Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,429 Year: 6,686/9,624 Month: 26/238 Week: 26/22 Day: 8/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?
Nij
Member (Idle past 5139 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 256 of 284 (579464)
09-04-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by cavediver
09-04-2010 8:52 AM


Re: It's a simple enough fucking idea...
Yeah, funny that nobody notices the difference between an evolution accepter and a "nice" creo, yet there's clearly a huge gap between evolution accepters and "notnice" creos.
I wonder what that gap could possibly be in?
Hint: intelligence, respect, tolerance, desire for actual understanding, humanity in general, ...


arch, if you're not even going to try thinking sensibly about this, there' no point in explaining what we think. hell, we've already done that in the most simple terms we could think of.
You were asked very simple questions -- do children have rights or not? can parents do whatever they like or not? -- which you refused to answer, because you know that either way you would be wrong or inconcistent.
Face it, you aren't arguing in protecion of faith healing, you're arguing against what you see as a secular/atheist (which are not the same thing by the way) prosecution of religion. And you would be wrong, because it's a societal prosecution of stupidity and neglect.
May your god help any children you ever have, because you certainly wouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2010 8:52 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:14 AM Nij has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 984 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 257 of 284 (579476)
09-04-2010 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by archaeologist
09-04-2010 5:28 AM


the only rule book that comes with kids the majorityof the people of the world reject - the Bible
Do you have children, Arch? Did you ever have to have a rebellious son stoned to death? Or a daughter put to death for getting raped somewhere in town?
OF COURSE I reject barbaric insanity like that! I'd still reject it if it came from a secular source! And aside from that, where's chapter and verse on breastfeeding twins, or on changing diapers? Where does the Bible say how much TV a four-year-old should watch?
The Bible as a child-rearing "rule book?" Ludicrous.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by archaeologist, posted 09-04-2010 5:28 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:15 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.3


Message 258 of 284 (579512)
09-04-2010 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by archaeologist
09-04-2010 5:08 AM


this is a retarded and absurd answer
As the parent of a mentally handicapped son, this is a very offensive term. Do you speak like this to people in your church? Do you know how painful it is to hear someone call him a retard? It is a term I would expect from a middleschooler, not an educated adult.
You might try using adult language if you want to be taken seriously. Well it might help a little.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by archaeologist, posted 09-04-2010 5:08 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:24 AM Theodoric has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4439 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 259 of 284 (579532)
09-04-2010 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by archaeologist
09-04-2010 5:32 PM


Re: It's a simple enough fucking idea...
they got prosecuted because atheists allowed themselves to not understand the situation and let their emotions blind them to the reality.
What the F#$K do Atheists have to do with this rant? They were prosecuted because they were accused of negligent homicide.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by archaeologist, posted 09-04-2010 5:32 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:28 AM bluescat48 has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 284 (579542)
09-05-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Nij
09-04-2010 7:47 PM


Re: It's a simple enough fucking idea...
You were asked very simple questions -- do children have rights or not? can parents do whatever they like or not? -- which you refused to answer, because you know that either way you would be wrong or inconcistent.
you forget, i do not go your way, i go with God and His. if you do not like the answers then you have a choice to accept or reject them.
it is clear that your side only prosecutes because it doesn't like religious beliefs and they use the death of a child to do an end run on the religious freedoms found in most nations.
i do not see you listening to one thing i have pointed out and proven but i see a lot of avoidance. the parents did nothing wrong and should not be punished.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Nij, posted 09-04-2010 7:47 PM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Nij, posted 09-05-2010 3:04 AM archaeologist has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 284 (579543)
09-05-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Coragyps
09-04-2010 8:57 PM


Do you have children, Arch? Did you ever have to have a rebellious son stoned to death? Or a daughter put to death for getting raped somewhere in town?
please do not quote the Bible when you do not understand it nor how it applies.
Where does the Bible say how much TV a four-year-old should watch?
the verses may not be worded as you would like but instructions are there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Coragyps, posted 09-04-2010 8:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


(1)
(1)
Message 262 of 284 (579546)
09-05-2010 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Theodoric
09-04-2010 11:02 PM


