12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFI have been clear, I will not cause another to sin against their will by force.
You have sidestepped the question,which was:
Does this respect [and determination to not compel them to do certain things] extend to other people's concept of "sin" when their concept is the complete opposite of your own concept of "sin"?
In other words, if someone else frames their action as "avoiding sin" even when ~ for you ~ their action is grotesquely ...[text shortened]... rator has the right to decide for himself what is and is not "sin", is that what you are saying?
That is the bottom line.
Kelly
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJaySo as long as they frame it as a matter of religious conviction, anyone can do anything to anyone and you will not support the state intervening to protect anyone?
Of course it is up to them, again I'm not going to force them. I will if
possible talk them out of something that I think I should.
Originally posted by KellyJayHow so? Maybe you need to waffle a little less,listen to the point or question being made, and be more consistent in what you say. You have agreed that every person can have their own personal definition of "sin" [KellyJay:"Of course it is up to them"] and you have said that you do not support state intervening if it's a matter of "sin" [KellyJay:"if it goes against a religion the state should not force it"].
You are twisting this into something completely out of all context.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by divegeesterA fairly big chunk of the thread was about his own beliefs.
Kelly is not talking about his stance on his own beliefs though is he.
How you can find this position "perfectly reasonable" is either you revealling a side to your moral nature you have never revealed before or your are confused or you are trolling. I suspect that latter, it's a poor effort.
No, not trolling at all, nor am I confused. I have started another thread to discuss the matter "Believe vs morality" and you are welcome to weigh in.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by FMFSin leads to death, you should know that, but the more this conversation
How so? Maybe you need to waffle a little less,listen to the point or question being made, and be more consistent in what you say. You have agreed that every person can have their own personal definition of "sin" [KellyJay:"Of course it is up to them"] and you have said that you do not support state intervening if it's a matter of "sin" [KellyJay:"if it goes against a religion the state should not force it"].
goes on the less I think you ever really knew. Each of us if we are really
attempting to walk humbly and peacefully with God will through scripture
see those things God calls sin. As we go through life we will each setup
our own standards as well, those will be up to us as we judge we will be
judged. I've pointed to this over and over again in this discussion where
both God and man will have standards for sin.
The state is going to stop something from happening regardless of what
I or you or anyone else thinks. That power is dangerous and even if it
starts off as what people think is a good thing, can be abused by turning
it into something else.
So this everyone can do anything is not something I've promoted.
You should be a little more consistent in what you say!
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySin leads to death
Sin leads to death, you should know that, but the more this conversation
goes on the less I think you ever really knew. Each of us if we are really
attempting to walk humbly and peacefully with God will through scripture
see those things God calls sin. As we go through life we will each setup
our own standards as well, those will be up to us as we judge ...[text shortened]... is not something I've promoted.
You should be a little more consistent in what you say!
Kelly
i think the thing that appears to be baffling a few of us on here, is you appear to be condoning the freedom of a parent to have control of life and death of a child based on the parents personal concept of sin. regardless if you (kellyjay) agree that its a real sin.
the example given of a jw. you do not agree that giving blood to a child is a sin. yet you support the parents right to deny the child even if it causes death.
so regardless of which religion, regardless of why its considered a sin - do you support all situations in which a parent denies a child a life saving procedure because the parent claims it is a sin..regardless if you (kellyjay) agree that it is sin.
to make this clear, ill give you an example - a religion believes its a sin to give a child under 16 any form of medical help. would you support state intervention against a parent who would deny a child all forms medication? (so no pain killers, inhalers, vaccines, stitches, surgery..and so on).
12 Jun 14
FMF: Would you let your children be murdered in order to save yourself?So you WOULD lie to a psychopathic murderer or Nazi by "denying Christ" [while not really "denying Christ" in your heart] if it would save your children from being murdered?
Originally posted by KellyJay
no
12 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by stellspalfieI get that trust me! A parent who loves their kids is not going to just throw
[b]Sin leads to death
i think the thing that appears to be baffling a few of us on here, is you appear to be condoning the freedom of a parent to have control of life and death of a child based on the parents personal concept of sin. regardless if you (kellyjay) agree that its a real sin.
the example given of a jw. you do not agree that givi ...[text shortened]... ld all forms medication? (so no pain killers, inhalers, vaccines, stitches, surgery..and so on).[/b]
it out the window. It also isn't always true that if this gets done or that, that
the child lives or dies. No doctor knows that 100% of the time, so the
parents are not wishing their kids dies.
My wife and I had a child that died, so this isn't something I look at and it
is just a topic for mulling around in my head on the ins and outs. I get the
pain and suffering involved! We were not put in a place where something
was put to us that we disagreed with to save our child. We actually talked
about one thing that if it was presented we were going to say no too, but it
never came up. (fetal stem cells) We did not want some other child's life to
be taken so ours would live. That belief is no different than accepting blood.
Life is complex, it isn't always clean cut, this is good that is bad. I don't care
where you draw you line of good and evil, more times than not someone
will once you draw that line find some example of pure evil that could crop
up on your side of the line if they think about it long enough.
I know I'm not promised tomorrow, none of my children are, you are not,
no one reading this post has been promised tomorrow. So we do the best
we can, cutting slack to others, because we need too! Where we instead
cutting each other slack we condemn and judge where we condemn and
judge we will according to scripture have to face that on ourselves.
I trust parents who love their kids much more than I do the state. If the
parents feel *I disagree with this* that they damage their lives before God
by taking in blood of others into their bodies, then to force them to do that
would be no different than the state saying you can only have two kids,
abort all the rest. We stop all kinds of medical help when we want to, I've
just had some dear people to me die and their wishes were do not do
anything to bring me back because of their suffering. So if the state is okay
with that, why not accept others reject other forms of medical help for
other reasons?
Kelly
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by KellyJayNo doctor knows that 100% maybe the doctors you know are stupid. but if a child is loosing blood at an alarming rate the doctor knows 100% that the hole is not going to fix itself. there are many medical situations where the docs know 100%
I get that trust me! A parent who loves their kids is not going to just throw
it out the window. It also isn't always true that if this gets done or that, that
the child lives or dies. No doctor knows that 100% of the time, so the
parents are not wishing their kids dies.
My wife and I had a child that died, so this isn't something I look at and it
is ...[text shortened]...
with that, why not accept others reject other forms of medical help for
other reasons?
Kelly
you make the subject easier to answer by talking generalities. such as - sometimes the child may not die, the doctors dont always know and some parents may reject some medicines. but life is not generalities its specif individual cases.
the problem you are causing by only thinking generally is you are also then accepting some horrific scenarios. heres some to to hammer home the point.
little jimmy is 14years old, he is bleeding out after a car crash. he his begging and pleading for his life....but his parents are refusing him blood, as he is under 16 the doctor is listening to the parents....jimmy dies.
bob has created a new religion for a bit of fun. bob has 100 followers, with 200 children between them.........all the children die because bob says giving children medicine is a sin before god.
if you think the parents have the right to act the way they did in either scenario then you are a very sick puppy and need to seek immediate help from a noggin doctor.
12 Jun 14
Originally posted by stellspalfieI agree all that you said should be done.
[b]No doctor knows that 100% maybe the doctors you know are stupid. but if a child is loosing blood at an alarming rate the doctor knows 100% that the hole is not going to fix itself. there are many medical situations where the docs know 100%
you make the subject easier to answer by talking generalities. such as - sometimes the child may not ...[text shortened]... er scenario then you are a very sick puppy and need to seek immediate help from a noggin doctor.[/b]
The stance I have is if something I believe is sin has to take place to save
my life, I'd rather die.
Kelly