Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Irish Independent)   Parents charged with manslaughter after newborn dies from treatable jaundice because parents refused to seek medical help. Their excuse? "God makes no mistakes"   ( independent.ie) divider line
    More: Sick, Ms Piland, Detective Peter Scaccia, Pediatrics, medical examiner, Faith Tech Ministries, Medicine, two-day-year old child, fellow church members  
•       •       •

5056 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 6:04 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-10-06 02:55:05 AM  
If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds
 
2017-10-06 03:10:25 AM  
Wrong. God made at least two: these farking shiat stain parents.

/if there was a God, that is
 
2017-10-06 03:10:42 AM  
So I guess God wasn't responsible for the human rationality that led to science and medicine.
 
2017-10-06 03:28:36 AM  
christanity is not our friend.
 
2017-10-06 03:55:18 AM  
That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."
 
2017-10-06 03:56:46 AM  
God might be right here and have those assholes locked up for years to keep them from being assholes that are breeding more assholes.
 
2017-10-06 05:16:59 AM  
Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.
 
2017-10-06 05:23:13 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.


i've never understood why the christians tried to claim their god was all knowing and all powerful.  their religion is pretty late to the game....its been around what?  2000 years AT MOST?  less than that even, depending on how you count and which splinter sect we're talking about.  I could maybe see it if the christians just said their god was 'powerful'.  ok, sure.  I can go with that.  but 'all knowing/all powerful'?  c'mon.  that's just not ever going to make sense.
 
2017-10-06 05:36:20 AM  
The overlap between religion and stupidity/mental illness is as obvious as anything in God's creation.
 
2017-10-06 05:37:29 AM  

bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."


that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.
 
2017-10-06 05:50:50 AM  

mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds


Religious extremists have no problem utterly believing directly incompatible ideas. That's what you get from centuries of violently repressing any questions.
 
2017-10-06 05:55:55 AM  
Just another day in the third world.
 
2017-10-06 06:00:40 AM  
Looks like God made at least two mistakes.
 
2017-10-06 06:06:35 AM  
How about this: they go free on their merry way after having surrendered their testicles and ovaries?
 
2017-10-06 06:07:07 AM  
So I guess it's God's will that you go to prison for a long while.
 
2017-10-06 06:09:44 AM  

Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.


Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.
 
2017-10-06 06:10:14 AM  
I guess God really wanted them in prison.  Kind of a dick way to go about that, but...
 
2017-10-06 06:12:32 AM  

Ambivalence: I guess God really wanted them in prison.  Kind of a dick way to go about that, but...


"Mysterious way... blah blah blah"

There is no God, and if there is - or She isn't just the forces around us we call Nature - then He's a right bastard.
 
2017-10-06 06:14:38 AM  

aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others


actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.
 
2017-10-06 06:15:18 AM  
Yeah, stupid parents. You're only allowed to ignore your kids and allow them to die if they are over 5 years old and not in a hot car.
 
2017-10-06 06:16:28 AM  
Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection

Man, some people really need to be allahu akbared...

Also, how is this involuntary manslaughter? Not seeking help isn't an oopsy that just happens.
 
2017-10-06 06:16:39 AM  
/a few local kids have been killed, and more hurt, riding ATVs in recent years
//one was six years old
 
2017-10-06 06:16:58 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


You can tell a member of the Church of the All-seeing Eye by their departure salutation.

img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 06:18:00 AM  

lucksi: Also, how is this involuntary manslaughter? Not seeking help isn't an oopsy that just happens.


Because they are Christian.

Forget religious, it is because of their religion.

But, this is America, and that's... okay...?
 
2017-10-06 06:18:39 AM  
This is a condition that can literally be treated by shining light on the baby. I believe even bright sunlight can help.

I hope the parents find themselves standing on the roof of their car in rising floodwaters.
 
2017-10-06 06:19:39 AM  

Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others

actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.


---
there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.

This is true, certainly of most forms of Judaism and the Jesuits, but it remains the fact that even those groups will only explore the world and its reality insofar as it can be reconciled with their most basic dogmas. Some are more flexible than others but when reality conflicts with the more fundamental teachings, they will crimestop every time.

Critical thinking and faith are mutual enemies.
 
2017-10-06 06:20:59 AM  

aagrajag: Critical thinking and faith are mutual enemies.


they CAN be, but it is not a requirement.

well...unless you're evangelical.  ignorance is kind of the point of the whole thing.
 
2017-10-06 06:23:12 AM  
It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?
 
2017-10-06 06:23:13 AM  
Good, fark both of them.
 
2017-10-06 06:23:37 AM  

Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others

actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.


You have to be careful of some of the Heathen groups, though. On the surface they seem perfectly reasonable and inclusive, with a questioning nate, as you said. But there are at least a few that have been virtually taken over by white supremacists, and are merely a vehicle for recruiting anymore.

/Got to be careful about banging the 'Hot Pagan Chick'
//Her friends might be bald and want to talk about the good word of Hitler with you.
///Friday Slashies
 
2017-10-06 06:24:20 AM  

MmmmBacon: nate


"Nature". Damnit.
 
2017-10-06 06:26:59 AM  
 Then surely they will accept whatever the legal punishment is for this since it is also God's will.

The Lord works in mysterious ways...
 
2017-10-06 06:28:14 AM  
Ummm...anyone know anything about their"church" mentioned in the article?

"Faith Tech ministries" sounds pretty cult-y to me.

Didn't Scientology use similar legal terminology? Belief technology or something?
 
2017-10-06 06:30:15 AM  

MmmmBacon: Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others

actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.

You have to be careful of some of the Heathen groups, though. On the surface they seem perfectly reasonable and inclusive, with a questioning nate, as you said. But there are at least a few that have been virtually taken over by white supremacists, and are merely a vehicle for recruiting anymore.

/Got to be careful about banging the 'Hot Pagan Chick'
//Her friends might be bald and want to talk about the good word of Hitler with you.
///Friday Slashies


Ok now I wanna hear your stories...they sound like they'd make for a good premise to a film.
 
2017-10-06 06:30:49 AM  

mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds


img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 06:31:57 AM  

Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?


This took place in Michagan.
 
2017-10-06 06:33:30 AM  

MmmmBacon: But there are at least a few that have been virtually taken over by white supremacists, and are merely a vehicle for recruiting anymore.


yeah, I know a couple of those asshats in my local area.

f*cktards don't know what they're talking about.
 
2017-10-06 06:37:29 AM  

Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.


Never has been.
 It was designed from the ground up as a slaves religion to keep the poor and lessers in line.
  Roll over, stick your ass in the air and yell thank you god, I deserved that ass pounding, give me another.
  Don't worry now, after you die, you will spend forever in paradise and all the bad mean people will get their just rewards.
  Just remember to thank him for the fact that the shiat sandwich you eat every day has any bread at all.
    Oh, and even though he created everything, nothing evil is his fault.
  A religion for slaves and mindless fools.
 
2017-10-06 06:40:36 AM  

Muzzleloader: Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.

Never has been.
 It was designed from the ground up as a slaves religion to keep the poor and lessers in line.
  Roll over, stick your ass in the air and yell thank you god, I deserved that ass pounding, give me another.
  Don't worry now, after you die, you will spend forever in paradise and all the bad mean people will get their just rewards.
  Just remember to thank him for the fact that the shiat sandwich you eat every day has any bread at all.
    Oh, and even though he created everything, nothing evil is his fault.
  A religion for slaves and mindless fools.


Approves, as do I:

img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 06:42:44 AM  

lucksi: Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection

Man, some people really need to be allahu akbared...

Also, how is this involuntary manslaughter? Not seeking help isn't an oopsy that just happens.


THIS. These parents knowingly, willfully and deliberately prevented this child from getting live saving medical help.
  That is straight up murder.
 
2017-10-06 06:44:27 AM  
Despite the fact Abigail wasn't eating properly and coughed up blood, the detective said Ms Piland put the two-day-year old child "near a window wearing just a diaper utilizing a hair dryer to keep her warm".

If God doesn't make mistakes, then why use a hair dryer to warn the baby? Room temperature and the sun should had been enough. That baby died because these idolaters placed their faith on their fancy machine instead of the lord. Well, looks like their golden calf was just full of hot air.
 
2017-10-06 06:46:51 AM  

Muzzleloader: lucksi: Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection

Man, some people really need to be allahu akbared...

Also, how is this involuntary manslaughter? Not seeking help isn't an oopsy that just happens.

THIS. These parents knowingly, willfully and deliberately prevented this child from getting live saving medical help.
  That is straight up murder.


IANAL, but I think that legally, murder requires an overt act. This has a ring of "depraved indifference" or the like.

Just nitpicking. This makes me sick.
 
2017-10-06 06:47:20 AM  

Muzzleloader: That is straight up murder.


This country has way too much of a "children are property of their parents" mentality for that to happen in all but the most brutal cases.
 
2017-10-06 06:48:15 AM  

swamp_of_dumb: FormlessOne: <My ramblings, omitted for brevity>

You can tell a member of the Church of the All-seeing Eye by their departure salutation.

[img.fark.net image 425x315]


Heh. Gotta love a relevant Prisoner reference...
 
2017-10-06 06:49:26 AM  

aagrajag: Muzzleloader: lucksi: Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection

Man, some people really need to be allahu akbared...

Also, how is this involuntary manslaughter? Not seeking help isn't an oopsy that just happens.

THIS. These parents knowingly, willfully and deliberately prevented this child from getting live saving medical help.
  That is straight up murder.

IANAL, but I think that legally, murder requires an overt act. This has a ring of "depraved indifference" or the like.

Just nitpicking. This makes me sick.


Negligent manslaughter, if I was a betting person.
 
2017-10-06 06:49:47 AM  
Weaver95: christanity humanity is not our friend. FTFY
 
2017-10-06 06:50:07 AM  

Bowen: Muzzleloader: That is straight up murder.

This country has way too much of a "children are property of their parents" mentality for that to happen in all but the most brutal cases.

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts, 
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, 
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, 
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, 
and He bends you with His might 
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, 
so He loves also the bow that is stable.

 
2017-10-06 06:54:02 AM  
Their god loves dead babbies, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
2017-10-06 06:54:04 AM  
FormlessOne: <words>

User name checks out for a non-corporeal deity.
 
