Easily Led

[JJ50]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

[bjs]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

Yes, and atheists (claiming to act in the name of atheism) were lead under Stalin to murder more than all of those groups throughout their entire history put together. What’s your point?

[bjs]

Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder!

You make some valid points, but what are you talking about here?

The RCC providing alternatives to abortions? If these women don't want their children, isn't it better to give those children up for adoption rather than killing them in the womb?

How is that "stealing and selling" them?

Maybe you are referring to something I have not heard about.

Please provide support and citation for this charge.

No woman should be forced to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want a child.

The RCC in Ireland had unmarried girls placed in those ghastly Magdalene laundries where they were treated no better than slaves. When the babies were delivered they were removed and put up for adoption whether the women wished it or not! That flipping church has got a lost of evil deeds to answer for!

"Whether they wished it or not" IS a description of stealing. But please provide documentation that this is actually happening if you want to make such a serious charge. I doubt stealing babies is legal anywhere, including in Ireland.

And if the RCC was actually practicing this enslavement of girls and confiscation of babies, surely the government of Ireland would have put a stop to it..

Oh no, the gov't of Ireland would NOT have put a stop to it. That gov't was in the pocket of the Catholic Church, and has just recently awakened to its precarious association with it. These things have been known to people for decades upon decades, if not for centuries. The same things happened in Italy, and documentaries have been shown. Also in Canada....taking babies and even worse.


.

I’m going to have to ask you to provide evidence for this claim. The claim seems exceedingly outrageous. EJ seems to have the facts on his side, and you will need to provide documentation for such a serious charge for them to be taken seriously.

[JJ50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene ... in_Ireland

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1 by JJ50]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy?

I think that evolutionary psychology has great explanations for our propensity to be gullible. It may be that humans evolved to believe more than to not.

I don't think that we need to LEARN how to be gullible I think it's the opposite.
The SKILL to be learned is skepticism.

There might be an evolutionary component to that.

[Bust Nak]

It never ceases to amaze me how one can say these things, but then again it only proves my point that these are the things that show us our own hearts... Moral dilemmas are not likely to be things that people take lightly, but again it they are taken lightly it only goes to show what is really in the human heart.

I sense the implication here is that by saying "blood transfusion vs death of a child" is no dilemma at all, there is no question that blood transfusion is always better, has somehow revealed some character flaw of mine. Please tell me what is thing in my heart that you found so amazing.

[Bust Nak]

It is NEVER a positive thing that a child dies. Blood substitutes are available, and they have been for years; they are also superior to taking blood itself. I have provided links to hospital sites, hospitals that provide bloodless medicine, but apparently no one bothers to check them out. Why?

Because it's not all that relevant to the moral dilemma, which you haven't answered by the way: Is it better to let a child die than to do a blood transfusion? Telling me the former isn't a positive thing doesn't tell me if it is preferable to the latter.

Again, why, when the blood substitutes are far better than someone else's blood?

Cheaper and more easily available. Google also tells me while there are lots of proven volume expanders substitutes, the same isn't true to oxygen-carrying blood substitutes.

less cost (blood is very expensive and serves big business interests).

I dispute that. Blood transfusion is still cheaper. Granted, that might change as the tech improve.

[Elijah John]

There is nothing in the Bible which says you can't have a blood transfusion as they hadn't been invented in those far off days.

There's nothing in the bible which says you can't shoot your neighbour with a kalashnikov AK74 either since hadn't been invented in those far off days yet either. Your point?

Jehovah's Witnesses exercise their right to say what is or isn't put into their bodies and on the matter of blood there is sound scriptural and medical reasoning behind their decision. They ask only that thir wishes be honoured.

If JJ50's acount is to be believed, (and I see no reason to doubt it) then the JWs in question went well beyond "only asking that their wishes be honored".

Stating that someone's else's child would be "better off dead" (especially over a matter of religious practice) is beyond disgusting.

The reason the two JW's made their disgusting statement was NOT because they were JW. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an empirical fact. The reason they said what they did was because they were human.

Then let a JW among us disavow this ridiculous statement as not reflecting the position of the Watchtower organization.

They are quick to provide links on just about everything else, so can we please have a statement or a link from a JW that (on face valule) these two JWs were WAY out of line in telling a parent that their child would be "better off dead" than receive a blood transfusion?

I HAVE disavowed that statement. It is on this page. I also was sure that I had previously said that I wanted to apologize for that terrible statement, but I can't find my post anywhere.

.

I just saw that, I don't know what happened to your disavowal before I made the request for one, apologies for having missed it. Not sure how or why it may have disappeared.

But your disavowal and apology on behalf of those others is excellent and unequivocal. Splendid.

As for the whole transfusion issue in general, we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Elijah John]

I HAVE disavowed that statement. It is on this page. I also was sure that I had previously said that I wanted to apologize for that terrible statement, but I can't find my post anywhere.

