Trials For Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Grail

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.