2017-10-06 06:56:08 AM  

Gleeman: backhand.slap.of.reason: mjjt: Apparently he made lots of mistakes

Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies  is an anti-Iranian and anti-semitic Iraqi government[citation needed] pamphlet widely published during the era of Saddam Hussein.
The author, Khairallah Talfah, was an Iraqi Ba'ath Party official, and the maternal uncle and father-in-law of Saddam Hussein. He first wrote the ten-page pamphlet in 1940.
In 1981, following the start of the Iran-Iraq War, the Iraqi government publishing house Dar al-Hurriyya (Abode of Liberty) republished it, and the Iraqi Ministry of Education distributed the propaganda as part of a textbook for school-children.
The work describes Persians as "animals God created in the shape of humans", Jews as a "mixture of dirt and the leftovers of diverse people",[1] and flies as poor misunderstood creatures "whom we do not understand God's purpose in creating".[2][3] According to Con Coughlin, "This weak Iraqi attempt at imitating Mein Kampf nevertheless had a bearing on Saddam's future policymaking. As president of Iraq, Saddam's foreign policy was determined by his hatred of the Persians, or Iranians as they are better known, and the Israelis."[2] To put it more soberly, Iraq competed militarily with Pahlavi Iran to its east and Israel to its west, and was perceived by both countries to be an existential threat, until Saddam settled his differences with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi through the 1975 Algiers Agreement.
Saddam Hussein had the book's title phrase etched into a plaque he kept on his desk.[4]

Feel free to append the list

Want Persia modern day Iraq?

Iran.

IRT TFA: looks like our mental health system failed yet again.


What system?
 
2017-10-06 06:57:55 AM  

katrina_666: Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?

This took place in Michagan.


Michagan, Canada  or Michagan in the Basque region?
 
2017-10-06 06:58:24 AM  

Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?


Depends on state law. Bunch of states allow this to go unpunished if it occurs due to parents' sincerely held beliefs.
 
2017-10-06 06:59:59 AM  
Very finite minds trying to tell the world what infinite Mind is. Even Jesus ratcheted that communications strategy back a lot and used parables, if you want go into that whole Jesus thing.
 
2017-10-06 07:00:14 AM  
We have to stop that evil bastard before he kills us all!
Man in the Sky Causes Everything
Youtube RlX0Fk-701Q
 
2017-10-06 07:01:26 AM  
Now they need to go to jail, and hopefully be spayed and neutered as the animals they are so that their god won't make anymore mistakes.

Stupid people, why are they practicing a "Sharia Law", out dated bible verses being practiced by lay people, and taking their choice of which proverb to follow over another. They didn't know it was illegal to torture your children and watch them die...? Damn stupid people...
 
2017-10-06 07:02:06 AM  
As Omar, the second Caliph after Mohammed (peace be upon him), was about to enter a city, they realized the people there were stricken with leprosy, iirc. So he decided not to enter the city.
Another of the Prophet's companions said to him "Do you flee from God's fate?!"
He replied "Yes, I flee from God's fate...to God's fate."
 
2017-10-06 07:05:55 AM  

aagrajag: How about this: they go free on their merry way after having surrendered their testicles and ovaries?


They are already married.
 
2017-10-06 07:06:49 AM  

Smoking GNU: Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?

Depends on state law. Bunch of states allow this to go unpunished if it occurs due to parents' sincerely held beliefs.


That's what I thought. I remember some years ago reading about a couple who let a kid die, then a couple of years later let a second kid die.

I don't think there were any legal consequences.

/blood for the blood god etc etc
 
2017-10-06 07:08:33 AM  

aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.


Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that
 
2017-10-06 07:09:45 AM  

Muzzleloader: Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.

Never has been.
 It was designed from the ground up as a slaves religion to keep the poor and lessers in line.
  Roll over, stick your ass in the air and yell thank you god, I deserved that ass pounding, give me another.
  Don't worry now, after you die, you will spend forever in paradise and all the bad mean people will get their just rewards.
  Just remember to thank him for the fact that the shiat sandwich you eat every day has any bread at all.
    Oh, and even though he created everything, nothing evil is his fault.
  A religion for slaves and mindless fools.


At one point, it wasn't.
 
2017-10-06 07:11:41 AM  

Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.


A couple of asshats do something evil so you blame the entire religion?  You're better than that.  That's something a Republican would do.
 
2017-10-06 07:11:41 AM  
Despite the fact Abigail wasn't eating properly and coughed up blood, the detective said Ms Piland put the two-day-year old child "near a window wearing just a diaper utilizing a hair dryer to keep her warm".

What horrendous people.
 
2017-10-06 07:13:47 AM  

Resident Muslim: aagrajag: How about this: they go free on their merry way after having surrendered their testicles and ovaries?

They are already married.


Drive drunk; lose your license.

//yes, I know you were joking
 
2017-10-06 07:15:35 AM  

kbronsito: Despite the fact Abigail wasn't eating properly and coughed up blood, the detective said Ms Piland put the two-day-year old child "near a window wearing just a diaper utilizing a hair dryer to keep her warm".

If God doesn't make mistakes, then why use a hair dryer to warn the baby? Room temperature and the sun should had been enough. That baby died because these idolaters placed their faith on their fancy machine instead of the lord. Well, looks like their golden calf was just full of hot air.


That's really summarizing the duality.
You believe in using hairdryers, but somehow medicine is evil?!
 
2017-10-06 07:21:30 AM  

tkwasny: Very finite minds trying to tell the world what infinite Mind is. Even Jesus ratcheted that communications strategy back a lot and used parables, if you want go into that whole Jesus thing.


I can barely manage a janitor named Jake, never mind the Almighty.
 
2017-10-06 07:22:29 AM  

FormlessOne: Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion.


Admit it, you just want an excuse to watch more porn.

/nttawwt
 
2017-10-06 07:23:01 AM  

aagrajag: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: How about this: they go free on their merry way after having surrendered their testicles and ovaries?

They are already married.

Drive drunk; lose your license.

//yes, I know you were joking


:D
 
2017-10-06 07:23:43 AM  

chuggernaught: Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.

A couple of asshats do something evil so you blame the entire religion?  You're better than that.  That's something a Republican would do.


well, I'm openly pagan living in trumper central so I might be a bit sensitive about the whole 'christanity' thing.  people driving by chanting 'burn the witch' while I walk the dog tends to make me a tad jumpy for at least a couple of weeks afterwards.

if it helps any, the only really horribly bad experience I've personally had with christians has been almost entirely limited to the screeching madness of evangelical christanity.  most other sects tend to impose their faith on us via the standard means of buying votes and politicians just like everyone else.  its the evangelicals who show up and throw things at us at pagan pride events, and shout hellfire and damnation at us with bullhorns.
 
2017-10-06 07:26:01 AM  
God makes no lmistakes. People make mistakes all the damn time, causing God no end of frustration.
 
2017-10-06 07:27:23 AM  

Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that


Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.
 
2017-10-06 07:27:47 AM  
So, apparently God wants the parents to rot in prison.  She does work in mysterious ways.
 
2017-10-06 07:28:53 AM  
These two need to be sterilized.
 
2017-10-06 07:38:05 AM  

Lady J: katrina_666: Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?

This took place in Michagan.

Michagan, Canada  or Michagan in the Basque region?


Other articles I have found about these monstrous people say they live in Lansing.
 
2017-10-06 07:38:23 AM  
God doesn't make mistakes, but since you two are not God, you have free will.  You used your free will to make multiple mistakes.  Accept that you are not God, and you screwed up.  Ignorance and stupidity should hurt.  The only thing I can take away from this, is that one little soul is no long at risk of additional neglect or outright abuse.  I wish there were some way to also have a go at their leader as well.  Sadly, unless a prosecutor can figure out how to term this as some late form of abortion, the evangelical jury of peers will not bat an eye.  Figure out how to make it a form of abortion, and this couple gets life in jail.
 
2017-10-06 07:41:38 AM  

cherryl taggart: God doesn't make mistakes, but since you two are not God, you have free will.  You used your free will to make multiple mistakes.  Accept that you are not God, and you screwed up.  Ignorance and stupidity should hurt.  The only thing I can take away from this, is that one little soul is no long at risk of additional neglect or outright abuse.  I wish there were some way to also have a go at their leader as well.  Sadly, unless a prosecutor can figure out how to term this as some late form of abortion, the evangelical jury of peers will not bat an eye.  Figure out how to make it a form of abortion, and this couple gets life in jail.


A perfect god does not create imperfect creatures, then lament their imperfection and the suffering that is its inevitable result.

Unless, of course, "perfect" implies "evil".
 
2017-10-06 07:47:15 AM  

aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic


Quakers are very big on both. Modern UK Quakerism came about when they realised in the late nineteenth century that their traditional beliefs were incompatible with modern science - physics and biology, mostly - so they had a big conference and changed their doctrine to match what science had seen.
 
2017-10-06 07:48:18 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


You might get a kick out of my profile... just a suggestion.
 
2017-10-06 07:48:44 AM  

Weaver95: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

i've never understood why the christians tried to claim their god was all knowing and all powerful.  their religion is pretty late to the game....its been around what?  2000 years AT MOST?  less than that even, depending on how you count and which splinter sect we're talking about.  I could maybe see it if the christians just said their god was 'powerful'.  ok, sure.  I can go with that.  but 'all knowing/all powerful'?  c'mon.  that's just not ever going to make sense.


Let me help.

Christians (and coincidentally Jews) beleive the Bible predates in Genesis to the beginning of time "if such an entity even exists"

It doesn't take brains to make a baby, and this is proof. They could also, for all we know, have lost a kid thanks to Donnie Imus and his anti-vaccine crusade
 
2017-10-06 07:48:55 AM  

Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others

actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.


There are offshoots, like the Jesuits, who adore science and reason. The rest, not so much.
 
2017-10-06 07:49:42 AM  
"The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f*ck up Your Plan?" - George Carlin

See? It's not so much that God f*cked up by giving the kid a treatable disease.
It's that God intended for the kid to die all along. The Divine Plan excuses everything.
 
2017-10-06 07:50:25 AM  

Resident Muslim: Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.


