Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36103)

Bradylama Jan 22, 2009 11:18 AM

Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine
 
The New York Times > Log In
Quote:

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.
Spoiler:
“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”


TL/DurrR: Christian Scientists could be convicted of murder for letting their diabetic child die without seeking treatment.

The unmovable stubborn Jan 22, 2009 11:28 AM

Well, uh, yeah? I mean, if you never fed your kid you'd go the fuck to jail, and your religious rights as a Breatharian wouldn't be relevant in the least. "Try to keep your kid from dying" is pretty much #1 on the list of basic parental responsibilities.

Chaotic Jan 22, 2009 11:40 AM

It totally just seems like one of those times to say, "Where is your God now?" (Yes, that's horrible to say, but completely relevant here).

But they totally deserve to be sent to jail. Sure, believe in what you want, but when you're endangering your child, religion means nothing. The parents failed to carry out their parental duties. It's as simple as that.

I poked it and it made a sad sound Jan 22, 2009 11:44 AM

I had to think about this one before saying anything.

This is going to be an AWFUL analogy, but bear with me:

When you bring a pet into your home, you become responsible for it. You must provide food, shelter, and health remedies to it since you become the person responsible for that animal's life.

If you do NOT do this, you are subject to the laws of the land which state that you can pretty much serve time if you don't take care of your animal's well-being.

Now. We can implement these kinds of rules for our pets, but not for our children? And just because there's some kind of "religion" involved means that some people are excluded from taking care of their responsibilities to their children as parents?

Any religion which allows your child to die when there are remedies available is pretty much bullshit. You'd think people could figure that out on their own. OOPS, MY KID DIED FROM SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN AVOIDED! Morons.

Bradylama Jan 22, 2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass (Post 676091)
I had to think about this one before saying anything.

Really?

I poked it and it made a sad sound Jan 22, 2009 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 676097)
Really?

Are you taunting me, Brady.

Bradylama Jan 22, 2009 01:43 PM

It's been a year or two since the last time, I was almost afraid you'd forgotten what it's like. :)

Paco Jan 22, 2009 01:55 PM

Anyone who knows my religious beliefs would probably guess that I would say these two should be sent to the guillotine on general principle. Even the vast majority of deeply religious people that I personally know will say, "Yes. God is all-powerful but he alone can not champion your well-being. You have to do your part to heal yourself as well."

I mean, this always seemed like a moot point to me because if god is all-powerful and has the power to heal them unquestionably, why wouldn't he do it? Is it because curing a cold isn't in his DIVINE PLAN? If even the most devout christians I've met admit that god won't always come to their aid for every little thing that ails them, why would anyone think otherwise and just outright neglect life-threatening illnesses?

Like Chaotic (tamely) said: Where is your god now?

Bradylama Jan 22, 2009 02:08 PM

It was just her time, you know? God let her die.

Paco Jan 22, 2009 02:10 PM

So he was nowhere to be found in a time of dire need then? Good to know.

The unmovable stubborn Jan 22, 2009 02:13 PM

Paco takin' God to the mat ITT

epic battle

The_Griffin Jan 22, 2009 02:21 PM

Would anybody else be surprised to see this one go to the supreme court?

'Cause I honestly wouldn't.

ALL DA WAY TO DA TAWP, BABY

russ Jan 22, 2009 05:24 PM

In the context of this issue, I would suggest that it may be God's will that we have the available healthcare that we have today. Therefore, using that which God has provided, to save the child's life, would fit into their requirement that God heal the child. These people are pretty amateur when it comes to applying context based logic.

packrat Jan 22, 2009 05:58 PM

This is not normal Christianity though, which would whole-heartedly agree with you. This is the Christian "Science" cult, which believes that the whole of the physical world is an illusion and any bad experience therein can be overcome by prayer and devotion.
Though those who speak for said cult declare that their theology does not preclude the use of medical science, the logical end of those subscribing to a "there is no spoon" philosophy is exactly what we see here.

Paco Jan 22, 2009 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packrat (Post 676200)
Christian "Science"

There's an oxymoron, if I ever read one.

The unmovable stubborn Jan 22, 2009 09:55 PM

http://www.saxypunch.com/miscimg/forfucksake.jpg

Janus X Jan 23, 2009 11:13 AM

When the person is an ADULT (18 or so), I guess s/he has acquired the necessary maturity to take such a decision (given s/he wasn't indotrinated to some superstition).

Otherwise, life should always prevail, unless life after the operation would be worse (heavy handicaps, eg.). If we push it a little, noy healing someone we could save violates one of god's (if he even exists) command : thou shalt not kill

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Jan 23, 2009 12:58 PM

'Thou shalt not kill' is very different from 'Thou shalt save'. I know in Protestantism this differs, but we're not talking about Protestantism. For that matter, we're not talking about Judaism or Hinduism or Islam or even Catholicism. The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

The fact that you don't like a certain religion means nothing, so far as the protections the Constitution guarantees all religions are concerned. Now, I know this is much different than just discriminating against a religious group, since the issue of children dying is in play, but you really have to consider how touchy a subject this is.

If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish, according to their doctrine, the implications and possibilities would be vast. It opens the door for the conversation of so much more, as delicate an issue as it is. I think people tend to forget that with the placement of a law, so goes the precedent, and the eventual snowball effect that could result.

Yes, this kinda sounds a whole lot like the argument of those against gay marriage, but I truly don't think the rights of religions and their adherents should be imposed upon, especially if those rooted in culture go untouched while others are subject to scrutiny.

Basically, it comes down to the wording of the verdict. So much depends on how one judge chooses to place his words. If he does it right (restricting possible prosecution to those parents who neglect their children in life-threatening situations, regardless of religion) I see no problem. I'm just worried he'll be more inclusive, his ruling more wide-reaching and with greater implications. And that wouldn't be good.

