Wisconsin Parents Who Prayed as Daughter Died to Face Murder Charges
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
to let you accept the difference b/n tempt and test - since it make so much difference.
There is no difference, that's just a word game. Temptation is setting someone up for a chance to fail. A test is not a test, unless there is a chance of failure. What's the difference ?
Paul Selormey wrote:
So, the Bible saying Jesus was tempted by Satan was a special case, it never happens to human?
Humans are either unsaved, in which case, they are not tempted, they are unsaved and do whatever they like, or they are saved, and, being filled with the Holy Spirit, cannot be attacked by Satan. They can be tempted, and Satan may delight in that, but we are drawn away of our OWN lusts.
Paul Selormey wrote:
I and the unbeliever have access to pornography, he/she may not see anything wrong with it (she/he is already in sin), but I will sin if I touch it.
And it is your own lusts that determine if you're tempted by it or not.
Paul Selormey wrote:
, I trying and praying for you to come out this state, because it is dangerous.
What state is that ? I've plainly stated many times that I would never suggest they meant for her to die. I'm not sure how I could say that more explicitly. I just choose to believe that her being dead matter more than if they meant it or not, to the dead girl.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Matthew 16:24-27
Is about living for Christ, not being killed.
Paul Selormey wrote:
In my current church, the Pastor have been to hospital many times, but the wife will not - they both understand what they are doing.
Well, what they choose to do with their own body is their choice. I personally disagree, but they are welcome to make their own choices. When it's a child in your care, that's another thing.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Which part is really still not answered?
I said: If you wouldn't go to the doctor, would you not pray about a financial situation, would you pray and not work, or do you see that sometimes you pray for circumstances to go your way, and still expect to interact with the society you live in, in reasonably normal ways ? Your answer was that
Christian Graus wrote:
What's the difference ?
We are tempted to sin, never tested to sin. Our faith is tested, but our weakness and lust is tempted. God tested Abram over Isaiac but not tempted him.
Christian Graus wrote:
And it is your own lusts that determine if you're tempted by it or not.
Yes, not tested.
Christian Graus wrote:
What state is that ? I've plainly stated many times that I would never suggest they meant for her to die. I'm not sure how I could say that more explicitly.
So what really is the problem here?
Christian Graus wrote:
I just choose to believe that her being dead matter more than if they meant it or not, to the dead girl.
Yes, you chose. You may only know what happened if you know the full story (which I believe you do not know), and as to why...only God knows. He determines what happens in our lives not the medical doctor.
Christian Graus wrote:
When it's a child in your care, that's another thing.
They will account to God who gave it to them, and He knows whether they did it right or wrong.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you wouldn't go to the doctor, would you not pray about a financial situation, would you pray and not work, or do you see that sometimes you pray for circumstances to go your way, and still expect to interact with the society you live in, in reasonably normal ways ?
I do not know, let me try again. I never say I will not go to the hospital, neither am I compelled by any command in the Bible to go. What is written is that He will heal me, and that has nothing to do with a hospital. Financial situation? Yes, I will pray for it, like any other situation. Pray and not work? No, the Bible tells me to work so I will pray and work. Live in society in normal way? I do not seek a "normal way" but God's way.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your answer was that you expect to work, and that you don't care about possessions
So, I gave an answer afterall. I do not expect to work, He said if I do not work, I should not eat, and I should work and get enough to help others - it is a command.
Christian Graus wrote:
but would you do so
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
Yeah, that is one view of it, and the one that will be used against them. To me they chose to teach their child to learn to trust in the Lord even in hopeless times, something she will neeed if she had lived. Many things happen in a Christian life. So, I will avoid packaging all under a single "visible result".
Right. Another view of it is that they are too hopelessly stupid to care for a child. Hopefully prison will prevent them from breeding again, thus insuring the removal of that one little bit of idiocy from the gene pool.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Right. Another view of it is that they are too hopelessly stupid to care for a child. Hopefully prison will prevent them from breeding again, thus insuring the removal of that one little bit of idiocy from the gene pool.
Please do not get too emotional. Christian may fail a challenge or two. But when we are weak, He is strong. It might be God's purpose to have them there for a mission in the prisons, and they may be more fruitful in prison than outside it - that is our God, He just does not live in our human imaginations or limitations. That is mystery the non-Christian will not easily understand, and no amount of discussions will help. I do not know if this will help...if you live in a state of hopelessness, any failure makes it worse, but if you live in hope, every failure is an opportunity for growth and strength. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
You are correct. Why? Because until such time as a fetus gets very close to leaving the womb it is property. It is no more than an organ that depends on the host body to survive. It is no more than me making the conscious decision to cut off an arm. End of story.
