|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2019 21:44:18 GMT
Let's take care of the context right now (from the thread, "Religion Should Help People With Their Lives"):
"Thanks to medical advancements pushed by JW's and Jews, there is rarely a need for blood transfusions which conflicts with God's view of blood and it spares you the risk associated with transfusions"
End of Cool's reply. So there it is in context. A religious rule that I said would make people unhappy is somehow presented by the religion in a way to "provide happiness for its followers". (Happiness in that having to follow the rule probably won't come up? If anything, the context might make his statement worse, not better. Look at how he deals with a religious rule against using birth control.)
Well... Not for nothing... but: People can be happy knowing that they held to their principles even when following those principle leads to some hardship or death. You might not understand why a person would rather die in a Nazi camp than renounce his faith. You might not understand a person dying because they don't want a medical procedure that they believe goes against God's principles. But.. They do. They might die.... but, they die happy. Isn't that the best we all hope for? The problem comes when those alleged 'God's principles' (being very much a matter of opinion) like the one referred to in the quote, blood transfusions, ends up in the death (read also unhappiness) of those who, due to their age or disability cannot make that decision for themselves. It is one thing to be a martyr to some idea or belief which brings harm or death to oneself, however it is quite another matter to sacrifice the life or happiness of someone else. ( even it they are a parent which is why Cool, himself acknowledge that under law, children of parents refusing blood transfusion can be overridden by the Court). I picked the quote because it is the most extreme example of this principle, however in general it reflects the theme of religious martyrdom, which is worth another thread.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2019 22:13:53 GMT
Well... Not for nothing... but: People can be happy knowing that they held to their principles even when following those principle leads to some hardship or death. You might not understand why a person would rather die in a Nazi camp than renounce his faith. You might not understand a person dying because they don't want a medical procedure that they believe goes against God's principles. But.. They do. They might die.... but, they die happy. Isn't that the best we all hope for? The problem comes when those alleged 'God's principles' (being very much a matter of opinion) like the one referred to in the quote, blood transfusions, ends up in the death (read also unhappiness) of those who, due to their age or disability cannot make that decision for themselves. It is one thing to be a martyr to some idea or belief which brings harm or death to oneself, however it is quite another matter to sacrifice the life or happiness of someone else. ( even it they are a parent which is why Cool, himself acknowledge that under law, children of parents refusing blood transfusion can be overridden by the Court). I picked the quote because it is the most extreme example of this principle, however in general it reflects the theme of religious martyrdom, which is worth another thread. why would that one be more extreme than the other two? Being scared to eat bacon isn’t extreme? Not wearing a condom isn’t an extreme? How extreme it is doesn’t matter to the issue that Isapop was wrong about This is one of the reasons why this thread is so entertainingly stupid. No one knows the reason you pick them and so they take the quote at face value which is soooo funny when they’re theophobiacs. Toasty’s post was hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2019 22:22:20 GMT
The problem comes when those alleged 'God's principles' (being very much a matter of opinion) like the one referred to in the quote, blood transfusions, ends up in the death (read also unhappiness) of those who, due to their age or disability cannot make that decision for themselves. It is one thing to be a martyr to some idea or belief which brings harm or death to oneself, however it is quite another matter to sacrifice the life or happiness of someone else. ( even it they are a parent which is why Cool, himself acknowledge that under law, children of parents refusing blood transfusion can be overridden by the Court). I picked the quote because it is the most extreme example of this principle, however in general it reflects the theme of religious martyrdom, which is worth another thread. why would that one be more extreme than the other two? Being scared to eat bacon isn’t extreme? Not wearing a condom isn’t an extreme? How extreme it is doesn’t matter to the issue that Isapop was wrong about This is one of the reasons why this thread is so entertainingly stupid. No one knows the reason you pick them and so they take the quote at face value which is soooo funny when they’re theophobiacs. Toasty’s post was hilarious. Sometimes your replies are just one step up from Cody's response, which means that he really can't answer and so pretends the contents of the post he can't answer is some kind of joke. That is fairly inappropriate in this case. Eating bacon is not extreme. Not wearing a condom is not extreme. ( though can be catastrophic in certain circumstances) NOT allowing a sick child to have a necessary life saving blood transfusion IS EXTREME. You even referred to this by saying that in most cases the Court overrules JW and other religious parents in this matter.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Feb 16, 2019 14:09:16 GMT
It was me but very much out of context as usual What did you say with the context intact?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 16, 2019 14:13:49 GMT
It was me but very much out of context as usual What did you say with the context intact? Isapop quotes it a few posts up. The initial topic was the notion that religion is monument to make its followers happy. Isapop presented some examples and I explained how each religion would portray it as a good thing for its followers. It has nothing to do with my beliefs on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 16, 2019 14:15:11 GMT
Again, what am I denying? The entertainment being provided is all projected from you cool. Especially when you can't explain what you meant with your confused statement. What are you smoking? I did explain it.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Feb 16, 2019 14:20:39 GMT
The entertainment being provided is all projected from you cool. Especially when you can't explain what you meant with your confused statement. What are you smoking? I did explain it. What is he smoking? He's gay. He's smoking the baloney pony.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2019 14:24:49 GMT
The entertainment being provided is all projected from you cool. Especially when you can't explain what you meant with your confused statement. What are you smoking?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Feb 16, 2019 15:07:00 GMT
What are you smoking? I did explain it. What is he smoking? He's gay. He's smoking the baloney pony. Thanks. That actually made me laugh out loud and I woke up my girlfriend. Now I have to go shopping.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 17, 2019 20:07:06 GMT
Credit where credit is due. This time it is phludowinand then IMHO the best, most succinct summary on the topic I have seen... Not bad for an ESL.
|
|
basmaticathury
Junior Member
@basmaticathury
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 1,186
|
Post by basmaticathury on May 5, 2019 22:04:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 5, 2019 23:33:36 GMT
Bleeding heart liberalism gone insane.
|
|