2nd Child Dies After Parents Choose Prayer

Do not pass go, do not collect $200?

EDIT: Did I really just page with that? I need to lurk through this thread. :/

I hate to sound sensationalist, but a college scholarship doesn't make up for 9/11.

Indeed, but these are people who supposedly espouse the moral convictions of the religion itself, and dictate law within their own sovereign nation, and preside over grand influence within the world itself. It may not be directly Catholicism's fault, but it sure is condemning.

In response to your edit: I said it once and I'll say it again. Religion is big business. Everything they do can be seen under the lens of public relations and self-benefit. Even the most benevolent of acts garners them something. To curry favor with local government, increase their influence within the people, or to spread the word of Catholicism, which ensures its existence further down the line.

They're both guilty: if blind ideological conviction weren't causing sexual repression, it probably wouldn't be occuring

Correct and this isn't the PBS Antique Roadshow either where everything in life can be appraised.

One of the reasons Christianity/Catholicism are so deeply rooted in Latin America is because how much the Church has done for those countries. Ranging from building homes, feeding people in lower-income areas, building schools, getting clean water, helping people after disastrous earthquakes.

EDIT: Catholicism does not teach blind ideological conviction- specific congregations and specific worshipers do that. Your generalizing a whole religion on the actions of a select.

Derp ?

Definition of 'Monopoly'A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market
 for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition, which often results in high prices and inferior products. 

I'm glad the topic of Abraham and Issac came up in this thread, since I feel there are some parallels to be drawn between that story and the one in the OP. Both involve parents acting on faith to their childrens' potential detriment. The difference being divine intervention for Abraham's faith, and a blessing for his lineage to boot.

Where is the intervention and blessing for the children in the OP who fell ill and died due to their parents' acting on faith as they (presumably*) felt God had commanded them to?

* I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and presuming they were really acting on genuine faith and not just using it as an excuse to neglect or dispose of an unwanted child.

I'm not looking for absolute answers, but simply different perspectives; I don't personally believe humanity will ever close the book on theodicy.

Baconwrap, thank you for your candor and willingness to discuss your faith. I respect your perspective greatly, and that is in no small part due to your respect for others. You are not trying to convert anyone; you are simply (and effectively) laying bare why your faith works for you, and are doing so without ostracizing your fellows.

I do have a question for you regarding your perspective on predestination and free will, as it applies to the topic at hand. Do you feel Abraham had a real choice when it came to preparing to sacrifice his son? Did he have the ability to exercise his free will and tell God "No, I will not do this to my son"?

If so, would God still have blessed his lineage? Without said blessing it's arguable that the world could be a very different place than it is today, which seems at odds with the concept of predestination.

Even if you don't read the story literally, the message is basically the same, isn't it? That devotion to God is of utmost importance, even at the potential expense of others if God requests it of you? I guess what I'm trying to say is: if predestination is a truth, and God tests one's faith, what are the consequences of failing that test?

I'm not trying to stir the pot in any kind of disrespectful way. I don't mean to be obtuse or anything like that. I just feel this thread has succeeded in touching of a few salient philosophical points, despite a few derails,* and I'd like to see a fruitful discussion continue.

* I'm still trying to figure out why being roughly used has an impact on a ***'s IQ. Is a roughly used *** wiser for having more experience, or stupider for having its brains rattled? In terms of human/*** comparison, even metaphorically speaking, why is this qualitative point significant?

Also, I'd like to thank those who have offered their personal testimonies -- Zah and Mosin come immediately to mind in addition to Bacon, but there have been others as well. Tikal, too, for your incredible diplomacy in constructing well-written communications. I salute you all and thank you for your honesty and your investment in what is -- in my humble opinion -- a discussion of no small significance.

Belief in a higher power is a blind conviction. You made the decision to accept something, not because of empirical support, but because someone told you about it one day; probably when your worldview was just beginning to take shape, for which I offer my sincerest condolences

I second that.

^

But anyway, you quite literally cannot combat anything religiously axiomatic with logical argument, so I'll take my leave

Everyone be good now, ya hear?

I don't think Abraham killed Issac, infact I don't think Abraham or Issac really existed. I think the whole story is an allegory. The reason I say this is because the story of Abraham sacrificing Issac, is very similar to the story of God sacrificing Christ.

If one really looks at Genesis and the New Testament we start to see a lot of parallels between Issac's sacrifice and Christ. Abraham is the first father of the Israelite s. Just as God is the first father of all. See when I read the bible I read it as a message of lessons and messages, some of those messages are hidden. I don't read it verbatim.

Even that's too far. Imagine aliens invade tomorrow and base our fate on zealous militant Muslims, or the government of south korea, or square enix's dev team.

The actions of the few can never condemn the many. I wouldn't fire a babysitter because I found out she was Irish, and shout "I DON'T TRUST YOU DIRTY SHEEP-*** ALCOHOLICS WITH MY CHILDREN".
Why? because that's 1) broad generalization 2) embarrassingly ignorant 3) shows just how insecure I am about ABC thing I'm making unfair judgments about.

