Charlotte Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 IMHO Religion will destory the world eventually. Not religion - men who use it for their own gains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMiFFAD Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Not religion - men who use it for their own gains. No women then? Good point actually, terrorism is based on a piecefull religion, bent by a few to serve their purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 No women then? Good point actually, terrorism is based on a piecefull religion, bent by a few to serve their purposes. Women don't rule the world, unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMiFFAD Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Women don't rule the world, unfortunately. Behind every great man.... is a woman... your just clever and use men as your evil puppets.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Behind every great man.... is a woman... Annie, is that you..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMiFFAD Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Annie, is that you..? first time ive been called a girl today Did i miss something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 first time ive been called a girl today Did i miss something You just quoted some song lyrics by Annie Lennox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMiFFAD Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 You just quoted some song lyrics by Annie Lennox. Ahhhhhhhh i see, fair enough, straight over my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Sounds ideal to me. Maybe society as a whole would be a better if we could all just agree on a religion and be God fearing, law abiding, morally upstanding individuals. It has to be said, I've not met a JH that hasn't been a pleasant person. I'm a nice guy, but would you want me expounding my philosophies on the world at large? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 This women may have chosen to be a JW, and if she was single and childless, i wouldnt have raised an eyebrow at this on the news this morning, her decision. However, she chose to have children. To me if you have a child you come second to their well being, and to essentially commit suicide and leave two newborn children motherless, just for your religious beliefes is mind boggling, morally wrong, selfish and verging on insane! It is insanity. Her religion has taken over her brain to such a point that she does not care for her life. To me that is the sign of insanity, as her mind is not her own. To that end, she should have been immediately sectioned. Then she would have had no power over her medical issues and the blood would have been forced down her throat (so to speak) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'm a nice guy, but would you want me expounding my philosophies on the world at large? Go on then CW You're not one of them that believes that we are ruled by alien gods and they live in the moon???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I'm a nice guy Who told you that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 To me that is the sign of insanity, as her mind is not her own. That is your opinion, but what gives you the right to say it's wrong and she is insane? Everyone has their own life, some are lucky enough to make their own decisions, others aren't and live in a world without freedom of choice. Is that what you'd prefer? I know a lady who has just been diagnosed with cancer. She has refused treatment which would extend her life, but her belief is she'll be happier in her last few days without the treatment. Is she insane too? Needs locking up and forced treatment? No, it's her life, it's her choice. I'm not religious one tiny bit and think it's all garbage, but unlike a lot of people in this thread I wouldn't dream of calling people that do believe in something as insane, brainwashed, weak.... Are people so arrogant to believe themselves to be totally in the right as to condemn others that believe? To go against thousands of years of humanities beliefs and suggest we're so much more advanced now and know everything? To that end, she should have been immediately sectioned. I think what a lot of people do to their Supras should have them immediately sectioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Good post Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManwithSupra Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 That is your opinion, but what gives you the right to say it's wrong and she is insane? Everyone has their own life, some are lucky enough to make their own decisions, others aren't and live in a world without freedom of choice. Is that what you'd prefer? I know a lady who has just been diagnosed with cancer. She has refused treatment which would extend her life, but her belief is she'll be happier in her last few days without the treatment. Is she insane too? Needs locking up and forced treatment? No, it's her life, it's her choice. I'm not religious one tiny bit and think it's all garbage, but unlike a lot of people in this thread I wouldn't dream of calling people that do believe in something as insane, brainwashed, weak.... Are people so arrogant to believe themselves to be totally in the right as to condemn others that believe? To go against thousands of years of humanities beliefs and suggest we're so much