05 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kwell that makes it alright then does it? you state you are uninterested in a moral
coming from a supporter of the catholic church, an organisation that is responsible for the death of literally millions of innocents, not to mention emotionally scarring for life innocent children at the hands of paedophile priests, i dont think you have a leg to
stand upon. By their fruits you will recognise those men, and the fruit-age of Catholicism gion morally perfect. I am just not interested in arbitrating a moral contest between religions.
contest between religions yet you have adjudged my religion to be morally deficient
and reprehensible because we claim the right of self determination and the freedom to
exercise our consciences, intwesting, vewy vewy intwesting. But given the history of
the Roman catholic church its understandable from a certain perspective, kind of like
starting a race with two huge millstones tied around your neck and an anchor
embedded at the bottom of the sea, tied around your waist. So be it, but you had
better not mess with me again! 😛
05 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadwhen will you noobs learn that nationalism means nothing to us? Do i fly a Scottish
Now lets talk about atrocities committed by the Scots and see if Robbie can distance himself from them too.
flag? nope? why not? because i consider my own country to be no better or worse
that any other, indeed, there are many elements in our history that i am thoroughly
ashamed of, the sell out of the land for sheep farming forcing generations of
persons from their homes, perpetrated by Scots landowners upon other Scots. You
can still see the remains of those persons homes if you visit the highlands today, it
wasn't that long ago. My wife has been subject to racism here also a thing that i
was thoroughly ashamed of and could find no words to express my loathing of.
Therefore i was born here, live here but as for Scottish nationalism, you can keep
it. There is one exception though, i think Diego Maradonna should have a statue
erected in his honour, up there beside Sit Walter Scott and Bonn Scott of AC/DC, in
honour of services rendered to the Scottish nation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell that makes it alright then does it? you state you are uninterested in a moral
well that makes it alright then does it? you state you are uninterested in a moral
contest between religions yet you have adjudged my religion to be morally deficient
and reprehensible because we claim the right of self determination and the freedom to
exercise our consciences, intwesting, vewy vewy intwesting. But given the history of
the R ...[text shortened]... m of the sea, ties around your waist. So be it, but you had
better not mess with me again! 😛
contest between religions yet you have adjudged my religion to be morally deficient
and reprehensible because we claim the right of self determination and the freedom to
exercise our consciences, intwesting, vewy vewy intwesting.
Yes, that's correct. It may turn out that other religious organisations are guilty of grave moral evils. That's not the point. The point is that your organisation spreads a perverse message of haemophobia.
But given the history of
the Roman catholic church its understandable from a certain perspective, kind of like
starting a race with two huge millstones ties around your neck and an anchor
embedded at the bottom of the sea, ties around your waist. So be it, but you had
better not mess with me again! 😛
As you know, I do not identify as Roman Catholic any longer. Your continual references to the Catholic Church here have no rhetorical power. I really don't know why you continually mention it.
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kwe reserve the right of self determination and the exercise of the human faculty of
[b]well that makes it alright then does it? you state you are uninterested in a moral
contest between religions yet you have adjudged my religion to be morally deficient
and reprehensible because we claim the right of self determination and the freedom to
exercise our consciences, intwesting, vewy vewy intwesting.
Yes, that's correct. It may lic Church here have no rhetorical power. I really don't know why you continually mention it.[/b]
conscience, as yet you have failed to state why that should be morally deficient? Your
defence of the Roman Catholic church makes it quite apparent that you are not as
detached as you would have us believe, indeed , a complete lack of objectivity in the
matter is quite telling. But if that is your stance then I agree its a cheap trick and i will
try (as far as is humanly possible) to think of you in other terms, not yet defined.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewe reserve the right of self determination and the exercise of the human faculty of
we reserve the right of self determination and the exercise of the human faculty of
conscience, as yet you have failed to state why that should be morally deficient? Your
defence of the Roman Catholic church makes it quite apparent that you are not as
detached as you would have us believe, indeed , a complete lack of objectivity in the
matte ...[text shortened]... nd i will
try (as far as is humanly possible) to think of you in other terms, not yet defined.
conscience, as yet you have failed to state why that should be morally deficient?
The example I mentioned was of a child, not an adult. As I said, this was not a case of self-determination.
