Spirituality
09 Jun 14
Despite the Jehovah's Witness alleged position (repeatedly stated in this forum by robbie carrobie) of blood transfusions being "a matter of personal conscience", the real experience of life inside the cult is somewhat different as the religious pressure by the governing body to conform to its pernicious doctrines continues to endanger lives. In this South African incident a young girl's life was saved by legal intervention to force a blood transfusion against the parents wishes. Clearly, being "a matter of conscience" is not sufficient.
http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022
Originally posted by FabianFnasExcept when it doesn't; when it puts a blanket in the hand of a homeless person, or inspires someone to care for the mentally handicapped.
Good for her.
Religion kills.
I am an atheist as you are, but this one-dimensional view of religion does not reflect reality. Religion does both awful things and kind things, depending on who is practicing it.
Get some perspective, please.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThis thread is not generally against religion. But a particular case.
Except when it doesn't; when it puts a blanket in the hand of a homeless person, or inspires someone to care for the mentally handicapped.
I am an atheist as you are, but this one-dimensional view of religion does not reflect reality. Religion does both awful things and kind things, depending on who is practicing it.
Get some perspective, please.
If the parents of the girl would have the doctors to not treat the girl, then she would have died. Because of their rieligion. Hence 'religion kills' in this particular case.
Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that. And if I meant that it's worth a thread of its own.
The doctor saved the girl, not religion, not Jesus. The doctors.
Or else the girl would have died. Because of religion. Religion would kill her.
Originally posted by divegeesterJust so I know why do you act like personal conscience isn't something to
Despite the Jehovah's Witness alleged position (repeatedly stated in this forum by robbie carrobie) of blood transfusions being "a matter of personal conscience", the real experience of life inside the cult is somewhat different as the religious pressure by the governing body to conform to its pernicious doctrines continues to endanger lives. In this Sou ...[text shortened]... ://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022
be thought of as important enough to take very seriously? I would not force
anyone to do anything they were so against it would harm their conscience.
I have friends that are Muslim that do not eat pork, I would not even if I
knew they were coming over to eat serve them food cooked on a pan that
ever had pork in it. I do not follow the Muslim faith, but I respect them as
people who do.
Life and death choices people do make all the time, and I don't have to
agree with them to acknowledge how important those views are to them.
If beliefs can be over ruled because another doesn't agree with them, than
all views are not safe from being over ruled. You either respect them or
you do not, so which is it?
Kelly
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasDon't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that.
This thread is not generally against religion. But a particular case.
If the parents of the girl would have the doctors to not treat the girl, then she would have died. Because of their rieligion. Hence 'religion kills' in this particular case.
Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that. And if I meant that it's worth a ...[text shortened]... s. The doctors.
Or else the girl would have died. Because of religion. Religion would kill her.
Yes, you did.
I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, so perhaps you didn't mean to say it. But when you say something like "religion kills" with no qualifier at all, it will be taken by most English speakers to be a general statement, even when you are responding to a specific topic, such as the case presented in this thread.
09 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou strike me as being a sincere Christian and a nice bloke, but I have to point out that your ability to miss the point is astonishing. Do you do it on purpose?
Just so I know why do you act like personal conscience isn't something to
be thought of as important enough to take very seriously? I would not force
anyone to do anything they were so against it would harm their conscience.
I have friends that are Muslim that do not eat pork, I would not even if I
knew they were coming over to eat serve them food coo ...[text shortened]... e not safe from being over ruled. You either respect them or
you do not, so which is it?
Kelly
Not only that but you are making assumptions about what I think, confusing what Paul said about observing moons and sabbaths with what robbie carrobie said about JWs being able to decide (implicitly) without duress on matters such as receiving blood and as for your last paragraph - say what?! Who makes life and death choices "all the time"? And -seriously - (I had to read your last sentence three times to believe it) are you saying the JW parents belief should not have been overruled and let the child die?
Originally posted by divegeesterI don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
You strike me as being a sincere Christian and a nice bloke, but I have to point out that your ability to miss the point is astonishing. Do you do it on purpose?
Not only that but you are making assumptions about what I think, confusing what Paul said about observing moons and sabbaths with what robbie carrobie said about JWs being able to decide (imp ...[text shortened]... e it) are you saying the JW parents belief should not have been overruled and let the child die?
thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
amiss.
Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by my eating meat, I will not
eat meat.
Who gets to say when a parent's wishes no longer matter? The state, and
if you say yes to that, where do you draw the line on how much the state
can say when it comes to your beliefs? Maybe the state dislikes the way
you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they
want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent! You
either have rights or you do not. It could be life and death to pull the plug
or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
Kelly
09 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me understand you clearly:
I don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
amiss.
Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by m ...[text shortened]... the plug
or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
Kelly
- You disagree with almost every JW doctrine - does this include the one on refusing blood?