Sarag Jan 23, 2009 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676391)
If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish, according to their doctrine, the implications and possibilities would be vast. It opens the door for the conversation of so much more, as delicate an issue as it is. I think people tend to forget that with the placement of a law, so goes the precedent, and the eventual snowball effect that could result.

I am absolutely comfortable with the snowball effect of prosecuting gross child neglect.

The unmovable stubborn Jan 23, 2009 01:50 PM

There are already examples in place in US law that make religious practice less than 100% protected. Just ask the Rastafarians.

Worm Jan 23, 2009 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676391)
The only relevant information is that of Christian Science doctrine.

No, the relevant information is whether parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676391)
If the government were to limit or take away the rights of Christian Science parents to raise their children as they wish

Plenty of such restrictions already exist. We call them "laws." You don't even need to get as specific as what Pang's getting at--it's common sense that you can't do whatever you want to your children.

I poked it and it made a sad sound Jan 23, 2009 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus X (Post 676364)
When the person is an ADULT (18 or so), I guess s/he has acquired the necessary maturity to take such a decision (given s/he wasn't indotrinated to some superstition).

We're not talking about an adult's decision for their own well-being . We're talking about the decision adults can/will make for their OFFSPRING.

Quote:

Otherwise, life should always prevail, unless life after the operation would be worse (heavy handicaps, eg.). If we push it a little, noy healing someone we could save violates one of god's (if he even exists) command : thou shalt not kill
Yea, maybe that works for you, but I don't the government has any right to tell a person they can't commit suicide if they want to.

You have no right to decide how or when a person should die.

Bradylama Jan 23, 2009 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass (Post 676405)
We're not talking about an adult's decision for their own well-being . We're talking about the decision adults can/will make for their OFFSPRING.

Why do you have to frame these situations with PEOPLES IS JUST MEAT language?

This is about whether legal guardians can practice neglect as a religious observance.

I poked it and it made a sad sound Jan 23, 2009 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama (Post 676409)
Why do you have to frame these situations with PEOPLES IS JUST MEAT language?

This is about whether legal guardians can practice neglect as a religious observance.

Are you taunting me, Brady.

Bradylama Jan 23, 2009 02:19 PM

It's like you don't even know who I am anymore.

Additional Spam:
Why do you use biologically neutral language anyways?

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Jan 23, 2009 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker (Post 676401)
I am absolutely comfortable with the snowball effect of prosecuting gross child neglect.

If it's done correctly, like I said, so am I. I'm just worried that may not be the case.

Although, with Barack in office and all this "change" business coming to Washington I guess I have nothing to worry about. :cool:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salient Worm (Post 676404)
No, the relevant information is whether parents have the right to deny their children medical treatment.

I was referring to his quoting of The Ten Commandments as some kind of authority on the subject, especially when you consider how differently Christian Science no doubt interprets the particular one he was referencing.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Salient Worm (Post 676404)
Plenty of such restrictions already exist. We call them "laws." You don't even need to get as specific as what Pang's getting at--it's common sense that you can't do whatever you want to your children.

But you do have the right to raise them as you wish, according to whichever doctrine you choose. When that gets in the way of the child's health of course there should be sort of prosecution. Again, I'm just worried where that will lead. It all depends on how the judge approaches it.

Worm Jan 23, 2009 02:29 PM

Yeah, I knew what you were responding to, but the point is that it's a side debate that's irrelevant to the issue. Who cares if it's an accurate interpretation of doctrine.

Quote:

child's health
I'll assume what you really mean is something like "well-being," because otherwise you have an extremely narrow view of what the law should (and does) protect.

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Jan 23, 2009 02:47 PM

Hey, Worm. Cut the condescending bullshit. Because here's the thing:

Do you honestly think I'm against children living? Are you seriously trying to imply that I'm anti-children getting edumacated and living fulfilling lives and exercising their Constitutional right to dance? If so? You're a callous, imperceptive motherfucker. And if not? Then you're nitpicking wording. Which is the last resort of self-styled trolls when they can't find a legitimate issue to grouse about. Which is gaaaaay.

In summation (in case your reading comprehension is similarly lacking): Kids are cool, they deserve to live free and dance, but I am worried about the potential side-effects. Not to the point of being against prosecuting these Christian Science folks, but enough to feel uncertain.

Hope this helps. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...chocobo6bf.gif

Sarag Jan 23, 2009 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676422)
Which is the last resort of self-styled trolls when they can't find a legitimate issue to grouse about. Which is gaaaaay.

Capo you know I have mad love for you but you have nebulous ill-defined bad feelings about a judge's decision re: gross child neglect because the parents happen to be religious.

all I'm sayin' is it takes one to know one ok

Magi Jan 23, 2009 03:50 PM

I don't know, for some reason I thought the persecution of the parent as an issue is made overly complicated because of their religion. I mean the fact of the matter is, they are being persecuted mainly because of their negligence and their child die as result. If they made such a decision because of any other, perhaps none-religious belief like government conspiracy then the result would have been the same.

Bradylama Jan 23, 2009 04:23 PM

Prosecution, Magi, prosecution.

Magi Jan 23, 2009 04:26 PM

I suck at English, okay? Q_Q

Bradylama Jan 23, 2009 04:31 PM

That's ok, if somebody told you X country persecutes gays you'd be all "man that justice system sucks" and you'd probably be right anyways!

LZ Jan 23, 2009 04:32 PM

Hey lay off of Capo, he's just worried that circumcision may be outlawed someday.

Tails Jan 23, 2009 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676422)
In summation (in case your reading comprehension is similarly lacking): Kids are cool, they deserve to live free and dance, but I am worried about the potential side-effects. Not to the point of being against prosecuting these Christian Science folks, but enough to feel uncertain.

Stepping in here for a second, just what potential side effects could there be? I'm having a hard time grasping any negative ends that could come from people being told to be responsible with their children.

Specifics please, Capo, because you're being very vague here. "Where it may lead" and "potential side-effects" don't really describe anything.