Your
defence of the Roman Catholic church makes it quite apparent that you are not as
detached as you would have us believe, indeed , a complete lack of objectivity in the
matter is quite telling. But if that is your stance then I agree its a cheap trick and i will
try (as far as is humanly possible) to think of you in other terms, not yet defined.
I do defend the Catholic Church, when I feel it needs defending. I do not think that the Catholic Church however is morally right or infallible. I currently have a boyfriend (I am, by the way, a man); I really have no interest in practicing Catholicism any more. I am in no way bound to defend the Catholic Church.
05 May 11
Originally posted by Suziannethis is an extract from the 2007 yearbook of Jehovahs witnesses
I do not reconcile these atrocities with my faith. The fact that these were perpetrated by people who call themselves Christian is fairly coincidental. I do not know if Chivington repented these sins before his death, but if he did not, then he's getting a surprise come Judgment Day. There are people who commit heinous sins in every religion. You cannot ...[text shortened]... en't seen a good story on the problem anywhere in the media for at least the last 10 years.
Canada has many indigenous people who speak their own language. A few years
ago, a sister named Carma witnessed to a man who is a Blackfoot Indian. “When I
tried to witness to him in English, he refused to listen,” says Carma, who lives on
the Blackfoot reserve with her parents. “He said that I belong to a white man’s
religion and that the Bible is a white man’s book. I thought, ‘If only I knew more
about Blackfoot language and culture, he might take me seriously.’” Carma decided
to learn the language and later assisted 23 witnesses who attended a weekly
Blackfoot-language class.
One of the students witnessed to a Blackfoot couple who were visiting their sick son
in the hospital. Impressed that the sister took an interest in their language, the
couple gave her their address. Carma learned that the husband was the very same
person whom she met a year earlier! So she accompanied the sister to the address
. “They not only listened but also agreed with what the Bible says,” relates Carma.
“The sister offered them a Bible and a study aid. With tears in her eyes, the woman
held the two publications to her breast, her husband nodding approvingly. She now
studies, and her husband listens in.”
Pointing to the success of the language class, the branch reports that 34 Blackfeet
attended the 2006 Memorial of Christ's death held in their own tongue!
I think that despite the huge problems that you have identified this young native
American girl and her efforts are just pure awesome!
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KAs has been mentioned we have no jurisdiction over a minor, your example therefore is
we reserve the right of self determination and the exercise of the human faculty of
conscience, as yet you have failed to state why that should be morally deficient?
The example I mentioned was of a child, not an adult. As I said, this was not a case of self-determination.
Your
defence of the Roman Catholic church makes it quite appare interest in practicing Catholicism any more. I am in no way bound to defend the Catholic Church.
nothing but sensationalistic journalism intended not to incite to reason, but a purely
emotional response, i loathe your actions in that regard. Never the less, if we reserve
the right to self determination and the exercise of conscience as adults, why have you
termed us haeomphobic? You point of view is hardly consistent with your expressions.
Yes you had stated that you were homosexual before, it matters little to me although
I can understand why it would put you at odds with the Roman Catholic church. Never
the less your attachment to that ancient edifice is quite apparent, despite your
protestations! We lookee here,you might become a protestant, all the protesting your
doing 🙂
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs has been mentioned we have no jurisdiction over a minor, your example therefore is
As has been mentioned we have no jurisdiction over a minor, your example therefore is
nothing but sensationalistic journalism intended not to incite to reason, but a purely
emotional response, i loathe your actions in that regard. Never the less, if we reserve
the right to self determination and the exercise of conscience as adults, why have y ...[text shortened]... protestations! We lookee here,you might become a protestant, all the protesting your
doing 🙂
nothing but sensationalistic journalism intended not to incite to reason, but a purely
emotional response, i loathe your actions in that regard.
This is untrue. Perhaps in your country, but not in all. Even in Australia, the hospital must still ask permission from the parents for a blood transfusion. If the parents refuse, they must then still obtain permission from the court. But that's not the point. Whether or not the child is forced against the parents' wishes to have a blood transfusion, your organisation still teaches that this is morally wrong. A teenager, who has been raised to think that blood transfusions are morally unacceptable but is compelled to receive a transfusion, must regret the fact that he is alive.
05 May 11
Originally posted by Conrau Kno its not untrue, for it it was you would have tried to make reference to adults, but
[b]As has been mentioned we have no jurisdiction over a minor, your example therefore is
nothing but sensationalistic journalism intended not to incite to reason, but a purely
emotional response, i loathe your actions in that regard.