As the parent of a mentally handicapped son, this is a very offensive term.
oh puleeasse...grow up. have you ever heard that little ditty...'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me...'?
i am not politically correct nor want to be for such an attitude is not christian but secular. there is nothing wrong with me calling his comment 'retarded' for if that is what it was then that is what it needs to be called. here is the definition of the word 'retard(ed)':
RET`ARD, v. t. [Fr. retarder; L. retardo; re and tardo, to delay; tardus, slow, late. See Target.]
1. To diminish the velocity of motion; to hinder; to render more slow in progress; as, to retard the march of an army; to retard the motion of a ship. The resistance of air retards the velocity of a cannon ball. It is opposed to accelerate.
2. To delay; to put off; to render more late; as, to retard the attacks of old age; to retard a rupture between nations. My visit was retarded by business.
RETARD, v. i. To stay back. [Not in use.] Brown.
RETARDATION, n. The act of abating the velocity of motion; hinderance; the act of delaying; as the retardation of the motion of a ship; the retardation of hoary hairs. Bacon.
RET`ARDED, pp. Hindered in motion; delayed.
RET`ARDER, n. One that retards, hinders or delays.
RET`ARDING, ppr. Abating the velocity of motion; hindering; delaying.
RET`ARDMENT, n. The act of retarding or delaying
Webster, N. 2006. Noah Webster's first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Foundation for American Christian Education: Anaheim, CA
do you see any reference to a human's mental abilities? i do not.
but let me tell you a story, we had two kids in our church growing up both were deficient mentally (one was the pastor's son) and one sunday the pastor's son sees the other one coming through the foyer and says 'here comes that retard _____'.
retarded people are just that retarded, some thing has slowed their thinking ability and developement but if you are going to get upset over little things like that then i have no respect for you at all.
Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Theodoric, posted 09-04-2010 11:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Theodoric, posted 09-05-2010 10:30 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 284 (579550)
09-05-2010 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by bluescat48
09-04-2010 11:51 PM


Re: It's a simple enough fucking idea...
What the F#$K do Atheists have to do with this rant? They were prosecuted because they were accused of negligent homicide.
everything. the parents committed no crime. ther crime was in the policy but cowardly prosecutors go after the weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by bluescat48, posted 09-04-2010 11:51 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by bluescat48, posted 09-05-2010 8:50 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 284 (579558)
09-05-2010 12:49 AM


i would like to move on to other areas of this discussion that have been avoided. i will list some of them--
1. the example of mickey mantle
2. the underbelly of medical care
3. medical help doesn't guarantee success.
4.discrimination in treatment--looks, money or lack of it...
5. faith healing policies

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 5139 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 265 of 284 (579575)
09-05-2010 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by archaeologist
09-05-2010 12:14 AM


Still waiting... still waiting...
You haven't GIVEN any fucking answers.
Can the parents do whatever they like or not? Does the child have rights or not? Which side of the issue are you damn well on?
You say we've avoided things? Then stop being a hypocrite and give us a clear single, unambiguous and uncluttered answer. What I want is just one word: yes or no. What I expect is more nonsense about us hating religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:14 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 3:18 AM Nij has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 284 (579578)
09-05-2010 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Nij
09-05-2010 3:04 AM


Re: Still waiting... still waiting...
You haven't GIVEN any fucking answers
yet i did and even posted links to emancipation websites that spell out the LIMITED child's rights and the right of the parents to make decisions for their child.
as far as I am concerned the parents have the right to determine their child's medical treatment. children certainly are not prepared to make such decisions. doctors and nurses certainly cannot make medical decisions for a child not their own.
can parents choose faith healing--of course. such a decision is within their authority. are they being negligent-- no. should they choose faith healing--only if they know for sure it is the God of the Bible who directs them to do so and not some cultic policy or influence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Nij, posted 09-05-2010 3:04 AM Nij has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Nij, posted 09-05-2010 5:49 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 267 of 284 (579588)
09-05-2010 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by archaeologist
09-04-2010 5:32 PM