Jessykins Jan 23, 2009 04:55 PM

I am no fan of religion myself, but in the end they denied their children medical care. Who gives a fuck WHAT they believe. It's ridiculous that their religious beliefs are what were behind their decision (not that there's really any excuse), but they still did it, and that should be more than enough to prosecute them.

If religious freedoms gave you the right to do whatever you desired, I shudder to think of what someone could get away with if they were just following the teachings of the bible to the letter.

Jurassic Park Chocolate Raptor Jan 23, 2009 05:03 PM

Capo. What everyone is trying to say is that while it might be my religious beliefs that Jews are awesome if you roast them in an oven to medium-well, it doesn't make me any less of an asshole if I actually go and do it.

LZ Jan 23, 2009 05:12 PM

Yeah I guess the point is that whenever the law against child abuse was written, the ideology behind it wasn't "let's sabotage Christian Scientists" but "let's save some kids," and I don't think it's changed since then. I'd be more concerned over a new law that outlaws the teaching of Dianetics to children.

Bradylama Jan 23, 2009 05:32 PM

If we can't sacrifice virgins how else will we placate Volcano God?

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Jan 23, 2009 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LZ (Post 676441)
Hey lay off of Capo, he's just worried that circumcision may be outlawed someday.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...mot-ohdear.png

Anywho, sorry for kinda sorta blowing a gasket there. I hadn't slept in over two days (or eaten more than a yogurt in that same span). Shit was wildin' out. I'm all power-napped up and freshly fed, though, so expect less angry, nonsensical rants and a whole lot more emoticons. As it should be.

Back to the subject at hand, what I think I was going for there was that if the ruling or verdict somehow included religion it would open the way for more legislature similarly imposing laws on religious practice.

It made a lot more sense when the edges of the postbits were glowing and undulating, trust me.

e: FUCK BUSH GOD IS DEAD ANARCHY FOREVERRRR

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...t-happyelf.gif

Jessykins Jan 23, 2009 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capo (Post 676451)
It made a lot more sense when the edges of the postbits were glowing and undulating, trust me.

Man, I want what you're smoking.

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Jan 23, 2009 06:05 PM

Here's what you do:
1. Find a stretch of at least two days in which your workload is impossibly big.
2. Don't sleep. Laying in bed for six hours with your eyes closed is apparently alright, though.
3. Don't eat. Well, maybe a yogurt or two and a slice of bread, but no more.
4. Wait about forty-eight hours. Preferably cramming for tests and writing monotonous essays.
5. Start posting. And don't stop until your hands are numb.
6. http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y16...s/emot-lsd.gif

Enjoy!

Sarag Jan 23, 2009 08:55 PM

Requesting Capo's name be changed to Ana Forever plz

wvlfpvp Jan 28, 2009 06:37 PM

People follow retarded doctrine like "don't give your children medical care" (Christian Science) and "blood transfusions are the devil and if you get one because someone's saving your life before you have time to protest we're gonna excommunicate your ass" (Jehovah's Witnesses) because they're afraid of losing something that gives them hope and meaning to their life. This is why crisises of faith happen: because people can't justify what is personally right and healthy (let's go with mental AND phsyical here) with what they're told to believe. So they follow through with the awful choice (that, honestly, God probably looks down on these people for doing) that they're told is the right one.



It's like militant Muslims disregarding the whole "HEY LOVE EVERYONE" parts of Islam and taking the "KILL THESE MOTHERFUCKERS OVER THERE" parts. All religions have some sort of choice built in as to what you're supposed to do to appease God (blanket term). I think it's up to us to do the humanely right thing (loving people, not letting people die because your church says that helping them medically is wrong).

Shorty Jan 29, 2009 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jessykins <3 (Post 676443)
I am no fan of religion myself, but in the end they denied their children medical care. Who gives a fuck WHAT they believe. It's ridiculous that their religious beliefs are what were behind their decision (not that there's really any excuse), but they still did it, and that should be more than enough to prosecute them.

If religious freedoms gave you the right to do whatever you desired, I shudder to think of what someone could get away with if they were just following the teachings of the bible to the letter.

Well said. I probably have nothing to add to that, except a parent that chooses faith over a life-and-death situation of their child deserves to suffer their child's death. They pretty much asked to mourn for their child's death when they decided they're denying the proper health care.

But then again, I'm one of those people that believe God has nothing to do with my overall health and leaves it up to my own responsibility to take care of my basic health needs...but that's just me.

Jessykins Jan 29, 2009 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shorty (Post 677601)
But then again, I'm one of those people that believe God has nothing to do with my overall health and leaves it up to my own responsibility to take care of my basic health needs...but that's just me.

You're probably right anyway, so no worries.

Chibi Neko Jan 30, 2009 08:25 PM

These wack-job parents deserve jail. What church do they go to anyway?

I don't think there is anything 'wrong' in believing in something, but a line has to be drawn between reality and fantasy.

VitaminZinc Feb 6, 2009 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chibi Neko (Post 677971)
These wack-job parents deserve jail. What church do they go to anyway?

Church of NASCAR, probably.

YO PITTSBURGH MIKE HERE Feb 6, 2009 08:01 AM

Church of God, Scientist in all likelihood. There's one near here that I would pass driving to my mom's for years, and I always wondered what exactly they practiced.

Hm.

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 01:05 AM

You guys are thinking of this very rationally, so let me put it in a way the parents likely thought of it: their child's eternal soul was worth infinitely (like, in a very mathmatical sense) more than their child's life. I'm not saying I agree with their theology, but you're all very ignorant of the magnitude they believed their decision was - far more than you all think.

Worm Mar 5, 2009 01:48 AM

That's nice, but in order to have a society that's not a complete shithole, we have to say that some people's valuations are stupid and wrong. No one cares if a criminal thinks--as almost all do--that his or her crime was justified.

Leknaat Mar 5, 2009 02:31 AM

This is from the tl;dr part of Brady's post:

Quote:

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”
Now, if I remember correctly, Jesus was the Son of God, right? So, he had certain abilities, right? Not to mention a smaller population.

