer. It is not enough for someone to just say they are not real muslims. It is necessary that the clerics teach that terrorism in all forms is evil.

I notice pretty much everyone labelling this woman as insane, mentally ill, or just plain deranged. I think it's only fair that we should look at the other possibility: Maybe god did tell her to do it.

Jenyar has tried to claim against such a thing, by using wrong text, as seen here:

Deuteronomy 18
Detestable Practices

9 When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

You will notice that Jenyar didn't highlight the entire section, leaving out the "in the fire" part, in an attempt to try and show that god wouldn't command such a thing. However, if you'd all care to open your bibles to Deut 21:18..

'If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is rebellious and stubborn. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.'

In the past, god has decreed that people should kill their sons. Further to that, he even demanded it from Abraham, (although that didn't reach its conclusion), and further to that he has stated how he will punish the children of a father who has sinned. Maybe the father is the guilty one, and god was reaping justice upon his sons for his sins. Seemingly, god will always meet out justice using humans to do the work. Deut is full of rules telling mankind to stone people to death - god apparently likes the use of stones when it comes to killing others.

By claiming the woman as insane, you remove the blame from your beloved invisible man, who in your own little minds would never ever command such a thing. By doing so you also state that the bible is merely full of schizo's. From, Moses to Jesus - all a bunch of mentally ill individuals... Unfortunately there were no shrinks around in those days to help them which, while tragic and upsetting, still leaves a question needing an answer: why do you bother believing a word of it?

C'mon, let's not close our eyes to what the bible says. It is literally packed to the brim with god slaughtering people, or commanding humans to slaughter people. Maybe this news report should be added to the bible, along with all the other modern day, religiously inclined killings. It can have it's own section: The ENT, (Even Newer Testament).

You know ... God told George W. Bush, Jr., to invade Iraq. I hadn't even thought of that in all this yet.

Ah yes, how many more will perish in the name of their gods?

I suppose that's why athiests don't kill many people, they only have themselves to blame. :D

But seriously, I would like to hear the perspective of (religious) mothers out there who may have to explain this incident to their children. What would you tell your kids if they asked you a similar question as Bells had asked her mother?

Would you continue to explain the incident based on what Laney said about hearing gods word?

Would you invoke the devil clause, in that it wasn't god who spoke to her but instead was the devil up to his old tricks?

How would you handle this one?

Bin Laden is seen as an Islamic Terrorist, not because he is a muslim, but because he commited the crime to fullfill his Islamic duties. Bells, don't underestimate the problem. Although many muslims would not do such a thing, many also support Bin Laden. It only takes consent, or a blind eye, to produce a mass murderer. It is not enough for someone to just say they are not real muslims. It is necessary that the clerics teach that terrorism in all forms is evil.
And the majority of the clerics do teach that okinrus. However the media is only interested in the few that do not, the few who have their own political agenda. Many support Bin Laden in his battle against the West and frankly in light of the actions in the last few years, one could understand why. However the majority do not agree with the way Bin Laden has fought this battle. They haven't consensted to his actions and nor have the majority turned a blind eye. Many Muslims perished on 9/11, a fact that the media in the West rarely touches on. More Muslims died in the Bali bombings than Westerners, another fact that the media in the West rarely touched on. Having visited Bali on many occasions since the bombings, I can assure you that the majority there found the bombings to be evil and it is they who claim that those who commit such acts aren't real Muslims. It is all the Muslims who've spoken out after 9/11 who state that real Muslims would not have done what Bin Laden has done. In short, I guess they support the reason behind the war against the West, but they do not support the manner in which it is fought.

It only takes consent, or a blind eye, to produce a mass murderer.
That could apply to us in the West as much as anyone. We in the West turned a blind eye when the massacre in Rwanda happened. We turned a blind eye when Saddam murdered the hundreds of thousands, we consented by supplying him with the means to commit these murders. We turned a blind eye when the West then invaded Iraq and we do the same each time we see a news report of the war, we turned a blind eye when this whole stupid war on terror started, knowing that thousands of innocents would lose their lives, we turn a blind eye each time a bomb goes off in Isreal and we consent to helping Isreal fight the terrorism which they themselves are guilty of, we turn a blind eye each time Isreal retaliates by bombing and shooting back, usually at rock throwing children. Being blind to mass murder is not just something that Muslims should be blamed for. We are as much to blame.

You know ... God told George W. Bush, Jr., to invade Iraq. I hadn't even thought of that in all this yet.
Heh yes, God told Bush Jr. to invade Iraq to rid it of WMD's. So seeing that no WMD's were found, and unless God lied, who exactly was Bush listening to?

