View Full Version : Texas mother kills children for God


Tiassa
03-29-04, 06:13 PM
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

Xevious
03-29-04, 06:39 PM
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.

Greco
03-29-04, 06:41 PM
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.

Proud_Muslim
03-30-04, 01:50 AM
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.

crazymikey
03-30-04, 01:56 AM
Why am I not surprised, PM's enjoying this? Honestly, this forum, is not the intelligent community it professes to be.

Proud_Muslim
03-30-04, 02:21 AM
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:

crazymikey
03-30-04, 02:30 AM
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?

Vienna
03-30-04, 02:33 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 03:26 AM
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".

crazymikey
03-30-04, 03:38 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 03:41 AM
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?

Vienna
03-30-04, 03:51 AM
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!

Jenyar
03-30-04, 04:16 AM
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?

Tiassa
03-30-04, 04:28 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 04:52 AM
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.

Vienna
03-30-04, 05:10 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 05:38 AM
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.

Tiassa
03-30-04, 05:51 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 06:04 AM
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.

Bells
03-30-04, 06:36 AM
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.

Proud_Muslim
03-30-04, 06:47 AM
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.

Vienna
03-30-04, 07:13 AM
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.

Jenyar
03-30-04, 07:14 AM
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?

Jenyar
03-30-04, 07:32 AM
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?

Vienna
03-30-04, 11:12 AM
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

heart
03-30-04, 10:01 PM
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?

Tiassa
03-31-04, 12:41 AM
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.

Raithere
03-31-04, 01:21 AM
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

Jenyar
03-31-04, 02:22 AM
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.

Vienna
03-31-04, 03:02 AM
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

Jenyar
03-31-04, 04:03 AM
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.

Vienna
03-31-04, 06:25 PM
Sorry Jenyar - but its all a pile of crock

Medicine*Woman
03-31-04, 06:46 PM
[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!

Jenyar
04-01-04, 02:18 AM
Sorry Jenyar - but its all a pile of crock
How can I argue against such immutable logic.

one_raven
04-01-04, 02:35 AM
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?

one_raven
04-01-04, 03:12 AM
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?

Jenyar
04-01-04, 03:12 AM
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.

Jenyar
04-01-04, 03:24 AM
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.

Jan Ardena
04-01-04, 01:07 PM
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

Tiassa
04-01-04, 04:35 PM
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."

Jenyar
04-02-04, 05:18 AM
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.

Vienna
04-02-04, 05:31 AM
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?

Jan Ardena
04-02-04, 05:42 AM
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.

Tiassa
04-02-04, 05:55 AM
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))

stretched
04-02-04, 06:01 AM
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.

stretched
04-02-04, 06:08 AM
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.

Jenyar
04-02-04, 06:21 AM
"...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.

Jan Ardena
04-02-04, 09:25 AM
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.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 09:35 AM
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

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 09:46 AM
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

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 09:47 AM
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura1.jpg

In the name of God.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 09:48 AM
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Gallery/ashura11.jpg

In the name of God.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 09:49 AM
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?

Tiassa
04-02-04, 09:51 AM
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.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 10:11 AM
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

Jan Ardena
04-02-04, 10:21 AM
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.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 10:50 AM
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?

Tiassa
04-02-04, 10:52 AM
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.

Bells
04-02-04, 10:55 AM
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?

Medicine*Woman
04-02-04, 11:09 AM
[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.

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 11:20 AM
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

DoctorNO
04-02-04, 11:26 AM
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.

Jan Ardena
04-02-04, 12:25 PM
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.

Tiassa
04-02-04, 08:24 PM
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.

Bells
04-02-04, 08:32 PM
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.

Tiassa
04-02-04, 11:55 PM
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 Ardena
I 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

Bells
04-03-04, 12:47 AM
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.

Proud_Muslim
04-03-04, 01:09 AM
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:

okinrus
04-03-04, 02:42 AM
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.

SnakeLord
04-03-04, 06:30 AM
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).

Tiassa
04-03-04, 06:52 AM
You know ... God told George W. Bush, Jr., to invade Iraq. I hadn't even thought of that in all this yet.

(Q)
04-03-04, 08:51 AM
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?

Bells
04-03-04, 09:02 PM
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.

Bells
04-03-04, 09:05 PM
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?

567
04-03-04, 10:46 PM
Shia= not muslims For all the muslims who follow teachings of Quran.

Shia= muslims only for Chrisitan Extemists.

Go figure

Jan Ardena
04-04-04, 11:19 AM
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.

(Q)
04-04-04, 11:25 AM
Laney was acquitted on all charges for reason of insanity.

Tiassa
04-05-04, 04:23 AM
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.

DoctorNO
04-05-04, 07:50 AM
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

DoctorNO
04-05-04, 08:05 AM
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.

I only hate Islam. For it is a bloody religion that makes people...behave like proud muslim here. Full of hate for fellow humans.

And like I said before, I like you already. :)



And just to give you a tidbit of information, I'm not a Muslim.

Oooh. Good for you, girl. No wonder youre nice. No wonder youre easy to like. For your own good, stay away from Islam. :)



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.

The smiley of this thead speaks a thousand words. And I did read through the thread. They are making an issue of one insane account to generalize the whole. Why dont you criticize them for that too, eh? Be fair, my dear.



You get so riled up when someone points out to you that a God fearing Christian killed her children in the name of God.

Oh no I dont give a damn about that. Read what I said again above.



Would make her a terrorist if she were a Muslim and a murderer if she's a Christian.

Wrong. Her actions does not define "terrorism". So she wont be classified as such even if she was a muslim.



But then again, I also think that Christians who blow up abortion clinics or shoot abortion clinic staff members are also terrorists.

They were. Who said otherwise? :D



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.

Do you know the difference between

* atrocities in the name of God?

and

* atrocities in obedience to God?

Islam is more of the latter. That is why they are so criticized.



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.
I blame Islam for the actions of the widespread "few" who commits atrocities in accordance to the teachings in Islam.

Bells
04-05-04, 08:22 AM
I only hate Islam. For it is a bloody religion that makes people...behave like tiasa and proud muslim here. Full of hate for fellow humans.

Never have I seen such a contradictory statement. You make hateful statements about Islam and about people who are Muslim, and then you come out with this? Sigh... I'm not going to bother arguing about this with you as I don't need to make my ulcer get any worse.


Oooh. Good for you, girl. No wonder youre nice. No wonder youre easy to like. For your own good, stay away from Islam.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!


They are making an issue of one insane account to generalize the whole.
You are equally, if not even more guilty of this as anyone else here.


I blame Islam for the actions of the widespread "few" who commits atrocities in accordance to the teachings in Islam.
Ermmm ok... hmmm.. So you blame all other religions for any acts of terrorism committed by people who belong to these religions?

DoctorNO
04-05-04, 02:52 PM
Ermmm ok... hmmm.. So you blame all other religions for any acts of terrorism committed by people who belong to these religions?
Only if the atrocity was commanded by their religious doctrines. Remember it is one thing to kill/harm for God, it is another to kill/harm as commanded by your version of God. I am against the latter. Like in Islam where the quran commands the beating of suspectly disloyal wives, the maiming of thieves, the discrimination against women, the maltreatment of non-muslims, etc.


Never have I seen such a contradictory statement. You make hateful statements about Islam and about people who are Muslim, and then you come out with this? Sigh... I'm not going to bother arguing about this with you as I don't need to make my ulcer get any worse.

Islam is just an ideology. I only said & argued that it is a lie and a false religion.

I never said anything hateful about muslims. Perhaps you just misunderstood what y



You are equally, if not even more guilty of this as anyone else here.

Im sure you just misunderstood. My arguments use the following:

* Quran
* (false) Prophet Muhammed
* Islamic History
* Standard Muslim ethics, morality & traditions.