Well, I don't think God has any other offspring, so why wouldn't it stand to reason that God would give man (who is created in God's image) the ability to learn to heal in the absence of Jesus? It's not as direct as Jesus' method--but it still works.

The Plane Is A Tiger Mar 5, 2009 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leknaat
Well, I don't think God has any other offspring, so why wouldn't it stand to reason that God would give man (who is created in God's image) the ability to learn to heal in the absence of Jesus? It's not as direct as Jesus' method--but it still works.

Following that train of thought, God did give man the ability to heal in the absence of Jesus in the form of knowledge and reason that led to the development of modern medicine. These people are just nutcases who think Jesus or whoever will do the work for them if they close their eyes and pray hard enough.

Leknaat Mar 5, 2009 04:58 AM

That's my point, Tritoch, but I guess mt previous post was a little unclear. Let's see if I can clear it up.

1) The Neumann's follow a religion that advocates faith healing because Jesus healed by faith.
2) Jesus was the actual Son of God, so he had certain abilities normal man didn't.
3) Jesus--depending on your beliefs--does or doesn't still walk among us--but he can't be everywhere.
4) God didn't have any other children.
5) God made it possible for normal man to learn how to heal.

Bottom line: the Neumann's should have realized that the doctor was put on this earth by God.

Drachekhothu Mar 5, 2009 05:55 AM

(long time lurker, first time poster here) I just had a random quote pop into my head from reading the thread.

"If I break my leg, I believe it happened for a reason. I believe God wanted me to break my leg. I also believe He wants me to put a cast on it." from an episode of House of all places. Still, sums up how I'd put it better than I could.

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 11:08 AM

Just as a doctor is put on earth by God, so are rapists and murderers. Look, I completely disagree with what they did, but I would hope that my faith is more important to me than my country. Lives are not as important as souls, but as Christians they also need to accept the laws of their culture (Writings of Paul). If their faith and their culture clash, they follow their faith but have to take the consequences their culture provides.

Grail Mar 5, 2009 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686444)
Look, I completely disagree with what they did, but I would hope that my faith is more important to me than my country.

I don't know what country you are from, and I really don't give a fuck, but this comment right here has to be one of the most selfish, self centered things I have every fucking heard in my life. Yes, God wants you to follow his words, and he gives you tests of faith and blah blah blah, but if you take more pride in caring more about a fairy tale book than another human being's life, then you sir are a god damn asshole.

I do of course mean human beings in general. It's perfectly okay to say "Hey, the bible is cooler than Jimmy down the street who catapults frogs into Old lady Sanderson's yard."

Quote:

Lives are not as important as souls
Tell that to someone laying in bed, suffering immensely and wanting help, and the only two people in the world that supposedly love them unconditionally are pretty much saying that some magical force will make them feel better and refuse to help said dying person in anyway.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686376)
You guys are thinking of this very rationally, so let me put it in a way the parents likely thought of it: their child's eternal soul was worth infinitely (like, in a very mathmatical sense) more than their child's life. I'm not saying I agree with their theology, but you're all very ignorant of the magnitude they believed their decision was - far more than you all think.

No God worth believing in will hold the actions of the parent against the child.

No government worth respect will refuse to punish a parent who kills their child through neglect, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Look it up.

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grail (Post 686450)
I don't know what country you are from, and I really don't give a fuck, but this comment right here has to be one of the most selfish, self centered things I have every fucking heard in my life. Yes, God wants you to follow his words, and he gives you tests of faith and blah blah blah, but if you take more pride in caring more about a fairy tale book than another human being's life, then you sir are a god damn asshole.

I do of course mean human beings in general. It's perfectly okay to say "Hey, the bible is cooler than Jimmy down the street who catapults frogs into Old lady Sanderson's yard."



Tell that to someone laying in bed, suffering immensely and wanting help, and the only two people in the world that supposedly love them unconditionally are pretty much saying that some magical force will make them feel better and refuse to help said dying person in anyway.

Then it's merely a difference in opinion. I try as much as possible to follow the social gospel, which teaches that helping human suffering is indeed part of God's ministry and it is part of our mission on earth to relieve that suffering. I believe wholely in the sanctity of human life.

However, within my religious context, our funerals are just as much a time of happy remembrance as mourning. We do not believe that death is the worst thing in the world, because we entirely believe that there is an afterlife and that the deceased is with God. Our funerals are beautiful and meaningful, I assure you, but we choose to celebrate life at them.

I have very little national pride. I am surrounded by western hypocracy and as much as people hate on Christianity I hate on the "democratic" west (which is a horrible misnomer, anyway). The belief that we can police the world and know better than everyone is exactly the reason people aquate these philosophies with Christianity, much like it is the warfaring few in the middle east who give a bad name to Islam. As Christ said, though, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." I accept that I am a citizen of my country and accept that that comes with certain responsibilities. I am not ignorant of the world merely because I don't conform completely to humanism. There was a world of intelligence and caring before the englightenment, and we have already passed the humanist era which many have forgotten. Welcome to Post-modernism. Not everything that is true is quantifiable.

I appreciate that what you say you say out of love for your fellow man, but know that there are many caring Christians who do the same, who do not judge, and who are quite open to other faiths. A belief in God is not the same as ignorance, but a denial in the religious lives of others is.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686454)
I appreciate that what you say you say out of love for your fellow man, but know that there are many caring Christians who do the same, who do not judge, and who are quite open to other faiths. A belief in God is not the same as ignorance, but a denial in the religious lives of others is.

What are your opinions re: ritual sacrifice?

Worm Mar 5, 2009 11:45 AM

hey guys the 9/11 dudes really believed in what they did

like, a lot

so please don't be ignorant about that

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 11:50 AM

If someone writes a history of Nazi Germany, it does not make them a Nazi.

If someone writes a book on the history of Rape, it doesn't mean they support it.