And the Catholic church has no problem with either the Big Bang Theory or evolution. It's fundamentalists who are the problem, not religion.
 
2017-10-06 07:53:14 AM  
Fine with me. God also wants them to spend the next 15-20 in prison.
 
2017-10-06 07:54:38 AM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: There are offshoots, like the Jesuits, who adore science and reason. The rest, not so much.


I like the Jesuits. They're a tough bunch, but they are clever and they worry about stuff. No wonder there has never been a Jesuit pope before.
 
2017-10-06 07:56:53 AM  

Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.


One could argue that organized religion, in general, is not our friend.

Spirituality should be to seek enlightenment, not to confirm our own biases.
 
2017-10-06 07:57:45 AM  

chuggernaught: Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.

A couple of asshats do something evil so you blame the entire religion?  You're better than that.  That's something a Republican would do.


Nope, his Fark persona has gone full-persecuted.
 
2017-10-06 08:06:34 AM  

Weaver95: modern heathenry


OMG!! That's the name of my synthpop band! Thanks for the bump!
 
2017-10-06 08:10:40 AM  
the Pilands' apparent belief in divine healing and the religious group they have been involved in

Hey Catholics...

Prayer for the Protection of Religious Liberty

"O God our Creator, from your provident hand we have received our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have called us as your people and given us the right and the duty to worship you, the only true God, and your Son, Jesus Christ.
Through the power and working of your Holy Spirit, you call us to live out our faith in the midst of the world, bringing the light and the saving truth of the Gospel to every corner of society.
We ask you to bless us in our vigilance for the gift of religious liberty. Give us the strength of mind and heart to readily defend our freedoms when they are threatened; give us courage in making our voices heard on behalf of the rights of your Church and the freedom of conscience of all people of faith.
Grant, we pray, O heavenly Father, a clear and united voice to all your sons and daughters gathered in your Church in this decisive hour in the history of our nation, so that, with every trial withstood and every danger overcome-for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and all who come after us-this great land will always be "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."

So are you ready to stand up and fight for for this couple's religious liberty to let their child die? THIS is part of the religious liberty you've been praying for ever since you thought your hospitals might have to give people birth control.
 
2017-10-06 08:15:03 AM  
A rowboat, a powerboat, and a helicopter.
 
2017-10-06 08:21:29 AM  

Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.


1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ourselves.

/son of a feminist, grandson to a woman entrepreneur whose husband had no claim to her money
//*Leadership, true leadership is not dictatorship
///a lot of people read something such as "a woman who does not respond to her husband's call to the marriage bed and he goes to sleep angry at her, is cursed by angels until dawn" and read subservient. It's funny that they don't notice that this same passage is actually also saying IT IS HER DECISION and the man cannot force her!

////still sucks when it happens. From my side, I do try to clear my heart so that I don't sleep angry at her.
//My love
 
2017-10-06 08:24:31 AM  

Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.

1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ourselves.

/son of a feminist, grandson to a woman entrepreneur whose husband had no claim to her money
//*Leadership, true leadership is not dictatorship
///a lot of people read something such as "a woman who does not respond to her husband's call to the marriage bed and he goes to sleep angry at her, is cursed by angels until dawn" and read subservient. It's funny that they don't notice that this same passage is actually also saying IT IS HER DECISION and the man cannot force her!

////still sucks when it happens. From my side, I do try to clear my heart so that I don't sleep angry at her.
//My love


Let me know where you felt they fudged science and I'll have a go at it.
 
2017-10-06 08:28:25 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


i.ytimg.com
"Can I buy some pot from you?"
 
2017-10-06 08:30:29 AM  
If you walk down the street of any modestly-sized town in the world, with your eyes open, you will realize that God* makes mistakes constantly.

*for diverse values of "God"
 
2017-10-06 08:35:25 AM  

Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that


None of today's science stems from that.
Your religion, like most of the others, commands you to accept "God did it." as the ultimate answer to every question.
 
2017-10-06 08:45:23 AM  

WDFark think for a second: Faith Tech ministries


It is less a church than a school whose headquarters is located in a lovely residential neighborhood.

/money money moneyyyy
//money
///and a third slashie as a tip
 
2017-10-06 08:47:21 AM  
Good. I'm glad they're being charged and I hope they enjoy the sentence that gets handed down. If they like, they can pretend god is "testing" them.
 
2017-10-06 08:50:52 AM  

Resident Muslim: kbronsito: Despite the fact Abigail wasn't eating properly and coughed up blood, the detective said Ms Piland put the two-day-year old child "near a window wearing just a diaper utilizing a hair dryer to keep her warm".

If God doesn't make mistakes, then why use a hair dryer to warn the baby? Room temperature and the sun should had been enough. That baby died because these idolaters placed their faith on their fancy machine instead of the lord. Well, looks like their golden calf was just full of hot air.

That's really summarizing the duality.
You believe in using hairdryers, but somehow medicine is evil?!


They were *almost* there with the window.  They could have rented a UV light crib from a medical supply house, but they probably didn't know that.  A doctor could have told them, though.
 
2017-10-06 08:56:16 AM  
For those who aren't aware, the primary treatment for jaundice in infants is UV light, because it breaks down the bilirubin (responsible for the yellow color) near the surface of the skin.  This can keep the child healthy until their liver can kick in and do the job itself.
 
2017-10-06 08:56:18 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


God is an Observer? I sincerely doubt that a god could fall victim to the yodeling of Jimmy Rodgers.
 
2017-10-06 09:01:41 AM  

big pig peaches: This is a condition that can literally be treated by shining light on the baby. I believe even bright sunlight can help.

 Ultraviolet light.
 
2017-10-06 09:02:34 AM  

FormlessOne: Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.


img.fark.net
 
2017-10-06 09:04:13 AM  
Hard to blame a conditioned since birth idiot for being an idiot. Some people are born with a lessened ability to function in the world... Look at trump.
 
2017-10-06 09:04:22 AM  

WDFark think for a second: Ummm...anyone know anything about their"church" mentioned in the article?

"Faith Tech ministries" sounds pretty cult-y to me.


Looking at their page, looks like a generic Holiness / Pentecostal group that isn't afraid of the Internet like some of the more traditional ones. So yes, if not an actual cult, very culty.

/Grow up Foursquare
//The founder was known in the 20s for using radio and actually had one of the first commercial stations in LA
///She was also known for faking her own kidnapping
 
2017-10-06 09:05:56 AM  
"God sent this hurricane and destroyed out town and killed my wife. But he left this cross in the rubble to remind us how much he is thinking of us during this disaster. Isn't God great? Imagine how much worse this could have been if God wasn't looking out for us!"
 
2017-10-06 09:08:05 AM  

Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.


Mindless, overly-idealized, fundamentalist Christianity with no accountability for personal responsibility is not our friend. True, selfless, intelligent Christianity is a different thing altogether, and can serve as a great moral compass and comfort.

/please don't label "intelligent Christianity" as an oxymoron

//Just my opinion, Mr. Weaver.  Mad respect for you and your contributions to this site.
 
2017-10-06 09:08:21 AM  

Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.

1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ourselves.

/son of a feminist, grandson to a woman entrepreneur whose husband had no claim to her money
//*Leadership, true leadership is not dictatorship
///a lot of people read something such as "a woman who does not respond to her husband's call to the marriage bed and he goes to sleep angry at her, is cursed by angels until dawn" and read subservient. It's funny that they don't notice that this same passage is actually also saying IT IS HER DECISION and the man cannot force her!

////still sucks when it happens. From my side, I do try to clear my heart so that I don't sleep angry at her.
//My love


Modern-day women need to be breadwinners, because there is insufficient safety net for the average family, and a single-income family will collapse quickly.
 
2017-10-06 09:13:36 AM  

mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds


That's an easy one. I was always taught that we, as humans, are unable to comprehend the complexities of God's plans, therefore we are unable to judge his actions and inactions. So your immediate answer would be "I can't answer that." There is also the belief that God gave all entities - like demons and humans - free choice (e.g. the choice to reject God and salvation). All evil in the world is some manifestation of free will. Never mind that God created that rule and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

/12 years of Parochial school
 
2017-10-06 09:28:39 AM  

Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.

1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ...


And how many is that, exactly? And how do you know that?
 
2017-10-06 09:34:11 AM  
Your right to swing your arms around ends where another human being's nose begins.

Your religious right ends where another human being's right to live and not suffer any more than necessary begins.
 
2017-10-06 09:41:58 AM  

SansNeural: For those who aren't aware, the primary treatment for jaundice in infants is UV light, because it breaks down the bilirubin (responsible for the yellow color) near the surface of the skin.  This can keep the child healthy until their liver can kick in and do the job itself.


Two of my 3 kids need the bili lights for a brief amount of time. Of course, their mother and I were not complete retarded farkwits and had our babies in modern hospitals, with all the benefits a modern, scientific society could offer.

/also, we are believers
//in God AND Science.
///yes it's possible
 
2017-10-06 09:43:14 AM  

cards fan by association: mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds

That's an easy one. I was always taught that we, as humans, are unable to comprehend the complexities of God's plans, therefore we are unable to judge his actions and inactions. So your immediate answer would be "I can't answer that." There is also the belief that God gave all entities - like demons and humans - free choice (e.g. the choice to reject God and salvation). All evil in the world is some manifestation of free will. Never mind that God created that rule and is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

/12 years of Parochial school


God didn't want automatons, hence free will.  We're free to make bad decisions like letting our kids die of preventable illness.  We're not free from the consequences.  I hope they are completely and utterly overwhelmed with grief springing from their guilty conscience while spending the rest of their lives in jail.

Remember folks, "I sent you 2 boats and a helicopter".
 
2017-10-06 09:44:00 AM  
Those parents wanted that baby to die. :(
 
2017-10-06 09:48:23 AM  
Someone should ask them if they are cool with late term abortions since they killed their baby. Just to watch their heads explode, of course.
 
2017-10-06 09:52:35 AM  

FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


You are basically referring to deism.  There is also the possibility that God created everything is now just ignoring it.
 
2017-10-06 09:52:57 AM  
this may be TMI, but: my marriage ended in a shambles b/c of my wife's infidelity. her brother also wrecked his marriage with adultery. their dad is a bishop in one of the major protestant denominations. you might think that a professional christian would have a word with his children but no, "whatever happens is for the best" because it's god's will. this is, at least, not the christianity i was raised in.
 