I do not name any person or group of people to ridicule the whole muslim people. Otherwise can you name just one incident wherein I used a couple of people to generalize the whole race?

Tiassa
04-05-04, 03:55 PM
I only hate Islam. For it is a bloody religion that makes people...behave like tiasa and proud muslim here. Full of hate for fellow humans.Support that assertion.

Now.

Tick, tick, tick ... I'm waiting.

Now, Dr. No.

What's that, petulant child? You can't support that assertion?

Perhaps you'd better learn to not be so irresponsible, Dr. No. If you're going to style yourself after a supervillain, you need to be smarter.

Now, go ask your mommy for a balut.

SnakeLord
04-05-04, 07:57 PM
There is not one religious scripture, where this kind of action is spiritually legitimate

Jan, I already pointed it out: Deut 21:18, where god openly tells people to stone their sons to death if they're rebellious. This woman cannot be blamed, and cannot be dismissed as mentally ill when technically she was listening to what god said.


Speak for yourselves. So show me where in the bible it says to crush the heads of infants.

In Deut 21:18 god tells people to stone their sons to death if they're rebellious.


Only if the atrocity was commanded by their religious doctrines. Remember it is one thing to kill/harm for God, it is another to kill/harm as commanded by your version of God. I am against the latter.

How can you be against the latter when your bible is full of it, when your version of god has commanded many such actions?


Like in Islam where the quran commands the beating of suspectly disloyal wives, the maiming of thieves, the discrimination against women, the maltreatment of non-muslims, etc

Like in the bible where god tells you to kill your wife if you find out she wasn't a virgin before you married her.. you mention the beating of a disloyal wife, when your version of god went one step further and said "stone them to death". Need i continue?

You see, you quite obviously have a serious problem with muslims, and that is your right - but it is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. You'll quickly defend your own version of filth while happily strolling through town square presenting other peoples.

Don't do it.

Vienna
04-05-04, 08:13 PM
In Deut 21:18 god tells people to stone their sons to death if they're rebellious.

Like in the bible where god tells you to kill your wife if you find out she wasn't a virgin before you married her.. you mention the beating of a disloyal wife, when your version of god went one step further and said "stone them to death".

The difference is that Christians don't follow the Bibles instruction on this, otherwise, we would be hearing of Christian stonings all over the place

Now there's a funny thing - you know there are muslim countries where stoning still exists.... WOW!

:rolleyes:



but it is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. You'll quickly defend your own version of filth while happily strolling through town square presenting other peoples.

We all hear of a certain SOMEONES filth everyday, filth on the News, filth in the Newspapers... Suicide bombs, terrorism, civil war............

No need to stroll through town square presenting anything - Islam is doing this all by itself.

Bells
04-06-04, 02:32 AM
The difference is that Christians don't follow the Bibles instruction on this, otherwise, we would be hearing of Christian stonings all over the place

Now there's a funny thing - you know there are muslim countries where stoning still exists.... WOW!

Ermmm ok... Have you even read through this thread? The whole argument of this thread is that this woman DID follow the bible's instruction and she DID follow the voice of her God in stoning her children. This woman did follow what was in the bible (Deuteronomy talks about stoning a child to death if he disobeys or talks back, and Exodus mentions killing a child who disobeys or is disrespectful of his or her parents), and if she had said so, then I doubt whether she would have been acquited. The best claim for insanity is to say that "God told me to do it".

So it's not just in Islamic countries where stoning still exists... "WOW"... :rolleyes: Hell, some Christian groups in the US are advocating the stoning of disobedient children:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9673.htm


Jeffrey Ziegler, President of the National Reform Association (NRA), a Pittsburgh, PA based Christian Reconstructionist organization, has announced plans to form a political action committee and public policy organization, officially entering Washington’s world of politics. The NRA hopes that through “Operation Potomac” it can begin lobbying, developing political campaigns, and grooming potential candidates to run at the federal level. The NRA and Christian Reconstructionism, however, already have close ties to Washington. NRA members have met with several Republicans in the House and Senate during three trips to Washington, DC made since July 2000. House Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) is reportedly helping NRA members organize a “biblical worldview” conference on Capital Hill next year, and President Bush may be considering J. Robert Brame III, board member of Reconstructionist group American Vision as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Brame has written that the “only sure guide is Divinely-inspired Biblical law superintended by the God Who watches over His Word.”

Christian Reconstructionist ideology is the most radical expression of the Religious Right. Believing that the Bible should be the basis of government, education, and law, Reconstructionists envision an extremist society in which public schools, most social service programs, and welfare would be obliterated. According to Reconstructionist belief, the Bible allows liberal application of the death penalty for crimes including homosexuality, abortion, adultery, child disobedience, and witchcraft. Acceptable forms of capital punishment supposedly outlined in the Bible include burning, stoning, and hanging. Slavery is also acceptable, according to Reconstructionists who claim that the Bible does not outlaw all of its methods.
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5870


Lordy, according to the above, the ultra right Christians want to make stoning, burning and hanging for homosexuality, abortion, adultery, child disobedience and LOL witchcraft law. With groups such as the above popping up, and the fact that right christian groups are becoming more powerful, one has to wonder. Yes Christianity is a loving and caring religion. We stone you... because we care... :rolleyes: Forget about sending the disobedient child to bed without dinner. Nooo, instead take them into the backyard for target practice.

Vienna
04-06-04, 05:19 AM
Ermmm ok... Have you even read through this thread? The whole argument of this thread is that this woman DID follow the bible's instruction and she DID follow the voice of her God in stoning her children. This woman did follow what was in the bible (Deuteronomy talks about stoning a child to death if he disobeys or talks back, and Exodus mentions killing a child who disobeys or is disrespectful of his or her parents), and if she had said so, then I doubt whether she would have been acquited. The best claim for insanity is to say that "God told me to do it".

So it's not just in Islamic countries where stoning still exists... "WOW"... :rolleyes: Hell, some Christian groups in the US are advocating the stoning of disobedient children:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9673.htm



Lordy, according to the above, the ultra right Christians want to make stoning, burning and hanging for homosexuality, abortion, adultery, child disobedience and LOL witchcraft law. With groups such as the above popping up, and the fact that right christian groups are becoming more powerful, one has to wonder. Yes Christianity is a loving and caring religion. We stone you... because we care... :rolleyes: Forget about sending the disobedient child to bed without dinner. Nooo, instead take them into the backyard for target practice.

Your imaginary allah didn't bless you with common sense did it?

I have only two words to say

SHARIA LAW.

Even you can work this out.......LOL!

Bells
04-06-04, 07:13 AM
Vienna my lil strudel :D

What? You're denying that any law coming from the bible in the strictest sense wouldn't have stoning, burning and hanging as well? At least Sharia Law doesn't advocate the stoning of children for misbehaving. But those who wish to enact a Christian State based on the teachings of the bible... well lets just say that any kid who is naughty should only do so while wearing padded clothing and a helmet.

In regards to children:

Exodus 21:15 and 17 both say that if a child hits or curses his father or mother, he is to be killed. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires stoning to death any child who is stubborn or rebellious. And I know that there's a proverb somewhere, but I can't exactly remember where, and it states that children who are foolish should be beaten with a rod. Charming isn't it? But then of course they say that the New Testatment should be listened to. Well, not really that much better.... 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death... hmmm..

And if you're married and not a virgin... well.. that's a punishment and yes, it's death by stoning as well under Christianity. Deuteronomy 22:13 through to 21. And don't dare think that women will keep their rights under a Christian based government. They won't even be allowed to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14 something or other.. cant remember at the moment). Yes, Christianity is sooo much better than Islam. We should encourage all right wing Christians who believe in the law of the bible to come forth and prosper... rule the land. Please Vienna, don't blame Sharia Law when the right wing Christian laws are just as bad if not worse in many cases. Next time you go to vote for the ultra right wing christian based party, just keep that in mind.

