@fmf said
Do you think the state's duty to protect children from their parents' actions trumps the 'right to religion' of those parents - which, in this case, means their children would die, in effect, because of 2-3 words - arguably taken out of context - in the middle of one sentence in the Bible?

They allow abortions don't they, its very selective, no one is making any money on blood transfusions as they do on abortions. If the death of a child is all that matters than why one not the other?

@fmf said
The intention is to either please or not anger a god figure with the manner of the death of a child. As I said before, I think a spade is being called a spade here.

You are not crying over the death of millions, and from what I've read, it is the leading cause of all deaths in the world today. I think you are not calling a spade a spade, you are just looking for a means to accuse someone of something they don't want, and ignoring the death of those that they actually do cause with intent. The death of millions with intent due to abortion and blood transfusions you are upset about, pull your head out.

@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.

If they are not trying to kill their kids, unlike something you are not talking about, why is that?

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

How so?

They don't but they selectively accuse on what might lead to a death and ignore those that are done on purpose that does kill children.

@kellyjay said
I think you are not calling a spade a spade

An abortion is an abortion.

Letting a child die in order not to displease one's god figure is "child sacrifice".

@kellyjay said
If they are not trying to kill their kids, unlike something you are not talking about, why is that?

They are not doing what is necessary to keep the child alive because they interpret the Bible as forbidding it.

@kellyjay said
They allow abortions don't they, its very selective, no one is making any money on blood transfusions as they do on abortions. If the death of a child is all that matters than why one not the other?

No one is making any money on blood transfusions?

@fmf said
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.

Alright, I see what you are saying, but they are not taking an action which they believe will cut themselves off from God, and subsequently hoping for what is more or less a miracle to save them.

This is foolish, but there's nothing about this way of thinking that is like some ritualized sacrifice to God.

If a man in a hurricane decides to keep praying instead of fleeing, believe that God will intervene, he is under the false illusion that he is still doing the right thing and that God will intervene.

Doesn't that seem like the logical mindset of a Jehovah's Witness -- not one of consciously encouraging the child to die?

@kellyjay said
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?

I understand and respect your stance on abortion but I am not interested in discussing it with you today. Suzianne might want to.

Do you think the government should intervene to protect children from their parents if those parents are going to allow those children to die for want of available medical treatment for 'religious' reasons?

You don't have to answer this or discuss the thread topic with me today if you don't want to.

@philokalia said
Alright, I see what you are saying, but they are not taking an action which they believe will cut themselves off from God, and subsequently hoping for what is more or less a miracle to save them.

This is foolish, but there's nothing about this way of thinking that is like some ritualized sacrifice to God.

I haven't suggested it's "ritualized". But I see what you have done there. As I said, any appeasement of a deity's perceived wishes as a result of religious dogma that results in the avoidable death of a child is "child sacrifice". It doesn't have to be "ritualized".

@fmf said
I haven't suggested it's "ritualized". But I see what you have done there. As I said, any appeasement of a deity's perceived wishes as a result of religious dogma that results in the avoidable death of a child is "child sacrifice". It doesn't have to be "ritualized".

They actually believe that they are commanded by God to not do it, and they believe in all manner of alternatives to blood transfusions.

it seems they are also very invested in the concept of this sort of thing being advanced through the years.

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/

I do not see how any of this is a "sacrifice to God,"or "sacrifice for God."

I think of a sacrifice as someone proactively destroying something... If some guy were to simply not save himself because he felt that this was actually key for his immortal soul, it is different than killing another for God, which seems to be the normal meaning of "child sacrifice."

How does Wikipedia define child sacrifice?

Child sacrifice is the ritualistic killing of children in order to please or appease a god or supernatural beings in order to achieve a desired result. As such, it is a form of human sacrifice. The practice has received considerable opposition throughout history, and it has often become a target for those engaged in criticism of religion. Child sacrifice is thought to be an extreme extension of the idea that, the more important the object of sacrifice, the more devout the person giving it up is.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice

Is there any message of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Zero.

Why?

Because academics and other people do not consider this to be child sacrifice.

@philokalia said
They actually believe that they are commanded by God to not do it, and they believe in all manner of alternatives to blood transfusions.

it seems they are also very invested in the concept of this sort of thing being advanced through the years.

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/

I do not see how any ...[text shortened]... rent than killing another for God, which seems to be the normal meaning of "child sacrifice."

I think the 'death of a child' resulting directly from trying to please God qualifies as "sacrifice".

@fmf said
An abortion is an abortion.

Letting a child die in order not to displease one's god figure is "child sacrifice".

Abortion is the killing of the unborn, it used to be limited to when it was in the womb, it is now outside too. Not calling it was it is, doesn't change it is the purposeful death of a hopeless child. In child sacrifice they used to throw them on the hot alters where the children would burn to death and their screams were drowned out by the music the priest would be playing, this was so the parents didn't hear them scream as they died. Now they do it in the wombs where the sounds and pain are also shielded from the one doing it. The child still dies, having body parts ripped off, having solutions stuck into the body, having their brains sucked out. You compare this to a blood transfusion, and you are making judgment calls suggesting one is okay and not the other, what kind of person are you?

@philokalia said
How does Wikipedia define child sacrifice?

[quote]Child sacrifice is the ritualistic killing of children in order to please or appease a god or supernatural beings in order to achieve a desired result. As such, it is a form of human sacrifice. The practice has received considerable opposition throughout history, and it has often become a target for those engaged ...[text shortened]... o.

Why?

Because academics and other people do not consider this to be child sacrifice.

I am unimpressed with your Appeal to Authority. I consider it to be "child sacrifice". I understand that you don't.