2017-10-06 09:53:46 AM  

FormlessOne: Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.


I would say that frustration with the mystery of the workings of the universe has a tendency to cause religions to form, so definitely take a break from studying open source database implementations for a while. :)
 
2017-10-06 09:57:17 AM  

mrshowrules: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

You are basically referring to deism.  There is also the possibility that God created everything is now just ignoring it.


Or fast forwarding to see what happens at the end.
 
2017-10-06 10:02:57 AM  

WickerNipple: A rowboat, a powerboat, and a helicopter.


Exactly.
 
2017-10-06 10:06:09 AM  

mrshowrules: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

You are basically referring to deism.  There is also the possibility that God created everything is now just ignoring it.


Or that when God created everything, that really means EVERYTHING. The entirety of space and time. Which means that just because we are trapped inside time following a certain path, God doesn't have to be. To an outside observer from dimensions higher than the ones we observe on a daily basis, "difficult"  things like Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are trivial things almost not worth even noticing.
 
2017-10-06 10:13:38 AM  

Guadior42: Two of my 3 kids need the bili lights for a brief amount of time. Of course, their mother and I were not complete retarded farkwits and had our babies in modern hospitals, with all the benefits a modern, scientific society could offer.


Yeah, our first child needed the lights for 3 or 4 days.  We brought him home after birth and by the second day we noticed the hue of his skin was scary yellow/orange.

Took him back for a refund, but they shined lights on him instead.  "See?  Good as new!" they said.  Seemed all right so we took him home.  They neglected to tell us that some day he'd be a teenager.
 
2017-10-06 10:21:37 AM  
God makes no mistakes?  Well apparently the AllMighty wants you two dumbfarks in jail.

/His will be done
 
2017-10-06 10:25:38 AM  

washington-babylon: Or that when God created everything, that really means EVERYTHING. The entirety of space and time. Which means that just because we are trapped inside time following a certain path, God doesn't have to be. To an outside observer from dimensions higher than the ones we observe on a daily basis, "difficult"  things like Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are trivial things almost not worth even noticing.


That's interesting.  He might have create our past, present, future all in once instant and then put it on a shelf and moved-on to something else.  Than another god comes around and says - what's that there on the shelf.  Nothing - just something I created when I was really high.
 
2017-10-06 10:26:49 AM  
Jaundice is highly treatable...only the barely there numbers will nursing and the sun will help. The more extreme will require the UV lights. My son luckily just need to eat and sunbeam, but hey I also made sure to take him back to the hospital within 5 days to make sure his numbers had decreased. That's what responsible parents do.
/these people are not Christian
 
2017-10-06 10:33:16 AM  
God doesn't make mistakes?  My personal medical history begs to differ.
 
2017-10-06 10:38:39 AM  

SansNeural: Guadior42: Two of my 3 kids need the bili lights for a brief amount of time. Of course, their mother and I were not complete retarded farkwits and had our babies in modern hospitals, with all the benefits a modern, scientific society could offer.

Yeah, our first child needed the lights for 3 or 4 days.  We brought him home after birth and by the second day we noticed the hue of his skin was scary yellow/orange.

Took him back for a refund, but they shined lights on him instead.  "See?  Good as new!" they said.  Seemed all right so we took him home.  They neglected to tell us that some day he'd be a teenager.


The real disadvantage of having children who look like you is that you cannot blame the hospital for giving you the wrong infant. That's why they do the business with the matching bracelets; so you can't shop for a better kid.

As has been said several times upthread, jaundice is one of the easiest to resolve problems an infant can have (barring severe jaundice or complications from other health issues). There is literally no excuse for this.
 
2017-10-06 10:50:18 AM  

rebelyell2006: Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.

1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ourselves.

/son of a feminist, grandson to a woman entrepreneur whose husband had no claim to her money
//*Leadership, true leadership is not dictatorship
///a lot of people read something such as "a woman who does not respond to her husband's call to the marriage bed and he goes to sleep angry at her, is cursed by angels until dawn" and read subservient. It's funny that they don't notice that this same passage is actually also saying IT IS HER DECISION and the man cannot force her!

////still sucks when it happens. From my side, I do try to clear my heart so that I don't sleep angry at her.
//My love

Modern-day women need to be breadwinners, because there is insufficient safety net for the average family, and a single-income family will collapse quickly.


I swear to God I once read a study that I've tried googling but could not find again.
I KNOW I wasn't dreaming. Maybe one of you guys has better Google-fu than I.
It was about income of dual income vs single income over time.
The result was that right off the bat, dual income was literally double single income.
The thing is that as time progressed, the single earner started growing at a higher rate and then surpassed the dual income.
I can't remember if it was mentioned in the article (I think it was Forbes or Fortune) or if I assumed this, but the single earner was more focused on the job, could afford to give more time and as available for extra work coming from the boss, knowing that someone was holding the fort back at home.
This translates to more job responsibilities, more dependability from the boss and  therefore more promotions.
Compared to dual income households where housework and childcare is divided equally.

/capitalism and specialization, how do they work
//someone please find the study for me. It's been years
///my tinfoil says it's repressed to keep the cogs in the machine
 
2017-10-06 10:57:21 AM  

Lady J: Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

Hmm. I got handed a bunch of literature on Islam recently, which I've glanced over.

The stuff actually makes a genuine effort to reconcile some of the traditional teaching of the faith, with 21st century society. And it's articulate and interesting, but there comes a point, where two conflicting beliefs meet, where they just have to fudge it. So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman. So they just fudge it, with a lot of handwaving. And the science booklet is the same.

1) watered-down religion to gain respect is never respected
2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited. I remember reading a western woman's reaction stating "I would LOVE to be only responsible for raising my child (and taking care of the household)." Her qualm was modern-day society expects women to be breadwinners in addition to the men...and guess what, they are ALSO responsible for most of the childcare duties and taking care of the household. That's most married couples whether we like it or not. Let's not kid ...

And how many is that, exactly? And how do you know that?


Or you can argue my points that indeed 1)women are working (at least) the same number of hours 2) and do more of the housework 3) and do more of the child care. 4) AND still expected to put the money into the family account

/my thanks and gratitude to women everywhere who do this.
// I also believe they don't have to, and get "brownie points" when they help their husbands out
///I'm not even going to get into the discussion of whether it is bological vs social norms that define this
////also, feel free to ask your female friends. Especially mothers how they feel about what I said. Especially with younger kids. If you have a predominantly female group on WhatsApp mention that this guy on the net said this, how do you feel about that
 
2017-10-06 11:00:05 AM  

GoldSpider: chuggernaught: Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.

A couple of asshats do something evil so you blame the entire religion?  You're better than that.  That's something a Republican would do.


Nope, his Fark persona has gone full-persecuted.


(points, laughs at GoldSpider)
 
2017-10-06 11:08:19 AM  
Other than them, they mean.
 
2017-10-06 11:09:15 AM  
God is infallible in the same way that Paul Bunyan has a huge axe.
 
2017-10-06 11:13:51 AM  
Words fail...

There ought to be some kind of test to become parents, besides the Practical Exam, i mean.

 The molecule thin Silver lining I guess, is that the kid won't grow up to be just as stupid as her parents and murder her own child with Faith and Willful Ignorance.  Kind of a stretch.
 
2017-10-06 11:15:48 AM  

katrina_666: Lady J: katrina_666: Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?

This took place in Michagan.

Michagan, Canada  or Michagan in the Basque region?

Other articles I have found about these monstrous people say they live in Lansing.


You mispelled Michigan.
 
2017-10-06 11:19:09 AM  

SansNeural: Guadior42: Two of my 3 kids need the bili lights for a brief amount of time. Of course, their mother and I were not complete retarded farkwits and had our babies in modern hospitals, with all the benefits a modern, scientific society could offer.

Yeah, our first child needed the lights for 3 or 4 days.  We brought him home after birth and by the second day we noticed the hue of his skin was scary yellow/orange.

Took him back for a refund, but they shined lights on him instead.  "See?  Good as new!" they said.  Seemed all right so we took him home.  They neglected to tell us that some day he'd be a teenager.


Yeah, they don't tell you the kid turns sour after 12 years.
 
2017-10-06 11:26:42 AM  
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts, 
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, 
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, 
but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children
as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, 
and He bends you with His might 
that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow that flies, 
so He loves also the bow that is stable.


Great poem, but I had to google it because you didn't cite the author. Kahlil Gibran, if anyone is wondering. (The whole "children as arrows" metaphor is pretty weird and violent - also used in the Bible, which some people use to interpret as "arrows in God's army" and justification for having eleventy jillion kids: "Happy is he who has a quiver full of them." Yikes.)
 
2017-10-06 11:27:31 AM  
Newborn with jaundice dies after parents refuse treatment saying 'God makes no mistakes'
Rachel Joy Piland, from Michigan, told the midwife "God makes no mistakes", according to a police detective who testified in court last week.
Detective Peter Scaccia said: "Rachel declined to seek any medical treatment for Abigail, stating God makes no mistakes. She indicated to the midwife that the baby was fine."


But still, I wonder if she said anything to try and offer up a justification for her inaction?  Like even some simple phrase to encapsulate and represent her philosophical stance.

But seriously, does anyone here know the difference between "refusing treatment" and ":not seeking treatment"?  Anyone?  Bueller?  English language?

/splitting hares
 
2017-10-06 11:30:33 AM  
Maybe god makes no mistakes, but you sure as fark did.
 
2017-10-06 11:47:27 AM  
And God said "I sent you 3 different social workers to take the kid to the hospital, what more do you want me to do?"
 
2017-10-06 11:48:40 AM  

trappedspirit: Newborn with jaundice dies after parents refuse treatment saying 'God makes no mistakes'
Rachel Joy Piland, from Michigan, told the midwife "God makes no mistakes", according to a police detective who testified in court last week.
Detective Peter Scaccia said: "Rachel declined to seek any medical treatment for Abigail, stating God makes no mistakes. She indicated to the midwife that the baby was fine."

But still, I wonder if she said anything to try and offer up a justification for her inaction?  Like even some simple phrase to encapsulate and represent her philosophical stance.

