jessy_girl
Well-Known Member
Haha, see what I mean! No one could ever accuse you of having lived a boring life.
-
Welcome to the discussion forums. To get posting, register an account.
Religious (or not) affiliation
- Thread starter Kismet
- Start date
Haha, see what I mean! No one could ever accuse you of having lived a boring life.
I'm a Christian, however don't really follow any 'traditions' persay for Easter. It's a special significant time for me to remember Jesus.
I don't do the whole no red meat thing or anything like that. I don't even go to my church
That is because...
I'm actually at a festival for the 5th year running, it's called Easterfest with music and speakers. So whilst no formal traditions are held, I spend the whole weekend remembering and celebrating how Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection gives me hope and an everlasting life with Him.
I don't do the whole no red meat thing or anything like that. I don't even go to my church
That is because...
I'm actually at a festival for the 5th year running, it's called Easterfest with music and speakers. So whilst no formal traditions are held, I spend the whole weekend remembering and celebrating how Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection gives me hope and an everlasting life with Him.
i dont do anything at all other than visit the family on greek easter for lunch.
Fiona
Well-Known Member
You're not related to the Krays are you?
You're not related to the Krays are you?
...hahaha!..I was born in 1953... they were about 19-20 at that stage so when I was 10-11 years old and beginning my thieving 'career' they were these legends to us that were like modern day rock stars are to kids today!... lol!... and at one stage before I was born they lived at 'Hoxton' which was across the River Thames about 4 Kilometres from where I lived but moved elsewhere from memory... but their reputations and exploits were well known in that area for a long time after they moved... (we were never brave or stupid enough to wander into that area)...
...fortunately the crowd that I was getting involved with were a tad bit less well known and were not so ... 'rough' around the edges or were as brutal as them on that side of the river from memory... thankfully we were not into 'violent' crimes... just theft... which was less 'stressful' you could say... (but then again... as I said... two of my friends were murdered later in life so perhaps it became more violent as they grew older)... I was in that gang roughly between the ages of 10 and 14 and and was never involved in anything to do with violence and was so lucky to get out of all that... (thanks mum... thanks dad)... cheers.
Witty Banter
I see brinkpeople.
Born again Church of Lil Markie. The second half sums it up for me.
Last edited:
Fiona
Well-Known Member
Geeza Lou, I wasn't far off then.
D
Deleted member 39902
Guest
...hahaha!... no you weren't really (in a way) come to think of it lol!... cheers.
Pregnant Jehovah's Witness' decision to refuse treatment 'harrowing' for hospital staff after mother and baby die
...from this website below...
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-...fter-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html
...I read that headline yesterday... it has something to do about a woman's religious beliefs so I thought where better to bring the subject up for discussion than this thread... this definitely is not a 'rant' on my part... I would just like other peoples opinion on this that's all... (I hope this story does not offend anyone because of their religious beliefs but I am curious as to what others think of this situation)...
...I was gobsmacked that the Hospital was powerless to save the mother and her soon-to-be born child even though her religion forbids blood transfusions... they were obliged by Law not to intervene unless she gave them the go-ahead to do it... surely if there is a 7 month old fetus that is going to die if they don't force a blood transfusion upon the mother then there must be something protecting the rights of the baby to over-rule the mother's wishes?... I 'Googled' the question of why they refuse blood and went to this Jehovah Witness website below...
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/
...in response to a question the website answer was...
...when you go to those links that they supply it only says that you will not EAT the blood of other animals... how can that possibly mean that that you cannot receive blood to save your life?... I do not usually question people's beliefs in their religions because everyone is entitled to their own beliefs no matter what religion they follow but what I am saying is that surely... if someone is going to lose their life due to another persons refusal to receive a life saving procedure no matter what it is... surely religious beliefs cannot out-rule that?... surely the seven month old unborn child must have had some legal rights to live?... if so... wouldn't that particular Law... (whatever it may be)... outweigh her 'legal religious' right to refuse treatment?...
...besides... surely the mother has some legal obligation like... I don't know... 'duty-of-care' for the welfare of the unborn child?... could her refusal of the transfusion from a legal point of view even be considered 'willful murder' of the baby?... I have no idea really and perhaps a few people may consider me to be ignorant when it comes to this particular subject and they are quite right to be honest... I am... I totally agree... I really would like to know other peoples thoughts on this because surely I am not the only one that is thinking this... to put it all in a nutshell...
...doesn't the Law outweigh religious beliefs at times like this?...
...your opinions on this are really welcome... cheers.
...from this website below...