If you're (not you in particular but you as in "people who are going to do the following) going to call people of faith: midevil, ignorant, obtuse, stubborn etc..... you're not helping your argument in the slightest.

I learned from bible-school to " first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye". That's a pretty good lesson whether it was written by a follower of Jesus, or a child molester (or conceivably both).

As I've suggested or directly mentioned or something, religion is not the inherent problem. At the core, believing that an old guy - or old lady - or three Great Goddesses of Courage, Wisdom, Power - dropped out of the sky, created the universe, and suggests a moral system - is not problematic. To a non-religious person it can seem insane because the inheritance structure of the brain is set up differently.

However, a few major religions have manifested with proselytism - in which conversion of others is a major goal.

Proselytizing religions not only must attempt to convert others, but they also must maintain those who already follow. The ultimate result in a proselytizing religion is that non-believers are vilified and transgression is abhorrent. The motivation inherently switches from "follow these rules and be rewarded" to "don't follow these rules and be condemned" - because a proselytizing religion must maintain control - and to do so they manipulate the most basic of human adaptations - anxiety and hygiene. Women are subjugated to reduce control by a factor of two and sexuality is regulated to ensure that children are borne of sanctioned environments - the combination of these two factors allows the institution to reap the highest probability that offspring will be indoctrinated. (Homosexuality and prostitution are unpopular with proselytizing religions because they do not serve to propagate the institutions and therefore must be discouraged.)

Furthermore, violence (specifically violence against the "unsanctioned") is fairly common in proselytizing mythology because it helps maintain control (and I've already addressed religious violence).

You just don't see this as much in religions without proselytism, because there's no need. They do not need to propagate themselves. They do not need to spread and conquer.

The only thing more dangerous than proselytism is nationalism - which can practically be considered a proselytizing religion in itself.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were taking the story literally. I seem to recall you already stated you don't make a habit of doing that when it comes to scripture. Apologies if my question implied otherwise too strongly.

In your perspective, then, what are some of the messages, hidden or otherwise, in the allegory of Abraham and the binding of Issac? It seems you feel it's meant as a connective parallel between Old Testament and New? In addition to that, are there in fact moral lessons a devout can glean from the story and apply to their on life? What is the message you gleaned from this allegory? (If that's too personal, no worries.)


Okay, fine. I was being a bit obtuse about that. :P

Condolences? You are bordering insulting and catty. I have never insulted you in any portion of this argument so I'd appreciate the same.

Secondly as someone who does evolutionary biology studies I can assure you I am very critical of religion. Do you automatically assume that because one demands qualitative/quantitative evidence for certain things we must demand it for faith or everything else in life? Sometimes people want to believe in a higher power not because they are blind or stupid, or because they want your sarcastic remarks. But because it teaches them good values and how to be a good person. It's just like love, you cant scientifically prove love, you just know its there.

Your absolutely right I don't condemn every priest, just those specific priests that committed those atrocities and the specific churches that facilitated it or helped hide it.

in my town this week.

:P

I love that show.

I actually am headed to the gym but this page summarizes the parallels pretty well.

Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac?

Obviously I'm Christian so I view the Old and New testament as having connections. So I particularly respect this parallel. The personal message I got was, to be devoted and be prepared to test your faith, as that is a constant message in both testaments.

However, if I ever heard a burning bush or statue of a saint talking to me telling me to sacrifice my child I'd head straight to the therapist :p

Only 8 more pages, and my question will be answered! Keep it up guys!

I'll just leave this here...

I hope that isn't real... But when it comes to religion, there really is no telling. :(

Ok my tests in Catechism, as a child, involved me putting adhesive sheep on the manger.

I failed that miserably though because I pretended the sheep were Godzilla attacking the city :p

This is the story of why we have rainbows.

World is corrupted. God says screw it. Tells an old drunken man who gets molested by his son when he's drunk to round up 2 of each "kind" which means that all animals should have limited amount of genetic diversity, because they will be sharing mostly the same genetic code over and over again. We know that would be rediculious because Cheetahs suffer the problem of Genetic issues, and most pure breed dogs have genetic disorders specific to that breed, we also couldn't have the large range of cats or dogs that we have if this is the case, nor could we have fresh water fish that Noah didn't build a tank for on the Ark.

This is the story of rainbows. God realized it was a bit harsh and so he made a promise and sealed it with light refracting off of water drops?

He couldn't just say, "There are crystals that when light is shone through them they create an array of colors. That is how rainbows appear, the water acts as crystals in the sky again creating the breadth of colors."

but but a rainbow

I hope that isn't real. Not just for what is being tested in a science class, but how the test is presented ; ;

looks like a joke~ but may be from a religious school

Currently it's an undetermined snope. Looks like the person who provided the material won't confirm the name of the school for verification purposes until his daughter is done with her school year, and done with the school.