Texas mother kills children for God

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Wow. It only took four years for someone to notice.

Moving on to more important things:

Jan Ardena

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:

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):

You sure about that "questioning," Jan?

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.

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.

There you go. I just don't understand why you're so upset about it.

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?

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.

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.

Something about questioning goes here. Are you sure about that, Jan?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you sure about that? Consider:

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:

I just think mental health is definitely an issue for the religious to consider.

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.

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

 

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 !!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

SHIA ADULTS DOING THE SAME..

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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

Shia= muslims only for Chrisitan Extemists.

Go figure

 

tiassa,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Do religious people run round killing each other in America?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Are you sure about that? Consider:

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

Some, however, would.

Which is the kind of thing we should be discussing.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Jan Ardena.

 

Laney was acquitted on all charges for reason of insanity.

 

The link, from CNN.

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:

 

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?

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

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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

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

They were. Who said otherwise?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

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