Re: It's a simple enough fucking idea...
they got prosecuted because atheists allowed themselves to not understand the situation and let their emotions blind them to the reality.
I'll ask you again if you think the jury were all atheists.
Reckoning atheists at a generous 10% of the population, the odds against this are (other things being equal) are a trillion to one against. (I am presuming here that, as usual, a unanimous verdict is required for a murder conviction.)
they didn't neglect theier responsibilities, religious people do not answer to atheists, tey answer to God whom the atheist will answer to as well.
Religious people answer to the law. (Note that, like juries, legislative bodies are overwhelmingly made up of theists.) Moreover, the Bible says repeatedly (as I have detailed in another post) that Christians are obliged to obey the civil authority.
BE HONEST, you only want them to decide what you want or there is somethign wrong. sorry but religions do not follow secularists as the secularlist is wrong.
In this particular case, the people who thought that God would heal their child were wrong. And then when they went on believing that God would raise their child from the dead, they were still wrong.
If you'd asked me what was going to happen, I'd have been right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by archaeologist, posted 09-04-2010 5:32 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Nij
Member (Idle past 5139 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 268 of 284 (579594)
09-05-2010 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by archaeologist
09-05-2010 3:18 AM


Re: Still waiting... still waiting...
I asked for one word that tells me exactly what your answer is, not several hundred that skip the point entirely.
For around the fifth or sixth time:
Do children have rights, or not?
Can parents do whatever they like, or not?
And I'll add the third specific one, because otherwise you'd accuse me of twisting your words:
Do children have the right to life and health, or do they not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 3:18 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 284 (579600)
09-05-2010 6:58 AM


I'll ask you again if you think the jury were all atheists.
really do not care, the question i snot germane to the issue being discussed.
In this particular case, the people who thought that God would heal their child were wrong. And then when they went on believing that God would raise their child from the dead, they were still wrong.
still doesn't mean they neglected the medical needs of the child or that their request went unanswered.
I asked for one word that tells me exactly what your answer is, not several hundred that skip the point entirely
that Christians are obliged to obey the civil authority.
there are limitations on that but as usual you skip those parts.
asked and answered. you are not going to badger me into saying something you can twist to fit your thinking. see my previous post.
i would probably have a heart attack if an atheist or secularist was actually honest in their postings.

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-05-2010 9:32 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 288 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 270 of 284 (579615)
09-05-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by archaeologist
09-03-2010 6:41 PM


Re: Prosecuting Preachers
Hi Archy,
Granny writes:
I don't see how {being brainwashed by a cult} could be considered a legal defence.
Archy writes:
this argument fails like the argument used against the nazis' 'i was only obeying orders' failed for the allied side did things under orders and they are expected to carry out those orders or face punishment. same for the nazis, they were expected to carry out their orders or be punished for disobedience.
Holy crap Archy! That's the complete opposite of what actually happened. You sure don't know much about history for someone who calls himself archaeologist.
The Nazis were the ones who employed the "I was only obeying orders" defence, at Nuremberg. That's why it's popularly referred to as the"Nuremberg defence".
It was not used against them, by the allies or anyone else, it was used by them.
The defence failed, i.e. those Nazis who claimed that they could not be prosecuted because they were "Only obeying orders" were still prosecuted and found guilty.
If you were a real archaeologist, you would know these things.
You are the one employing the Nuremberg defence, not me. You are the one claiming that the parents could not be prosecuted because they were "only obeying orders" from their cult. You are basing your argument upon what is probably the most famous failed legal defence in the world. Nice going.
fear plays a part in many decisions especially when yuo are under the auspices of people who are tyrannical, unrelenting, cultish and so on. it is unrealistic to expect people to function like a free person when they are not; irregrdless of the fact that some people were able to break free of this hold on their liberties as people NOT everyone can and it is foolish to lump them in with those who can then exact a penalty on them for what they could not do.
This is nonsense. They were able to do anything they wanted; they chose not to. They were under great pressure, I understand that, but they were not insane, they were responsible adults. they must be treated in law as adults. that means they must face the same penalty as anyone else.
As I've said, their extenuating circumstances could be taken into consideration at sentencing, but they do not constitute a legal defence; unless you consider that religious belief constitutes some sort of diminished responsibility, as insanity does.
I notice as well that you continue to ignore my point about setting a dangerous legal precedent; I assume you have no answer.
that is equal to punishing an eye witness to a crime because they were frozen with fear and could not act.
This is unproven hyperbole.
it is just ridiculous and part of this mentality's problem stems from the totalitarian idea of law and order that is sweeping western nations.
More absurd hyperbole. All I want is for parents who stand by and allow their kids to die for want of a simple medical procedure, to be punished. That is far from totalitarian.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by archaeologist, posted 09-03-2010 6:41 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024