If I'm trying to explain what was going on in their head and tell you why it was rational, it doesn't mean I agree with them or that I'm not frustrated with the situation. Yes, just like the guys on 9/11. I understand why they did what they did. It wasn't right. But I understand why.

Ignorance does not mean not accepting something as right. It means not accpeting it as true. Something can be true but morally wrong. Unless you deny the holocaust because it was morally wrong?

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 11:53 AM

Okay, thanks for speaking up for all the oppressed child killers out there. That was a refreshing outlook! It is important to, when denouncing someone for killing their child, to step back and understand how demented they were such that there was some rationale that explains why they did it. If we didn't do that, we'd be...

Well, anyway. Thanks for your input!

Worm Mar 5, 2009 11:53 AM

So, you came into this thread to belabor an incredibly obvious point that has no special relevance to the topic at hand and call everyone ignorant at the same time?

dammit lurker stop being faster

Grail Mar 5, 2009 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686454)
A belief in God is not the same as ignorance, but a denial in the religious lives of others is.

Christianity itself was a huge movement of denial of other religions before it. Hell, Christianity used to kill every single person that came along that didn't believe in THEIR GOD.

I'm not denying people to believe in a fairy tale, I mean no one denied me as a child my belief in santa claus or the tooth fairy...but there has to be a time where everyone grows up and realize that characters of lore and fantasy are just that.

Besides Ness...what if this article had read: "Scientologists deny child medical care based on faith"? Would you feel any different?

The unmovable stubborn Mar 5, 2009 11:55 AM

The word "rational" does not mean what you appear to think it means

hint: someone is not rational simply because they have a rationale

the words are similar-looking but different

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 12:26 PM

Ok, at this point the thread is so derailed I don't feel guilty in defending myself. Rational means exactly how I used it.

Rational means according to reason (according to Dictionary.com).

Reason means having a basis or cause.

Rationality does not mean conforming to American beliefs, and I'm sorry if I have to specify that. It merely means that your actions have a pattern behind them, whether accepted by general society or not. If this is not how you are used to using the word rational, then I'm sorry that you and the dictionary have a difference of opinion.

Oh, and the only difference between rationale and rational is one is an adjective and the other a noun.

Grail, I wholeheartedly hope that you are not actually trying to actually start a discussion here and now on religion, because we both know how that ends up on forums. I was not trying to enforce my beliefs on anyone, nor was I arguing the absolute goodness or truth of it. Yours is an example of someone making an irrational comment. I do not call all americans slave drivers because, at one time, it was a major driving force behind their economy. The whole idea of the socio-economical move to the enlightenment is that we are not defined by our ancestors.

As per the comment on scientology, once again the point is missed. I disagree with these parents. I think they should receive prison time, or at least have their child taken away from them. This is the lawful and right thing to do. Do I have a beef with scientology? Yes, quite. But it isn't because it isn't Christian. I am quite tolerant of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, and most forms of Wicka. If a person from any of these faiths did the same thing as these parents, I would still say it was morally wrong.

Finally, Salient worm, I was not calling everyone ignorant. I merely said that if you can't appreciate that people have religious beliefs you are ignorant. I did NOT say that if you disagree with them you are ignorant. You can believe whatever you want about anyone or anything, but as long as you accept that it is real than you are not ignorant of it. I'm merely defining what the word means. I was not intending to call anyone here ignorant, just stating a fact and reminding us that we disagree with eachother but at least we (mostly) believe each other has merit. If you disagree with that last part then say so, and I won't post here again, not because I particularily care about what you think, but because if there isn't some level of basic mutual appreciation then conversations go nowhere, and thats worth no-one's time.

The unmovable stubborn Mar 5, 2009 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686483)
Rational means according to reason (according to Dictionary.com).

Reason means having a basis or cause.

Having reason is not the same as having a reason

English is complicated like that

For example, children possess many reasons for their behavior (want toys, hate girls, etc) but they are not considered to possess reason because they are not rational actors in the way that adults are.

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 12:31 PM

Fine.
–verb (used without object)
8. to think or argue in a logical manner.

Logic is not finite. People can have different logic and still both be reasoning.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 12:32 PM

All these words and yet NOTHING to the defense of ritual sacrifice

am I invisible or something

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 12:36 PM

I have nothing to say, I have someone who keeps me in fresh stock of live skinned cats, and I'm not about to stop abusing that. Ritual sacrifice is just handy when in a tight bind.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 12:38 PM

lol so randum

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 12:42 PM

What about people who mutilate genitalia for sake of religion? If they're a christian, and don't get a flap of skin cut off their penis for health issues, does that mean their soul is in peril?

Worm Mar 5, 2009 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686486)
People can have different logic and still both be reasoning.

They can have different premises, but you cannot have "different logic" any more than you can have "different math."

I understand what you are saying here, that people do not make "irrational" decisions, that they truly believe they are always making the best choice possible. But, what we mean when we call someone rational, if the word is to have any use at all, is that their arguments are generally sound. For people like those in the OP, we usually find that even if the choice is rational, they made an error at some point in their valuations.

Quote:

I was not calling everyone ignorant. I merely said that if you can't appreciate that people have religious beliefs you are ignorant.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686376)
you're all very ignorant of the magnitude they believed their decision was

Oh, okay, so you were just making the retarded assumption that people in this thread don't know that heaven is supposed to be infinitely good?

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 01:21 PM

Assuming a higher value is better ...

Where an expected lifespan is 80 ...

80/80 + heaven(infinite) = infinite
80 + heaven - heaven = 80.

This, I'm sure, is what they were thinking. I'm not saying that giving healthcare to your kids is bad. I'm saying this is what THEY were thinking.

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 01:40 PM

Ness, I have a question:

ARE YOU EDUCATED RETARDED

I poked it and it made a sad sound Mar 5, 2009 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686516)
Assuming a higher value is better ...

Where an expected lifespan is 80 ...

80/80 + heaven(infinite) = infinite
80 + heaven - heaven = 80.