But seriously, does anyone here know the difference between "refusing treatment" and ":not seeking treatment"?  Anyone?  Bueller?  English language?

/splitting hares


"Refusing treatment" implies an evaluation by a medical professional, and treatment offered but rejected.  In the cases of some life-threatening illnesses, medical professionals may override a treatment refusal and save a person's life.

"Not seeking treatment" means you never went to a doctor in the first place.  Implies more neglect than an action.
 
2017-10-06 11:48:47 AM  

WickerNipple: A rowboat, a powerboat, and a helicopter.


Thank you for making sure this got referenced, as it's really the only relevant wisdom required.  As per Fark tradition, leaving satsified.
 
2017-10-06 11:48:57 AM  

mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds


Or what I asked my churchgoing stepmother once: If god is perfect then all that they created would have to be perfect... but we are not. Would god purposely create imperfection even if it could, and why? And if the creation of imperfection is on purpose, then why are these imperfect beings punished for being imperfect?

There's usually a couple of "god's wills" thrown out, then nothing.
 
2017-10-06 12:00:11 PM  
God letting those two be parents seems to have been a huge mistake.  Fortunately he corrected that.
 
2017-10-06 12:08:21 PM  

rewind2846: mjjt: If you really want to cause dissension in the ranks, ask "We know God is perfect, and doesn't make mistakes, but if you were God, what would you change about today's world .... ?"

And watch them try to hold two conflicting ideas in their tiny regimented minds

Or what I asked my churchgoing stepmother once: If god is perfect then all that they created would have to be perfect... but we are not. Would god purposely create imperfection even if it could, and why? And if the creation of imperfection is on purpose, then why are these imperfect beings punished for being imperfect?

There's usually a couple of "god's wills" thrown out, then nothing.


If everything was 'perfect', wouldn't life be boring?  Everybody was nearly the same, nobody got hurt or sick, everybody had the same views and opinions, the world was always safe and comfortable, life would be very boring.  It's the challenges and uncomfortable problems that make life interesting.  This life is short, and if you're going to believe in Christian God, then understand we were created long before we were born on Earth, and will exist somewhere long after we die here.  Well then, this is an amusement ride in a long period of existence.  Separating us from God to see what we really are.

Seriously, you would get bored with a perfect world if everything that sucks was removed.  Getting uncomfortable can be exciting, like doing dangerous things.  It's finding out how terrible people can really be that makes the world just that much worse.
 
2017-10-06 12:16:22 PM  

ThurmanMerman: trappedspirit: Newborn with jaundice dies after parents refuse treatment saying 'God makes no mistakes'
Rachel Joy Piland, from Michigan, told the midwife "God makes no mistakes", according to a police detective who testified in court last week.
Detective Peter Scaccia said: "Rachel declined to seek any medical treatment for Abigail, stating God makes no mistakes. She indicated to the midwife that the baby was fine."

But still, I wonder if she said anything to try and offer up a justification for her inaction?  Like even some simple phrase to encapsulate and represent her philosophical stance.

But seriously, does anyone here know the difference between "refusing treatment" and ":not seeking treatment"?  Anyone?  Bueller?  English language?

/splitting hares

"Refusing treatment" implies an evaluation by a medical professional, and treatment offered but rejected.  In the cases of some life-threatening illnesses, medical professionals may override a treatment refusal and save a person's life.

"Not seeking treatment" means you never went to a doctor in the first place.  Implies more neglect than an action.


Okay, uh, I guess my sarcasm wasn't thorough enough.  Thanks for giving the answer.  I was just pointing out that the article used both phrases and they have different meanings, so, thumbs up reporting.
 
2017-10-06 12:25:23 PM  
I'm fine with throwing these assholes in prison so they can't reproduce. But that probably won't happen, unfortunately.

They'll plead out and immediately start farking again (in the Jesus-approved fashion, no fun allowed) so they can start populating the earth with little people that they will try to raise to be as stupid as they are. Neato.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:18 PM  

johnphantom: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

You might get a kick out of my profile... just a suggestion.


You're not wrong.
 
2017-10-06 12:34:35 PM  
PLease put these dangerously ignorant farks in prison. Hopefully they will never be able to breed again.
One of my sons had the same problem. It was easy to fix, it is very common.
God makes parents to take care of their children.He doesn't do house calls ignoramus.
 
2017-10-06 12:35:18 PM  

Cynicism101: Great poem, but I had to google it because you didn't cite the author. Kahlil Gibran, if anyone is wondering. (The whole "children as arrows" metaphor is pretty weird and violent - also used in the Bible, which some people use to interpret as "arrows in God's army" and justification for having eleventy jillion kids: "Happy is he who has a quiver full of them." Yikes.)


See Quiverfull.
 
2017-10-06 12:38:08 PM  

Aidan: FormlessOne: Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

I would say that frustration with the mystery of the workings of the universe has a tendency to cause religions to form, so definitely take a break from studying open source database implementations for a while. :)


I'm staring at PostgreSQL and hit the WAL, so to speak. I swear to the Prime Observer, if I see one more log implementation, I'm gonna go back to babysitting AS/400s just out of spite.
 
2017-10-06 12:40:40 PM  
"He [the father] attempted one rescue breath but had no success. He did not want to perform CPR because he only knew how to perform it on adults, not children," the detective said.

If you believe God makes no mistakes, why did you learn CPR ?

"They then brought Abigail upstairs to pray for her. Joshua continued to massage Abigail, attempting to get her good air. Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection, but never called the police."

If you believe God makes no mistakes, why did you and your friends go against his will by offering prayers and treatments to reverse what he did to your family ?
 
2017-10-06 12:46:25 PM  
From the Faith Tech Ministries website :

Because we are not associated with any denomination, it is somewhat difficult to fit us into a particular slot. However, we are what many call "full gospel" or "pentecostal" for the reason that, 1) we believe in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation with God, and 2) that a subsequent experience of receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit is commanded by Jesus in Acts 1:4-5, with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues as recorded in Acts 2:4; 10:44-46 and 19:1-6. We also teach a strong holiness message - our lives to be lived free from sin as commanded in I John 2:1 - obedience to the moral government of God as spoken of by Christ in John 14:21-24, and a strong message in the area of divine healing and the operation of the Holy Spirit through each believer with signs and wonders following their ministries.

media.giphy.com
 
2017-10-06 12:56:33 PM  
They aren't dating anything that isn't in basically all of the major religious texts
 
2017-10-06 01:02:51 PM  
Holy Farking Fark! From the end of TFA: "Both Josh and (Rachel) reached out to friends and fellow church members to come to their home and pray for Abigail's resurrection, but never called the police." !!!

That's just messed up! So their callous inaction led to the death of their baby, then they take the action to call a cycling cavalcade of other ghouls to reanimate the rag-doll dead baby they caused through willful and informed inaction? Is . . is that right? Pretty farking creepy if you ask me.
 
2017-10-06 01:09:57 PM  

MmmmBacon: Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others

actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.  eastern religions too I believe, although I couldn't cite specific examples.

islam and christanity tho, they built their political, social and economic power base on creating and maintaining fear, ignorance and unquestioning obedience.

You have to be careful of some of the Heathen groups, though. On the surface they seem perfectly reasonable and inclusive, with a questioning nate, as you said. But there are at least a few that have been virtually taken over by white supremacists, and are merely a vehicle for recruiting anymore.

/Got to be careful about banging the 'Hot Pagan Chick'
//Her friends might be bald and want to talk about the good word of Hitler with you.
///Friday Slashies


Oh, yeah.  I had those Asatru motherfarkers try to convert me once.  The recruitment materials had a ton of subliminal white nationalism.  Yuck.
 
2017-10-06 01:16:32 PM  

lack of warmth: If everything was 'perfect', wouldn't life be boring?


The discussion is not about what "we" want but the logic of a perfect being purposely creating imperfection, and if is that even possible.
The mere fact that the universe is not perfect shows the flaws in whatever created it, and if god is not perfect then god cannot be "god".
 
2017-10-06 01:20:04 PM  

Weaver95: aagrajag: Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others


actually, there are at least a couple of faiths/religions that demand you study and question the world around you.  Judiasm does, so does neo-paganism and modern heathenry.


If they were effective at studying and questioning the world around them they would no longer be part of that religion though.
 
2017-10-06 01:20:30 PM  
Only the dad should be charged.  It's her right as a woman to terminate her child's life anytime before the age of 10 (ten being the age a human could probably survive on its own).
 
2017-10-06 01:22:57 PM  
Presumably the judge will take a jaundiced view of their argument.
 
2017-10-06 01:24:02 PM  

Weaver95: christanity is not our friend.


Religion is not our friend.
 
2017-10-06 01:50:40 PM  

rewind2846: lack of warmth: If everything was 'perfect', wouldn't life be boring?

The discussion is not about what "we" want but the logic of a perfect being purposely creating imperfection, and if is that even possible.
The mere fact that the universe is not perfect shows the flaws in whatever created it, and if god is not perfect then god cannot be "god".


We're flawed, mostly by our own nature.  Why would anyone understand what is perfect and what is not?  Deciding the world has flaws created into it from a flawed perspective is flawed logic to begin with.  We as humans create games with struggles and challenges built right in, why would the world not be created with challenges as well.  Creating a world that shows us the specialness of a 'perfect' day by including 'bad' weather days is closer to perfection than a world with 'perfect' days only.  Has history not shown that for every problem we faced, there has been solutions found?  Wouldn't a perfect world challenge people to look for the solution to problems?  Science is that search for solutions, because the solutions are built into the world.

However, when people misuse the world, it creates more problems.  That's the big issue, our own flaws tremendously increase our problems, but that doesn't mean if we figure out the world, the solutions aren't here all along.  Where this ties back into Christianity is people who are seeking solutions, sometimes turns their backs to who some of us believe who built the world.  In turn, some from the Christians has turned their backs to scientist.  It isn't hard to see when Christians get it wrong like this couple, however, scientists don't have it right either.  To put faith into either group without questioning things is risky at best.

Anyway, hard to call a universe or world flawed from a perspective that by our best efforts is still short sighted, and missing a lot of information.  Anyone who claims they know it all are either liars or crazy.
 
