Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I asked you was if you think "live and let live in the here and now" is a Christian principle? I would interested to hear your answer.
I think that those that want to force others to conform to their norms
should not be complaining about other's norms.
Originally posted by RBHILLIn recent weeks, on separate occasions, both josephw and KellyJay have suggested that "live and let live" is a Christian principle but have then been evasive when asked to substantiate the claim.
This is like Tom Cruise in Risky business when he says "What the F---".
This is slightly different but the jist is the same......When Jesus Healed on the Sabbath the Pharisees ( the so called keepers of God's laws ) went crazy and said Jesus was breaking the Law by Healing on the Sabbath......Well even if the J-Dubs were right which their not on this issue ....Jesus says is it ever lawful to do bad? Or Good ? (On the Sabbath)
Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath
6 Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 3 And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him, 4 how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?” 5 And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
6 On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him. 8 But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward. 9 And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at them all, He said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored. 11 But they themselves were filled with rage, and discussed together what they might do to Jesus.
Now the only issue with Blood has nothing to do with the Law of God but with potential contamination but I bet the overall % is very low ....The eating of Blood to abstain had to do with idols and things strangled but nothing to do with receiving blood into your veins
Manny
PS
so you the issue is this A child can live ( doing what is right ) by receiving blood transfusion Or the parents can refuse and the child could die (doing what is wrong) which is lawful in the eyes of God ?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by KellyJayI think your defence of the JW parents who were letting their little girl die before the state intervened (in my thread on this topic) was of more interest thn whatever ISIS are doing. I believe you defended the parents vehemently based on: the state not having the right to save the child's life and (unbelievably) on the defence of the JW parents conscience being seared because they were doing what they were doing before (their) god.
ISIS seems to be putting that into practice against those that disagree with
them. I'm sure that is all it takes, a little self justification, and you can treat
anyone as badly as you desire and blame them to boot.
Kelly
Thread 159598
Originally posted by Great King RatMy question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
The use of the word "martyrs" makes it a very subjective viewpoint. I don't think JWs consider themselves or their children as being "martyrs". By choosing such a colorful word it obfuscates the meaning behind the statement.
My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Since your question is general (not specific to blood transfusions) it appears you have opened the door to pretty much any topic where the question would be applicable. I don't know if this was intentional on your part or not, but you were the one who opened the door, so....
In the case of abortion much of society (today) not only favors the parent over the child, but actually encourages abortion by portraying it as a form of contraception. The definition of when a person becomes a person has become suspiciously fuzzy and arbitrary... when does a child become a person (with humanitarian rights) and not simply an organ of someone elses body? This relatively new definition (developed mostly over the last 40 years) of what a person is, and drawing an arbitrary line based solely on where the child happens to be (inside or outside of a womans body) appears to be based on nothing more than self interest. Self interest of the person carrying the child, self interest of the person or persons who will be responsible for the care of that child, and self interest that simply says 'I don't want the personal and financial responsibility (and the demands on my time) that naturally come with having children.'
So in the name of personal freedom (aka selfishness) we are no longer required to take care of or even feel any sense of responsibility for a life we are in fact responsible for creating, just so long as we end that life soon enough and according an arbitrary timeline... before that line it's okay to kill the child, after that line it's not okay. So who determined where that line should be, and what exactly is the criteria for where that line is drawn?
There is no scientific or moral reasoning that justifies when it's okay to kill an unborn child when it's not okay... if a child is unborn and hidden from our sight, this doesn't mean that child is not a child and undeserving of our protection.
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't understand your statement. (imo) it's those who want to force others to conform to their norms the people who will complain about other's norms.
I think that those that want to force others to conform to their norms
should not be complaining about other's norms.
Kelly
Originally posted by lemon limeYes, how surprising that another one of those "hot topics" gets named so soon. It's not like abortion hasn't been discussed here a million times before.
[b]My question would be: when should parents be free to choose to treat their children the way they see fit, and when should society step in and "protect" a child from its parent?
Since your question is general (not specific to blood transfusions) it appears you have opened the door to pretty much any topic where the question would be appl ...[text shortened]... our sight, this doesn't mean that child is not a child and undeserving of our protection.[/b]
Sure, we could go there for the million-and-oneth (??) time but personally I was more interested in the gray area that I described before.
And - confession time - seeing as how I am very much an atheist and despise religion I am of course particulary interested in the morality of telling your child a bunch of lies and fairytales - without ever revealing that they are in fact fairytales - that will influence him and his children for the rest of his life.
When does such a thing become a form of abuse?
But, yeah, abortion. Let's just go there.
Again.
Originally posted by divegeesterMy defence was that I didn't think anyone should be forced to do
I think your defence of the JW parents who were letting their little girl die before the state intervened (in my thread on this topic) was of more interest thn whatever ISIS are doing. I believe you defended the parents vehemently based on: the state not having the right to save the child's life and (unbelievably) on the defence of the JW parents conscie ...[text shortened]... because they were doing what they were doing before (their) god.
Thread 159598
anything they had a heart felt belief was wrong. Granted many examples
came up after I said that I would have agreed with that I would have
agreed needed to be stopped. No matter where you draw a line you can
find someone doing something on your side of it that will be bad even
using your own standards.
You did take what I was saying and twisted it to where you were making
the claim I was okay with the child dying. That was never the case, but
you refused to accept it. So I'm not going to go over the same ground
with you again, I actually had a child die, and so greatly resented your
attacks on me and my stance.
Kelly
Originally posted by lemon limeTaking away a child from a parent is a huge deal, so if the parent does
I don't understand your statement. (imo) it's those who want to force others to conform to their norms the people who will complain about other's norms.
not fit the norms of someone else (state) then they can lose their kids.
Seems straight forward to me.
Kelly
Originally posted by Great King RatYou think teachng a child about God (a belief in) is child abuse?
Yes, how surprising that another one of those "hot topics" gets named so soon. It's not like abortion hasn't been discussed here a million times before.
Sure, we could go there for the million-and-oneth (??) time but personally I was more interested in the gray area that I described before.
And - confession time - seeing as how I am very much an ...[text shortened]... a thing become a form of abuse?
But, yeah, abortion. Let's just go there.
Again.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you accept that "where you draw a line" is essentially a political issue and that it is right and proper for a society to define it collectively through deliberation on the part of its chosen representatives?
Granted many examples came up after I said that I would have agreed with that I would have agreed needed to be stopped. No matter where you draw a line you can find someone doing something on your side of it that will be bad even using your own standards.