no you don't. you want to deprive people of their freedoms, the same ones you demand that you get to enjoy.
Freedoms come with responsibilities. Freedom is not "do whtever you want", it is "do whatever you want without hurting others".
under the constitution they were free to practice their religion and they did.
No, they weren't. They denied a fundamental right to the child, and that is against the constitution.
you have no argument and no reason to be upset.
Yes I have, and your simple denial does nothing to change that. Again, try reason in your replies, instead of this angry man you seem to want to display.
but atheists nd other unbelievers just do not get it. if you want freedom to live your sinful lives, then you cannot impose that life and its beliefs upon those who reject it for they have the freedom to live their lives with their beliefs.
Up to a certain point, yes. As long as it doesn't hurt anybody else, I could frankly care less about what they do. If they want to hit themselves over the head with a baseball bat, I will look at them funny, and perhaps question their sanity, but I will not stop them from doing so. If they want to hit someone else over the head with it, however, I will try to stop that.
your compassion is misguided and your ideas, ideals, or beliefs are not supreme and it is not you who gets to say who can or can't be a parent nor how they should parent.
No, the law is, and strangely, it seems to agree with me.
God has given that right to the REAL PARENTS and they are responsbile.
Yes, they are. And part of that responsibility is protecting children from needless harm.
you probably would remove all of the children from octomom on the illegal, andunjustifiable excuse that you do not like her or how she did it.
I looked up "Octomom" on wiki, and got this article. Is that the person you were talking about? If it is, than on first glance I don't see much wrong with it, as long as the children are safe and healthy, I see no reason to remove them from her.
no you don't. you want to deprive people of their freedoms, the same ones you demand that you get to enjoy. under the constitution they were free to practice their religion and they did. you have no argument and no reason to be upset
Just like that child was permitted their rights to life, to health; their right to freedom from religion? We've got an argument, and you continue to ignore it in favour of quotemining and personal attack (ironical, since you say everybody else does it).
Omnivorous asked you a simple question: "does this include newborn infants?". He made no mention of anything else whatsoever, except for commenting on the fact that society does indeed have the power to intrude upon your life for many reasons. It is only your persecution complex that make you think he is saying anything remotely about you in particular. He offered a reasonable question, and you launched directly into a rabid tirade accusing him of personal attack.
So, for those of us who are interested in reasonable debate, can you answer his question? It would help a large amount with actually understanding your position clearly on the matter. I don't think you'll answer; rather, your pattern suggests you will ignore the question, accuse me of making a personal attack, and follow that up with your idea that I am naught but an evil atheist God-hater.
Science at work right there; let's see if it works.
you forget that child rights are limited as they are minors and parents are to decide for them. if you want to emmancipate children please start with your own and your own relatives' and live the christians' alone.
It would help a large amount with actually understanding your position clearly on the matter
my position on this matter is that the secularists do not understand the christian and their beliefs and cannot make such harsh judgments against them when your own beliefs (doctors/hospitals) fail as often as the secularist claims prayer does.
you just do not grasp the spiritual world and you won't until you repent of your sins and have the blindness removed. right now, in your present state you are mere tools of the devil used to attack God via those who believe in Him.
just becaus eyou do not like a result doesn't mean you have the right to act or condemn. you need to focus on your own families and make sure you all obey God {yet for the most of you you do not care about that and think you are better off on your own}
i have yet to delve deeply into this subject because the emotionalism of some of the participants makes it virtually impossible to have a proper discussion.
Just like that child was permitted their rights to life, to health; their right to freedom from religion? We've got an argument, and you continue to ignore it in favour of quotemining and personal attack
this is where you are wrong, as stated at the head of this response children rights are very limited and much is left up to the parents. as for your 'freedom from religion' there is NO constitution anywhere in the world that has that as a right. that is an atheistic idea which they use to spearhead attacks on those who are religious.
all children, when they get old enough are taught t5hat they have the option to reject the teachings they were brought up with. i should know as i saw many of my childhood friends leave the church when they became teenagers.
but you do not know these things because you are blind to the reality by your bias against all things christian (or religious). then to try and explain it to you, even under the best of conditions, is almost impossible because, once again, your minds cannot fully take in what is being said or the spirit it is intended.