Shia= not muslims For all the muslims who follow teachings of Quran.

Shia= muslims only for Chrisitan Extemists.

Go figure

tiassa,

Some points of this topic not related to the unspeakable phrase:The above is taken from what equals "page 1" on my browser--specifically, the topic post and first 19 responses. (Personal settings may vary.)

In fact, the told-you-so arguments don't seem at all apparent to me. Perhaps you could point them out?

That was more of a personal obsvation, although it is not said, it sums up the attitude of some posters.

You sure about that "questioning," Jan?You're putting the cart before the horse.

I have developed more understanding of your intention, which admittedly re-shaded my original opinion. So yes i'm sure, but am flexible, and as we dialougue more, my understanding becomes clearer. Its about getting to know someone.

• If you claimed that God revealed the winning numbers to you, yes.
• However, that doesn't mean that God actually revealed the numbers to you.

Then you would question me to see if there was a possibility that God could have given me the numbers, yes? And what if it was concluded that God didn't give me the numbers, wouldn't the emphasis be on my attitude? Would there be an ongoing debate as to how God is omnipotent and omniscient and if He wanted to give me the numbers, He could? I don't think so, and here's why; because God wouldn't be the issue. But here we see that God is the issue. He is what makes this case special. But why would God not be the issue in my scenario?

So ... we should never look at the underlying faith and the conflicts it presents within a given individual?

When looking for something, all angles must be covered. But to focus on faith above all other possibilities seems counter-productive. If i was a devoutly religious man, and my life was spent helping others, and i said the reason why i do this is because God tells me to. Do you think the atheists here would try their best to show me that it is not God that commands, but your own mind and self. And that we are responsible for our own actions? I strongly suspect that they would. Then why don't they do the same in this scenario? Do you get my drift?

Additionally ... someone chooses to invest a certain degree of faith in heavy metal or rap; it's a different situation from those that are taught to believe in God at the stake of punishment;

Then we must ask; what is religion?
In the Bhagavad Gita, God says when unrest reaches a certain point and creates imbalance, he appears on the earth to kill the demons and protect the righteous. So the only people who have anything to fear from God, are the demoniac, infidel or heathen. But why isn't this taught? Why is it acceptable to argue that God is an evil tyrant who kills whimsically, but that He created the universe in entirely unacceptable? If proof is required for one, shouldn't proof be required for the other.
If we are going to seriously discuss religion, then we have sharpen up and weed out these simplistic diversions. Religion is reality, as is art and science, the empty bag which was once filled with man's interpretation of religion must now give way to a new bag or institution, in which independant thought must be bound up even tighter than it was.

part of it indeed is how religion is passed from one generation to the next in this country.

Everything is passed on, religion is only a part. You're father may love music, as you were little you were probably exposed to his love of music, but it doesn't mean you love the music he loves, or that you even see or hear music the way he does. What it does mean though, is that music exists, it always will, and how you percieve music is neither right or wrong, but entirely unique to anyone or anything else. Exchange music with religion then you get an idea of where i'm coming from and the extent to which religion plays a role.
Of course the negative mind would argue that religion is man-made in a desparate attempt to downplay its importance and significance. Which is why their intention should be exposed.

….but it might profit us to pause every once in a while to examine the relationship between a religious paradigm and the believer,

The profit would be greater if we examined religion, for all we know the religious paradigm may have nothing to do with religion. An example; God’s advice to the common man is not to kill, but yet we kill, sometimes in the name of God.

especially after something like this happens, when religious faith and mental illness meet in such a spectacularly morbid result.

Religion is a guidline. If you have faith, then live your life in this way, do not ascociate with this or that, if you must do this, then do it this way, it will be benifical in the long-run. However, if you do this, then the natural result is this, this is the aspect of nature which is actually important to you….so on and so forth.
There is nothing about you must kill your children. In fact one of the quidelines of religion is not to kill.
So, the morbid result of which you speak, was caused not by religion, but by the woman’s mind. If a child molester becomes a teacher, chances are he will molest a child, if that same molester becomes a priest and is put in control of children, chances are he will molest a child.

I don't think you have an accurate comparison. Most Americans don't learn as children that Albert Einstein is waiting to punish or reward them after death.

Then would you say that the woman in questions actions are an American problem, as it may appear that they teach that kind of religion, based on your above answer?
Here you are just backing my point that religion should be understood for what it is and not what it appears to be.


If they did, we'd have a nation of super-bright physicists killing one another over the applicability or inapplicability of General and Special Relativity. In the name of the Einstein, the Oppenheimer, and the Harry S . . . .