2017-10-06 02:12:38 PM  

mrshowrules: washington-babylon: Or that when God created everything, that really means EVERYTHING. The entirety of space and time. Which means that just because we are trapped inside time following a certain path, God doesn't have to be. To an outside observer from dimensions higher than the ones we observe on a daily basis, "difficult"  things like Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are trivial things almost not worth even noticing.

That's interesting.  He might have create our past, present, future all in once instant and then put it on a shelf and moved-on to something else.  Than another god comes around and says - what's that there on the shelf.  Nothing - just something I created when I was really high.


The best part is there is nothing in the bible that contradicts it. I love suggesting that to certain denominations just to watch heads explode.
 
2017-10-06 02:59:40 PM  

aagrajag: that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.


The followers of Bood would disagree, and most would call their practices and dogma a faith.

Many sects of Boodism require introspection and logic. Bood himself told his followers to see for themselves if the teachings worked, and not to just trust somebody else's word.
 
2017-10-06 02:59:46 PM  
at this point, I guess I'm okay with people destroying their bloodline before it grows and reproduces.

as I typed this, a tourist commercial for that farking ARK came on tv....

getting comfortable with the deaths of religious nutmeats
 
2017-10-06 03:11:51 PM  

give me doughnuts: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

None of today's science stems from that.
Your religion, like most of the others, commands you to accept "God did it." as the ultimate answer to every question.


I'm going to disagree with everyone a bit, here.

doughnuts: LOTS of today's science stems from Islam's collective observations of the natural world. We all owe a great debt to them for the caretaking and building they did for the world's collective knowledge while Europe decided to plunge itself into the ignorance of the dark ages. They made huge advances in medicine, math, and chemistry. You know the chemical process of distillation we love so much, that uses a piece of equipment called an alembic? As in the Anglicized word for al-anbīḳ? Or important mathematical concepts like algebra (al-jabr)? And, in fact, while the Greeks did lots of "natural philosophy" and took the important step of daring to consider ideas that were against their religious beliefs, Muslims were the first to actually codify the scientific method.

Resident Muslim: Simply encouraging observation is not enough. The issue is that they did it with God-colored glasses on. The problem with having faith underlying ones research is that there is a natural tendency to avoid coming to conclusions that undermine that faith. Science is not supposed to carry with it cherished, untouchable beliefs. All ideas must be subject to being thrown out when they are contradicted by evidence. There is no religion that meets that standard.


Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: Lady J: So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman.

2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited.

And how many is that, exactly? And how do you know that?

Or you can argue my points that indeed...


OR, how about you address her question?
You're diverting the argument from her main disagreement, which is with the marriage "heirarchy". In response you only offered her the excuse that some significant number of women would actually prefer to have marriage organized that way.

When she asks for justification of the data you just asserted, instead of providing it, you are asking her to respond to what is, in essence, an advertisement for your style of marital arrangement.

The issue at hand is not whether your favored marriage arrangement has merit, the issue is that such an arrangement is prescribed in the first place. And even when arguing on the grounds of whether it has merit, you don't provide any basis for your argument.

All you're actually doing is trying to argue that the current standard of marriage in the western world is inadequate for women. Lots of people would even agree with you. BUT THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MUSLIM MARITAL ARRANGEMENT. There are any number of other changes that can be made to make family life better and easier for women without resorting to signing up for the marital dictates of a religion.
 
2017-10-06 03:14:13 PM  

lack of warmth: We as humans create games with struggles and challenges built right in, why would the world not be created with challenges as well


Yet if we were created by a perfect being we and this universe would have been created perfectly. Therefore we would not create problems for ourselves. Says right in Genesis that humans were originally perfect, then this creator purposely introduces imperfection along with the catalyst for that imperfection in a fallen "angel"/temptation.

The humans were set up to fail from before day one by an omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:27), omnipresent (Proverbs 15:3), omniscient (Matthew 24:36) being who knew when, where and how humans would fail its test before the test, yet tested them anyway. For what purpose?

If humans were perfect they would not have fallen for this trick. They weren't, and were tempted... god made imperfection - a mistake. Only perfection can be called "god", so this god cannot be god if it is not perfect.
 
2017-10-06 03:19:14 PM  
I wonder how many of us wouldn't have survived childhood if our own parents refused had medical help because "God makes no mistakes."

Actually, I'm wondering the same about the parents in TFA.
 
2017-10-06 03:20:08 PM  
Well, God did help keep two idiots from successfully breeding, so...
 
2017-10-06 03:36:07 PM  

rosekolodny: Oh, yeah.  I had those Asatru motherfarkers try to convert me once.  The recruitment materials had a ton of subliminal white nationalism.  Yuck.


I thought that was the Odinists. The way I heard it they both worship the Norse gods, but they hate each other because of Odinism's white-supremacist spin on the faith; the Odinists see the Asatru folks as weaklings, while the Asatru folks see Odinism as nothing more than Nazism whispered under one's breath. They both get really pissed off when you mix them up.

Then again, my data is old. Maybe things have changed. I'd hate to think the Odinists had managed to take over Asatru, but it's been a few years since I heard much from either camp.
 
2017-10-06 03:44:22 PM  

washington-babylon: mrshowrules: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

You are basically referring to deism.  There is also the possibility that God created everything is now just ignoring it.

Or that when God created everything, that really means EVERYTHING. The entirety of space and time. Which means that just because we are trapped inside time following a certain path, God doesn't have to be. To an outside observer from dimensions higher than the ones we observe on a daily basis, "difficult"  things like Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are trivial things almost not worth even noticing.


When people talk about God being "outside time" (an idea that frequently pops up in pro-God philosophical arguments), I instantly assume that they haven't actually thought about what time is, or really thought through or understood their own ideas completely, and are just making excuses for why other people's objections shouldn't apply to their god.

Being "outside time" is a nonsense idea to my thinking. Time is more than just a dimensional vector in the space-time tensor, it is also a concept that is necessary for such a basic thing as CHANGE.

Do you know how they figured out that neutrinos have mass? They figured out that they could oscillate between "flavors" (i.e. muon -> tau) after being created in the heart of the sun. They can only do this if they move along the time vector, which is to say: they can only do this if they experience the passage of time. This can only happen if they, unlike massless photons which move at the speed of light, DO have mass and therefore move SLOWER than the speed of light.

Now, consider what a diety would be like if they did not exist in space-time and did not experience the passage of time. That diety cannot change in any way: it is a static object. It cannot take actions, or do ANY of the things that are regularly attributed to a god, for instance: creating things. It cannot even have thoughts or emotions, because this implies an internal change. If it cannot have thoughts or emotions then it is certainly not intelligent, not loving, and cannot possibly be omnipotent since it is essentially a frozen idea floating in the ether outside of our universe where it will never affect or be observed by anything.

/There are also good arguments to be made that omnipotence is impossible and that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive traits even if it weren't.
 
2017-10-06 04:04:37 PM  

Gawdzila: washington-babylon: mrshowrules: FormlessOne: Hilarious. Y'know, the thing that I find most interesting about the concept of a deity is that, for all we know, if such an entity even exists, the only true "act" that entity probably performed was to force a superposition to collapse into a position for the first damned time, ever, by observing it, and that everything that occurred after that was entirely driven by observation, not action.

Of course that God makes no mistakes - He does nothing, good or bad, but merely watches. Perhaps we could wrap a religion around the Prime Observer, and make observation a sacred ritual. Imagine the fun - suddenly, the first true act of the scientific method is also the First Act of the One True Religion. We are made in that God's image because, like God, our act of observation changes both observer and observed, and the more observed the phenomenon, the more influence the observers have upon it - in other words, like God, we, too, can change reality through observation. We develop a catechism that includes all who observe, without discrimination - indeed, "God's creatures" are defined by their ability to effect observation great enough to influence quantum events.

Or, I could just be really bored because I can't sleep and I'm taking a break from writing documentation about open source database implementations.

You are basically referring to deism.  There is also the possibility that God created everything is now just ignoring it.

Or that when God created everything, that really means EVERYTHING. The entirety of space and time. Which means that just because we are trapped inside time following a certain path, God doesn't have to be. To an outside observer from dimensions higher than the ones we observe on a daily basis, "difficult"  things like Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence are trivial things almost not worth even noticing.

When people talk about God being "outside time" (an idea that frequently pops up in pro-God p ...


You base your entire argument on the assumption that time is something that can only exist in our Universe. There is nothing that says that time cannot exist elsewhere outside of the Universe we reside in, completely separate from our own "time" in our Universe. By very definition, a creator that created the Universe we reside in cannot have come from our Universe without violating causality. But that creator CAN come from a different Universe, with its own time, rules, and physics, without violating causality. Or being required to be a part of our own timeline or a part of the spacetime of our Universe. Much like server admin spinning up a new Virtual machine, the Creator doesn't have to exist in that virtual machine, or even run the same clock speed or timescale for it to work.
 
2017-10-06 04:26:43 PM  

washington-babylon: You base your entire argument on the assumption that time is something that can only exist in our Universe.


I don't, actually. The reason is because:

washington-babylon: There is nothing that says that time cannot exist elsewhere outside of the Universe we reside in, completely separate from our own "time" in our Universe.


This is true, but that turns out to be irrelevant in this case, because the arguments being made that use this mechanism seek to place God outside the constraints of ANY time. An example would be the very thing I note at the bottom: that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

The argument goes something like: if God is omniscient then he has perfect knowledge of all his/her/its own future actions and cannot be wrong about them. This means that God cannot change its mind -- all God's actions exist pre-determinedly on a single track, destined to happen in the order pre-determined by God's own omniscience. Suffice to say this is not an omnipotent God. It is not a being that can take any action at any time it wants. It is, instead, a slave to its own perfect knowledge. Essentially an automaton.

The argument to circumvent this idea is usually to suggest that God is outside time, making even the concept of "changing one's mind" to be irrelevant. God is everywhen at once, apparently. Such an argument is trying to place God outside the constraints of ANY timeline, since ANY timeline would make the omniscience argument relevant. But it turns out that if an omniscient God is not an automaton, then it is a chunk of frozen irrelevance.
 
