Greedy mother abandons children for God

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find such dubious characterizations callous.

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

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

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Do you know who Crystal Brame is?

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Baron Max

 

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

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

Baron Max

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Baron Max

 

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

because she left two newborns without a mum?

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

They're all for dying for material gain.

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

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