i could say something like '...misguided people...but that would be twisted into what you want me to say while what i said is ignored and a whole lot of trouble ensues.
this is an issue that the secular world needs to back off from for it is way over their heads and it is best left to christians to deal with it.
i knew someone would bring it up if i didn't say anything but i hesitate to delve into the fine details because of the danger of my words being mis-used, abused, twisted and so on.
people like to think that God spares new borns from judgment, an dit is possible BUT scripture indicates that may not be so. HOW God handles this i do not know as certainly though the babies are born with a sin nature, how can they repent?
then, how could they have sinned? romans 3:23 tells us 'all have sinned...' but 3:24 tells us, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
we can always look to the mercy and grace of God that new borns would be spared the judgement as God is not cruel and would be merciful to those who had not had a chance to make sinful decisions and act on them.
right now that is the best answer i can give you. does this mean you should run out and have your newborn baptized? no, for baptisim is not the act of redemption, it is an act of obedience AFTER repentance and redemption and if the child cannot choose repentence how can they choose obedience?
as far as i know of this aspect of the issue, even the atheist and the evolutionist can hope that God would have mercy upon their newborns but i cannot be sure so do not quote me or twist my words please.
here is a link to page one of three on th etopic of salvation. i have not read them all and do not see anything there talking about babies specifically
you forget that child rights are limited as they are minors and parents are to decide for them. if you want to emmancipate children please start with your own and your own relatives' and live the christians' alone.
But that's not what he is suggesting.
my position on this matter is that the secularists do not understand the christian and their beliefs and cannot make such harsh judgments against them when your own beliefs (doctors/hospitals) fail as often as the secularist claims prayer does.
Do you have evidence for this claim? No need to get angry here and call me things, please, just a link, a book, a quote with source, that''s all I'm asking.
you just do not grasp the spiritual world and you won't until you repent of your sins and have the blindness removed. right now, in your present state you are mere tools of the devil used to attack God via those who believe in Him.
Stuff like that can be left out, Archie, we know you think this, no need to repeat it ad nauseum.
just becaus eyou do not like a result doesn't mean you have the right to act or condemn.
Depends on what the result is. And the circumstances that the result was reached under.
you need to focus on your own families and make sure you all obey God {yet for the most of you you do not care about that and think you are better off on your own}
Actually, we don't. And as it is evident that you don't understand us, would you mind taking your own advice and not condemn us?
i have yet to delve deeply into this subject because the emotionalism of some of the participants makes it virtually impossible to have a proper discussion.
Might I suggest toning down your own emotive responses then? It will work wonders.
this is where you are wrong, as stated at the head of this response children rights are very limited and much is left up to the parents.
Are you saying they don't have a right to "life {and} to health"? Please, just a "yes" or "no" will do. And perhaps an explanation of that answer.
I'll leave the rest out as it is basically an angry rant. I will ask you to please start answering the questions we ask of you, we can't form a clear picture of you if you don't do that. You see, right now, to me, you seem a very bitter angry man, angry at all the atheists and the evil world they produced.
you are ignored, i do not respond to people like you who only want to do personal attacks.
Translation: You have no good answers. Correction: You didn't ignore my questions, you merely fear them.
I can expose your venomous, Devil-quoting-scripture impersonation of a Christian, and you will just sit there silently and take it?
That would be the most Christian thing you've done here.
The Old Testament (in Job, among other places) rejects the notion that God rewards the just and punishes the wicked according to a scheme comprehensible to human beings.
Hush...just sit there and think about it.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
Well, he did later answer your question in Message 79:
archaeologist writes:
i knew someone would bring it up if i didn't say anything but i hesitate to delve into the fine details because of the danger of my words being mis-used, abused, twisted and so on.
people like to think that God spares new borns from judgment, an dit is possible BUT scripture indicates that may not be so. HOW God handles this i do not know as certainly though the babies are born with a sin nature, how can they repent?
then, how could they have sinned? romans 3:23 tells us 'all have sinned...' but 3:24 tells us, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
we can always look to the mercy and grace of God that new borns would be spared the judgement as God is not cruel and would be merciful to those who had not had a chance to make sinful decisions and act on them.
right now that is the best answer i can give you. does this mean you should run out and have your newborn baptized? no, for baptisim is not the act of redemption, it is an act of obedience AFTER repentance and redemption and if the child cannot choose repentence how can they choose obedience?
as far as i know of this aspect of the issue, even the atheist and the evolutionist can hope that God would have mercy upon their newborns but i cannot be sure so do not quote me or twist my words please.
i knew someone would bring it up if i didn't say anything but i hesitate to delve into the fine details because of the danger of my words being mis-used, abused, twisted and so on.
