Hey, God, You forgot to send an angel this time!

[gobear]

According to CNN:

Deanna Laney, 39, has been charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of sons Joshua, 8, and Luke, 6, and a single count of injury to a child, Aaron, her 15-month-old who survived the attack.


Apparently, she heard the voice of God tell her that the world was going to end and for her to kill her children before the end came. Her court-appointed lawyer is attempting to use her religion as part of an insanity defense, saying:

"The dilemma she faced is a terrible one for a mother," Files said. "Does she follow what she believes to be God's will, or does she turn her back on God?"

Files said he would present witnesses who would corroborate Laney's love of her children as well as her belief "that the word of God was infallible."

"It destroyed her ability to discern the wrongness of her act," he said.

The woman is clearly insane, so what does it matter what she claims inspired her act? It could have been a dog giving her orders, a lion figurine from Niagara Falls, or space aliens talking to her through the radio. Using religion to semi-excuse her acts ("Well, yes, she's nuts, but hey she thought it was God telling her to do this, and you can't disobey Him, can you?") is utterly disgusting. Would the lawyer think Ms. Laney's dilemma as terrible if Katey Couric on her TV had told her to kill her kids? Put the woman away in the state hospital, but don't legitimize her misdeeds in the mantle of faith.

Too bad there wasn't a ram caught in a thicket by its horns nearby--this story might have had a happier ending.

[gobear]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/29/children.slain/index.html)

Fixed link.

[Fear Itself]

I hav yet to meet a fit mother who wouldn't walk throught the Gates of Hell to protect her children. Any woman who would not turn her back on God when given that choice deserves to go to jail.

[AngelicGemma]

What a horrible story! Those poor children. :( How could a mother do that to her own children?

[pool]

by being a bitch

[The Great Sun Jester]

That's what I hate about God. You never know when he's serious or just foolin.' Take that business about Abraham:"Hey, go kill yer kid for me." and then, immediately after Abe, acting on God's instructions, absoloutely demolishes any trust his boy had in him, God sends an angel to call off the sacrifice. Doesn't even show up in person to, you know, maybe take some of the heat off dad.

Yeah, looks like he really slipped up this time. And what about this idiot servenat of his in the article? Did she even ask for clarification given that "Thou Shalt not..." arrangement The Big Guy made with Moses?

If she truly believes "the word of God [is] infallible," it will be interesting to hear her testimony: will she, herself, say she was/is nutz? Or will she stick by her actions. I hope God really did tell her to do this, cuz if he didn't then I'll convert and start believing in hell just so I can believe SHE goes there.

[Guinastasia]

Is anyone else getting a flashback to the Andrea Yates case?

[IzzyR]

don't legitimize her misdeeds in the mantle of faith.I don't see where anyone is legitimizing her actions. The lawyer is merely trying to establish that this particular insanity did in fact drive to her to kill her children.

I don't think your inference is justified.

[gobear]

I don't see where anyone is legitimizing her actions. The lawyer is merely trying to establish that this particular insanity did in fact drive to her to kill her children.

Nonsesne. The lawyer is clearly stating that her belief that the voice was God is somehow more compelling than if it had been something else.

[Liberal]

I agree with you, Gobear, that using religion to semi-excuse her acts is utterly disgusting. But so is taunting God for her actions. Like you said yourself, what she did has the same moral significance no matter who or what told her to do it. God, the devil, or Son of Sam's dog. Your OP is about her, but your title is about God. He forgot to send no angels. The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh.

[IzzyR]

Nonsesne. The lawyer is clearly stating that her belief that the voice was God is somehow more compelling than if it had been something else.Well that's true, but that's not the same thing as legitimizing. This woman's insanity was in hallucinating that God was talking to her, but having hallucinating something, it is in fact more compelling to be told by God to kill your children than to be told by Katie Couric to kill your children. You apparently don't believe in God, but should God, to your surprise, suddenly appear and personally order you to do something that you found odious, you might feel compelled to obey anyway. OTOH if Katie Couric appeared to you and ordered you to do it, you might just laugh her off.

Of course, one might say that once we are dealing with an insane person, any assumption about what is or is not compelling to a normal person might not hold - an insane person might find Katie Couric completely compelling. This is true, but to the extent that the lawyer can present his client's case in terms that an ordinary person can relate to it helps his case, and that is all he is trying to do.

In sum, it does not at all impact the case from the standpoint of right/wrong, but it does help the case in terms of the believability of the insanity defense.

[Truth Seeker]

The woman is clearly insane, so what does it matter what she claims inspired her act? It could have been a dog giving her orders, a lion figurine from Niagara Falls, or space aliens talking to her through the radio. . . . Would the lawyer think Ms. Laney's dilemma as terrible if Katey Couric on her TV had told her to kill her kids?

The question is whether she was legally insane, which means, more or less, that you were so far gone that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong.