Vienna
04-06-04, 08:40 AM
Vienna my lil strudel :D

What? You're denying that any law coming from the bible in the strictest sense wouldn't have stoning, burning and hanging as well? At least Sharia Law doesn't advocate the stoning of children for misbehaving. But those who wish to enact a Christian State based on the teachings of the bible... well lets just say that any kid who is naughty should only do so while wearing padded clothing and a helmet.

In regards to children:

Exodus 21:15 and 17 both say that if a child hits or curses his father or mother, he is to be killed. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires stoning to death any child who is stubborn or rebellious. And I know that there's a proverb somewhere, but I can't exactly remember where, and it states that children who are foolish should be beaten with a rod. Charming isn't it? But then of course they say that the New Testatment should be listened to. Well, not really that much better.... 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death... hmmm..

And if you're married and not a virgin... well.. that's a punishment and yes, it's death by stoning as well under Christianity. Deuteronomy 22:13 through to 21. And don't dare think that women will keep their rights under a Christian based government. They won't even be allowed to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14 something or other.. cant remember at the moment). Yes, Christianity is sooo much better than Islam. We should encourage all right wing Christians who believe in the law of the bible to come forth and prosper... rule the land. Please Vienna, don't blame Sharia Law when the right wing Christian laws are just as bad if not worse in many cases. Next time you go to vote for the ultra right wing christian based party, just keep that in mind.

Weak argument Bells!

Civilised Western law is based on the Ten Commandments.

It does not promote stoning or amputation of any kind - unlike the savage Sharia law which exists today in muslim countries.

Flores
04-06-04, 09:25 AM
YOU CAN NOT FOOL THE MIND

Christianity tends to fool the minds for some time, but after a while, the mind is too insulted and will retaliate againest the abuse.


Jan, I already pointed it out: Deut 21:18, where god openly tells people to stone their sons to death if they're rebellious. This woman cannot be blamed, and cannot be dismissed as mentally ill when technically she was listening to what god said.



You are absolutely correct SnakeLord. If you read the bible every day and cramp your mind with information that is not remotely related to your life, then you have actively involved your brain in dualism and burdened it with contradictions. You can expect the mind to separate at one point and inact the biblical delusions in real life to work out some of these contradictions.

The poor lady suffered a phsycosis. Her bible reading has induced herself into a schizophrania.

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 09:27 AM
Support that assertion.

Now.

Tick, tick, tick ... I'm waiting.

Now, Dr. No.

What's that, petulant child? You can't support that assertion?

Perhaps you'd better learn to not be so irresponsible, Dr. No. If you're going to style yourself after a supervillain, you need to be smarter.

Now, go ask your mommy for a balut.

Im sorry I was mistaken. You did nothing wrong here but associating a smiley to the title of the thread. I already edited my post and removed your name.

I think im going to eat balut for a while. ;)

Flores
04-06-04, 09:31 AM
Weak argument Bells!

Civilised Western law is based on the Ten Commandments. .


Excuse me, but the ten commandments are jewish and they were founded in the east and not west. A sample of Moses laws from the bible
John 8: 1-11 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?"


It does not promote stoning or amputation of any kind - unlike the savage Sharia law which exists today in muslim countries.

You are dilusional. Stoning as a punichment for sexual misconduct was first introduced by the bible. Read my dear and educate yourself.
http://www.free-minds.org/bible.htm

You are such a joke.

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 09:36 AM
Jan, I already pointed it out: Deut 21:18, where god openly tells people to stone their sons to death if they're rebellious. This woman cannot be blamed, and cannot be dismissed as mentally ill when technically she was listening to what god said.



Vienna my lil strudel :D

What? You're denying that any law coming from the bible in the strictest sense wouldn't have stoning, burning and hanging as well? At least Sharia Law doesn't advocate the stoning of children for misbehaving. But those who wish to enact a Christian State based on the teachings of the bible... well lets just say that any kid who is naughty should only do so while wearing padded clothing and a helmet.

In regards to children:

Exodus 21:15 and 17 both say that if a child hits or curses his father or mother, he is to be killed. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 requires stoning to death any child who is stubborn or rebellious. And I know that there's a proverb somewhere, but I can't exactly remember where, and it states that children who are foolish should be beaten with a rod. Charming isn't it?

My friends, my friends. You forgot the most essential requirement in text interpretation, its called CONTEXT.

Deutoronomy

21:18
"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him.
21:19
In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town.
21:20
They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.'
21:21
Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.

You see there are procedures before a stoning and it is the people who must do the stoning, not the parents. The insane mother did not do any of those. What she did was plain old MURDER.

Got it? :D

Bells
04-06-04, 09:45 AM
My friends, my friends. You forgot the most essential requirement in text interpretation, its called CONTEXT.

Deutoronomy

21:18
"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him.
21:19
In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town.
21:20
They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.'
21:21
Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.

You see there are procedures before a stoning and it is the people who must do the stoning, not the parents. The insane mother did not do any of those. What she did was plain old MURDER.

Got it?
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

NO... context? Tell me in what context it would be acceptable to stone one's child? And you left out the 'gluttony' in 21:20. So if kiddy likes to go for a second helping... mum and dad go out into the yard looking for rocks for the townsfolk to throw? Please! While yes the the mother in this case is a murderer, however she's not insane. I can't believe you actually said what you said above. However, I shouldn't be suprised :(. Context my foot!! :mad:

And you bitch about Sharia Law? Pfft.. :rolleyes:

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 09:46 AM
And if you're married and not a virgin... well.. that's a punishment and yes, it's death by stoning as well under Christianity.

You must be joking. Could you even name one instance in the whole 2000 year history of Christianity wherein a woman was stoned to death FOR ANY REASON?

You see Christianity is mostly all about the New Testament. The Old Testament mostly only serve as historical backdrop for them. And a guide to interpreting the New Testement. They don’t follow any of those old laws GIVEN TO THE JEWS.




And don't dare think that women will keep their rights under a Christian based government. They won't even be allowed to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14 something or other.. cant remember at the moment).

You must have misinterpreted that. For everyone could see that female Christian Catholics, Protestants or whatever do speak in their churches.



Yes, Christianity is sooo much better than Islam.

Yes, I think so too. You can recognize a tree by its fruit. And Christians are generally peaceful all around the globe, from Japan to Puerto Rico. I think their religion plays an important part for their peacefulness & moral values. Eh?

But no thanks, I wont become a Christian. Im happy without any religion. :D



when the right wing Christian laws are just as bad if not worse in many cases

Right wing Christian laws? Like what? Please give an example that right wing Christians are actually using in real life.

Flores
04-06-04, 09:48 AM
Deutoronomy

21:18
"Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him.
21:19
In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town.
21:20
They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.'
21:21
Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.
[/list]
You see there are procedures before a stoning and it is the people who must do the stoning, not the parents. The insane mother did not do any of those. What she did was plain old MURDER.

Got it? :D

Nice, so you are saying that the State should have power to stone a 15 month old child because he rebelled and cried too much. Very nice Bible Shariah indeed....Applauds to you.


PS. Shariah means "way of life".

Bells
04-06-04, 09:52 AM
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :mad:

Did you read the links to the articles I posted? The NRA in the US wish to implement the laws of the old testament... including the stonings, burnings and hangings.. just like it says in the bible.

Oh my god I can actually feel my ulcer flaring in my stomach :(..


Im happy without any religion
That is just about the only thing you've said that I agree with.

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 09:56 AM
NO... context? Tell me in what context it would be acceptable to stone one's child?

So if kiddy likes to go for a second helping... mum and dad go out into the yard looking for rocks for the townsfolk to throw? Please! While yes the the mother in this case is a murderer, however she's not insane. I can't believe you actually said what you said above. However, I shouldn't be suprised

Oh bells Deuteronomy said “Son”, not “child”, not “kiddie”. And it gave a DRANKURD SON as an example, not an innocent toddler, not self-helping kiddie.