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/pregnant-...fter-mother-and-baby-die-20150406-1mf570.html
...I read that headline yesterday... it has something to do about a woman's religious beliefs so I thought where better to bring the subject up for discussion than this thread... this definitely is not a 'rant' on my part... I would just like other peoples opinion on this that's all... (I hope this story does not offend anyone because of their religious beliefs but I am curious as to what others think of this situation)...
...I was gobsmacked that the Hospital was powerless to save the mother and her soon-to-be born child even though her religion forbids blood transfusions... they were obliged by Law not to intervene unless she gave them the go-ahead to do it... surely if there is a 7 month old fetus that is going to die if they don't force a blood transfusion upon the mother then there must be something protecting the rights of the baby to over-rule the mother's wishes?... I 'Googled' the question of why they refuse blood and went to this Jehovah Witness website below...
http://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/jehovahs-witnesses-why-no-blood-transfusions/
...in response to a question the website answer was...
...when you go to those links that they supply it only says that you will not EAT the blood of other animals... how can that possibly mean that that you cannot receive blood to save your life?... I do not usually question people's beliefs in their religions because everyone is entitled to their own beliefs no matter what religion they follow but what I am saying is that surely... if someone is going to lose their life due to another persons refusal to receive a life saving procedure no matter what it is... surely religious beliefs cannot out-rule that?... surely the seven month old unborn child must have had some legal rights to live?... if so... wouldn't that particular Law... (whatever it may be)... outweigh her 'legal religious' right to refuse treatment?...
...besides... surely the mother has some legal obligation like... I don't know... 'duty-of-care' for the welfare of the unborn child?... could her refusal of the transfusion from a legal point of view even be considered 'willful murder' of the baby?... I have no idea really and perhaps a few people may consider me to be ignorant when it comes to this particular subject and they are quite right to be honest... I am... I totally agree... I really would like to know other peoples thoughts on this because surely I am not the only one that is thinking this... to put it all in a nutshell...
...doesn't the Law outweigh religious beliefs at times like this?...
...your opinions on this are really welcome... cheers.
Witty Banter
I see brinkpeople.
I believe in right to choice as death in childbirth is actually the most obvious form of evolution we know. Birth sizes are determined by the death of large babies and mothers in nature. We intervene. I'm not religious so it has nothing to do with that.
Currently there is absolutely nothing keeping Western baby sizes in check as we caeserean section and save every baby and mother. There is nothing stopping inherited diseases from growing exponentially as we take the emotionally easier option of saving everything.
I actually don't take my views so seriously as to suggest intervention, but I do think the science needs to be presented that all our decisions, all the great medicine, all the saving....is doing damage to our gene pool.
The poor, third world countries are still evolving while the rich West devolve and devolve.
PS My mum died of cancer at 63 and would have died from having my older sister. I was a caesar...but...
there is zero chance of me perpetuating my faulty DNA..making me sorta objective.
Currently there is absolutely nothing keeping Western baby sizes in check as we caeserean section and save every baby and mother. There is nothing stopping inherited diseases from growing exponentially as we take the emotionally easier option of saving everything.
I actually don't take my views so seriously as to suggest intervention, but I do think the science needs to be presented that all our decisions, all the great medicine, all the saving....is doing damage to our gene pool.
The poor, third world countries are still evolving while the rich West devolve and devolve.
PS My mum died of cancer at 63 and would have died from having my older sister. I was a caesar...but...
there is zero chance of me perpetuating my faulty DNA..making me sorta objective.
GROOVER
Ya bloody bugger
Hey Mr S,
I was reading Miranda Devine's thoughts about this story in yesterday's Daily Telegraph and I 100% agree with all she said.
I was truly shocked and sadden by this story and agree with what you have written as well, Mr S.
My sister became a Jehovah's Witness through friends she had (our family are Christians) but my dad threatened to kick her out of the house (she was 22 at the time) because of her new found beliefs which he wasn't having any bar of. The blood transfusion point was the straw that broke the camel's back for my dad. Dad hit the roof when the discussion came up about if she was ever in an accident, she would refuse a transfusion.
Each to their own but this baby had a right to live. Mum had a choice to have a baby but the baby didn't have a choice who its Mum was.
Last edited:
...quite a few good viewpoints there Witty Banter... the one about death at childbirth being the most obvious form of evolution is very true throughout history... it has made the human race a stronger species for sure... that's more the pity for this particular case methinks... there was most probably nothing wrong with the baby and it deserved to survive as far as I'm concerned... if it had died naturally at childbirth then that is part of that natural process but it wasn't even given that chance and that is what upsets me... the mother's religious belief denied the baby that right to try and live... that is the sadness of the whole thing for me... cheers.