more advanced now and know everything? I think what a lot of people do to their Supras should have them immediately sectioned. The Post about that fact that there was no hope for her anyway if she took blood or not does not seem to cut it with a few people on here either !! Strikes me its just a slanning match against JW's.. Personaly i dont think i would accept blood if i were in a situation where i needed it ...cos its like someone elses well.... blood no offence to anyone that may have had a blood transfusion but it just doesnt seem right to me..i mean you wouldnt go up to someone in the street and take their blood would you? i mean you dont know where or who it came from. Looking on the internet several other diseases have also been reported to be transmitted by blood transfusion, including herpes virus infections, infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus), toxoplasmosis, trypanosomiasis [African sleeping sickness and Chagas' disease], leishmaniasis, brucellosis [undulant fever], typhus, filariasis, measles, salmonellosis, and Colorado tick fever i mean you also run the risk of your body rejecting it ?? im sure that there are a lot of other alternatives to this now as we are not in the dark ages, i mean what about blood volume expanders etc and blood salvage.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 On the theme of religion and on a lighter note: A female CNN journalist heard about a very old Jewish man who had been going to the Western Wall to pray,twice a day, every day, for a long, long time. So she went to check it out. She went to the Western Wall and there he was, walking slowly up to the holy site. She watched him pray and after about 45 minutes, when he turned to leave, using a cane and moving very slowly, she approached him for an interview. "Pardon me, sir, I'm Rebecca Smith from CNN. What's your name? "Morris Feinberg," he replied. "Sir, how long have you been coming to the Western Wall and praying?" "For about 60 years." "60 years! That's amazing! What do you pray for?" "I pray for peace between the Christians, Jews and the Muslims." "I pray for all the wars and all the hatred to stop." "I pray for all our children to grow up safely as responsible adults, and to love their fellow man." "How do you feel after doing this for 60 years?" "Like I'm talking to a f*ckin' wall." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattanna Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The Post about that fact that there was no hope for her anyway if she took blood or not does not seem to cut it with a few people on here either !! Strikes me its just a slanning match against JW's.. Personaly i dont think i would accept blood if i were in a situation where i needed it ...cos its like someone elses well.... blood no offence to anyone that may have had a blood transfusion but it just doesnt seem right to me..i mean you wouldnt go up to someone in the street and take their blood would you? i mean you dont know where or who it came from. Looking on the internet several other diseases have also been reported to be transmitted by blood transfusion, including herpes virus infections, infectious mononucleosis (Epstein-Barr virus), toxoplasmosis, trypanosomiasis [African sleeping sickness and Chagas' disease], leishmaniasis, brucellosis [undulant fever], typhus, filariasis, measles, salmonellosis, and Colorado tick fever i mean you also run the risk of your body rejecting it ?? im sure that there are a lot of other alternatives to this now as we are not in the dark ages, i mean what about blood volume expanders etc and blood salvage.... Well being in the trade working in Intensive Care for many years, and also an organ donor transplant co-ordinator(removing organs from deceased and finding suitable recipients). I do not try to second guess people at the end of the day it is up to them and i am really not interested, but until you are in a situation where your life is in danger i guess it is difficult to say what you would do. In this woman's case she was probably not conscious at the time so the staff followed her wishes which is how it should be. It is possible to catch diseases from blood although in this country very rare indeed now, having sex now that really can give you something bad, but funny how people are not so keen on refusing that. I also used to laugh at people who refused to eat beef incase of bse, talking about the dangers whilst smoking!!. Bringing children into the whole situation and forcing beliefs on them brings up an entirely different debate however, lets hope their lives can be led how they want to lead them:search: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 That is your opinion, but what gives you the right to say it's wrong and she is insane? Everyone has their own life, some are lucky enough to make their own decisions, others aren't and live in a world without freedom of choice. Is that what you'd prefer? What you're saying is that she should be free to, in effect, commit suicide. No she should not be free to do that, just like any person who intends to commit any kind of murder, should not be free to do that either. I know a lady who has just been diagnosed with cancer. She has refused treatment which would extend her life, but her belief is she'll be happier in her last few days without the treatment. Is she insane too? Needs locking up and forced treatment? No, it's her life, it's