You often see people who are obviously howl-at-the-moon insane commit criminal acts and then try to cover it up. These people are not legally insane because they are aware that what they did was somehow wrong. Contrast that to someone who strangles his wife thinking her neck is a grapefruit and then is found by the police camly finishing his breakfast.

My understanding is that people suffering from schizophrenia often hear voices. But they are often able to recognize that these voices are delusions. They know that chairs don't talk and that they should ignore it. So it would be relevant who she thought the voices were coming from, for two reasons. First, you might more readily believe the voice is "real." Second, whoever it is may have the "authority" to tell you what to do, i.e. you wouldn't necessarily believe what the voice told you to do was wrong. Katey Couric telling you to do something you know is wrong is one thing. "God" telling you to do something is another because if "God" convinces you to do something, you don't recognize that it's wrong.

Think of it this way. Suppose you're raising an insanity defense to kidnapping Katey Couric's kids and your delusion is that you saw Katey on TV and she told you to pick up her kids from school. Obviously, that's a better defense than if your barca-lounger told you to pick up Katey's kids from school.

[Shade]

I hav yet to meet a fit mother who wouldn't walk throught the Gates of Hell to protect her children. Any woman who would not turn her back on God when given that choice deserves to go to jail.I agree with you. However I have to point out lots of people presumably don't - specifically everyone who likes the Abraham/Isaac story.

However, to possibly help explain the other side, if you truly trust God you would presumably think that obeying him WAS the best thing for your children. As an analogy, if my father said "do xxx to your son" I would probably think he's insane. But I could think there was some danger here which could only be avoided by the apparently extreme act. If I didn't have a chance to question him I'd have to decide.

Anyway, {{{hugs}}} to everyone. What a sad story.

[gobear]

I agree with you, Gobear, that using religion to semi-excuse her acts is utterly disgusting. But so is taunting God for her actions.

Wel, there is no God, so I'm not especially worried about that.

Like you said yourself, what she did has the same moral significance no matter who or what told her to do it. God, the devil, or Son of Sam's dog. Your OP is about her, but your title is about God. He forgot to send no angels.

Gotta agree with you there because there are no angels, either.

The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh.
AAAAAAHHH!!! Run! ZOMBIES!


My understanding is that people suffering from schizophrenia often hear voices. But they are often able to recognize that these voices are delusions. They know that chairs don't talk and that they should ignore it.

Not always so. Sometimes schizophrenics recognize that the voices are not real, but often their disease doesn't let them differentiate between the real and the imagined. ANY source would be viewed as legitimate, Kotey Kouric of God. My beef ios that the defense attorney is taking the God thing seriously when it should just be counted as a delusion.

[Liberal]

Excuse me, Gobear? That's your response to me? [...looking over my shoulder...] I suppose it is. Oh, well.

[Jackmannii]

He forgot to send no angels.And in other news: Yes, we have no bananas.

[gobear]

C'mon, Lib, but your response was just relgious twaddle and not a serious reply to the thread.

My point is not whether God exists or not (although he doesn't), but that religion should not be used to excuse infanticide. The woman is obviously schizophrenic, so her belief that God ordered her to kill the childen should not be taken as a serious defense.

[IzzyR]

The final quote in Gobear's recent post is attributed to me but is actually from Truth Seeker.

[Doomtrain]

Man, that lawyer's inspired. Going for the touchdown, there. That's just brilliant.

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."

[gobear]

My apologies for the error, Izzy.

[5que]

Katey Couric telling you to do something you know is wrong is one thing.
Katey Couric keeps telling me to get a camera shoved up my butt. So far I am resisting.

[Captain Amazing]

The woman is obviously schizophrenic, so her belief that God ordered her to kill the childen should not be taken as a serious defense.

I think the lawyer is going to argue it should be. Like the article said,

her belief "that the word of God was infallible."

"It destroyed her ability to discern the wrongness of her act,"

I think the logic goes, if she thought that Katie Couric told her to kill her kids, she could still realize that killing her kids was wrong, because she doesn't consider Couric a moral authority. However, if she believes that God told her to do her kids, because she believes that God is the ultimate moral authority, she believed it was right to do it. Remember that, the lawyer, to prove her insane, not only has to show that she heard voices or had delusions, but that those voices and delusions prevented her from knowing that her actions were wrong.

[Liberal]

Religious twaddle? Not a serious response? I don't know why you're being so mean. I don't even know if you realize just how mean you're being. I thought you respected people's beliefs even when you don't hold them yourself. But in this discussion, I feel like a gay man who is having a discussion with a dismissive and rather rude Stormfronter. My faith is no more twaddle than your sexual orientation is perverted. I don't deserve this from you.

[The Tim]

Man, that lawyer's inspired. Going for the touchdown, there. That's just brilliant.