What the holy FUCK is this bullshit.

No. Hard Pass. Mar 5, 2009 02:32 PM

What Ness is doing is trying to avoid ethnocentrism to the point of making himself look like an ass. He's trying to be PC about it and say: "Yeah, but guys they have their beliefs and we should respect that." I get that. Hell, a huge part of what I do is being able to not get involved in moralistic minefields such as these.

However, what he fails to grasp is that the people in this thread already know what these people are thinking, and we don't care. He's trying to be so very understanding, but there is a point when logical people need to stand up and remind illogical people that they're just flat out wrong in their belief structure. I'm more than willing to be friends with a christian, but the second they tell me our foreign policy should be biblical I will tear down their opinion with every resource at my disposal.

Stop being a git, Ness. No one is impressed. Everyone came to the same conclusions as you--albeit in a less infantile and more understandable way--years ago. Get over yourself.

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 03:35 PM

Ness, your refusal to answer my question about circumcision only means one thing: you are afraid of my FOUR-SIDE LOGIC. YOU SEE ONLY EVIL GOD OF "ONENESS." GOD HAS NO FEMALE COUNTERPART. GANG OF QUEERS.

I AM A KNOWER.
YOU CANNOT DISPROVE ME.

YOU ARE EDUCATED RETARDED
YOUR MATH IS FICTION

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denicalis (Post 686546)
trying to avoid ethnocentrism to the point of making himself look like an ass.

You're the reason the world hates North America. There. I took a stand.

Listen, you talk about logic and about those who are, unlike you, illogical, but your problem is you work with an understanding that you are right. While we all need to have some semblance of self and obviously we need to have beliefs, it is not a postive quality to believe that, no matter what, you are right.

If you believe in linear logic, and that there is one finite truth out there, then anyone who is smarter than you obviously has a greater understanding of the universe. Can we not accept that?

So, then, please, disprove Albert Einstein. He is undeniably smarter than you. If you deny that, then you are lost to humanist capitalism because it is just stupid for most people to make the claim that they are greater at reason than Einstein. Why do I bring it up? He was religious. Thus, according to your own stated logic that the logical people need to revelate to the illogical, you should just give in to Einstein's belief in God.

What I am saying, on the contrary, is that there are relative truths, and that truth is contextual. You are stuck in a two-hundred year old mindset which has been changing for a century. The era of rationalism and humanism is at an end. Even within your chosen bubble of thought impressionism, a form of humanism, accepted context as being massively important.

Your absolute certainty that you are right is disgusting, as disgusting as the most fundamentalist Christian. I am not apologetic for my faith. I am Christian, and that is what I believe. When people ask me on the way I think the world works I define it in a Christian context. So no, I am not compromising my belief to the point of selflessness. However, I am not so bold as to say that others who do not share in my belief are irrational, unreasonable, or any other such thing.

I am not saying the same things that you apparently believe you have come to the conclusion of, because I do not claim that these parents are irrational or unreasonable. You think that faith in an omniscient God is crazy, but you have unwavering faith in yourself? Or in a country?

I have news for you. Hitler had unwavering faith in himself and in his country. The United States is the current re-invisioning of the Roman empire, like so many before it. Napolean, Great Britain, and Russia have all come before it, and all fell. I realise you are Canadian, but said country is no less fallable than any other. My choice to have faith in an afterlife and in a massive God may be just another "flying spaghetti monster" to you, but so what? I'd rather have faith in an infinitely powerful, knowledgeable God than faith in you.

Do what you want with your life, believe what you want. But don't be so presumptious as to think that you know more than anyone else, because you have not walked in their shoes. Context is everything. Welcome to the 21st century.

Sassafrass, I was merely applying the only finite absolute that some people understand. More is better. Since these parents are unwavering in their belief of an afterlife and unwavering in their belief of a damning, judgemental God, their choice made absolute sense. Either they could infinitely reduce their child's lifespan and still have their child exist in heaven, or they could let their child live on with the knowledge that it would never make it into heaven. This is broken, false theology, but it is plain and simple what they believe. An infinite existance is better than only a mortal one.

I am sorry that there are no atheists here who can understand (even though not agree) that it is quite logical to chose eternal life over a mortal one purely in a mathematical, economical, logical fashion. If you truely did understand this mindset, you would find it harder to be so judgemental.

The unmovable stubborn Mar 5, 2009 05:05 PM

Seriously? The old "Einstein believed in god so therefore hurrrr" saw?

Look, this isn't about some pogrom against the world's faithful. It's about a couple of idiots who think it's totally acceptable for their children to die, and you're defending that with a bunch of mealy-mouthed WELL GOSH YOU DON'T KNOW THEY COULD BE RIGHT. No, they could NOT be right. Demonstrably. Because they possessed a belief that prayer would heal. Which it did not. They were wrong. Objectively. The objective fact that prayer don't do shit against diabetes is actually one of those no-duh longtime scientific facts. It's not like this was a secret from them.

As much as you might like to believe that we're all atheists because we think you're a cunt, we aren't.

We just think you're a cunt, independent of our individual faiths.

You depress me, because my initial impression was that you were some confused kid but it's obvious now you're just one of a long line of talking-point bullshitters through the ages.

Ness the Mess Mar 5, 2009 05:09 PM

I was ONLY using the Einstein argument in light of an equaly failed logic. I was showing intrinsically that it was an incorrect logic.

Once again I'm going to have to say that your side of the argument lies completely on humanism, if it sounds like a broken record its because noone is reading the damn statement. The belief that what we can witness is the extent of existance is imperial, humanist, and antiquated.

ExoXile Mar 5, 2009 05:14 PM

Einstein did not believe in God.
He used "He does not play dice" as an analogy saying the universe is not random.

The sooner people realise this the better.

The unmovable stubborn Mar 5, 2009 05:16 PM

"It sure is bad when people kill their children through imbecilic neglect."

"Humanist!"

"what."

