Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:30:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4863 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
>
> > If I backed the wrong horse and/or he doesn't exist (as proven in HHGTTG
> > btw) then I have lived my life to the best of my ability for no other reason
> > than it was the right thing to do.
>
> Right to whom? To yourself? That's mighty solipsistic of a professed Xtian.
> Regardless, Pascal's wager is no validation of faith whatsoever, unless
> one already believes and feels like he needs a reason to continue.
K, I was replying to someone who mentinoed that perhaps there is no God and
that I'm wasting my time being a Christian. My answer, slightly
tongue-in-cheek, was stating that 'so what?' If I get to the end of my
life, living as a Christian and trying to uphold the ideas and ideals
thereof, and find out that there is no God, I still lived my life to the
best of my ability. I do it 'cause I believe God exists. The reason why is
*not* important (for you, is very important to me but, again, I will not
force my beliefs on you) for living, that we *do* is.
>
> > As for taking a hammer to the kids head--let me try it this way...
> >
> > A fea years back this holistic healing, this 'herbal medicine' was a
> > lark--only for the fringe elements of society that believed in it. Some of
> > these folks believed in this holistic healing stuff so much that they would
> > forego medical treatment and instead opted for natural healing.
> >
> > Now some real physicians are prescribing some of this herbal remedy to cure
> > what ails ya, in conjunction with medical treatment if needed.
>
> Well, quacks are quacks, and in an overwhelming number of cases the
> application of herbal treatments has no effect at all, and almost certainly
> no causative effect upon the malady in question.
> The fantastic site www.skepdic.com deals extensively with bogus medical
> practices such as ad hoc herbalism, as does the excellent
> www.quackwatch.com. I recommend perusing either of them to get a handle on
> why herbalism is 99% nonsense (and here's a hint: it's NOT because of some
> big AMA conspiracy...)
Again, this was a tangent on the original arguement. I love medicine. I
love getting my finger stiched when I cut it. I love pills and medication
that make me feel and be better. That said, who are we to force that on
others? Sure medical care works to heal the ailing body, but what of the
other aspects of life? Are they less important? Is breaking covenant with
God less important than healing the physical body? I don't think so, for
the physical body exists ~60 years. Soul could = eternity. So stop forcing
an idealism that we may appreciate on those that don't.
> > The point is it is a point of arrogance to say that we have the only way of
> > doing stuff--that we're right and they that don't believe are somehow wrong
> > fringe zealous elements in society.
>
> That is an imprecise analogy. Except in rare and specialized
> circumstances, medical treatment is absolutely not a matter of perspective,
> and it is the height of credulousness to suggest otherwise.
It is the height of arrogance to say that it is more important than the
other realms of life.
> In any case, you seem to be saying that it's okay for me to bash my kid's
> head with a hammer if I believe it's okay. Is that what you're asserting?
> If not, please clarify.
K, how many ways can I say this--you cannot abuse people, your kids or some
other people. Abuse is wrong, abuse is idiotic, abuse is the worst hting
you could ever do. But I reiterate, not undergoing a medical procedure does
*not* necessiate abuse *if* your ethics, morals and religious convictions
state that you *will* lose your soul if you undergoe this procedure. That
is my biggest and only point I was trying to get out there. This is what
some believe, this is what I have an issue with. Starving a kid = abuse.
Beating a kid = abuse. Calling a kid names and insulting a kid = abuse.
Not being there as a parent to a kid = abuse.
But if you believe that the soul is lost *because* of a medical procedure,
then that's the issue you face as the parent and society should keep their
meddling noses out of it.
> Anyway, here's another analogy: Parent X is a schizophrenic who believes
> that the only way to save her five young children is to drown them in the
> bathtub. Are we, as a society, simply to stand by and let her, because it's
> what she believes? Or do we, as a society, identify her monstrously abusive
> behavior--whatever the source--as injurious to the children, thereby
> justifying our intervention? I would unquestionably say the latter, and we
> are therefore forced to ask: how do we distinguish between a schizophrenic
> zealot and a non-schizophrenic believer who would nevertheless allow her
> children to die of diabetes because it's God's will?
K, how many ways do I have to reiterate this--Abuse was there. I've said it
before, I'll say it again--causing harm to your child is abuse. We, as
society, have not only the legal ability to step in, but the moral duty to
as well.
>
> > 'But wait', those out there partaking in this discussion are saying, 'The
> > child doesn't make the choice, the parent does.'
> >
> > And rightly so--the parent is the *legal* guardian. Unless we can say that
> > the parent is wrong, incompotent, fanatical, whatever, and take the kids
> > away for their own safety, then we, as the outsiders have no right at all to
> > step in and refute/dispute their guardianship.
>
> If the parent has accepted the moral responsibility for the child's
> well-being, and if the parent through inaction allows the child to die or
> suffer needlessly, then the parent--the *legal* guardian--should be held
> *legally* accountable regardless of their lofty, God-fearing motives. Let
> the parent be a martyr, if he or she believes so strongly.
I agree with this as well, btw--if the parent has the religious convictions
to withhold medical attention because of the soul thing, the parent should
also have the conviction to face the music here, as well as in the afterlife.
>
> > Anyway, this thread has to be the biggest thread of all time on Lugnet.
>
> Nah. The Mormon-bashing thread of a while back was up in the 500's.
>
> Dave!
Rats! Missed that one!
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