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."

Actually my philosophy of religion professor in college evidently had a friend who believed God spoek to him and said essentially that, plus some moral advice on tough issues. Just saying that some people think they hear God but don't have him telling them to do crazy things.

As for the case I think it is an interesting tactic to use, and honestly a lawyer has to pick what tactic they think is the best one for their client's needs that is within the boundaries of the law. I do think however that having it shown that she suffers from a mental illness in which she hears compelling voices is more effective. There are such disorders were not only is the individual hearing voices but feel like they have to do what the voices are saying. It is probably hard to convince juries that this is the case, thus the "Well if she believes God is talking to her could she really refuse?" line of argument.

[IzzyR]

No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."I suspect that a lot of people do, but they just don't get as much attention as those who do nutty or violent acts.

[Knowed Out]

From what I recall, John E. Douglas, FBI profiler, says that in order to prove an insanity case, defense must disprove three things:

1) that the defendant was capable of telling right from wrong
2) that the defendant planned on wrongdoing
3) that the defendant was capable of carrying out the crime

The fact that she called 911 meant that she realized the wrongness of her actions, thus 1).
She had reasons for doing the killings, so it was a deliberate act, thus 2).
3) would depend on her past criminal and psychological record, if any.

These criteria makes it rare that an insanity plea is actually granted, despite the hoopla you read and hear about. The few times it is granted is mainly for spur of the moment situations: the defendant went into a rage that lasted a few seconds and has little or no recollection of the killing.

[gobear]

Religious twaddle? Not a serious response? I don't know why you're being so mean. I don't even know if you realize just how mean you're being. I thought you respected people's beliefs even when you don't hold them yourself. But in this discussion, I feel like a gay man who is having a discussion with a dismissive and rather rude Stormfronter. My faith is no more twaddle than your sexual orientation is perverted. I don't deserve this from you.

Sheesh, always with the gay thing.

I have no quarrel with you holding your beliefs, but you have to admit that your testimony to God's existence had nada to do with the thread. This is not about whther God exists, but about using religion to excuse the killing of children. The defense should be that the woman is insane, not that her belief in God made her unable to discern right from wrong or that the fact that it was God's voice she thought she heard extenuated her guilt.

She is insane--the form of her insanity doesn't matter.



And if you want to think me perverted, you go right on ahead. I have long since ceased to live my life according to other people's opinions.

[Liberal]

This is just too surreal. You know very well that I don't consider you perverted. You know very well that "always with the gay thing" does not apply to me. I am a strong advocate for the rights of gays (and everyone else) and their freedom to marry. You've lost your mind. Or else, I was crazy all along for thinking we were friends.

[Tentacle Monster]

This lady named all of her kids after people in the Bible. So did Andrea Yates. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest a connection, but it Is a rather eerie co-incidence in my humble opinion.

--Tentacle Monster (who formerly had THREE biblical names, now down to two)

[gobear]

Put it this way, Lib--I'm not out to hurt your feelings, and my denial of God's existence is not a slam at you.

[Truth Seeker]

My beef ios that the defense attorney is taking the God thing seriously when it should just be counted as a delusion.

Now this is just atheistic twaddle. Everyone bitches about how manipulative and rotten lawyers are. Until, that is, they get in serious trouble -- then they want the most aggressive, sneaky, all-guns-blazing, take-no-prisoners bastard they can find.

The defense attorney's job isn't to validate his or her personal world view. It's not even to validate the client's world view. It's to get the client out of trouble. Blaming God may turn out to be a first-rate tactic. You get to paint the defendant as a sympathetic, god-fearing woman. You get to lead a bible-study on the old testament to demonstrate that if God did speak to you, the whole smiting and child-slaying thing is not completely out of character. Pull the right jury, and they'll be shouting "Preach it, Brother!" during your summation.


I'm curious, Izzy, why aren't you going to sign up? Without people to provide the sand, how will we all come up with our perfect pearls of wisdom? ;)

Seriously, you ought to reconsider.

[gobear]

The defense attorney's job isn't to validate his or her personal world view. It's not even to validate the client's world view. It's to get the client out of trouble. Blaming God may turn out to be a first-rate tactic. You get to paint the defendant as a sympathetic, god-fearing woman. You get to lead a bible-study on the old testament to demonstrate that if God did speak to you, the whole smiting and child-slaying thing is not completely out of character. Pull the right jury, and they'll be shouting "Preach it, Brother!" during your summation

You're absoultely right, but still, it's just so--grrr--annoying that playing into popular superstition like that will prove so successful.

[tiny ham]

This lady named all of her kids after people in the Bible. So did Andrea Yates. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest a connection, but it Is a rather eerie co-incidence in my humble opinion.