The world we perceive with our senses may not be the entirety of the world, certainly. But it seems sensible to prioritize that which we know to exist over that which we think might maybe exist. There is a possibility that every lottery ticket can be a winner, but it is an incredibly distant possibility. If someone spent their entire paycheck on lottery tickets in the belief that ONE OF THEM WILL FOR SURE BE A WINNER! you would think him an idiot. And rightfully so.

And that's what these people have done. Played the lottery. With a child's life. And you're defending this behavior.

You see why we're treating you with contempt, yes?

Furthermore: Einstein was a fairly crappy scientist as they go. He falsified several results to make them match his own biases. He was an excellent mathematician but I don't feel we should extend him much respect beyond that.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 05:28 PM

I'm Catholic, and my God doesn't permit parents to allow their children to die through neglect. Ask the Pope if you don't believe me.

Just throwing that out there so you don't think there is an atheist agenda against you.

Tails Mar 5, 2009 05:37 PM

Serious discussion or not, it is worth pointing out that it's been a while since we've had someone at GFF who used so many words, and said so little.

It's like you guys are really arguing with Jago, or even Reclusive for that matter. I am highly amused.

tl;dr this is lulzy as fuck keep it up

Worm Mar 5, 2009 05:40 PM

Awwww yeah, gettin' philosophical up in here. Sewers ahoy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686573)
The belief that what we can witness is the extent of existance is imperial, humanist, and antiquated.

The "world" is defined by what we can perceive. It is nonsensical to speak of something existing in a manner which we could never detect, because that would mean this thing could not interact with the world, and therefore lies "outside" the world, so to speak.

Also, what exactly is your position on logic here? Because you seem to alternately disparage it and bring it to bear in your arguments.

Quote:

...don't be so presumptious as to think that you know more than anyone else, because you have not walked in their shoes.
Here's the problem. You are starting at the end--the conclusion--and looking backwards, and saying, "Hmm, I can see why they would think that." But understandable is not the same as reasonable. Starting with the conclusion is the very definition of irrationality. If you interrogate these people and draw an explanation out of them, you can trace their thoughts back to conceptions of experience, causality, logic, etc. that are very much the same as your own. After all, we are all humans and perceive, more or less, the same "world." Once you have agreed on the premises, all valid deductions following from them are necessarily true, and that is where intellectual superiority comes from. Somewhere along the way to those (correct) deductions, these people stumble, and not according to some imposed way of thinking, but a shared worldview that they will, if pressed, agree upon.

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686571)
You're the reason the world hates North America. There. I took a stand.

But he's Canadian.



STAND DENIED + FAILMODE ON.


Oh, and I'm a Christian who thinks that you're a retard.


I also think that your reliance on words means that you're a lot less intelligent than you think you are. Words == loss of innocence. Loss of innocence == need to rationalize God. That means you fail at God.



In the immortal words of Chester Bennington: "Shut up when I'm talking to you!"

Tails Mar 5, 2009 05:50 PM

Wvlf dear, uh

Not sure how to break this to you but Canada is also part of North America. Denicalis is a dual citizen of both Canada and the U.S. (last I checked anyway) so it really wouldn't matter either way (if he were saying America specifically, that is).

The unmovable stubborn Mar 5, 2009 05:52 PM

only wvlf could find the one not-flaw in Ness' argument

good job, wvlf

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 06:00 PM

Oh ;_____; See, I see "America" and ignore the "north" part.



I am fail. I also did edits.


Should I go back to quoting Time Cube at him?

Magi Mar 5, 2009 06:02 PM

>>#80

What's up with the appealing to authority and beg the question there. In a fallacy ridden post that's full of delicious none-logic and ad hominem I really wish people would do a proper critique of it.

Oh, ad Hitlerum, classy.

Helloween Mar 5, 2009 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a lurker cares™ (Post 686576)
I'm Catholic, and my God doesn't permit parents to allow their children to die through neglect. Ask the Pope if you don't believe me.

Just throwing that out there so you don't think there is an atheist agenda against you.

Unfortunately the Bible is being interpreted by so many millions of people all over the world that we will get too many different versions of Christianity to ever get along.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 10:02 PM

However the vast, overwhelming majority of those people interpreting the Bible do not read 'let your children die of easily-preventable or treatable diseases' in it.

How interesting.

more research is needed maybe?

Helloween Mar 5, 2009 10:11 PM

Well, not in those words no. But clearly they got the idea somehow, and my point is that they put religious stock into this doctrine.

Religion is capable of doing great things, but it is also able to mislead great masses of people. Some people believe that God will step in at the last minute as he did during the sacrifice of Isaac (probably where they got the idea from in the first place), some believe that flying planes into towers will make the world a better place. They're all wrong, but they think they're right, so they do it.

Regardless of which God anyone worships, they believe in it to the end in the same way that you believe that your God will never condone something like this incident to take place, and i believe the same.

Actually, if i could get rid of my previous post i would. I don't really want to start the argument again. I thought the argument was still going and hoped to mediate a bit, but failed to notice the time stamp on the last post. So idiot points to me. Just keep in mind i'm not trying to change anyone's opinion. I'm also not trying to argue with you, lurker, i just wanted to offer a bit of middle ground.

Sarag Mar 5, 2009 10:17 PM

Well that's the thing. No one thinks that these people maliciously neglected their child to death, otherwise she'd probably have been beaten or left in a carseat in her snow suit for a week before someone noticed the dead baby smell* or something. The problem is that neither you nor your friend are arguing anything, except (in his case) that we're all ignorant because we don't preface our posts with "I don't think this couple is worse than Hitler however"

* absolutely, horrifyingly true. 5 month old baby. I don't have kids but it still haunts me, I can't look at a child in a snow suit without thinking about this poor kid.

Helloween Mar 5, 2009 10:23 PM

And that's just why i wanted to mediate. A. Everybody's at the same conclusion, B. Ness has inspired all of this Ire based on his word choice, which is partially my fault. He became active without telling me, and i didn't really get to warn him about stuff like this.