This is untrue. Perhaps in your country, but not in all. Even in Australia, the hospital must still ask permissi ...[text shortened]... unacceptable but is compelled to receive a transfusion, must regret the fact that he is alive.[/b]
you cannot for in doing so you would of necessity have had to admit that yes indeed,
in the case of adults the right of self determination and the exercise of conscience is
paramount, but instead you must resort to that of children over which the parents
have no real jurisdiction, yet you are painting a picture as if they have, you are
despicable in this regard, utterly despicable!
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust to be clear, you are saying that in every country, the hospital can waive parental consent?
no its not untrue, for it it was you would have tried to make reference to adults, but
you cannot for in doing so you would of necessity have had to admit that yes indeed,
in the case of adults the right of self determination and the exercise of conscience is
paramount, but instead you must resort to that of children over which the parents
ha ...[text shortened]... are painting a picture as if they have, you are
despicable in this regard, utterly despicable!
And anyway, you didn't respond to my point. Your organisation still teaches that it is better for the child to die. It is just inconvenient that the state overrides the wishes of the parents. A child who has received a blood transfusion then has to regret their life thinking they are only alive as a result of an immoral blood transfusion.
05 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI have no idea in every country, in the Uk, yes. No my organisation does not teach that its better for the child to die. Which parent would want their child to die? I hardly think a child would give it a second thought if they received as a child an intravenous blood transfusion, then again, what are you going to say to the parents of those children who have died as a direct consequence of receiving infected blood? Mr morality, what are you going to say?
Just to be clear, you are saying that in every country, the hospital can waive parental consent?
And anyway, you didn't respond to my point. Your organisation still teaches that it is better for the child to die. It is just inconvenient that the state overrides the wishes of the parents. A child who has received a blood transfusion then has to regret their life thinking they are only alive as a result of an immoral blood transfusion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
05 May 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no idea in every country, in the Uk, yes.
I have no idea in every country, in the Uk, yes. No my organisation does not teach that its better for the child to die. Which parent would want their child to die? I hardly think a child would give it a second thought if they received as a child an intravenous blood transfusion, then again, what are you going to say to the parents of those childr ...[text shortened]... ed as a direct consequence of receiving infected blood? Mr morality, what are you going to say?
Then how can you possibly know that my story is false? This person is from New Zealand, not the UK.
Which parent would want their child to die?
Now you are deliberately misconstruing me. I did not say that your organisation believes that it is morally good for a child to die; it certainly must however believe that it is morally better for a child to die than to live by means of a blood transfusion.
I hardly think a child would give it a second thought if they received as a child an intravenous blood transfusion, then again, what are you going to say to the parents of those children who have died as a direct consequence of receiving infected blood?
Only a few months ago, I gave you an article about a teenager who refused to have a blood transfusion. This refusal would be fatal. Your organisation would surely teach that it this is the morally superior situation. Imagine then if that same teenager had been forced to receive a blood transfusion. He would then have to regret his own life. That's why your organisation is sick.
05 May 11
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kdid the teenager have the right of self-determination and the exercise of the faculty
[b]I have no idea in every country, in the Uk, yes.
Then how can you possibly know that my story is false? This person is from New Zealand, not the UK.
Which parent would want their child to die?
Now you are deliberately misconstruing me. I did not say that your organisation believes that it is morally good for a child to die; it cert ...[text shortened]... d transfusion. He would then have to regret his own life. That's why your organisation is sick.[/b]
of conscience? apparently as i recall, not only did he wish to express the right of
self determination and his faculty of conscience but that the courts of the land also
upheld his right of self determination and the human right to exercise his
conscience. Who the heck are you to tell another person what may be done with
his or her own body? what gives you the right to pass judgement upon them? I
agree that we teach that a person should abstain from blood, indeed, any witness in
his position would have done the same thing, but we will not have persons like you
telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies, nor in moralising over us
because you think that you know better. My goodness how hypocritical of you, how
many persons in comparison have died as a result of receiving infected blood? how
many persons as a consequence of acts of homosexuality which we also condemn
were infected with HIV, how many persons through acts of fornication , or drug
abuse which we also condemn have died? i want you to compare that and make a
comparison of how many persons have died as a consequence of refusing blood
transfusions.