--Tentacle Monster (who formerly had THREE biblical names, now down to two)


Oh good god. :rolleyes: The Bible is filled with THOUSANDS of names, including Matthew, David, Michael, Sarah and Rebecca, fairly common to people of all religions and creeds. It's not eerie at all. Even our beloved OP has a BIBLICAL name and he seems to be relatively normal (;)) There are so many things to grasp at when bashing religion, why the hell would you grasp at this straw?

- Jessica (Hebrew for "riches from God")

[Mangetout]

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."Heh, I'm one of those freakish people who claim to have been spoken to by God and, strangely enough, what he told me was not terribly different from that; a whole lot of bullshit and faulty inference got layered on it by other folks and by my credulous self, but at the core, all he ever said was 'be nice' (with some specifics occasionally).

[F. U. Shakespeare]

That's the message you hear when you play an Osmonds record backwards.



(snip)

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."

[jsgoddess]

I'm an atheist, so that will explain my confusion. But I am confused.

Okay, do (some/most) religious persons believe that God can talk to them or to someone else?

If not, then I'm not confused.

But if so, well, how do you know God didn't tell this woman to kill her children?


Is her lawyer's insanity claim actually a claim that certain religious beliefs, eg talking to God, are "insane"? Or that religious people are more likely to be insane, since they are more likely to believe that God is talking to them?

Frankly, it sounds like the sort of backhanded defense a fellow atheist would devise! :D

[Kalhoun]

I can understand the lawyer going for the insane-religious-fanatic defense. This is something the jurors will relate to (we've had enough of these highly publicized cases in recent years). It is a shame that some people will directly connect her insanity with her religion, but it sounds like the lawyer is making his best effort to get her off (although it didn't work out so good for Andrea Yates).

[tdn]

I'm not sure I fully understand the point of this rant. Other than to express outrage over what this woman did to her kids, of course.

gobear my original thought was that you object to either

a) Using God as an excuse to kill children, or
b) A defense lawyer trying to mount the best case he can.

Since you have said that it's not b) then I assume you meant a) (or I'm completely missing your point altogether). In which case I don't think anyone is trying to use God as an excuse. It doesn't matter whether God exists or not. What is important here is whether the defendant did at that time. If her attorney is to mount a successful insanity case, then he needs to establish her state of mind at the time. And he's making the case that in our culture, God (even if non-existant) does speak with a huge amount of authority. That gambit may result in some mitigating circumstances in her sentence. If it does, then the attorney has done his job.

Maybe I misunderstand your outrage, but if you're trying to say that these people are saying "It's OK to kill children, as long as God says it's OK", then I think you're missing the point by a mile.

[Siege]

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."

I'm with mangetout. That's pretty much what He told me, except that recently we've been disagreeing whether the money required to buy my apartment qualifies as "too much debt." jsgoddess, I'm a devout Anglican and I do believe God speaks to me. Unlike this woman, I reserve the right to disagree with Him, which is what I did initially when I found out my apartment's being sold. (It looks like I'm going to buy it.)

There is a subset of Christians who believe in absolute, unquestioning, even mindless obedience to God. As far as I can make out, it's so tied into that that any threat to it threatens to bring their worlds tumbling down around their ears. You obey God; it's that simple. Don't question; that might indicate a lack of faith and invite the Devil in. Don't disobey; that risks an eternity of a fate far worse than anything that can be done to them on earth. Don't think, lest your thoughts lead you astray. To me, that goes directly agains the teachings of Christ, but it would be impossible for me not to think and question without a full lobotomy, and even then, I wouldn't bet too much on me being able to sustain it for long. I assume this mindset brings those who have it a sense of peace and security in an uncertain world. Slavery, I'm told, can also bring peace and security in that one is not responsible for one's own life. I don't want that type of peace. As this woman shows, the price is far too high.

CJ

[porcupine]

The defense lawyer must be a Law & Order fan. I specifically remember an episode like this.

[Doomtrain]

There are such disorders were not only is the individual hearing voices but feel like they have to do what the voices are saying. It is probably hard to convince juries that this is the case, thus the "Well if she believes God is talking to her could she really refuse?" line of argument.

I know that much, I was just admiring the brilliance of the move (and no sarcasm there). In a very strongly religious part of the country, playing the "God told her, how could she refuse" is a masterstroke. Strictly from a tactics point of view, I was just wowed by it. Brassy, yea, but a hell of an angle.

I think I'd play it up, like someone else said. Have preachers in, especially local ones with good reputations and huge flocks. Maybe even her preacher, if she's of a particular religion that's not "too weird" to play in Texas. Bonus points if they're charismatic, the faith healer and huge congregation type. If you're going to play the God Card, may as well put all the chips on the table.

"Friends. Lookit my client. Lookit the tears in her eyes. She's sorry for what she's done, she'll tell you that. But when the Lord Himself tells you to do something, well, you do it. That's what I believe. That's what you believe. That's what she believed."