...hey Groover... was that article by Miranda Devine online or was it in a newspaper?... if it was online would you have the link to it please?...
...it sounds to me that your dads reaction is exactly the same as I would've reacted to be honest... if one of my step-children had wanted to convert to any religion whatsoever I wouldn't have had a problem with it but if they had told me that they were converting to become a Jehovah Witness and would've refused a blood transfusion I would've busted a blood vessel for sure... as I said earlier... I don't have a problem with anybody's religious beliefs but for a religion to refuse blood transfusions I consider that to be just wrong as far as I'm concerned... especially in a case like this...
...your highlighted statement sums this all up in one sentence in so many ways Groover... what a brilliant thing to say... that's exactly the way I feel about this... thanks for your thoughts on this... cheers.
GROOVER
Ya bloody bugger
Mr S,
The Miranda Devine article was in the paper and not sure if it is available online?
It was bang on the money what she wrote.
Witty Banter
I see brinkpeople.
One slightly similar case of basic rights is the US case of the woman stealing the unborn baby from another woman. The child died shortly after but the court decided that as it wasn't full term and 'born', that the baby wasn't a rights holding citizen. The thief will go for other crimes but not specific to the death of the child as a citizen. I find that case absolutely ridiculous and would throw the book plus extra.
Back to the evolution stuff, evolution requires 2 things: mutation and selection and pretty much selection is not present in modern society. If we applied our current methods throughout history we would still be mudskippers, the caveat being even worse though, that DNA must improve or die as the protective caps on DNA get damaged and replicated through wear. Creatures staying still on an evolutionary scale get cancers due to core parts of the DNA being exposed at the ends.
Back to the evolution stuff, evolution requires 2 things: mutation and selection and pretty much selection is not present in modern society. If we applied our current methods throughout history we would still be mudskippers, the caveat being even worse though, that DNA must improve or die as the protective caps on DNA get damaged and replicated through wear. Creatures staying still on an evolutionary scale get cancers due to core parts of the DNA being exposed at the ends.
Last edited:
...I couldn't find Miranda's viewpoint on line at all but apparently this same thing happened in 2009 in NSW in the Prince of Wales Hospital... the columnist giving her view on it is Lisa Mayoh... she is really pissed off at what happened at the time... here is the link... cheers.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...te-what-an-idiot/story-fnpug1jf-1227294461252
...again... some great points said there Witty Banter... evolution really has the 'survival of the fittest' thing down pat doesn't it?...
...one thing that you wrote that really upsets me is that... 'the court decided that as it wasn't full term and 'born', that the baby wasn't a rights holding citizen'... that is wrong on so many levels... what about just recently when that mother dropped her newly born infant down into a storm drain to let it die?... if it had died she would have been charged with murder yet a child that was allowed to die on purpose that is completely formed and is ready to be born can't be murdered?... this is legal insanity at it's worse level... it is so wrong!...
...I wonder whether if the woman's husband had decided to go against his faith at the last minute to save the child from being 'murdered' ... would he legally be able to intervene to over-rule his wife's right to kill herself and the child?... I wonder if this scenario has ever been put to the test?...
....now there is another point to be said about all of this.....I have been quite critical of the mothers role in all of this but what about the husband's role in this?... he allowed both his wife and unborn child to die... what kind of man could just stand by and allow that to happen?...to me... he is a worse person than his wife... she would've been stressed out enough being that she was basically dying and pregnant etc so it's possible some people may say she could be excused for her decision but you have her husband just standing there watching them die just because of his faith and steadfast obedience to it... what a wretched person he is as far as I'm concerned... it's disgusting that he would allow that to happen... that really does burn me up...
...Witty Banter... again ... thanks for your opinions on this... cheers.
i thought the vast majority of people have already decided it is mums right to determine whether the unborn child will have a chance at life or not. since when have people given a shit about the babies right to life?
oh, i see. its an opportunity to malign somebodies faith. thats different hey
oh, i see. its an opportunity to malign somebodies faith. thats different hey
Yeah I was wondering why the outcry over this when there seems to be a general agreement with a woman's right to abort.
This woman's faith means that she can not have a blood transfusion, and therefore, tragically they died. But it's ok for a woman to choose to abort a child for any number of reasons, lifestyle choice being one.
This woman's faith means that she can not have a blood transfusion, and therefore, tragically they died. But it's ok for a woman to choose to abort a child for any number of reasons, lifestyle choice being one.