Do religious people run round killing each other in America?

At some point the discussion can examine not only the idea of a specific religious paradigm, but the idea of religions in general.

These discussions will be useless until religion in itself is understood.

I may be a Sisyphan Camusite, anarcho-pacifist, bleeding-heart, artist, and these things might support the platform by which I view and judge the world--my basis for thought and action--but none of it is empowered by a declaration of divine Truth.

There must be some declaration of truth otherwise what would be the point of your platform. Man can’t live his life properly on thought alone, decisions have to be made.

Is one's identity as a Christian or as a Democrat, as a Christian or an American, as a Muslim or a subject of Shah Reza Pahlavi . . . which identity will take precedent?

That is a most peculiar question. You seem to imply that religion is something outside of the person.

It is if we let the "negative" people define the course of the debate. Otherwise, the appearance of inconsistency resolves itself to fluid union as one draws closer and closer to the underlying reality.

I disagree, I think you have played into their hands, probably in the hope of getting a broad-based discussion, thinking that if we all agree the discussion becomes boring.
That in itself though, is boring, because if the truth be told, negative people have nothing to offer other than to run a thread like this into the ground. There is evidence all over this forum to back that up. There must be space where religious people can themselves air their opinions about God and different religions, instead of chatting the same old bullshit with the negatives.


Something about questioning goes here. Are you sure about that, Jan?Before us is a chasm.

The use of the word “probably” should go some way to answering your question. But I am open to a discussion.

but to me the connection to religion is the very idea that the catalyst for the murders was allegedly a religious delusion.

So a man kills his wife and her lover because he couldn’t bear the though of her giving herself to another man. Do we call it “wife delusion,” or delusion? Is the wife responsible in some way for her death and that of her lover, or is the husband responsible. If the husband kills the lover but spares the wife, should the wife, if caught, be an accomplice to the murder. Would we be here discussing the horrors of “wife delusion” and how wifes are dangerous to society?

Are you sure about that? Consider:

Yes I am actually.
I will touch more on that later.

Some, however, would.

Which is the kind of thing we should be discussing.

But mental health within one's community is a religious issue where that community is defined in any way by religion.

Above the law of the community, family circle, or social circle, is the law of the land, the social construct in which all peoples must abide. If the law of the land is ruled by the tenants of religion, then the care of its citizens become their responsibility.


Family, a circle of friends ... a church congregation .... Especially Christiainity:

Your exert validates my point. There is a whole system of religion. There are still remnants of that society today, although it is fast decaying. It is the duty of the king to protect the citizens and make sure they are happy. Today we see monarchies acting merely as decoration and tokens and helping the tourist industry, they have been replaced by democracy and government.
Above the kings were the priests/sadhus/holy men, who instructed the king.

But it has nothing to do with religion, right? So they never look at how her faith constrained her more legitimate outlets for her feelings.

I’m not saying her case has nothing to do with religion, it may well have. My point is, her action has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with her mind. There is not one religious scripture, where this kind of action is spiritually legitimate. If it is perceived as legitimate but cannot be justified by religion, then we are simply wasting time.

If I say I have conducted some scientific experiment and found that there is life after death, would my method be scrutinized or would it be accepted without question?

Jan Ardena.

Laney was acquitted on all charges for reason of insanity.

The link, from CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/03/children.slain/)

Jan ... I'm aware of your post ... it's been a long day. I'll get to it as soon as I'm up to it.

In the meantime, a column from Jan Jarobe Russel (http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jrussell/stories/MYSA04.01H.russell0404.18509f69.html):These stories illustrate the fact that destructive religion is a trap. It can be as real as an abusive lover who first promises affection, acceptance and security, then beats you black and blue, apologizes, begs to be taken back and then smacks you around again. The only possible way to break such a cycle of destruction is to leave.

That's not to say that God or bad religion is to blame for the murder of these seven children and injury to an eighth. Mental illness can wrap itself around all sorts of things — drugs, alcohol, bad relationships. But it must be said that mental illness can also hide behind the mask of religion.

The pictures are for SHIA Muslims during their ASHORA celebration, this is NOT from Islam, show me where in the quran it tells to wound your kids ??

Speak for yourselves. So show me where in the bible it says to crush the heads of infants. Why dont you call your fellow muslims here liars as well? Eh, liar?


Plus, why you dont show the picture of the SHIA adults doing the same ?? you LIAR !!

Just didnt want to add anymore insult to injury. Ooh just look at that bloodbath. Bloody Islam tolerates this kind of barbarity.

ISLAM IS A LIE