her choice. The two situations are entirely different. The JW could have had the transfusion and lived a long and happy life with her new kids and family. That is a totally different situation to a cancer patient who is terminally ill. I'm not religious one tiny bit and think it's all garbage, but unlike a lot of people in this thread I wouldn't dream of calling people that do believe in something as insane, brainwashed, weak.... Are people so arrogant to believe themselves to be totally in the right as to condemn others that believe? To go against thousands of years of humanities beliefs and suggest we're so much more advanced now and know everything? I think what a lot of people do to their Supras should have them immediately sectioned. And yes I do think that the sooner people understand the real world then maybe they would learn to live in it and stop hanging on the shoulder of religion which does nothing but offer false promises, false hope and doesn't give strength it just drains it because it diverts attention and resources from the real issues at hand. Give us education, not religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 I know a lady who has just been diagnosed with cancer. She has refused treatment which would extend her life, but her belief is she'll be happier in her last few days without the treatment. Is she insane too? Needs locking up and forced treatment? No, it's her life, it's her choice. The two situations are entirely different. The JW could have had the transfusion and lived a long and happy life with her new kids and family. That is a totally different situation to a cancer patient who is terminally ill. I have to say, I can't really see the difference. (I'm ignoring the fact that several posts have suggested that the transfusion wouldn't have saved her anyway). What you're saying is that she should be free to, in effect, commit suicide. No she should not be free to do that, just like any person who intends to commit any kind of murder, should not be free to do that either. I am having trouble following your logic. You see a difference between a woman refusing a transfusion to save her life, and a woman refusing treatment for cancer to prolong her life - and yet you compare the woman who refuses the transfusion to save her own life to somebody who intentionally takes somebody elses life. They are quite different things. I'm not saying she was right (even assuming it would have saved her life) but your argument does not seem consistent to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Is anyone really bothered? Let `em get on with it, if they want to top themselves over their religious beliefs, so be it. They'd probably embrace some other maniacal cause if it wasn't Jehovah's Witnessing. They'll only indoctrinate their children or anyone else soft minded enough to listen, or be forced to endure them. The country's overpopulated as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 The country's overpopulated as it is. What we really need is another good plague. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Is anyone really bothered? Let `em get on with it, if they want to top themselves over their religious beliefs, so be it. They'd probably embrace some other maniacal cause if it wasn't Jehovah's Witnessing. They'll only indoctrinate their children or anyone else soft minded enough to listen, or be forced to endure them. The country's overpopulated as it is. I don't have a particular problem with JW's - but I do think there is a fine line between being fanatical enough about your religion that you would die for it, and being fanatical enough about your religion that you would kill other people for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 I am having trouble following your logic. You see a difference between a woman refusing a transfusion to save her life, and a woman refusing treatment for cancer to prolong her life - and yet you compare the woman who refuses the transfusion to save her own life to somebody who intentionally takes somebody elses life. They are quite different things. I'm not saying she was right (even assuming it would have saved her life) but your argument does not seem consistent to me. When it comes to taking a life, there are 1000s of differing degrees of culpability between suicide, euthanisia, manslaughter, murder (1st and 2nd degree, diminished responsibility etc etc) and assisting or being part responsible for any of these. Somewhere in that lot belongs our JW woman. Personally I think her mind was unsound by the indoctrination of her religious beliefs ie she was nuts. To that end I think a lot of religious people are nuts. What they believe is utter bonkers a lot of the time. If I told you or anyone else that I believed in fairies at the bottom of the garden you'd stay well clear of me and rightly so. But if in the name of religion I say so-and-so rose from the dead and walked on water and was born from a virgin, then I would have your 'respect' for those beliefs. In my eyes Jesus is a fairy. Or a goblin, or a Jabberwockey. Either way it's all bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted November 7, 2007 Share Posted November 7, 2007 In my eyes Jesus is a fairy. Or a goblin, or a Jabberwockey. Either way it's all bollocks. I'm going to get myself a T-Shirt with Jesus was a Jabberwockey printed on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.