Well, since you're willing to spout this asinine non-sense, you have absolutely no rational basis to object to these parents allowing their daughter to die. Until such time as she attains legal majority, she is their "property." End of story.
You know... I KNEW I should have not even bothered to reply to you... I just KNEW that you would respond with some drivel... I have to say this... you don't disappoint. You mistake 'property' with 'responsibility'. She is their responsibility to care for and protect. She is NOT their property to do with as they please. As a sentient and living human being she has rights human rights. If children were property to do with as the parents please then child sexual abuse could not be a crime. Just like in the years ago when wives had no legal recourse to say they were raped by their husbands. Now, go on... you know you want to... spew some more useless drivel...
-
You know... I KNEW I should have not even bothered to reply to you... I just KNEW that you would respond with some drivel... I have to say this... you don't disappoint. You mistake 'property' with 'responsibility'. She is their responsibility to care for and protect. She is NOT their property to do with as they please. As a sentient and living human being she has rights human rights. If children were property to do with as the parents please then child sexual abuse could not be a crime. Just like in the years ago when wives had no legal recourse to say they were raped by their husbands. Now, go on... you know you want to... spew some more useless drivel...
-
They let a child suffer to the point of death when there was simple treatment avialable. Is that valid?
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
I have not defended them or their actions. But their beliefs/morals have been attacked by people who arbitrarily think their own are better. The pain of the decision they made, and what it will cost them over the rest of their lives was trivialized away, that they will say "Insh'Allah" and drive on. Attacking their actions and the results of their actions is fine. Attacking their beliefs from a totally unsupported position is stupid and bigoted.
Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
So what is your arbitrary cut off point? What is "close to leaving the womb"? Have you got a good definition that can be applied in all cases? Do you know at what point the fetus starts feeling pain, starts thinking? Why do you defend "leave the womb", when there are kids who have been born months early, and grown up fine? How is it less arbitrary than leave the home? You seem OK calling a fetus property, yet calling a black man property would bother you, no? I'm not supporting that bigotry, and will not support your bigotry, either.
Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
I'm sure that you will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of christianity is that some form of baptism or acceptance into the church is necessary in order to get to heaven. You seem to be taking some solace in the fact that this child is now with god, my point was what if she was never baptised and/or never accepted god? There is no mention of this in the article as it is not important for the legal case, but I thought it may affect your argument. Hopefully they did not show the same disregard for the safety of her soul as they may have for her body. If she never accepted god then she may not be in the happy place you assume.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
There are two answers to your question: Nothing gets you to heaven but belief in the Christ. However,there is some undetermined "age of majority" that seems to apply. From scripture, people attribute different ages up into the 20s.
Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
-
So what is your arbitrary cut off point? What is "close to leaving the womb"? Have you got a good definition that can be applied in all cases? Do you know at what point the fetus starts feeling pain, starts thinking? Why do you defend "leave the womb", when there are kids who have been born months early, and grown up fine? How is it less arbitrary than leave the home? You seem OK calling a fetus property, yet calling a black man property would bother you, no? I'm not supporting that bigotry, and will not support your bigotry, either.
Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
when there are kids who have been born months early, and grown up fine
Without the help of doctors? If a women gave birth 4 month premature could she just care for the baby on her own and expect it to live? Not likely. That's what I mean.
RichardM1 wrote:
yet calling a black man property would bother you, no
Yes it would bother me. To me there is only one time when a person can be owned and that is once you break the laws that society creates. Like these parents did. Look, get a grip and stop being a dip. You know what I mean. Do you propose that a child, as long as they live at home can be used as the parents see fit? What the hell kind of society is that? Just because they have not lived enough to become 18 yet the parents have a right to let their child suffer from a sickness that has shown historical fat for being treatable and then die? I suppose that you propose that life begins as soon as the sperm meets the egg too right? Wake up, get real. If someone wants me to love them, any god included, they need to MAKE me love them. There has only been one person in my life that I have loved unconditionally and that is my son. My mother, my wife, and anyone else that I call a friend earns my love and respect, clear and simple. People say that jesus died for our sins out of the goodness of his heart but then we have to spend the rest of our lives living under his thumb. No thanks. I didn't ask for it, I don't want it. He didn't do it for me. Living like that is no better than a mobster coming up to you and saying that he whacked your next door neighbor as a favor, because he kept trimming your tree on the property line, and now you owe him for that favor. Everything that is ALIVE has rights. I am not going to take the time to write a tomb here that defines what I think 'alive' is because apparently you are sooo stuck on a pure definition that fits everything from dust mites to humans and I don't have the freaking time to waste. You want to knwo my opinion then pay me to write a book and you can read it.