- However, you "respect" what he [arbitrary JW person] believes about refusing blood, even though you disagree with it.
- You think that JWs are your [spiritual] "brother" as Paul referenced and you don't want to offend that "brother" by telling them they shouldn't refuse blood even if their child dies.
- You believe that the state intervening to save a child's life by ensuring a blood transfusion was given even though it was against the child's parents wishes, is inappropriate state intervention akin to and likely to lead to enforced sex education and subsequent abortions on children. You also feel that having rights is black and white issue I.e. "You either have them or you don't"
Did I miss anything?
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterYes I disagree with most JW doctrine, including refusing blood.
Let me understand you clearly:
- You disagree with almost every JW doctrine - does this include the one on refusing blood?
- However, you "respect" what he [arbitrary JW person] believes about refusing blood, even though you disagree with it.
- You think that JWs are your [spiritual] "brother" as Paul referenced and you don't want to offend that ...[text shortened]... rights is black and white issue I.e. "You either have them or you don't"
Did I miss anything?
Yes I agree that if you feel you would be sinning if you did something, I
should not force you do to it.
No, I can debate areas where I disagree, but I would not want to force
someone to sin.
Yes, I agree that parent rights should trump most other things, I do not
want the state to control all things in my life over my views of right and wrong.
Kelly
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care why he feels the way he does, I disagree with almost every
thing that I see that has to do with the JW. That said, it changes nothing
about what I wrote. I can argue against what he believes, but must if I
want to be respected, respect his heart felt belief even if I think they are
amiss.
Paul said it best, if my brother is offended by m ...[text shortened]... the plug
or not to, they may say its life and death to accept fetal tissue or not too.
Kelly
Maybe the state dislikes the way you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent!In the U.K. rights tend to be negative, in the sense that you can do what you want unless it's specifically prohibited.
There are cases where the child has to be taken from the parent for the child's safety. In the U.K. and I imagine the U.S., the courts put the best interests of the child first, and if the parents are non-neglectful and non-abusive the state will not intervene. I think in practical terms your point is flawed, and reflects paranoia about the state rather than any real problems with its actions.
I can think of reasons to for the state to intervene in the way people cook their food. Suppose someone in a block of flats insisted on cooking their food in a fire on the floor in the middle of the room. More realistically they may ban some ingredients on health and safety grounds. There are public decency laws in the U.K., I imagine they exist in the U.S. as well, so no clothes isn't an option. Pornography (at least of the hard core variety) cannot be shown by terrestrial or satellite broadcasters, without a state to stop it it would be - do you really think it should?
By promoting sex I assume that you mean sex education? The intention there is to reduce teenage pregnancies and remove the motivation for abortions.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree you can take what I said, and come up with several things that IMaybe the state dislikes the way you cook your food, or wear your cloths, or your TV habits, maybe they want to promote sex to your kids and abortion without your consent!In the U.K. rights tend to be negative, in the sense that you can do what you want unless it's specifically prohibited.
There are cases where the child has to be take ...[text shortened]... ? The intention there is to reduce teenage pregnancies and remove the motivation for abortions.
would agree with you on. I am quite serious though that I think if people
truly have the best interest of their family at heart and they feel something
the state is pushing is a sin, they should not be forced into it. With respect
to paranoia, it isn't my fault they are out to get me. 🙂 [kidding]
Kelly
10 Jun 14
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're missing the point again (and now I'm pretty sure you do it deliberately) by talking in generalities rather than addressing the specific topic.
Yes I disagree with most JW doctrine, including refusing blood.
Yes I agree that if you feel you would be sinning if you did something, I
should not force you do to it.
No, I can debate areas where I disagree, but I would not want to force
someone to sin.
Yes, I agree that parent rights should trump most other things, I do not
want the state to control all things in my life over my views of right and wrong.
Kelly
You are making all these grandstanding sweeping statements, but answer this specific point: Do you think the state should have let the girl (mentioned on the OP) die by not intervening? Yes or no?
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf you take it out of context, yes. But what I write here is on-topic. And that's about the girl. This girl would have been dead by now if her parents religion was honoured. Hence "religion (their) killes (by this example)".
[b]Don't put in my mouth that religion kills in general. I didn't say that.
Yes, you did.
I appreciate that English is probably not your first language, so perhaps you didn't mean to say it. But when you say something like "religion kills" with no qualifier at all, it will be taken by most English speakers to be a general statement, even when you are responding to a specific topic, such as the case presented in this thread.[/b]
There are many more examples where religion kills, but that would be off-topic.
There are also many examples where religion saves lives, that that would also be off-topic.
(But I must say [no irony] that I'm happy that my friends here at RHP read what I *mean* and not what my sometimes (often?) lack of English grammar and vocabulary shows. Thank you for this! 🙂 )