One’s child? Didn’t you read that Deuteronomy said the towns men should be the one doing the stoning after being judged by the Elder of the Town’s Gate? Well thats their law in the past, even though its quite draconian.

Such was the context, eh? Surprised? :)



And you left out the 'gluttony' in 21:20.

Aw c’mon bells we were only discussing the stoning issue. If you wanna discuss the whole old testament then create an appropriate thread for it and list down all the issues you want to discuss. :)

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 09:58 AM
Nice, so you are saying that the State should have power to stone a 15 month old child because he rebelled and cried too much. Very nice Bible Shariah indeed....Applauds to you.

Nope. I was just correcting you guys for your false interpretation of that passage. Let the past be past. Im quite happy the way things are in our non-muslim world. :)

Bells
04-06-04, 10:00 AM
Aw c’mon bells we were only discussing the stoning issue. If you wanna discuss the whole old testament then create an appropriate thread for it and list down all the issues you want to discuss. :)
Grits teeth... Gluttony is a crime with a punishment of stoning:

Deuteronomy 21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

It is a stoning issue.

Flores
04-06-04, 10:01 AM
Nope. I was just correcting you guys for your false interpretation of that passage. Let the past be past. Im quite happy the way things are in our non-muslim world. :)

Don't be too happy, the past is known to repeat itself.

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 10:03 AM
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! :mad:

Did you read the links to the articles I posted? The NRA in the US wish to implement the laws of the old testament... including the stonings, burnings and hangings.. just like it says in the bible.

Oh my god I can actually feel my ulcer flaring in my stomach :(..


Ooooh that one! Ok thanks. Thats the first christian organization ive seen who wanted to rival islamic fundamentalism. :D

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 10:06 AM
Grits teeth... Gluttony is a crime with a punishment of stoning:

Deuteronomy 21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

It is a stoning issue.

Ow now I see what you mean. Its not my fault. Thats what it really said on the translation I used, the New Living Translation.

Here check it out yourself...

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=deut+21%3A18-21&section=0&version=nlt&new=1&oq=&NavBook=mr&NavGo=7&NavCurrentChapter=7

Bells
04-06-04, 10:11 AM
LOL I just did a search on Deuteronomy 21:20 and it came up the same as what I'd posted above. :p

And no probs :)

Vienna
04-06-04, 11:51 AM
You worry me Bells.

Western civilisation deems stoning ( to the like of your examples) as illegal, and any such act will reult in imprisonment.

IT IS AGAINST WESTERN CIVILISED LAW - ok!!!

IN SHARIA LAW STONING IS A METHOD OF PUNISHMENT IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES - TODAY IN THE YEAR 2004

BELLS.....DO YOU UNDERSTAND!!!!

HAS IT SUNK IN YET!

Bells
04-06-04, 11:59 AM
Vienna, thank you my lil old mouldy strudel you!

Yes I am well aware of the laws, be they Sharia and the so called secular laws of the West, etc. However I was merely pointing out that there are organisations out there who want (with all their black little hearts) to bring implement the biblical laws and some of these organisations are strong enough to be an influence on the current policy. It's entirely possible if a right wing Christian government is elected. It is not something that one should take lightly. Do you get it now?

Vienna
04-06-04, 12:02 PM
Vienna, thank you my lil old mouldy strudel you!

Yes I am well aware of the laws, be they Sharia and the so called secular laws of the West, etc. However I was merely pointing out that there are organisations out there who want (with all their black little hearts) to bring implement the biblical laws and some of these organisations are strong enough to be an influence on the current policy. It's entirely possible if a right wing Christian government is elected. It is not something that one should take lightly. Do you get it now?

Go ahead then lovey

Name a right wing Christian government who wants (with all their black little hearts) to implement the biblical laws.

Name ONE.... :D :D


I will make it easier for you - name ANY western government who want(with all their black little hearts) to implement the biblical laws.

Bells
04-06-04, 12:10 PM
The NRA Vienna. Sheesh did you NOT read the articles I posted on the previous page? And the NRA are the National Reform Association in the US, who wish to implement reforms in the law, they are in effect Christian Reconstructionists.


Christian Reconstructionist ideology is the most radical expression of the Religious Right. Believing that the Bible should be the basis of government, education, and law, Reconstructionists envision an extremist society in which public schools, most social service programs, and welfare would be obliterated. According to Reconstructionist belief, the Bible allows liberal application of the death penalty for crimes including homosexuality, abortion, adultery, child disobedience, and witchcraft. Acceptable forms of capital punishment supposedly outlined in the Bible include burning, stoning, and hanging. Slavery is also acceptable, according to Reconstructionists who claim that the Bible does not outlaw all of its methods.
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsby...ory.asp?id=5870


If you don't believe me, do a quick search on them and see for yourself.

Now my lil strudel, do you see what I meant? This Christian organisation believes in the strict teachings of the bible. They appear to have close links to the conservative government in the US, although it seems that of late the members of the Bush camp have started running in the opposite direction when they heard of the stoning of children and such. It's nasty, like most right wing organisations can be nasty.

Vienna
04-06-04, 12:17 PM
The NRA Vienna. Sheesh did you NOT read the articles I posted on the previous page? And the NRA are the National Reform Association in the US, who wish to implement reforms in the law, they are in effect Christian Reconstructionists.



If you don't believe me, do a quick search on them and see for yourself.

Now my lil strudel, do you see what I meant? This Christian organisation believes in the strict teachings of the bible. They appear to have close links to the conservative government in the US, although it seems that of late the members of the Bush camp have started running in the opposite direction when they heard of the stoning of children and such. It's nasty, like most right wing organisations can be nasty.

Never heard of them, what close links, sounds like some goofy set up - but I will do a search.

While I do that search, tell me - have we got any organisation like that in the UK or Europe? Australia? Canada? :)

SnakeLord
04-06-04, 12:20 PM
The difference is that Christians don't follow the Bibles instruction on this, otherwise, we would be hearing of Christian stonings all over the place

But of course not - to the modern day religions, god has become nothing more than a giant pick and mix. They choose what parts they want to listen to and what parts they want to ignore. They form various off-shoots of the same religion because to them sentence A isn't worth the time, whereas sentence B is the important one.

A large benefit they have is the unrelenting mass of contradiction that will work to their favour. You'll see one christian say nobody should drink alcohol because passage A says not to, but then you'll see another christian saying it's fine because passage B says you can.

Using one sentence from the bible, people can justify pretty much anything they want - from paedophile and homosexual priests to stoning your children to death.

However, to remain fully on topic - this woman is fully justified in her actions because god said it, none of you can state god didn't personally tell her to, none of you can deny that the very same one and only god has instructed people to do it in the past - and being the one and only glorious god, he has no reason to care for earthly laws or whether this woman will spend her lifetime in a prison cell - because it's only the afterlife *tm* and his personal satisfaction that have any meaning. While you guys will label her off as a fruitcake and feel sorry for the young children lying with their heads caved in - she will eventually go and join her wonderful god in heaven for her wonderful actions and showing she has true faith, (just like Abraham), for being willing to slaughter her children when god demands it.


Now there's a funny thing - you know there are muslim countries where stoning still exists.... WOW!

Sure, but in many respects the religion is the country. Over here, christians have very little say in the grand scheme of things - but - if this country was "ruled" by the religion, stoning would be a daily occurence. Think back a while to when religion was the 'power' - they went round burning/drowning anyone they wanted - from them being witches, to heresay, etc.

You see nowadays, christianity, like any religion here- has become a closet religion. It doesn't go out in public - it stays at home where it belongs, or in a church on a sunday morning where the little congregation of similar thinking people can get together and pray to space daddy.