-
I have not defended them or their actions. But their beliefs/morals have been attacked by people who arbitrarily think their own are better. The pain of the decision they made, and what it will cost them over the rest of their lives was trivialized away, that they will say "Insh'Allah" and drive on. Attacking their actions and the results of their actions is fine. Attacking their beliefs from a totally unsupported position is stupid and bigoted.
Learn to write self marginalizing code! Call 1-888-BAD-CODE ------------------ Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
Not when their beliefs clearly defined their actions its not. Look at the mortality rate of diabetics before we knew how to treat them and afterwards. These parents played dice with their daughters life and now have to pay for the poor judgement. I would love to sit down with these people and figure out where THEY draw the line. If their daughter had a bad cut that needed treatment would they have taken her to a doctor then or left her to bleed to death?
-
Hmmm, difficult to explain. I trust God and God alone. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
I am not trying to convert you, just want you to understand where my problem with this is: With "go alone" i mean that they specifically taught her to NOT trust me when I would have told her: "you look awful, you should see a doctor". I could accept an "When in doubt, trust god", but this permanent "doubt everyone but god" is - in my eyes - completely antisocial.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Christian Graus wrote:
What's the difference ?
We are tempted to sin, never tested to sin. Our faith is tested, but our weakness and lust is tempted. God tested Abram over Isaiac but not tempted him.
Christian Graus wrote:
And it is your own lusts that determine if you're tempted by it or not.
Yes, not tested.
Christian Graus wrote:
What state is that ? I've plainly stated many times that I would never suggest they meant for her to die. I'm not sure how I could say that more explicitly.
So what really is the problem here?
Christian Graus wrote:
I just choose to believe that her being dead matter more than if they meant it or not, to the dead girl.
Yes, you chose. You may only know what happened if you know the full story (which I believe you do not know), and as to why...only God knows. He determines what happens in our lives not the medical doctor.
Christian Graus wrote:
When it's a child in your care, that's another thing.
They will account to God who gave it to them, and He knows whether they did it right or wrong.
Christian Graus wrote:
If you wouldn't go to the doctor, would you not pray about a financial situation, would you pray and not work, or do you see that sometimes you pray for circumstances to go your way, and still expect to interact with the society you live in, in reasonably normal ways ?
I do not know, let me try again. I never say I will not go to the hospital, neither am I compelled by any command in the Bible to go. What is written is that He will heal me, and that has nothing to do with a hospital. Financial situation? Yes, I will pray for it, like any other situation. Pray and not work? No, the Bible tells me to work so I will pray and work. Live in society in normal way? I do not seek a "normal way" but God's way.
Christian Graus wrote:
Your answer was that you expect to work, and that you don't care about possessions
So, I gave an answer afterall. I do not expect to work, He said if I do not work, I should not eat, and I should work and get enough to help others - it is a command.
Christian Graus wrote:
but would you do so
Paul Selormey wrote:
We are tempted to sin, never tested to sin. Our faith is tested, but our weakness and lust is tempted.
So they are flip sides of the same thing. That's kind of what I meant, this is all semantic.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Yes, not tested.
Well, the difference is only that you think God tests people, but that doesn't gel with the idea of a loving God. Putting a test in front of you, means trying to make you fail, or at least, creating situations that can cause you to fail.
Paul Selormey wrote:
He determines what happens in our lives not the medical doctor.
You say I don't know the full story. True. Which bit could matter more than the bit where someone died at age 11 ? You seem to be again advocating not bothering going to a doctor. I still think that's retarded, and unBiblical.
Paul Selormey wrote:
They will account to God who gave it to them, and He knows whether they did it right or wrong.
The Bible also says to follow the laws of the land you live in. It's illegal to kill a child, either by action, or inaction.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Pray and not work? No, the Bible tells me to work so I will pray and work.
OK, I know the verses that say to work, so perhaps the example is not perfect. The point is still that you would expect to be provided for, and you'd take logical steps to put yourself in a position for that provision to occur. You wouldn't seek to make it more challenging for God to help you.
Paul Selormey wrote:
Live in society in normal way? I do not seek a "normal way" but God's way.
We are not OF this world. We ARE *in* this world. Yes, we live differently, but we still take part in the society we live in.
Paul Selormey wrote:
He said if I do not work, I should not eat, and I should work and get enough to help others - it is a command.
Yeah, I get that's where you're coming from, I know those scriptures. That kind of misses the thrust of what I was asking - in non medical parts of your life, you'd trus God to provide, but you wouldn't seek to avoid any natural solution ( such as having a job ). I understand your answer, but I'm trying to dra
-
Paul Selormey wrote:
Interesting, reading the Bible is one thing, understand it is a different thing.