And man, a throwaway line generates some real touching posts. Kudos.

[Cervaise]

Katey Couric keeps telling me to get a camera shoved up my butt. So far I am resisting.Resisting how? You're refusing to entertain even the possibility of this happening, or you've got your sphincter squinched down tight against the shoving lens?

[gobear]

[quote]
Maybe I misunderstand your outrage, but if you're trying to say that these people are saying "It's OK to kill children, as long as God says it's OK", then I think you're missing the point by a mile.

NO, that's NOT what I'm saying.

What I object to was summarized quite succinctly by GMRyujin

"Friends. Lookit my client. Lookit the tears in her eyes. She's sorry for what she's done, she'll tell you that. But when the Lord Himself tells you to do something, well, you do it. That's what I believe. That's what you believe. That's what she believed."

Yes, I want her to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but not by appealing to popular religious sentiment. I'd prefer the summation to be,"Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, BUCKAW! (Sorry, I'm thinking of the Southern bird lawyer on Futurama). Ms. Laney said God told her to kill her kids. We all know that people who hear God in their heads are fuckin' nuts, so let's slap her goofy ass in the state mental hospital and go hit the bar."

[CanvasShoes]

I don't see where anyone is legitimizing her actions. The lawyer is merely trying to establish that this particular insanity did in fact drive to her to kill her children.

I don't think your inference is justified.
I watched the opening statement made by the lawyer today on CourtTV, nowhere does he try to do what the OP suggests, or to make it a case of "who does mom listen to, God or her motherly instincts".

He very clearly outlines that the mother had a history of psychotic breaks, most having to do with "God talking to her".

Even if the lawyer/mother etc WERE trying to use God as a defense, how does this make God/religion itself the bad guy? It's the same thing as OJ getting off by playing the race card, or any other stupid defense the defense tries to pull out on any other sensational case. No different than any other BS

Aside from that, what a sad, terrible thing to have happened.

[Zebra]

Man, that lawyer's inspired. Going for the touchdown, there. That's just brilliant.

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."



You don't know very many nuns do you?

[PunditLisa]

God's relevance to your OP is negligible. I can claim I hear Gobear's voice commanding me to beat my dog. That is neither an implication nor an indictment of Gobear, but it can go to show that I'm looney tunes. And in this country people who are looney tunes generally aren't judged as harshly as others who know right from wrong.

[vanilla]

. The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh.

:eek:
I bet youre a real comfort at funerals.

[gobear]

You don't know very many nuns do you?

Ever seen The Magdalene Sisters?

[gobear]

Even if the lawyer/mother etc WERE trying to use God as a defense, how does this make God/religion itself the bad guy? It's the same thing as OJ getting off by playing the race card, or any other stupid defense the defense tries to pull out on any other sensational case. No different than any other BS

I'm not making God/religion the bad guy, I'm making the [u]exploitation of faith in God/religion[/b] the bad guy.


I can claim I hear Gobear's voice commanding me to beat my dog. That is neither an implication nor an indictment of Gobear, but it can go to show that I'm looney tunes.

Of course you're looney tunes--I commanded you to feed your dog, not beat it. Criminy, these Acme Mind Control lessons just aren't paying off. Last time I ever trust consumer advice from a coyote!

[Just Ed]

I'm an atheist, so that will explain my confusion. But I am confused.

Okay, do (some/most) religious persons believe that God can talk to them or to someone else?

If not, then I'm not confused.

But if so, well, how do you know God didn't tell this woman to kill her children?
I had the same thoughts myself - and yes, I'm also an atheist (or, more technically, a faithless agnostic).

But. If we're all for religious freedom, why are we so self-righteously convinced this woman did not hear the voice of God (or at least her god)?

[Captain Amazing]

Ms. Laney said God told her to kill her kids. We all know that people who hear God in their heads are fuckin' nuts, so let's slap her goofy ass in the state mental hospital and go hit the bar."

But being fuckin' nuts isn't in itself sufficient for an insanity defense. The attorney has to prove that she didn't realize that what she was doing was wrong/illegal while she was doing it. And to do that, he's got to explain her motive and he's got to explain what she was thinking when she did it. He's got to show that she acted consistantly and logically within the framework of her delusions...that anyone else would have done the same thing, if they were in in her situation and had the mindset that she had.

[FriarTed]

brief hijack- the point of the Abraham/Isaac story is- from that point on, be sure that if a voice tells you to sacrifice your kid, it's not God. In that culture, child sacrifice occurred- God takes Abraham to the brink to then show him that it's not in His plan. The Law of Moses explicitly forbids child sacrifice.

[askeptic]

brief hijack- the point of the Abraham/Isaac story is- from that point on, be sure that if a voice tells you to sacrifice your kid, it's not God. In that culture, child sacrifice occurred- God takes Abraham to the brink to then show him that it's not in His plan. The Law of Moses explicitly forbids child sacrifice.