You see there are procedures before a stoning and it is the people who must do the stoning, not the parents. The insane mother did not do any of those. What she did was plain old MURDER

Who are you to argue with the orders of god? I'm sure he's aware that the town elders would no longer agree to stone anyones child to death, and obviously had no problem in telling this woman to do it personally. That's the benefit of being god - he doesn't need to read the procedures in his own book.

However, your sentence comes off as a bit bizarre.. you claim it's "plain old murder" because she did it herself. Are you saying it wouldn't be "plain old murder" if everyone from the town helped?

Bells
04-06-04, 12:23 PM
While I do that search, tell me - have we got any organisation like that in the UK or Europe? Australia? Canada? :)
Who knows really. I rather hope that we don't but who really knows. I just prefer to not think about it actually. The thought that my neighbour could be a person who believes in stoning naughty children makes me very uncomfortable in truth. I don't think he'd appreciate my looking at him with squinty eyed distrust. He's a real right winger. But there are many people within the Christian community who believe that the only way to bring society back to its proper and rightful place is to implement such laws. I find the whole thing scary.

As for the close ties thing, here is the first part of the article quoted to you above from page 5 of this thread:


Jeffrey Ziegler, President of the National Reform Association (NRA), a Pittsburgh, PA based Christian Reconstructionist organization, has announced plans to form a political action committee and public policy organization, officially entering Washington’s world of politics. The NRA hopes that through “Operation Potomac” it can begin lobbying, developing political campaigns, and grooming potential candidates to run at the federal level. The NRA and Christian Reconstructionism, however, already have close ties to Washington. NRA members have met with several Republicans in the House and Senate during three trips to Washington, DC made since July 2000. House Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) is reportedly helping NRA members organize a “biblical worldview” conference on Capital Hill next year, and President Bush may be considering J. Robert Brame III, board member of Reconstructionist group American Vision as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Brame has written that the “only sure guide is Divinely-inspired Biblical law superintended by the God Who watches over His Word.”
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsby...ory.asp?id=5870

Vienna
04-06-04, 12:38 PM
Who knows really. I rather hope that we don't but who really knows. I just prefer to not think about it actually. The thought that my neighbour could be a person who believes in stoning naughty children makes me very uncomfortable in truth. I don't think he'd appreciate my looking at him with squinty eyed distrust. He's a real right winger. But there are many people within the Christian community who believe that the only way to bring society back to its proper and rightful place is to implement such laws. I find the whole thing scary.

LOL..... I wouldn't worry a neighbour stoning their children through teachings from the Bible.

As for the site of the National Reform Association, here is their definition of stoning children.

Taken from their site - quote:

""The Real Meaning

Therefore, the law of Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is not about stoning disobedient children. The Bible does not instruct parents to use stoning in dealing with the rebellious nature and disobedience of their children, but to use the rod and reproof (Prov. 29:15). Children are to be trained from a young age by consistent and loving discipline so that the foolishness that is bound up in them can be driven out (Prov. 22:15), and that they will learn to honor and obey their parents and all those whom God has placed in authority over them.""

Work it out Bells

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 01:01 PM
Dear SnakeLord,

Christianity had been civilized for hundreds of years now. Even with the thousands of sects under its belt. My friends let this be an example of how a violent religion could be tamed with enough criticisms. So continue attacking the ideologies & practices of Islam and hope that one day our muslim brothers would wake up and learn to recognize & deal with their own demons.

Flores
04-06-04, 02:19 PM
Dear SnakeLord,

Christianity had been civilized for hundreds of years now.

Don't run your mouth with things that you don't understand. Civil means national, universal, organized, communal, trained, general, municipal. How exactly is christianity civil, while it doesn't even apply nor can be implemented to a soceity. Christianity is secular, meaning, secret, divided, left, sectioned, put down, untrained, irrelevant, unapplicable.

If anything, capitalism and democracy is civil, but as far as christianity, it's the same old OT and corrupted paulianity NT.


Even with the thousands of sects under its belt. My friends let this be an example of how a violent religion could be tamed with enough criticisms.

It was tamed alright, and the way to tame it was to ignore it completely and make it irrelevant to our daily life.

DoctorNO
04-06-04, 02:37 PM
Don't run your mouth with things that you don't understand. Civil means national, universal, organized, communal, trained, general, municipal. How exactly is christianity civil, while it doesn't even apply nor can be implemented to a soceity. Christianity is secular, meaning, secret, divided, left, sectioned, put down, untrained, irrelevant, unapplicable.

Lets see…

www.webster.com

Main Entry: civ•il

1 a : of or relating to citizens b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry
2 a : CIVILIZED <civil society> b : adequate in courtesy and politeness : MANNERLY

synonyms CIVIL, POLITE, COURTEOUS, GALLANT, CHIVALROUS mean observant of the forms required by good breeding. CIVIL often suggests little more than the avoidance of overt rudeness <owed the questioner a civil reply>. POLITE commonly implies polish of speech and manners and sometimes suggests an absence of cordiality <if you can't be pleasant, at least be polite>. COURTEOUS implies more actively considerate or dignified politeness <clerks who were unfailingly courteous to customers>. GALLANT and CHIVALROUS imply courteous attentiveness especially to women. GALLANT suggests spirited and dashing behavior and ornate expressions of courtesy <a gallant suitor of the old school>. CHIVALROUS suggests high-minded and self-sacrificing behavior <a chivalrous display of duty>.

So doesn’t those things characterize the behavior of Christians in general for the last hundred years or so? And don’t try to limit Christians to Caucasians. Asians, Africans & Latinos had been Christians for hundreds of years too.



If anything, capitalism and democracy is civil, but as far as christianity, it's the same old OT and corrupted paulianity NT.

My friend it was the Christians who invented capitalism & democracy. Historians even attribute capitalism to the Protestant Work Ethics. Right?



It was tamed alright, and the way to tame it was to ignore it completely and make it irrelevant to our daily life.

People must learn to do the same with Islam, eh? Make it irrelevant. Stop believing that it is inerrant. Stop closing your minds and not seeing the abundant contradictions in the quran. Said so by the muslim Irshad Manji. :D

SnakeLord
04-06-04, 06:04 PM
Dear SnakeLord,

Christianity had been civilized for hundreds of years now. Even with the thousands of sects under its belt. My friends let this be an example of how a violent religion could be tamed with enough criticisms. So continue attacking the ideologies & practices of Islam and hope that one day our muslim brothers would wake up and learn to recognize & deal with their own demons.

While it might not be to your liking, I disagree. Civility stretches beyond murder or stoning people. I am reminded briefly of those idiots knocking on my door, slamming their books into my face saying "repent or thou shalt burn". That is not civility. I am reminded of the protests I attended to try and stop "god loving" christians from slaughtering animals because they view them as below humans. That is not civility. I am also reminded of the self-righteous nature of the religious mind - how they will doom everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with them 100%, while claiming love for mankind. You can see it in your own sentences - with your most blatant hatred for people from a different culture.

Sure they have problems - but trying to ignore the problems at home while too eager to point out problems further afield is naive, dangerous and rude.

It's like many people I know, or meet who have a genetic instinct to point out flaws within others. For instance: "look at the size of that guys nose", or "wow that guy's a fat ass", without realising they are actually no better off. However, these types of people need to feel better within themselves by pointing out other peoples "let downs". I can quite clearly see you are one of these people. The funny thing with it is that it's all about personal doubt and insecurity. You dont really mean to attack anyone else, you're just trying to feel less personal pain. I sincerely hope you conquer the skeletons in your closet.

Anyway, if for a moment we can stick to the topic: Nobody can label this woman as insane. For all anybody has the right to state, god did tell her to stone her sons. In the same kind of way that we could say god caused the bubonic plague. Now, science would tell you it was through rats, (or germs on rats), but the only thing separating that and the 10 plagues is that someone didn't write down that it was an invisible guy in the sky.