Both you and Mr Graus are partly right and partly wrong ... but you are significantly more wrong than he is. Or to clarify ... Mr Graus *may* be partly wrong, it depends on just what he means by "not putting God to the test." He didn't say enough for me to know just what he means ... though he did say enough (this is a different point from the possibility that he may be partly wrong) for the 'atheist' zombies to latch onto it and turn it into something I rather trust he would not mean. In refusing medical treatment, the parent were attempting to *force* God to perform a miracle. This is quite a different thing from praying and trusting in God to perform a miracle.
Just to clarify my meaning : God makes promises, and He does things that are real, in this life. We can test God, if by that you mean, to trust in His promises and act as if we expect them to be kept. But, if we mean, as Paul seems to be saying, to avoid solutions that exist to our problems, to create difficulty and then look for God to resolve them, we can't do that. That's what Jesus said to Satan, and I don't get how that was so quickly swept under the carpet in the conversation that ensued.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
I am not trying to convert you, just want you to understand where my problem with this is: With "go alone" i mean that they specifically taught her to NOT trust me when I would have told her: "you look awful, you should see a doctor". I could accept an "When in doubt, trust god", but this permanent "doubt everyone but god" is - in my eyes - completely antisocial.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
I could accept an "When in doubt, trust god", but this permanent "doubt everyone but god" is - in my eyes - completely antisocial.
That is why I said it is difficult to explain. As someone put it, Is He your God or your dog? The "when in doubt, trust God", put you first before God, in other words, He is your dog. Let me give you some illustrations.... I have a car that I drive to so many problems to get a work done and a long way to church. I do not trust the car or my driving skill for safety but God for my safety. My car tyre may burst (even the maker will not guarantee that), I may make mistakes in my driving decisions (I am a human, perfect), so I put my trust in the Lord because He said in all situation He will protect me. When the tyre burst, He is there, when I make mistakes, He is there. I do not "doubt everyone" as try to paint. I trust God for everyone. I trust God for the woman I will marry, He will help her put up with my weaknesses and help me accept her as who He created, not the "perfect woman" I have being looking for (He the creator, understands her better than me). He will help me to love her in all situations, and vice versa. I will not say, I always put God first in all my decisions but that is my desire, goal and the level I am working to reach. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
Just to clarify my meaning : God makes promises, and He does things that are real, in this life. We can test God, if by that you mean, to trust in His promises and act as if we expect them to be kept. But, if we mean, as Paul seems to be saying, to avoid solutions that exist to our problems, to create difficulty and then look for God to resolve them, we can't do that. That's what Jesus said to Satan, and I don't get how that was so quickly swept under the carpet in the conversation that ensued.
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Frightening... :P
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
Frightening... :P
Christian Graus Please read this if you don't understand the answer I've given you "also I don't think "TranslateOneToTwoBillion OneHundredAndFortySevenMillion FourHundredAndEightyThreeThousand SixHundredAndFortySeven()" is a very good choice for a function name" - SpacixOne ( offering help to someone who really needed it ) ( spaces added for the benefit of people running at < 1280x1024 )
-
The best thing they can do is stop fucking and let god determine if they should have any more children
Josh Gray wrote:
The best thing they can do is stop f***ing and let god determine if they should have any more children
I like the way you reason. :-D :-D :-D
John Carson
-
Trollslayer wrote:
Crap, they chose to prevent her receiving treatment.
And, your point is? How, EXACTLY, do YOU have standing to condemn them on this? Perhaps I'm misremembering, but are you not an 'atheist?' So, if I am not misremembering, what is your basis for saying that their actions are wrong?
Ilíon wrote:
How, EXACTLY, do YOU have standing to condemn them on this? Perhaps I'm misremembering, but are you not an 'atheist?' So, if I am not misremembering, what is your basis for saying that their actions are wrong?
The same basis as everyone, including you. Her personal belief system. The fact that you imagine that you have more basis than that doesn't change the facts.
John Carson
-
Ray Cassick wrote:
Good.
What, that she died? I know that will be a welcomed news to many. It is sad to hear of the death, but one thing is clear the Giver of life has the right over life - He gives and He takes, to Him be all the Glory. I will not condemn them, we all go through stages in our Christian life, we have challenges, and with some we fail. Even though going to hospital is not a guarantee for cure, the parents still have to obey the laws of their country.
Ray Cassick wrote:
Really bad way to die.
I just hope we really feel the same way about aborted babies. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
God doesn't care about kids. 2 Kings 2:23-24[^] 23And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. Interesting indeed...
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.