God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said "man you must be puttin me on"
God said "No"
Abe said "what?"
God said" the next time you see me comming, you better run"
Abe said"Now where you want this killing done?"
god said "out on highway 61"

In all seriousness Friarted where is this "Law of Moses" of which you speak? And why would it be relevent to christians? (wish there was a smilie for sincere)

[Liberal]

:eek:
I bet youre a real comfort at funerals.Our grandson (http://www.ourdawson.com)

[askeptic]

Our grandson (http://www.ourdawson.com)


Lib, I am trying to figure out that link you posted, so far I can't. Did I miss something? I mean no disrespect or insult. I honestly cannot understand what you mean.

[Liberal]

It means that our beliefs are sincere. We believe that our grandson is alive, and that there is no life in the atoms. Vanilla implied that we had a callous disregard for the lives of the children in the OP on account of saying that they still are alive. That is not the case. (And I think you knew that.)

[gum]

Is that your grandson, Libertarian? I'm so sorry. [B]:`(

[Liberal]

Thanks, Gum. :) But truly, there is no reason to be sad. We saw so many miracles in that children's hospital. As my wife has said, we prayed for Dawson to be healed, and sure enough, God sent His angel.

[askeptic]

It means that our beliefs are sincere. We believe that our grandson is alive, and that there is no life in the atoms. Vanilla implied that we had a callous disregard for the lives of the children in the OP on account of saying that they still are alive. That is not the case. (And I think you knew that.)


Lib, I promise you that I knew no such thing! Despite what is said between us in any other threads, I respect your grief for your grandson. If that was a picture of your grandson, and he died, then you have my sincere sympathy. Despite the fact that I do not know what awaits us in the hereafter (if there is such a thing) I really hope your grandson is "alive" and happy. I truely am sorry for your loss.

[Liberal]

There is no loss. There is no grief. But thank you all the same.

[askeptic]

There is no loss. There is no grief. But thank you all the same.


Believe it or not, I am sincerely glad that there is no loss or grief. I assume that your last post means that that beatiful baby is healthy and happy?

[Liberal]

He is eternally happy. His body suffered, but his spirit has always soared.

[vanilla]

I thought you would've known what I meant.
I know people who die are still aware but it was your "whats left is rotting flesh" comment that got me.
Not something you'd want to say to someone whose loved one has died.

[Homebrew]

Believe it or not, I am sincerely glad that there is no loss or grief. I assume that your last post means that that beatiful baby is healthy and happy?Jeez. Make that unanimous plus one.

Lib's grandson's body has died. But Lib believes the material world is unimportant. What is important is that Dawson's spirit continues to live, even thrive, with God in the spiritual realm - which is the only real and important existence.

[tiny ham]

Of course, I have to go with vanilla on this. Libertarian gains peace from his personal beliefs, but if he came up to me at my grandfather's funeral and said 'Ah, don't worry, it's just his flesh rotting' I'd politely ask him to leave. I, too, believe in an afterlife and Heaven and all that, but at the point of grief, when I am sad to lose his companionship, his hearty laugh, his jokes, his physical presence, I don't need someone spouting bizarre philosophies.

[gobear]

Of course, I have to go with vanilla on this. Libertarian gains peace from his personal beliefs, but if he came up to me at my grandfather's funeral and said 'Ah, don't worry, it's just his flesh rotting' I'd politely ask him to leave. I, too, believe in an afterlife and Heaven and all that, but at the point of grief, when I am sad to lose his companionship, his hearty laugh, his jokes, his physical presence, I don't need someone spouting bizarre philosophies.

First, my sympathies to Lib for his loss.

UM, I'm confused. Jarbabyj. You are a professing Christian, are you not? So what is so "bizarre" about Lib's belief that his grandson is with God in the afterlife? Mind, the "rotting flesh" comment is over the top, but his serene confidence in a beneficent god is part of the essential creed of Christians, right?

Sure, at a funeral you keenly feel the loss of a loved one, but if you are a theist, wouldn't you feel some comfort that the deceased is not really dead, but enjoying bliss in the Divine Presence?

[tdn]

NO, that's NOT what I'm saying.

What I object to was summarized quite succinctly by GMRyujin

Yes, I want her to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, but not by appealing to popular religious sentiment. I'd prefer the summation to be,"Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, BUCKAW! (Sorry, I'm thinking of the Southern bird lawyer on Futurama). Ms. Laney said God told her to kill her kids. We all know that people who hear God in their heads are fuckin' nuts, so let's slap her goofy ass in the state mental hospital and go hit the bar."

OK, gotcha ya.

However, if you were on the jury, would you base your decision on which of the two tacks the defense attorney took? I know I'd be very tempted to, though I'd hope I'd be able to rise above that if I were actually in that situation.