You see, these guys thousands of years ago just didn't know anything about the world and how it works- they have a valid excuse. But as man progresses, and becomes more understanding of things - god becomes less and less of importance. No longer do we "blame" god for plagues, earthquakes, or mass murderers. Finally, and about time we point the blame where it is supposed to be pointed. What I find obscene personally, is how some modern day people cling to the "god excuse" so dearly with barbaric and ancient style ignorance because they see everything they have in this life as completely worthless and meaningless, and cannot comprehend that the desires and daydreaming of ancient men doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. This woman is doing just that - making excuses. Not so much to the law, but to herself. She was told to do it, and did it like an obedient little puppy- all the while having the most convenient of excuses to cling to.

In short: You're all as bad as each other. It's about time you all woke the fuck up.

spidergoat
04-06-04, 06:22 PM
Well said SnakeLord. They all talk about God, but if someone actually believes it and acts out what the bible says, look out, they are insane. What do they want from people? Maybe those children died for our sins. Maybe they will rise up on the third day, and sprout little wings!

Tiassa
04-07-04, 03:54 AM
"The Real Meaning of Deut. 21.18-21"

The link for the article from which Vienna drew his excerpt is here (http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/03/stndisob.html). Give it a read. It's morbidly humorous.
Those who consider death as a horrible punishment here must realize that in such a case as described in Deut. 21:18-21 death is inescapable. Contempt of parental authority, if left unchecked, is the death of the family, law, and order. The question then is: Who or what should die? The rebel, or family and society?

Furthermore, the life of a rebel inevitably leads to the grave (sheol; cf. Prov. 30:17); he will die an early death, and probably take others with him.

Finally, God Himself declares that even if such a rebel against parental authority escapes the judgment of man, His curse is upon that man and he shall be cut off (Deut. 27:16; Prov. 30:17). Therefore, the execution of the rebel in view is just, merciful, and preventive. Just, in that the transgressor deserves to die; merciful, in that his quick death prevents the destruction of the family, society, and others; preventive, in that it strikes fear in the heart of other would be rebels and restrains them from taking a similar ruinous course. Jesu Mofo Cristo! I just don't think Einwechter helped his cause here at all.

Really ... I hope this man doesn't speak on behalf of all Christians.
____________________

• Einwechter, William. "Stoning Disobedient Children?" Chalcedon Report, January, 1999. See http://www.nationalreform.org/statesman/03/stndisob.html

Jenyar
04-07-04, 04:33 AM
I think his explanation is justified in an ANE context. It's certainly not Christian in a modern sense (as some here want to believe so badly). The compunctions we have about such laws today are Christian in origin - or at least because of the Christian worldview. Offenses that were then punishable by death are still punishable by death - but where hell (the grave) was a very real and immediate place to the Hebrews, it's now a world one removed - completely subjected Christ, to the point that if you don't believe in Christ you're already considered "dead". Otherwise it's believed to exist only as death, a more politically acceptable alternative because it's more "natural" and undeniable.

Where people were dependent on an unmerciful "dead" set of laws then, they are now dependent on a merciful, living God, who has placed the whole world under probabation; "let the one who is innocent cast the first stone".

What Einwecher conveyed is the OT equivalent of "nobody who compromises the sovereignity, mercy and holiness of God will be tolerated in His kingdom".

okinrus
04-07-04, 04:39 AM
Anyway, if for a moment we can stick to the topic: Nobody can label this woman as insane. For all anybody has the right to state, god did tell her to stone her sons. In the same kind of way that we could say god caused the bubonic plague. Now, science would tell you it was through rats, (or germs on rats), but the only thing separating that and the 10 plagues is that someone didn't write down that it was an invisible guy in the sky.

Of course we can...just as much as you have a right to call me insane. The key factor of whether she is insane or not is whether the voices in her head are real or not. Hence even if she was hearing the voice of someone you think is existing such as GW bush, she would be no less insane.

The only claim you make that is valid is how believers know whether it is God speaking to them, Satan, or their own insanity. I don't think this is any more difficult than knowing if you're mother was speaking to you. Visionaries such as Padre Pio, who have many visions both from God and demonic, tell the difference by listening to their soul and the effect the vision. The character of the voice, whether it's breathed through your entire being, is also a good indicating factor.

Tiassa
04-07-04, 05:34 AM
I just want to point something out for the sake of the discussion; I've mentioned Isaac; Jenyar's discussed Abraham with Vienna. The thing is that if we examine Genesis 22.1-18, we see a precedent for killing one's children.

Now ... I am familiar with the theological argument otherwise. That's all well and fine.

But this woman's crazy.
When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. Then Abraham put forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven, and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." He said, "Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22.9-12, RSV°)We cannot say that Abraham "fooled" God, pulled the wool over His almighty three eyes.°

Rather, God knew that if He did not intervene, Abraham would indeed slay Isaac on His say-so.

I'm most familiar with a parallel drawn between this story and the "sacrifice" of God's Only Begotten Son. But if this doesn't click, due to mental illness? If a person--in this case, a mother--feels unredeemable by the standard processes?

I just feel we need to have this one on the table in crystal-clear terms: Without God's intervention, Abraham would have slain his own Son.

Digression:

• For a most interesting perspective on this story, and to see what children are taught, I ran across a PDF download of a Bible study guide: http://www.calvarychapel.com/children/site/pdf/Old/Curr020.pdf
Fill in the blank (p. 5)

... 8. "But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for I know that you __________ __________, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Genesis 22.11-12)

Crossword (p. 7)

... 6 Down. "But the Angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for I know that you __________ God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Genesis 22.11-12)Something about fear goes here. Something about fearing God so greatly that you would kill your own child.

I've heard the classic commentaries, and they don't suffice. What else can our Sciforums Christians tell us about this story that would enlighten the skeptical, and even accusing perspective?
____________________

Notes:

° The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version - See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html
° His almighty three eyes - See The Simpsons, #DABF08 (http://www.lardlad.com/assets/quotes/season13/public.shtml).

Jenyar
04-07-04, 06:01 AM
I'm most familiar with a parallel drawn between this story and the "sacrifice" of God's Only Begotten Son. But if this doesn't click, due to mental illness? If a person--in this case, a mother--feels unredeemable by the standard processes?
Then she shouldn't be doing anything that supposedly comes from God, because the moral of the story is that redemption comes from God.


I just feel we need to have this one on the table in crystal-clear terms: Without God's intervention, Abraham would have slain his own Son.
Maybe it will make it even more clear if I point out it's application: without God's intervention, so would we. Not out of faith, which leads to rescue and redemption, but because of lack of faith. It's the lack of faith that leads to death. I've already pointed out that this women's interpretation of signs and omens was nothing less than superstition, i.e. lack of faith. People are raising their children without knowledge of the crucial (no need to excuse the pun) message of redeeming love; without faith in God - in fact they are actively discouraging it. That's putting faith in the knife rather than God - what, other than the Word of God, will stop an arm that sincerely believes it's doing the right thing? Any other authority, whether it's a law, your own reasoning or conviction, would have gone through with it, as mind-boggling as it sounds. Because that's exactly what the world is doing.

Jenyar
04-07-04, 06:20 AM
What God told Abraham before he went to sacrifice his son:
"See, by my Word I will put a Law over the heads of your descendants - a double-edged sword - which you must take up only if you are faithful, because only by faith can it be laid down again. For it is both the means of their death and their redemption. It will reveal the power of my judgment and the extent of my mercy; perfect submission to it means laying down your life, and by the same Word I will show the world this great truth: I will provide, and you will take it up again."

Tiassa
04-07-04, 09:03 AM
People are raising their children without knowledge of the crucial (no need to excuse the pun) message of redeeming love; without faith in God - in fact they are actively discouraging it. That's putting faith in the knife rather than God I'm cutting this one oddly ... just because. What strikes me, I hope, is simple to express.

