12 Sep '14 01:20>
Originally posted by KellyJayBy the standards of Common Sense and Normal Vocabulary Usage.
By what standard?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I asked you was if you think "live and let live in the here and now" is a Christian principle? I would interested to hear your answer.
I think that those that want to force others to conform to their norms
should not be complaining about other's norms.
Originally posted by RBHILLIn recent weeks, on separate occasions, both josephw and KellyJay have suggested that "live and let live" is a Christian principle but have then been evasive when asked to substantiate the claim.
This is like Tom Cruise in Risky business when he says "What the F---".
Originally posted by KellyJayI think your defence of the JW parents who were letting their little girl die before the state intervened (in my thread on this topic) was of more interest thn whatever ISIS are doing. I believe you defended the parents vehemently based on: the state not having the right to save the child's life and (unbelievably) on the defence of the JW parents conscience being seared because they were doing what they were doing before (their) god.
ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
Kelly
Originally posted by Great King RatMy question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.
My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand your statement. (imo) it's those who want to force others to conform to their norms the people who will complain about other's norms.
I think that those that want to force others to conform to their norms
should not be complaining about other's norms.
Kelly
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, how surprising that another one of those "hot topics" gets named so soon. It's not like abortion hasn't been discussed here a million times before.
[b]My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Since your question is general (not specific to blood transfusions) it appears you have opened the door to pretty much any topic where the question would be appl ...[text shortened]... our sight, this doesn't mean that child is not a child and undeserving of our protection.[/b]
Originally posted by divegeesterMy defence was that I didn't think anyone should be forced to do
I think your defence of the JW parents who were letting their little girl die before the state intervened (in my thread on this topic) was of more interest thn whatever ISIS are doing. I believe you defended the parents vehemently based on: the state not having the right to save the child's life and (unbelievably) on the defence of the JW parents conscie ...[text shortened]... because they were doing what they were doing before (their) god.
Thread 159598
Originally posted by lemon limeTaking away a child from a parent is a huge deal, so if the parent does
I don't understand your statement. (imo) it's those who want to force others to conform to their norms the people who will complain about other's norms.
Originally posted by Great King RatYou think teachng a child about God (a belief in) is child abuse?
Yes, how surprising that another one of those "hot topics" gets named so soon. It's not like abortion hasn't been discussed here a million times before.
Sure, we could go there for the million-and-oneth (??) time but personally I was more interested in the gray area that I described before.
And - confession time - seeing as how I am very much an ...[text shortened]... a thing become a form of abuse?
But, yeah, abortion. Let's just go there.
Again.
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you accept that "where you draw a line" is essentially a political issue and that it is right and proper for a society to define it collectively through deliberation on the part of its chosen representatives?
Granted many examples came up after I said that I would have agreed with that I would have agreed needed to be stopped. No matter where you draw a line you can find someone doing something on your side of it that will be bad even using your own standards.