@secondson saidTerminating pregnancies is not "child sacrifice" in the same sense as religious "child sacrifice" of offspring up to the age of 17 [or whatever the age limit is for parental rights with regard to the medical treatment of their children].
you don't see how abortion, whether for religious reasons or not, isn't the greatest wholesale child sacrificing practice going on in the world today.
I think you can surely see this is true without compromising your stance on abortion.
Indeed, I would have thought you'd need to agree with [about the issue of letting children die for want of medical treatment for religious reasons] in order for you to be consistent in your principled approach to the sanctity of life.
@fmf saidThat's the problem with religion. Religion is the doing of something in an "effort to be saved".
Letting a child die to either [1] please God or [2] not to anger God is "child sacrifice"; it's the death of a child in order to supposedly obey God. It is done in order to comply with religious rules in an effort to be "saved". Don't be squeamish about calling a spade a spade.
The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice. Characterizing God in any other way defies reason. (Not saying you did that)
@secondson saidBut, with no-blood-transfusions being a Christian doctrine adhered to by a particular group of Christians based on a Bible verse, it is supposedly "objectively true". So there we have it.
That's the problem with religion. Religion is the doing of something in an "effort to be saved".
The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice. Characterizing God in any other way defies reason. (Not saying you did that)
@fmf saidI'll have to disagree with you. Abortion is sacrificing a child. Of course there's no god involved, so it can't be said it's done for religious reasons, but the aborted baby is indeed a sacrifice.
Terminating pregnancies is not "child sacrifice" in the same sense as religious "child sacrifice" of offspring up to the age of 17 [or whatever the age limit is for parental rights with regard to the medical treatment of their children].
I think you can surely see this is true without compromising your stance on abortion.
I believe that anyone that would refuse medical treatment to save their child's life is effectively engaged in a form of abortion, so in that sense it's a sacrifice.
But to characterize that sacrifice as a sacrifice to God is taking it too far. It's irrational.
@secondson saidI am not discussing any "God" with you. You and I are discussing a religious doctrine and ideology.
That's the problem with religion. Religion is the doing of something in an "effort to be saved".
The God of the Bible abhors child sacrifice. Characterizing God in any other way defies reason. (Not saying you did that)
@secondson saidThat's right, abortion is not religious "child sacrifice".
I'll have to disagree with you. Abortion is sacrificing a child. Of course there's no god involved, so it can't be said it's done for religious reasons, but the aborted baby is indeed a sacrifice.
@fmf saidAllowing a child to die for want of medical treatment is diametrically opposed to my "principled approach to the sanctity of life."
Indeed, I would have thought you'd need to agree with [about the issue of letting children die for want of medical treatment for religious reasons] in order for you to be consistent in your principled approach to the sanctity of life.
What father or mother would not seek all available medical treatment to save their child's life?
A JW apparently. For bogus religious reasons. There is no biblical basis for it.
@secondson saidWell, they do have their Biblical basis for the forbidding of blood transfusions, actually, so it's your interpretation against theirs, I suppose.
Allowing a child to die for want of medical treatment is diametrically opposed to my "principled approach to the sanctity of life."
What father or mother would not seek all available medical treatment to save their child's life?
A JW apparently. For bogus religious reasons. There is no biblical basis for it.
@fmf saidThis thread outlines the idea that JW's sacrifice there children to God, and to the God of the Bible at that.
I am not discussing any "God" with you. You and I are discussing a religious doctrine and ideology.
I've clearly said the JW's base their belief in refusing to allow a life saving medical treatment for their children on an erroneous understanding of both the Bible and the God of the Bible.
The discussion about God is part and parcel of the topic of religious doctrine and ideology relative to the discourse in this thread.
1 edit
@fmf saidYou can suppose that, but I assure you that the JW's interpretation and/or mine is not the issue.
Well, they do have their Biblical basis for the forbidding of blood transfusions, actually, so it's your interpretation against theirs, I suppose.
It stands to reason that withholding medical treatment for a child that can save his life based on a biblical "interpretation" that demands religious observance only serves to prove their interpretation is erroneous. It's even heretical.
The Bible knows nothing about it.
-Removed-LOL, I had no idea what any of this was about...
But, apparently, by stating that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the Bible and are confident in the goodness of God...
... I endorse their policies on blood transfusions as well (which I don't), which is now referred to as "child sacrifices."
This is ridiculous.
There's nothing to be debated because the OP is absurd.
@secondson saidIt is entirely and precisely about the JW's interpretation v your interpretation.
You can suppose that, but I assure you that the JW's interpretation and/or mine is not the issue.