2017-10-06 04:51:10 PM  

Gawdzila: washington-babylon: You base your entire argument on the assumption that time is something that can only exist in our Universe.

I don't, actually. The reason is because:

washington-babylon: There is nothing that says that time cannot exist elsewhere outside of the Universe we reside in, completely separate from our own "time" in our Universe.

This is true, but that turns out to be irrelevant in this case, because the arguments being made that use this mechanism seek to place God outside the constraints of ANY time. An example would be the very thing I note at the bottom: that omnipotence and omniscience are mutually exclusive.

The argument goes something like: if God is omniscient then he has perfect knowledge of all his/her/its own future actions and cannot be wrong about them. This means that God cannot change its mind -- all God's actions exist pre-determinedly on a single track, destined to happen in the order pre-determined by God's own omniscience. Suffice to say this is not an omnipotent God. It is not a being that can take any action at any time it wants. It is, instead, a slave to its own perfect knowledge. Essentially an automaton.

The argument to circumvent this idea is usually to suggest that God is outside time, making even the concept of "changing one's mind" to be irrelevant. God is everywhen at once, apparently. Such an argument is trying to place God outside the constraints of ANY timeline, since ANY timeline would make the omniscience argument relevant. But it turns out that if an omniscient God is not an automaton, then it is a chunk of frozen irrelevance.


That is entirely dependent on how the three O's are framed. If you frame them from the standpoint of an observer from our universe, they are VERY doable without anything you describe even applying. This is because from the viewpoint of our universe, the being that created it is able to know everything (about our universe) because they made it that way, they can be anywhere (in our universe) because they made it that way, and they are omnipotent (in our universe) because... they made it. No part of that means that creator has ( or has to have) any of those attributes outside of our universe. For all we know, he/she/it is a junior game dev working on their first project for a company making the equivalent of cell phone games. To the characters in the version of Plague, Inc we are in, the developer is god, with all the attributes thereof. To others like the developer, the developer can be nothing more than a regular Joe like billions of other regular Joes.
 
2017-10-06 04:58:12 PM  

Gawdzila: give me doughnuts: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

None of today's science stems from that.
Your religion, like most of the others, commands you to accept "God did it." as the ultimate answer to every question.

I'm going to disagree with everyone a bit, here.

doughnuts: LOTS of today's science stems from Islam's collective observations of the natural world. We all owe a great debt to them for the caretaking and building they did for the world's collective knowledge while Europe decided to plunge itself into the ignorance of the dark ages. They made huge advances in medicine, math, and chemistry. You know the chemical process of distillation we love so much, that uses a piece of equipment called an alembic? As in the Anglicized word for al-anbīḳ? Or important mathematical concepts like algebra (al-jabr)? And, in fact, while the Greeks did lots of "natural philosophy" and took the important step of daring to consider ideas that were against their religious beliefs, Muslims were the first to actually codify the scientific method.

Resident Muslim: Simply encouraging observation is not enough. The issue is that they did it with God-colored glasses on. The problem with having faith underlying ones research is that there is a natural tendency to avoid coming to conclusions that undermine that faith. Science is not supposed to carry with it cherished, untouchable beliefs. All ideas must be subject to being thrown out when they are contradicted by evidence. There is no religion that meets that standard.


Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: Lady J: So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman.

2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited.

And how many is that, exactly? And how do you know that?

Or you can argue my points that indeed...

OR, how about you address her question?
You're diverting the argument from her main disagreement, which is with the marriage "heirarchy". In response you only offered her the excuse that some significant number of women would actually prefer to have marriage organized that way.

When she asks for justification of the data you just asserted, instead of providing it, you are asking her to respond to what is, in essence, an advertisement for your style of marital arrangement.

The issue at hand is not whether your favored marriage arrangement has merit, the issue is that such an arrangement is prescribed in the first place. And even when arguing on the grounds of whether it has merit, you don't provide any basis for your argument.

All you're actually doing is trying to argue that the current standard of marriage in the western world is inadequate for women. Lots of people would even agree with you. BUT THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MUSLIM MARITAL ARRANGEMENT. There are any number of other changes that can be made to make family life better and easier for women without resorting to signing up for the marital dictates of a religion.


You mentioned lack of data, though did not provide data on where Muslim scientists had mental blocks due to faith. I would love to hear more about that. (Actual comment, not sarcastic. Still "need to see it to believe it" kinda thing.)

As for my reply to m'Lady J, 1) I assumed it was obvious. 2) I'm guessing. Maybe it's not that obvious to everyone.
So here are links to women working yet STILL putting in more time than men in the household:
TIme: http://amp.timeinc.net/time/2895235/men-housework-women/?source​=dam
Huffington Post: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9878996
OxFam:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2016/03/women-spe​n​d-two-days-a-month-more-than-men-on-housework-and-childcare
BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-37941191

I assumed this was common knowledge. I guess I was wrong.

So unless you are actually that women prefer this over the lifestyle I mentioned that a surprising number of women would prefer, I would leave that up to you to decide.
Again, especially women with small children as I mentioned. (Though I have met a few who couldn't wait to drop the kid to daycare and run back to work, and not because they had to).

I also offered the chance to m'Lady (should she wish. I hold too much respect for her to boss her around. I've witnessed her and her kindness here a lot) to use the observation method and pose my question to her female group of friends.
I encourage anyone to join in the exercise actually. This is Fark, and as sarcastic as we can be, we grudgingly admit that we learn stuff here.
The simple question is "Ladies, how many of you would like to handle solely the household and children and leave all the financial responsibilities up to someone else, meaning someone responsible for your financial well-being as you are responsible for the wellness at home?"

/I honestly feel it's a loaded question, because as the links above state, women are already doing 40% more in the household, so being told that they don't HAVE to work as well...?
//yes, there are opposing views. My point is that the views that actually agree, I expect those to be surprising.
///and let's face it, in this day and age, I think only 20% of people actually enjoy their job (probably have that number from a McKinsey survey on engagement somewhere. Probably another consulting house)
 
2017-10-06 05:09:27 PM  

washington-babylon: That is entirely dependent on how the three O's are framed. If you frame them from the standpoint of an observer from our universe


Well, my argument doesn't actually depend on any observational frame other than that of the supposedly omniscient being itself, so this argument doesn't actually solve the issue I raised. It basically just moves the goalposts for omniscience.

That said... you're suggesting that it works if God is not ACTUALLY omniscient (in that it has the quality of absolute omniscience), is only FUNCTIONALLY omniscient from our limited perspective? Okay, then, I think I'd buy that, at least as an outline for conceptual plausibility. I'm not convinced there aren't serious flaws here, but it is an interesting way to get around the problem.

Still, that seems like a fairly large caveat from the standpoint of someone who insists that their God is all-knowing and all-powerful, though. No one wants to think of the being they're venerating as some cosmic amateur cubicle lackey designing (highly flawed) universes for minimum wage. I doubt that Maimonides would have accepted such a suggestion.
 
2017-10-06 05:10:08 PM  

lack of warmth: katrina_666: Lady J: katrina_666: Lady J: It sounds like police are involved, but is this a crime?

Don't get me wrong, it farking should be, but it's not in the US is it, because of religious freedumb bollocks?

This took place in Michagan.

Michagan, Canada  or Michagan in the Basque region?

Other articles I have found about these monstrous people say they live in Lansing.

You mispelled Michigan.


Please find it in your heart to forgive my mispelling, typing on a tablet before the coffee kicks in yields horrible results.
 
2017-10-06 05:13:31 PM  

Gawdzila: give me doughnuts: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

None of today's science stems from that.
Your religion, like most of the others, commands you to accept "God did it." as the ultimate answer to every question.

I'm going to disagree with everyone a bit, here.

doughnuts: LOTS of today's science stems from Islam's collective observations of the natural world. We all owe a great debt to them for the caretaking and building they did for the world's collective knowledge while Europe decided to plunge itself into the ignorance of the dark ages. They made huge advances in medicine, math, and chemistry. You know the chemical process of distillation we love so much, that uses a piece of equipment called an alembic? As in the Anglicized word for al-anbīḳ? Or important mathematical concepts like algebra (al-jabr)? And, in fact, while the Greeks did lots of "natural philosophy" and took the important step of daring to consider ideas that were against their religious beliefs, Muslims were the first to actually codify the scientific method.

Resident Muslim: Simply encouraging observation is not enough. The issue is that they did it with God-colored glasses on. The problem with having faith underlying ones research is that there is a natural tendency to avoid coming to conclusions that undermine that faith. Science is not supposed to carry with it cherished, untouchable beliefs. All ideas must be subject to being thrown out when they are contradicted by evidence. There is no religion that meets that standard.


Resident Muslim: Lady J: Resident Muslim: Lady J: So (I don't know the exact words) women are supposed to be subservient to their husband... there's just no palatable way to say that to a 21st century London woman.

2) you'd be surprised how many 21st century London women would find it platable to hear that the same guy who is responsible for leading the family* is also responsible for its livelihood, including financially and has NO claims to her money whether gained or inherited.

And how many is that, exactly? And how do you know that?

Or you can argue my points that indeed...

OR, how about you address her question?
You're diverting the argument from her main disagreement, which is with the marriage "heirarchy". In response you only offered her the excuse that some significant number of women would actually prefer to have marriage organized that way.

When she asks for justification of the data you just asserted, instead of providing it, you are asking her to respond to what is, in essence, an advertisement for your style of marital arrangement.

The issue at hand is not whether your favored marriage arrangement has merit, the issue is that such an arrangement is prescribed in the first place. And even when arguing on the grounds of whether it has merit, you don't provide any basis for your argument.

All you're actually doing is trying to argue that the current standard of marriage in the western world is inadequate for women. Lots of people would even agree with you. BUT THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE MUSLIM MARITAL ARRANGEMENT. There are any number of other changes that can be made to make family life better and easier for women without resorting to signing up for the marital dictates of a religion.


Sorry.
Just read your last paragraph. Don't know how I missed that.

What you are saying, is, let me get this straight, that "traditional marriages" where men are the breadwinners and women take care of the household is a Muslim thing?
Really?!
So most households before WWII, tribes in the Amazon, tribes in Africa, families in China, that's a "Muslim Marital arrangement"?!