.

Yes, this is perfect and bears repeating:

onewithhim said:

I thought I had written a post already, offering apologies for anything our spiritual brothers may have said to upset you. It seems to have disappeared from any of the threads. If those brothers said your son would be better off dead, they were beyond out of line. They were unconscionable in their uttering such a thing. No one I know says things like that to anybody

[shnarkle]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

Yes, and atheists (claiming to act in the name of atheism) were lead under Stalin to murder more than all of those groups throughout their entire history put together. What’s your point?

Her point was to point the finger at the religious as being a bit naïve. Your point seems to be that atheists are much more effective at knocking off larger populations?

Although it may not have happened yet, I wouldn't be surprised to see a religious leader put Lenin and Stalin to shame with numbers that would include not just the religious, but especially atheists. Atheists are always looking for some sort of proof. All a shuckster has to do is come up with a deception that the atheists can't refute for them to all go completely gaga, and march right along with all of their now fellow "believers", right into the deceiver's trap.

[shnarkle]

It never ceases to amaze me how one can say these things, but then again it only proves my point that these are the things that show us our own hearts... Moral dilemmas are not likely to be things that people take lightly, but again it they are taken lightly it only goes to show what is really in the human heart.

I sense the implication here is that by saying "blood transfusion vs death of a child" is no dilemma at all, there is no question that blood transfusion is always better, has somehow revealed some character flaw of mine. Please tell me what is thing in my heart that you found so amazing.

I didn't find it amazing. It's just that sometimes people say these things and it reminds me how callous we are to each other. It reminds me that "hurt people, hurt people". It reminds me that it's so easy to just say something off the top of our head without thinking.

There are very many religious people who sincerely believe that the instructions God has given them are for their benefit. They believe these laws are moral, and because they can see that many of them are moral, they will also believe that the one's they don't quite fully understand are also moral.

For example. They see that murder is immoral, but if they're put in a position where they have to choose between murdering an atheist and murdering their own child, this puts them in a bit of a moral dilemma. Why? Because if they murder the atheist, they know that he is most likely going straight to eternal damnation whereas their child will most likely go to eternal bliss with God. They aren't exactly keen on this idea though so they may think about informing the atheist that if he sincerely accepts God into his heart, he won't kill him. Of course, the atheist will just acquiesce to save his hide. The naïve Christian doesn't realize this so he just blows that damned fool straight into the clamoring claws of Beelzebub himself.

Now one may argue that the Christian is engaging in a deception. No doubt this is very true, but the Christian doesn't want to murder their own flesh and blood, and besides they also know that God will forgive a little white lie, especially when that atheist will be with the loving God of the universe for eternity. The fact that this is all nonsense is irrelevant; the Christian is doing what he thinks is best in this serious moral dilemma. The atheist is oblivious because he's dead. The fact that his life was cut short is of no consequence because one life isn't really more important than another, especially when there is really no point to life anyways, and because we can't explain our own existence in the first place.

The fact that we don't have an explanation for our own existence doesn't mean that there is no explanation for our own existence. However, the fact that we really aren't looking for one in the first place, at least not one that isn't handed to us on a silver platter indicates that we're better off dead anyways.

Some people interpret blood transfusions to be a direct violation of God's law against putting blood into their bodies. They see that consuming blood is not a great idea, and come to the conclusion that this is also probably not a good idea; not just because it may be unhealthy for their child, but because it's a case of open rebellion against God's instructions. They don't look at God the way we do. They actually believe with all their hearts that God will not accept this weakness from them.

Now that I think of it, there are cases of people who have had blood transfusions and acted strange. I read one a few years ago about an elderly woman who awoke from her surgery and immediately seemed to need a drink; an alcoholic drink; she'd been a coffee and tea drinker her whole life. Then there's the guy who got some blood from an aboriginal only to wake up completely freaking out because the dreams he was having were way beyond anything he'd ever experienced before. The same holds for organ transplants. Why does this happen? Because healthy blood has an effect over one's consciousness; bad blood can have a negative effect. The same holds true for a healthy consciousness. A good attitude can result in healthier blood, organs etc.

People who struggle with moral dilemmas indicate a conscience that is in turmoil, even when they may decide to do something that they really don't want to do; especially when it is something that may result in the death of their child, and the scorn of society as a whole. Some people just choose to take the easy way out. This doesn't necessarily means it's the right thing; just the easiest choice to make without any thought.

Atheists don't really have to make moral decisions due to the fact that they're not relying on any objective standard of right or wrong. An atheist can't really say if pedophilia or cannibalism are wrong for any objective reason. Science is in the same predicament as well. Richard Dawkins has made this point quite articulately by pointing out that science can show that you're eating a person, but it can't objectively show that it is moral or immoral.

These aren't flaws that are confined to you. These are flaws that are found in all of us. You just reminded me of the fact, that's all.