See? You weren't ignoring my questions, merely fearing them.
people like to think that God spares new borns from judgment, an dit is possible BUT scripture indicates that may not be so. HOW God handles this i do not know as certainly though the babies are born with a sin nature, how can they repent?
"HOW God handles this I do not know..."
That's not the problem; the problem is your certainty about how God handles anything.
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?! -Gogol Bordello
Arch - you claim that it is acceptable for "Christian" parents to withhold medical care from their children and to pray instead. You've been asked multiple times now, and I want to know: is it acceptable for parents to rape their children?
Praying while raping would be entirely optional, of course.
Your position is either that parents should be allowed to do whatever they like, and therefore that children have no rights at all. Or that children do indeed have rights and that parents cannot infringe upon them, and therefore that parents cannot be allowed to do whatever they like. One or the other, this time without the preaching attached, please.
I note that you similarly dodged Omnivorous' question too, despite clearly quoting it. All that is required of you there is a simple yes or no, once again without any decoration.
this is where you are wrong, as stated at the head of this response children rights are very limited and much is left up to the parents. as for your 'freedom from religion' there is NO constitution anywhere in the world that has that as a right. that is an atheistic idea which they use to spearhead attacks on those who are religious.
Are these rights so limited that a child cannot be allowed to live if their parents refuse to allow reasonable treatment? Who is violating whose rights here; the parents denying the right to live, or the child their right to believe? You can ask pretty much any judge - any judge of any religion - and they'll say the same thing: your rights do not override theirs.
I think you'll also find that the US Constitution has these attachments called the Bill Of Rights (which are by definition part of the Constitution) which states
First Amendment writes:
... respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...
'Freedom of' also includes 'freedom from', by all common applications of this (or similar) law in that and other judicial systems. That means you can believe whatever you like and nobody is allowed to make you do otherwise; it also means I can sit out and not believe anything, and you can't force me to make me do otherwise either. Unless you wish to deny the fact that I cannot force you to be a Hindu or a Muslim or a Buddhist?
Finally, on the side:
you will ignore the question,
Check.
accuse me of making a personal attack,
Damn, not quite. You accused me of planning to make a personal attack if you say too much (which you did, anyway; and many would say so did I).
Nij writes:
and follow that up with your idea that I am naught but an evil atheist God-hater
archaeologist writes:
your bias against all things christian
Check. Well, two-and-a-half out of three ain't bad.
Edited by Nij, : Fix quoteboxes; add horizontal line.
You know Archie you spend so much time in these discussions I would like to suggest that you take half a day and go to your local hospital and watch what the people do there. See if you can find the devil in them.
Of course they don't deserve to die! But evolution has no feelings. Its not "survival of the fittest" but survival of the "barely adequate." And the irrational decisions of these parents have the effect of removing some of their genes from the population. A change in the genome qualifies as evolution in action.
You're taking evolution to a ridiculous extreme. We could just as easily say that cold and callous people are too selfish to live and therefore deserve to have their genes removed from the population.
Just because their parents are religious nutjobs, does not mean that their children will be.
And if they're nutjobs for believing that prayer alone will save their child, what does it make you that you want to allow the death of children on the basis of supposed "bad genes?" Eugenics, much?
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
So if parents should be allowed to withhold medical treatment instead of prayer, are they allowed (either morally or legally) to ONLY pray when their child is being murdered in front of them?
Because I'm willing to bet if we put your pet theory to the test, you would lose heart and lose faith real quick. You would intervene. And what would that say about your faith in light of your declarations?
That's the funny thing about sanctimony. The Pope rides around in a car with bulletproof glass and a security detail. What does that say about his level of faith?
Muslim extremists blow themselves up in the name of Allah to destroy the heathens that Allah despises. What, is Allah too inept to do the dirty work himself?
Oh ye of little faith....
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
(1)