I have GOT to be missing something here.
Please clarify.
 
2017-10-06 05:24:51 PM  

Gawdzila: washington-babylon: That is entirely dependent on how the three O's are framed. If you frame them from the standpoint of an observer from our universe

Well, my argument doesn't actually depend on any observational frame other than that of the supposedly omniscient being itself, so this argument doesn't actually solve the issue I raised. It basically just moves the goalposts for omniscience.

That said... you're suggesting that it works if God is not ACTUALLY omniscient (in that it has the quality of absolute omniscience), is only FUNCTIONALLY omniscient from our limited perspective? Okay, then, I think I'd buy that, at least as an outline for conceptual plausibility. I'm not convinced there aren't serious flaws here, but it is an interesting way to get around the problem.

Still, that seems like a fairly large caveat from the standpoint of someone who insists that their God is all-knowing and all-powerful, though. No one wants to think of the being they're venerating as some cosmic amateur cubicle lackey designing (highly flawed) universes for minimum wage. I doubt that Maimonides would have accepted such a suggestion.


That's precisely what I'm suggesting. After all, unless there is some mechanism whereby an observer from our universe can leave our universe that's all that matters. For all intents and purposes relevant to us, functionally having the 3 O's is good enough to claim the creator has them. Since from our locked-in perspective, they do. But you're absolutely right about people not wanting to consider the possibility that the creator is a cubicle jockey. I have tied a lot of bible-believing Christians up in knots trying to deny the logical possibility of what I suggest, but none of them have been able to convincingly argue against it. More than a few have suggested that it makes a lot of sense, given certain stuff like "The meek shall inherit the earth" that sounds a lot like something a cubicle jockey would sneak in to take a stab at their boss. And since what I suggest doesn't in any way contravene the bible itself, it leaves them a bit stuck.
 
2017-10-06 05:46:35 PM  

Resident Muslim: You mentioned lack of data, though did not provide data on where Muslim scientists had mental blocks due to faith.


I'm not certain that anyone has tried to collect such data, especially not specifically on Muslims (the proposal itself would probably be considered controversial), nor even tried to define what such data would look like.

The point was more that, fundamentally, a religion IS, itself, an elaborate conclusion about the nature of the universe that has sprang up without relying on any underlying data. The idea that such an organization should be a paragon of honest scientific inquiry is a bit laughable.

This does not mean that Muslims cannot be scientists, or even that it is impossible for them to come to conclusions that contradict their faith. But, if they do, just like any Christian scientist, they are probably compartmentalizing their beliefs, or simply not thinking about their implications for each other. In other words their faith is, at best, irrelevant to the process of scientific inquiry.


Resident Muslim: So here are links to women working yet STILL putting in more time than men in the household:


You didn't actually answer what she asked, which is how you know that "a surprising number of women would prefer" a Muslim-style marriage arrangement. All you did was show that women do more household work than men. This leads me to think that you're still missing the point.

What you say is true, and a problem. But this doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that most women would want a Muslim marriage arrangement. I would estimate that they DON'T.

It was suggested to you that Muslim marriage is undesirable because it makes women subservient to men.
In response, you did not make an argument for why this isn't true. Instead you only presented a problem with modern "western" marriages. Obviously you believe the implication is that Muslim marriages are better because they don't have this problem.

But a Muslim marriage is not the only solution to that problem, and it comes with problems of its own. Did it occur to you that women in the western world decades ago HAD that exact same arrangement in Christian marriages, which ALSO suggest that women should be subservient in exchange for only dealing with children+housework instead of children+housework+making money? The reason we are where we are now is because that ISN'T a satisfactory arrangement.

To be sure, we haven't gotten it right yet. But there are other solutions to the problem you're presenting besides being like Muslims. The problem you present does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that you want us to get to. There are other ways to fix things besides women having to exchange social freedom for fewer responsibilities.
 
2017-10-06 05:54:41 PM  

Resident Muslim: What you are saying, is, let me get this straight, that "traditional marriages" where men are the breadwinners and women take care of the household is a Muslim thing?


Nooo no no no no. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was only a Muslim thing. It's hugely widespread, Christianity included. We were talking specifically about the literature that Lady received about Islam, and your response to it as a Muslim, which is where that came from. But yes, you are absolutely correct that it is an idea that is virtually everywhere, including here in the U.S..

Women are still in the process of throwing off those chains. I think that the extra responsibilities like housework that women take on are because they haven't finished getting out from under the rules of traditional marriages. Getting back underneath them is not the way to address it.
 
2017-10-06 05:56:14 PM  

washington-babylon: stuff like "The meek shall inherit the earth" that sounds a lot like something a cubicle jockey would sneak in to take a stab at their boss.


XD
 
2017-10-06 07:24:11 PM  
I had jaundice as a newborn.  I was properly treated by medical professionals and apparently recovered.

I did attend a Christian Science church though for many years growing up.... it was useful in some ways... such as not acting all pathetic during a common cold, which minimized recovery time.... however for anything serious.... a fracture, an appendix removal, stitches.... my mom took us to the doctor.   (and yes, we were all vaccinated, as well).
 
2017-10-06 07:52:51 PM  
Yep.  God wants you in jail.
 
2017-10-06 10:12:20 PM  

Gawdzila: Resident Muslim: You mentioned lack of data, though did not provide data on where Muslim scientists had mental blocks due to faith.

I'm not certain that anyone has tried to collect such data, especially not specifically on Muslims (the proposal itself would probably be considered controversial), nor even tried to define what such data would look like.

The point was more that, fundamentally, a religion IS, itself, an elaborate conclusion about the nature of the universe that has sprang up without relying on any underlying data. The idea that such an organization should be a paragon of honest scientific inquiry is a bit laughable.

This does not mean that Muslims cannot be scientists, or even that it is impossible for them to come to conclusions that contradict their faith. But, if they do, just like any Christian scientist, they are probably compartmentalizing their beliefs, or simply not thinking about their implications for each other. In other words their faith is, at best, irrelevant to the process of scientific inquiry.


Resident Muslim: So here are links to women working yet STILL putting in more time than men in the household:

You didn't actually answer what she asked, which is how you know that "a surprising number of women would prefer" a Muslim-style marriage arrangement. All you did was show that women do more household work than men. This leads me to think that you're still missing the point.

What you say is true, and a problem. But this doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that most women would want a Muslim marriage arrangement. I would estimate that they DON'T.

It was suggested to you that Muslim marriage is undesirable because it makes women subservient to men.
In response, you did not make an argument for why this isn't true. Instead you only presented a problem with modern "western" marriages. Obviously you believe the implication is that Muslim marriages are better because they don't have this problem.

But a Muslim marriage is not the only solution to that problem, and it comes with problems of its own. Did it occur to you that women in the western world decades ago HAD that exact same arrangement in Christian marriages, which ALSO suggest that women should be subservient in exchange for only dealing with children+housework instead of children+housework+making money? The reason we are where we are now is because that ISN'T a satisfactory arrangement.

To be sure, we haven't gotten it right yet. But there are other solutions to the problem you're presenting besides being like Muslims. The problem you present does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that you want us to get to. There are other ways to fix things besides women having to exchange social freedom for fewer responsibilities.


So to summarize, you admonished me for lack of data, then wrote "The problem with having faith underlying ones research is that there is a natural tendency to avoid coming to conclusions that undermine that faith." And when asked for (any) data on that, you replied with "probably" and because [some] Christians did it? And making such a broad and powerful statement as "No Religion meets that standard" without providing data on where Islam failed, or even a single example for me to think about or discuss?

And when I said the current and spreading system of dual income families is actually unfolding in a way that is clearly unfair to women, and provided data on request and posit that the "Honey, I'll handle this and you handle that" is actually favorable to a surprising number of women you didn't accept that.
How about this: 31% of households are "father only employed" (US 2015, Pew research center http://www.pewresearch.org/ft_dual-income-households-1960-2012​-2/ )
So either claim that one third of women, in this day and age, are forced to live this lifestyle, or accept that 1 out of every 3 women actually chooses to live like this. One out of every three!

/and forgive me for saying this, but you really are stuck with a "us" vs "them" mentality, obvious when defining "Western lifestyle" vs "Muslim lifestyle". I think people would really disagree with you if you told them one third of straight, married couples are living a "Muslim lifestyle"
//the term you used 5-6 times in this post. Then in the post after that recant. Just look at the numbers and make your conclusions. The main pillars of the scientific method are observing and theorizing. Do that with the numbers I've provided and make your own conclusions. Your own. I only encourage thinking on my behalf, you don't have to agree with me.
///Lady J (or anyone) can actually comment on my following hunch/intuition, that having lived in both countries (US/UK) I might even say that there are even slightly more "father only employed" households in UK. Lady J, I hope you've found these links and discussions interesting. I apologize if I've dragged you along with my (enjoyable) discussion with Gawdzilla. I also wanted to thank you both for the logic and intercourse (oh baby!) you've both provided in this and other threads and actually coming to Islam's (fact based) defence on several occasions, not just in this thread.
////to everyone else, also, I apologize if I dragged this too long, all I hope to get out of people is to detach themselves from preconceived notions and think.
////Peace.
 
2017-10-06 10:37:03 PM  

give me doughnuts: Resident Muslim: aagrajag: Weaver95: bigfatbuddhist: That's some weapons-grade stupid saying, "Well, my kid's dead; but, it's okay because that's exactly what God wanted.  I, on the other hand, will continue to look both ways when I cross the street..."

that's evangelical christianity for you.  its not a faith that encourages introspection or logic.

Respectfully, Weav, no faith encourages introspection on logic; that's why it's called "faith". Some are merely worse offenders than others.

Respectfully disagree.
A lot of parts of the Islamic faith ask us to observe both creation and ourselves.

/a lot of today's science stems from that

None of today's science stems from that.
Your religion, like most of the others, commands you to accept "God did it." as the ultimate answer to every question.


A lot of historians need to talk to you so you could put them right!
 
2017-10-07 01:27:22 AM  
...I have to say, this has been one of the more interesting threads I've seen in a bit, and I mean that in a positive way. It's actually worth reading.
 
2017-10-07 04:13:30 PM  
This thread happies me.
 
Displayed 184 of 184 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report