Child sacrifice and “the goodness of their God”

@secondson said
Allowing a child to die for want of medical treatment is diametrically opposed to my "principled approach to the sanctity of life."

What father or mother would not seek all available medical treatment to save their child's life?

A JW apparently. For bogus religious reasons. There is no biblical basis for it.

Abortion may be wrong and it is clearly abhorrent to you, it may even be murder in the minds of some people, but it is not child sacrifice.

@secondson said
This thread outlines the idea that JW's sacrifice there children to God, and to the God of the Bible at that.

I've clearly said the JW's base their belief in refusing to allow a life saving medical treatment for their children on an erroneous understanding of both the Bible and the God of the Bible.

The discussion about God is part and parcel of the topic of religious doctrine and ideology relative to the discourse in this thread.

Wether or not their beliefs are erroneous (of course they are) is irrelevant, it is child sacrifice.

@philokalia said
LOL, I had no idea what any of this was about...

This could be your forum epitaph.

@kellyjay said
Well lets examine that for a moment, if I understand what is being presented here as child sacrifice it is not allowing the blood transfusion which may not result in a death of a child, it could but not by design. Abortion by design kills and this is very close to what one could call a child sacrifice without a doubt the death of a child is the desired outcome. You think bei ...[text shortened]... sonal view prerogative, is that the way your compass points, blood transfusions bad, abortions good?

You know very well FMF’s position regarding blood transfusions; it’s been discussed in this forum countless times over dozens of threads year in and year out.

Just because you suspect that someone may not entirely or partially share your views on abortion of an unborn child does not impact the religious and moral implications of a parent permitting their child, albeit one they love, to die in order to appease the demands of their God.

Whether or not their beliefs are erroneous or whether or not the God exists is completely irrelevant. It is child sacrifice.

Of course Philokalia, our self proclaimed resident philosopher and expert in traditional Christian theology believes that JWs rely on the “Goodness” of their God for confidence in their salvation.

I on the other hand perceive and believe that the spirit (or spirits) masquerading as their God is/are the same as the ones which have demanded child sacrifice throughout the history the abominal practice.

But as I said in my OP thats the kind of red-faced moments that being I’ll-informed and posting without principle can get you into.

@philokalia said
Wait, so Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing children?

How so?

Why not read the OP carefully including the link at the foot of it?

Why not google Jehovah’s Witness + child sacrifice?

@philokalia said
... Three passages about not eating blood.And they take that and make it into an anti-blood transfusion thing.

Umm, sure, I would force, by law, for children to receive blood transfusions if required.

But I would not call these extreme cases to be "child sacrifice."

It'd be some form of child neglect -- religiously motivated, sure. But there was religiously motivated actual child sacrifices too.

You really should read more Philokalia; reading will expand your mind, increase your knowledge of pertinent subjects being debated in this forum and it will educated you generally.

@fmf said
These are actual "child sacrifices" too. The same ultimate objective - with the same outcome: a dead child - albeit in different circumstances, can be referred to with the same term. No problem.

Intention is generally what determines the nature of the crime, right.

A very tired dad driving home who gets into a car accident and kills his child is a reckless driver and perhaps if the case is extreme enough it merits vehicular manslaughter or some other crime.

A dad who shoots his kid in the face with a shotgun is a completely different thing.

But the same ultimate outcome has occurred.

Yet, they are entirely different.

@philokalia said
Intention is generally what determines the nature of the crime, right.
A very tired dad driving home who gets into a car accident and kills his child is a reckless driver and perhaps if the case is extreme enough it merits vehicular manslaughter or some other crime.
A dad who shoots his kid in the face with a shotgun is a completely different thing.
But the same ultimate outcome has occurred.

Yet, they are entirely different.

And neither are good analogies for child sacrifice, which incidentally, in the scenario of JW’s and withholding medical treatment, is not a “crime” in the context which you are using it.

I probably need to explain as you are clearly struggling to understand:

If you accidentally kill someone on the road, that is called an “accident”. There may be some sort of driver culpability, even criminal culpability, but the death was not deliberate. Child sacrifice by denying medical treatment is deliberate.

Shooting and killing someone deliberately with a shotgun is murder, which is a crime. The primary intent is to kill. The JW parents do not want to kill their child, but they choose to permit the child to die rather than deny their God’s wishes of withholding blood.

They sacrifice the life of their child in order to appease the perceived wishes of their God. I hope that helps.

PS have you read anything on JWs + child sacrifice?

It's apparently about not ingesting blood...

I don't agree with it at all, but... It isn't them saying that God wants a child to be sacrificed to him.

This is not a good practice as it is.

Why are you so intent on having it be called "child sacrifice?"

What's this obsession with calling things by exaggerated names..?

@philokalia said
Intention is generally what determines the nature of the crime, right.

In this case - and in the more familiar type of "sacrifice" - the intention is pleasing or avoiding displeasing one's god figure.

@philokalia said
Yet, they are entirely different.

They are different, of course. No one is denying that. But "child sacrifice" all the same.

@philokalia said
It isn't them saying that God wants a child to be sacrificed to him.

It's them sacrificing a child [which could probably have lived] and then saying they did it because God didn't want them to use the available medical treatment that might have saved it.

@philokalia said
What's this obsession with calling things by exaggerated names..?

It's my firm opinion - not an "obsession" - but I see what you did there. And it is not "exaggerated" - I think it's being real and confronting it for what it is.

@fmf said
I don't think blood transfusions are "bad" and I don't think abortions are "good". But abortions are legal in the U.S., as are blood transfusions.

On the other hand - as far as I know - the authorities are legally entitled and perhaps legally required to step in and protect children from the risk of death at the hands of their parents if treatment is being withheld for religi ...[text shortened]... is or her informed consent can, of course, decide not to have a blood transfusion and therefore die.

An abortion kills almost every time, and now if a child gets born they can still kill it. This sound like a sacrifice to you?