I apologize on behalf of Winnipeg.

Holy shit, that's disturbing

I poked it and it made a sad sound Mar 5, 2009 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ness the Mess (Post 686571)
Sassafrass, I was merely applying the only finite absolute that some people understand. More is better. Since these parents are unwavering in their belief of an afterlife and unwavering in their belief of a damning, judgemental God, their choice made absolute sense. Either they could infinitely reduce their child's lifespan and still have their child exist in heaven, or they could let their child live on with the knowledge that it would never make it into heaven. This is broken, false theology, but it is plain and simple what they believe. An infinite existance is better than only a mortal one.

Until any person can prove an afterlife without question, therefore justifying the negligent death of a child, you have a fucking bullshit argument.

What you believe and what is are two different things. What I believe and what is are two different things.

Do you understand this.

wvlfpvp Mar 5, 2009 10:39 PM

Sass, don't you know that
UNTIL WORD IS CORNERED HIS MATH IS FICTION.

CONFIRMATION:

http://www.timecube.com/graphic1.gif

LIFE ENCOMPASSES A 4-16 CUBE PRINCIPLE

Read physics of Santa Claus. Explain the
physics of a god.
Belief has no inherent
value, but worship of such nonvalue as a
god, equates to nonacceptance of Cubic
knowledge - as demonstrated by ineffable
Truth and the Highest Order of Wisdom.
I can talk with a human for hours about
the Time Cube and they will agree with
every claim I make. But at the end of the
conversation, they remark that they believe
in the nonvalue belief god and cannot
accept Cubic Creation, regardless of all
the ineffable Truth and Wisdom it proves.
A Belief Matrix pulls a 1 day world over
your eyes, while the real Cubic World has
4 simultaneous days in 1 Earth rotation.

Educators own your mind and fills it with
garbage, that will soon destroy humanity.

Bradylama Mar 5, 2009 11:47 PM

You are all absolutely retarded.

Paco Mar 5, 2009 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helloween (Post 686637)
Ness has inspired all of this Ire based on his word choice

How else would you expect him to draw this ire? With your word choice?

Quote:

He became active without telling me, and i didn't really get to warn him about stuff like this.
Good lookin' out, player. Werd up. But... We're not exactly some covert operation trying to silence uprisings before they start. No one has ever said he couldn't say what he believe in. We're just saying that he's flat out fucking WRONG.

Why you're here "mediating" for him is beyond me, man. He's a big boy and I assume he can take care of himself.

Scent of a Grundle Mar 5, 2009 11:52 PM

I'm sorry for dragging this conversation out longer than it needs to but I looked at the site that wvlfpup's picture came from.

Time Cube

Do you honestly believe any of what this guy is saying? If so I'm honestly a little worried.

Let's see what we can find, shall we?

Quote:

Religion is Organize Crime to collect $Tithes

Obama must resign to save his people from his catastrophe.
SUN power will not allow any
Black Skin power to rule over
its Light Domain.

Obama must resign or Doomsday,
for only Light can rule over Earth.
No god possesses Cubed Wisdom.

WARNING TO EDUCATED STUPID, Black
Skin equates imprisonment, white race had
nothing to do making negros black.Even a worst imprisonment exists when the whites are under
Dark rule, who seek revenge for false slavory.
Hell, I am as much an economic slave as any
black.Not one black in America wears a shackle
that prevents them from returning to their
African culture.

You are a slave - to academic
induced inculcated belief - an
insidious entity, an evil which
corrupts human mental ability
to accept creation knowledge,
as demonstrated in Cubicism.

I bestow upon myself the "Doctorate of
Cubicism", for educators are ignorant of
Nature's Harmonic Time Cube Principle
and cannot bestow the prestigious honor
of wisdom upon the wisest human ever.
Dr. Gene Ray

Since I have informed you of Nature's
Harmonic Time Cube 4-Day Creation
Principle, your stupidity is no longer
the issue. For now, the issue is just
how evil you are for ignoring Life's
Highest Order, and just how long the
Time Cube will allow you to plunder
Earth before inflicting hell upon you.
I only looked at the first few statements on the first two pages. Much of the rest proceeds to claim that math is all a lie, educational institutions are all conspiracies (as is the scientific world), and that nothing is circular. I'm really finding it hard to trust someone who proclaims himself to be "the wisest human".

Not to mention the parts where he starts claiming that there are 96 hours in a day because a new day starts every 6 hours. What's to stop me from claiming that there are actually 72 hours in a day because I know that everything in the world is made of triangles and there are 3 days in one linear (false) day. This guy obviously has far too much free time on his hands and needs to meet the rest of society.

I could go on, but I won't. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to explore the site on your own and form your opinions.

coeccias Mar 6, 2009 12:43 AM

If the previous post were a child suffering from diabetes, I'm afraid I would have let it die. Not because of any particular religious belief but because it is so horrible.

Helloween Mar 6, 2009 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Encephalon
Why you're here "mediating" for him is beyond me, man. He's a big boy and I assume he can take care of himself.

I'm not mediating for him, i'm trying to find the middle ground. It doesn't seem like anyone was opposed to each other in the first place, except for Ness's use of the word Ignorant (unless i'm not reading into it enough, whatever). I'm a huge fan of dramaless GFF, and i can't help but feel involved cause Diss dropped my name in the journals. It felt like i was being called out, so i talked. I figure if i'm already in, i might as well speak my piece.

Leknaat Mar 6, 2009 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExoXile (Post 686574)
Einstein did not believe in God.
He used "He does not play dice" as an analogy saying the universe is not random.

The sooner people realise this the better.

Looks like ExoXile found the supreme fallacy in the argument, Ness.

Paco Mar 6, 2009 01:57 AM

The supreme fallacy was advocating things that are considered by the vast fucking majority of the planet to be human atrocities. I'm just saying.

Leknaat Mar 6, 2009 02:35 AM

Awww, Ceph, I was having fun....


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.