• I agree that without a message of love, they are putting the knife in, and the difference of God-related metaphors aside, it's purely a matter of faith. I intend to raise my daughter to respect other people, daresay love them as she loves herself. And here I won't bother with the digression of What if one doesn't love oneself? until we really need to, and I don't think it's vital to this particular portion of the discussion. But who are we to say we're right about that? P.J. O'Rourke once expressed, and here I'm paraphrasing, that some parents might find it best to toilet train their children by simply letting them run around without a diaper and shit all over everything, thus preparing them for a successful career in business. (The original quote involved a successful career as a talk-show host.) It may be true that by teaching my daughter social compassion I'm handicapping her future performance in the "real world."
- what, other than the Word of God, will stop an arm that sincerely believes it's doing the right thing? Depends, I think, on how broadly we intend to define God. Obviously, limiting the "Word of God" to the Bible would constitute a cultural arrogance, as other cultures speak against murder.

I could digress here about the symbolism of the cinematic first scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey. And mutter some about how "murder" entered humanity at some point; the recognition of deliberate will in killing. I could spend a few words on the unnatural conditions under which rats will murder seemingly arbitrarily. And I could spend an awful lot of words tying in primate studies in which they did all sorts of "vaguely cruel" things to chimpanzees, like herd them into the space of a freight elevator; they do the same thing humans do--draw up close to themselves and stay quiet. And in doing so, I could try to paint an impressionistic literary picture of the notion that murder is so unnatural that something else has to be wrong first. It is not sarcasm that moves me to discuss what I could do but won't, but rather recognition that people are bitching about the length of my posts, an acknowledgment that I'm not up to it, and also a hope to allude to the factors that come to mind in response to the issue of what other than the Word of God.

There is a metaphysical point at which I would agree with you that only the Word of God stops people from murder, but I sincerely doubt that we would agree on what God is or what constitutes Its Word. (Nor should that be construed to nitpick the Bible specifically.)

But I'm one of those that combines fear, greed, and sympathy (the latter two being complex forms of the simple former) and can have enough reasons not to kill someone unless I absolutely have to in order to preserve my life.

(For instance, one of the reasons I'm a pacifist is that I've seen myself fight before. Someone's going to get killed the way I go about it. That's just not a good thing for anyone. Period.)
Any other authority, whether it's a law, your own reasoning or conviction, would have gone through with it, as mind-boggling as it sounds. Because that's exactly what the world is doing Well, not exactly, else the gutters would be thickly red. But I get your drift. I think you're being a little esoteric, and while I generally appreciate that--especially in Christianity, as my prejudices beg--what becomes the practical effect of that belief?

Truly, by Christian standards, we are all sinners, for the last can't wait to be first, and the first certainly don't want to be last.

My lucky strike in the world is the odd fact that I've managed to keep myself worth very little in the labor market. My partner is worth more, so I get the "good job." But one of the reasons I had quit my job--the primary reason, in fact--was that I was sick of being a paid fraud. Sure, it might have been the callous inefficiency of the company--I'm on my way out the door in the end and now I find that my entire backlog and nearly half of my current stuff is supposed to be going through another office, another desk, another person? Maybe we would have gotten along better if I'd been told seven months before, when I took the position. But by the time it came to that, my walking out the door had nothing to do with the callous inefficiency, and everything to do with the idea that in addition to breaking state and federal laws routinely, in addition to lying on a daily basis, and in addition to not being allowed by law or company policy to beat the holy living shit out of the moron who single-handedly shattered a staff that worked reasonably well together and thereby sank the department into a ridiculous mire ... you wake up in the morning and you lie to people.

That's no way to live.

I can't imagine what it must be like for the folks who have God lording over them. I'm convinced it's why a number of my friends are godless.

But will I, in the end, let my daughter starve on such a point of honor? No. Of course if I decide to whore myself for money, I'll just do it for real. I mean, think about this ... I ... that's right, me, Tiassa, won't sell drugs to pull it off. (Which is apparently a point of contention 'twixt my partner and me, but you just don't make a whole lot of money dealing pot, definitely not enough for the people and behavior you have to put up with, and certainly not enough to justify the risks of what happens if the Law finds out; and I'll literally get down and suck people off for twenties on the streetcorner before I deal coke or speed or smack.)

(Just to give closure to the consideration, going to work later this year in order to afford child care and my partner's substance habits, thereby creating a situation we did not wish to create, with both of us working, is quickly becoming the preferable--read "less-damaging"--option.)

However ... what of those folks who have God lording over them? Even they adapt. Most of them better than I.

When it's just my sanity, I'll stand purely on abstract principle if I so desire. But how the hell could I justify that in court?
What God told Abraham before he went to sacrifice his son:There is a point at which I wouldn't argue against that.

But frankly, humanity's not smart enough right now to figure that out.

And that's where it gets difficult. With Christianity, I could easily go Jerusalem-megalomaniac and burn myself out in well under three years. But through nobody's fault but my own, there are other people I would end up dragging down with me into the hope of eternal life.

• . . . . perfect submission to it means laying down your life
• And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19.29, RSV)
• Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life." (Mark 10.29, RSV)
• And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life." (Luke 18.29-30)

Now, I'm not going to give you the usual crap you can get from a two-penny skeptic. Rather, I think it's a great idyll, but ... you're kidding me. Compared to practical demand?!

Life is. It's a little like raising productive citizens from the outset: You must teach a child to read and do basic math before you can teach a young adult to read a technical manual and perform complex calculations.

I said before that I don't think humanity is smart enough to figure out something that seems rather apparent in its own way to you or I. Part of the problem seems to be reacquainting humanity with the ideas underlying the literary manifestation--e.g. The Bible. Right now it could be reasonably argued that to carry out such a mission, from my position, with my chosen obligations, could cause cruelty.

To reach into an obscure comparison: There is an odd stigma that comes with rape. The dramatic way to phrase it is the idea of a young woman apologizing that she wasn't a virgin for your first time together. That kind of pressure is ... ridiculous. She doesn't need to live with it. But it is values within the culture around the rape survivor which can highlight those ideas and aggravate their station in one's conscience.

Likewise, if my daughter becomes the human being I would hope, she would certainly have a grounding in the values that would justify a life of service which requires such a dedication that focuses away from the family. But I can't guarantee that. And without those values in place, such a devotion can constitute a cruelty to those who give up a certain portion of their expected experiences--e.g. my daughter.

What are my responsibilities to my child? To educate her? Certainly. To socialize, civilize, standardize, or otherwise cause her conformity to common standards? A much more difficult question. She would certainly be statistically deviant to be accustomed to the forfeiture of family bonds in the name of greater humanity, God, or whatever flag I wave at that time.

And I have the luxury of going about it under the impression that I have no worries about heaven and hell; these are human issues to me, for this world. God can judge me or evaporate into nonexistence. There are more immediate concerns. I'm not answering to God in the same way Christians do.

In an effort to bring this around, I would hope to at least suggest, if not demonstrate reasonably:

(1) These questions aren't exactly simple--much less if you happen to be psychologically unsettled.
(2) The standards of faith present realistic challenges in meeting unrealistic expectations; this burden can itself become a neurosis, or even a psychosis.

There are no easy answers. And while it is worth reiterating here that insane or not, Deanna Laney acted within certain parameters that happened to be determined by religious faith.

One of the big challenges for me is answering directly Jan's issue about the tie between religion and the crime. Ten years ago I actually would have taken pleasure in raising the heavy-metal suicides as an argumentative issue: if something so inconsequential can be alleged to have such dire effects, what of something so vital as to tread on the soul, on the essence of the living experience? And somewhere in there does the obscure connection lie.

For me, Christianity is largely extraneous horsepucky. The whole of what it "should be," as I've mentioned somewhere around this board recently, is summed up in two passages from Matthew (Chs. 5 & 25).