[Liberal]

Well, I wouldn't say that to you at your grandfather's funeral. By the same token, I wouldn't expect you to understand completely why my mother's death was one of the most beautiful moments in my life. We all are talking about a third party here, commenting about the application of general moral principle to a specific instance in the news. That's the context in which I said what I said. To the family directly, I would express my sympathies because I do, in fact, sympathize with people who mourn. But neither would I call their philosophy "bizarre".

[tiny ham]

It is precisely the 'rotting flesh' comment that I have a problem with. And while I do believe that there is an afterlife, and my loved ones are no longer suffering and whathaveyou...it doesn't diminish the physically felt loss of the living here on earth. When my husband dies, he's going to heaven and I'll see him there again some day, but if I suddenly woke up and didn't have his hand to hold, or his laugh in my ear, or the sound of his voice, I WOULD BE SAD. I take COMFORT in my belief of the after life, but it doesn't mean I'm skipping around thankful that loved ones have died.

And if someone came up to me and said "no biggie, just rotting flesh" I'd be offended because it belittles my immediate grief.

[Liberal]

Thanks, Gobear! :) My post above, of course, was directed to Jarbaby.

[tiny ham]

and by 'bizarre' I'm saying that to ME I would understand that, but walking up to people you don't know and saying 'oh hey, those kids are still alive' would most likely be construed as bizarre. I was speaking as an outside party.

[gobear]

I would understand that, but walking up to people you don't know and saying 'oh hey, those kids are still alive' would most likely be construed as bizarre.

But you were talking about behavior at a funeral, where it is unlikely that the people you meet will be complete strangers (unless you were his mistress, gay lover, or long-lost child from a sperm donation).

If a relative or friend told you at your husband's funeral, "He watches over you and you'll see him again in Heaven," would you really be offended? I'm an atheist and I believe talk of the afterlife is all nonsense, but I could not imagine being angry at a well-intentioned attempt to comfort me.

[tiny ham]

If a relative or friend told you at your husband's funeral, "He watches over you and you'll see him again in Heaven," would you really be offended?

of COURSE not, that's why I said it was precisely the "ROTTING FLESH" comment that bothered me. It seems a bit morbid and, frankly disgusting for funeral time OR for comforting the grieving. Notice I posted that BEFORE Lib explained that he wouldn't say it at a funeral.

[gobear]

So we can agree that A)"rotting flesh" comments are out of place at funerals and B) it's OK to assure people their loved ones survive death.

I'm so glad we can find a point of 100 percent agreement.

[tiny ham]

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or something, but yes, I believe both of those are true.

[gobear]

Criminy!

NO, I wasn't being sarcastic; I was expressing sincere pleasure at agreeing with you.

Just shows what trying to be nice gets me.

[tiny ham]

yeah, you big jerk. I don't need your friendship!

[jsgoddess]

The problem with telling someone their loved one is "still alive," is that if you believe in a heaven and a hell, you believe that you can't know who is where.

So, is this comforting: "Hey, you know your dead father is now facing God's eternal judgment and could be roasting in the fires of hell right this minute!"

[Kimstu]

I vote that "rotting flesh" comments are out of place in ANY discussion of the regrettable death of ANY human being. (I suppose people who are having gloat-fests over the longed-for death of a loathed enemy are allowed a little more latitude in that regard, as long as I don't have to listen to them.)

Lib, I respect your religious beliefs and honor your courage in your convictions, but I gotta say that that remark was somewhat on the insensitive side. Even I was a little shocked and upset by it, and I don't know those poor kids from Adam.

(I also hold that it's rather insensitive to say things like "your loved one is still alive" to bereaved people who you know believe differently---not that I'm assuming Lib would do this, I just think it's a relevant general point.

As an atheist, I wouldn't tell a believer in the afterlife "well, your loved one is gone forever, but s/he had a good life and loved you very much" even though I'd find that appropriate and comforting if I were in the bereaved person's position. Similarly, I would expect any sympathizer in my grief---who knew I was an atheist---to refrain from offering assertions that they'd find comforting but that they know I don't agree with. Just say "I'm so sorry" or "You have my deepest sympathy and I love you" or something like that, but don't get into claims about the existence of life after death, 'kay?)

[tiny ham]

As an atheist, I wouldn't tell a believer in the afterlife "well, your loved one is gone forever, but s/he had a good life and loved you very much" even though I'd find that appropriate and comforting if I were in the bereaved person's position. Similarly, I would expect any sympathizer in my grief---who knew I was an atheist---to refrain from offering assertions that they'd find comforting but that they know I don't agree with. Just say "I'm so sorry" or "You have my deepest sympathy and I love you" or something like that, but don't get into claims about the existence of life after death, 'kay?)

