Child sacrifice and “the goodness of their God”

@philokalia said
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.

Do not religious beliefs and doctrines create "objective truth", then?

@fmf said
Yes, I have my personal view about and actions with regard to abortion which I have already shared with you and discussed at length.

I don't recall that but I'd say its possible. Compared to what is being presented here, which one kills more?

@kellyjay said
I don't recall that but I'd say its possible. Compared to what is being presented here, which one kills more?

How is that relevant to the topic?

If you think the government should make abortions illegal then that is your prerogative; you should vote accordingly in elections; and you should engage in whatever activism you think is appropriate, even if that is only your personal lobbying in an arena like this.

The question here is whether the government should intervene to protect children from their parents if those parents are going to allow those children to die for want of available medical treatment. The principle behind it, i.e.'government/society's right to intervene' versus 'parents' freedom of religion' remains the same regardless of whether one child in saved or a thousand are saved.

@kellyjay said
I don't recall that but I'd say its possible.

I have no plan to discuss abortion with you today.

I have sufficient respect for you to be able to recall what your stance on the issue is having discussed it with you.

@fmf said
How is that relevant to the topic?

If you think the government should make abortions illegal then that is your prerogative; you should vote accordingly in elections; and you should engage in whatever activism you think is appropriate, even if that is only your personal lobbying in an arena like this.

The question here is whether the government should intervene to protect ...[text shortened]... edom of religion' remains the same regardless of whether one child in saved or a thousand are saved.

Well lets examine that for a moment, if I understand what is being presented here as child sacrifice it is not allowing the blood transfusion which may not result in a death of a child, it could but not by design. Abortion by design kills and this is very close to what one could call a child sacrifice without a doubt the death of a child is the desired outcome. You think being legal changes either outcome, does making it legal make it good? Is the stance on blood transfusion only your personal view prerogative, is that the way your compass points, blood transfusions bad, abortions good?

@kellyjay said
Well lets examine that for a moment, if I understand what is being presented here as child sacrifice it is not allowing the blood transfusion which may not result in a death of a child, it could but not by design. Abortion by design kills and this is very close to what one could call a child sacrifice without a doubt the death of a child is the desired outcome. You think bei ...[text shortened]... sonal view prerogative, is that the way your compass points, blood transfusions bad, abortions good?

I don't think blood transfusions are "bad" and I don't think abortions are "good". But abortions are legal in the U.S., as are blood transfusions.

On the other hand - as far as I know - the authorities are legally entitled and perhaps legally required to step in and protect children from the risk of death at the hands of their parents if treatment is being withheld for religious reasons.

An adult who is able to give his or her informed consent can, of course, decide not to have a blood transfusion and therefore die.

@kellyjay said
You think being legal changes either outcome, does making it legal make it good?

Do you think the state's duty to protect children from their parents' actions trumps the 'right to religion' of those parents - which, in this case, means their children would die, in effect, because of 2-3 words - arguably taken out of context - in the middle of one sentence in the Bible?

@fmf said
Do not religious beliefs and doctrines create "objective truth", then?

They do.

And withholding a lifesaving blood transfusion is wrong.

Not vaccinating your kids is wrong.

But... I understand that since the intention is nothing like "child sacrifice," it is a misnomer to call it that.

For similar reasons, while abortion is killing a human life, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to aggressively claim that the people who have made this mistake are murderers. I think they are doing something terrible, but because their perception of it is so incredibly different it shouldn't be thought of in the same way.

@philokalia said
But... I understand that since the intention is nothing like "child sacrifice," it is a misnomer to call it that.

The intention is to either please or not anger a god figure with the manner of the death of a child. As I said before, I think a spade is being called a spade here.

@fmf said
The intention is to either please or not anger a god figure with the manner of the death of a child. As I said before, I think a spade is being called a spade here.

Wait, so Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing children?

How so?

@philokalia said
Wait, so Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing children?

How so?

Any appeasement of a deity that results in the avoidable death of a child has simply got to be called out for what it is: "child sacrifice".

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing their children in situations where they could survive and they do it because of Acts 15:28-15:29 (and one or two other verses: see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10).

These verses create, in their minds, a moment-of-decision where they want to please their God and they decide they must allow their sick children to die in order to do so.

I think the authorities should intervene in such cases; do you agree?

@fmf said
Any appeasement of a deity that results in the avoidable death of a child has simply got to be called out for what it is: "child sacrifice".

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in sacrificing their children in situations where they could survive and they do it because of Acts 15:28-15:29 (and one or two other verses: see Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10).

These verses create, in their ...[text shortened]... to die in order to do so.

I think the authorities should intervene in such cases; do you agree?

... Three passages about not eating blood.And they take that and make it into an anti-blood transfusion thing.

Umm, sure, I would force, by law, for children to receive blood transfusions if required.

But I would not call these extreme cases to be "child sacrifice."

It'd be some form of child neglect -- religiously motivated, sure. But there was religiously motivated actual child sacrifices too.

@philokalia said
I would not call these extreme cases to be "child sacrifice."

It'd be some form of child neglect -- religiously motivated, sure. But there was religiously motivated actual child sacrifices too.

These are actual "child sacrifices" too. The same ultimate objective - with the same outcome: a dead child - albeit in different circumstances, can be referred to with the same term. No problem.

@philokalia said
Umm, sure, I would force, by law, for children to receive blood transfusions if required.

Agreed.