So I do think that Christians have certain obligations to examine their faith. In my early days at Exosci/Sciforums, I was much more adamant about this, but Christians have been having less and less of a substantial effect on my life, and have undertaken a macabre public drama ranging from televangelistic abuse of Islam, lesbians, and freethinkers to God telling George Bush to bomb Iraq. It's not the ballot box; the climate has changed--the teeth of the Christian political mechanism can still gnash, but they've lost the sharp points. I am fortunate enough to live in a time when one of the world's most significant influences becomes archaic and falls into retreat; it's a fascinating process. (And if the US goes down the crapper, then I get two palaces breaking down; more than most in human history have witnessed. What an odd time to be alive!)

But if, in reassessing those obligations, I can connect them to Deanna Laney's illness, then I will finally have justified this topic to my own satisfaction.
_____________________

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

Jenyar
04-07-04, 10:01 AM
(1) These questions aren't exactly simple--much less if you happen to be psychologically unsettled.
(2) The standards of faith present realistic challenges in meeting unrealistic expectations; this burden can itself become a neurosis, or even a psychosis.
I can hardly provide a satisfactory response... you certainly have the gift of making an Odyssey out of every post. And in that respect I can presume to sympathize with your view: life is. In the end the large and small questions all fuse into that mind-boggling simple assertion. But while you cannot see a way to fit the Christian faith into that statement (maybe it's irreparably irreconcilable with certain lifestyle choices you have already arranged into permanent fixtures), I can see no other way. The rest of the sentence "life is..." vaguely represents what I bundle under "faith". (And the phrase "the righteous will live by faith" only just ocurred to me.)

You want practical application. Fair enough. At least admit that if God exists you'll be answering to Him whether you like it or not. Although admitting His existence isn't quite as repugnant as you make it out to be. It would entail admitting defeat of the resolve you've built up until now (and God knows that Christians contributed their part in your aversion), but it wouldn't put a "lordship" over your life that isn't already there. The "burden" of faith is a light one, and I think your character would survive the temptation to become neurotic about it. Much in the same way you have to resist become neurotic about your daughter's upbringing (which I imagine can be a challenge). Somehow "live and let live" doesn't quite apply to one's children, does it? - it feels too much like neglect. Well, you're neglecting your faith - and I'm bright enough to be able to see you still have the core of it, perhaps the parts that survived such an onslaught as you've endured. But take my word for it, if you have survived so did your faith.

You're already obedient to love, as you understand it. Your obligation to your daughter is the same as towards God. Neglect amounts to cruelty, not love. Love demands action, concern, application. It demands the devotion only a father can give. The core of that devotion, tiassa, is life. And that life - your life - is the core of faith (where else would "good works" fit in?)

Tying the religion to the crime might complete your world-picture, but it's the last piece of a picture you've painted yourself. That missing link will look the same in every culture, society and person you come across. It's what the Bible calls sin. In a society where the separation between sin and death is only academic, it's easy not to believe in heaven and hell. But think for a moment that before Christ there was no distinction either - death was the judgment. The world might not be smart enough, but's it's alive enough to understand.

Tiassa
04-07-04, 05:38 PM
Tying the religion to the crime might complete your world-picture, but it's the last piece of a picture you've painted yourself. This is an occasion of my grand theory of Original Sin, and how greatly it has ******** human society.

It's hardly the last picture. If you would think that I could "complete" my world-picture, you haven't been paying attention to my posts. Interesting, how you've sought a negative interpretation that is quite simple yet inconsistent with my general outlook.

It's an opportunity to understand a little more about the human condition. To me, these religions aren't "Truth" insofar as the Bible, such as the present case has it, does not contain a literally-expressed, simple truth. It's myth, allegory, reflections on culture and history. But no, I don't believe that God reached down in any one of these holy books and revealed any perfect truths.

And to me, there is an irrevocable connection between the choices we make--to believe in this, that, or the other--and the consequences we find at the end of that road. In the end, I would expect any detailed examination of the relationship between faith, religion, or "Christianity" and action to come full circle--the vague distance some of us, and specific distance others tried to put between the one and the other is a common breakwater against a certain argumentative tide pulled to and fro by ignorance and apathy.

But ... as an analogy: My brother was a Republican for years. It was part of his initial identity politic that may have been chosen for the wrong reasons. In the end, his friends kept attributing to him ideas he did not hold; he finally looked closely at the GOP and decided that it was true that he did not hold with them. But in the years between 1980 and 1992 especially, he believed. He picked the side that was going to win, the side that I had not chosen. That's how he ended up on the "winning side" for twelve years, not through any sense of his innate genius. When he finally put that genius to work on the issue, certain things became quickly apparent to him. Of course he never told us what they were. He just started disavowing prior opinions when the discussions came up during election season or whatnot.

The point being is that I know--or, in other words, have faith--that we're correct, at the outset, that there is a clear separation between the religion and the acts of the faithful, but there is also a conceptual connection. If we drag ourselves honestly through the mill, it should be no problem to make such a simple point clear to the people seeking any excuse to bash religion and/or Christianity. Er ... at least it doesn't seem it should be a problem.

So that in the end we can know something and know why, instead of simply insist that we're right because it feels better that way.
The world might not be smart enough, but's it's alive enough to understand.Alive enough to understand? Or to bite the hand that feeds it in response to irrational fear?

Or, as many of our parents reminded us of snakes, &c. - It is more afraid of you than you are of it.

(And that's when the serpent bites.)

Jenyar
04-08-04, 03:35 AM
My apologies for the oversimplification. It was unwarranted. I was responding to what I perceived as your oversimplification of the causal connection between religion and violence. It seemed an odd statement coming from you.

And to me, there is an irrevocable connection between the choices we make--to believe in this, that, or the other--and the consequences we find at the end of that road. In the end, I would expect any detailed examination of the relationship between faith, religion, or "Christianity" and action to come full circle--the vague distance some of us, and specific distance others tried to put between the one and the other is a common breakwater against a certain argumentative tide pulled to and fro by ignorance and apathy.
I agree, but we expect to come to different conclusions. There's a parable on such a causal fallacy that also comments on the real connection between sin and death. You probably know it:

4Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them -- do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
6Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'
" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' " (Luke 13)
cf. Matthew 7:19-20 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

You recognize the fruit - you're even able to attribute it to the original sin. But I'm still not sure why you think the connection should be between religion and violence. Maybe religion just brings the hypocrisy to the fore, as it was supposed to do. Speaking for myself: since I started publically testifying to my faith and its precepts, I've had to do a lot of introspection about whether I practice what I preach. It lead me to a similar conclusion as it led Paul in Romans 7, and I'm pretty certain it will lead anybody willing to honestly "drag themselves through the mill" to the same conclusion. The struggle isn't between the fear and freedom, it's between our desire to follow the serpent and our desire to follow God. Perfect love casts out all fear.


So that in the end we can know something and know why, instead of simply insist that we're right because it feels better that way.
So true... but as Morpheus would say: there's a difference knowing the path and walking it. We're never justified to insist we're right, but we're completely justified to walking the right path.

You said "It may be true that by teaching my daughter social compassion I'm handicapping her future performance in the "real world." Social compassion hardly sets you up for the high life in a competitive world of surivival of the fittest. But it's "right". We're back at Romans 7, and the connection Jesus made: "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33, cf. 12:25). By raising your daughter to be loving, compassionate, fair, unselfish, you are teaching her to bite the hand that feeds her without fear. You're telling her that a moral life is better than a successful one. You're teaching her Matt.5, and by doing so you are confirming Christ's message.

The way many people approach religion - especially Christianity - just creates this void in me that I want to fill: "Alright, then I'll be the Christian". I already know what the problem is, and I know fixing it doesn't come by being right, but by doing right. However foolish the world might think I am.