I agree with that, but I also think we have to pick our battles. I have a real problem with folks who believe that every adorable kid who dies was sent to 'be an angel', when my theology dictates that it's not true (all the angels that ever were or will be have already been created. The end). But if someone tells me at a funeral or during my grief that 'god need a little angel' by way of comfort, I"m not going to waste my energy raising a stink.

There's a difference in being offened, like the rotting flesh comments and being sort of...theologically challenged, to me at least.

[AngelicGemma]

So we can agree that A)"rotting flesh" comments are out of place at funerals and B) it's OK to assure people their loved ones survive death.

I'm so glad we can find a point of 100 percent agreement.

About point B. At funerals I don't want people "comforting" me by assuring me that loved ones survive death. Because I just don't believe it. Last year when my Grandad died my mum said it a few times. I had the urge to shake her and yell "Stop talking bollocks!" Of course I didn't.

[TwistofFate]

For the Attention of Gobear (http://www.manxproject.com/)

[gobear]

About point B. At funerals I don't want people "comforting" me by assuring me that loved ones survive death. Because I just don't believe it. Last year when my Grandad died my mum said it a few times. I had the urge to shake her and yell "Stop talking bollocks!" Of course I didn't.

I don't urge the urge to respond violently to a well-meant comment. I've had people say they will pray for me or assume that I share their faith at a funeral, but instead of getting angry, I accept it as the well-intentioned effort that it is.

I operate on the assumption that I have to be the strong one in a situation and so I nurture other people's beliefs and conceal my own. Most people, I have found, don't endure difficulty well, and so they need their faith to lean on when times are tough. It would be an act of cruelty, I think, to illustrate the falsity of their religion if they need it to get through their grief. When my grandmother died last year, I ddin't scoff when mu mother talked about seeing her in Heaven. Instead, I agreed that they would meet and that I hoped that God was looking after her. My mother knows of my atheism, but I felt it was more important to give her love and support instead of arguing the point.

People are more important than principles, IMO.


yeah, you big jerk. I don't need your friendship!

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[AngelicGemma]

When my grandmother died last year, I ddin't scoff when mu mother talked about seeing her in Heaven. Instead, I agreed that they would meet and that I hoped that God was looking after her. My mother knows of my atheism, but I felt it was more important to give her love and support instead of arguing the point.

This is exactly why I didn't disagree with my mum. Just kept my mouth shut.

[Homebrew]

Just shows what trying to be nice gets me.
yeah, you big jerk. I don't need your friendship!
I'm sorry you feel that way.I'd like to believe she was joking. Or maybe I was whooshed by your comment

[tiny ham]

Man, I hope I was wooshed too! I was joking around! What we need here is a 'sarcastofont'

[zev_steinhardt]

In all seriousness Friarted where is this "Law of Moses" of which you speak?


Dueteronomy 12:31



And why would it be relevent to christians? (wish there was a smilie for sincere)

One Jew's guess: Since Jesus is said to have died for mankind's sins, and there is therefore no need for animal sacrifice, it surely stands to reason that there is no need for human sacrifice.

Zev Steinhardt

[gobear]

Man, I hope I was wooshed too! I was joking around! What we need here is a 'sarcastofont'

No, apparently I was the one who was whooshed. I know that Jarbaby doesn't have much use for me, and I took her comment with that in mind. I apologize.

[tiny ham]

Oh I have a use for you gobear...but I doubt you're interested. ;)

[vanilla]

The problem with telling someone their loved one is "still alive," is that if you believe in a heaven and a hell, you believe that you can't know who is where.

So, is this comforting: "Hey, you know your dead father is now facing God's eternal judgment and could be roasting in the fires of hell right this minute!"


Except children, including Dawson are too young to be judged and all go to Heaven, in my theological opinion.

[vanilla]

Oh I have a use for you gobear...but I doubt you're interested. ;)


you are weird
:p

[askeptic]

Dueteronomy 12:31




One Jew's guess: Since Jesus is said to have died for mankind's sins, and there is therefore no need for animal sacrifice, it surely stands to reason that there is no need for human sacrifice.

Zev Steinhardt


.
Zev are you referring to this? (31) Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God: for every abomination to the LORD, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods.

If so, I am a bit confused. This particular passage does not really answer the original question. I always thought that "The Law of Moses" was a general reference to rules set forth in the old testament that preceded the alleged coming of christ. Am I mistaken?

Also, while I do not think human sacrifice is either appropriate or called for by christians in general, I do not think IT (IT being your guess as stated above)stands to reason based on the premises you suggest.

[zev_steinhardt]

.
If so, I am a bit confused. This particular passage does not really answer the original question. I always thought that "The Law of Moses" was a general reference to rules set forth in the old testament that preceded the alleged coming of christ. Am I mistaken?


I'm not certain what the source of your confusion is. FrairTed stated that Jewish law (what I took from his "Laws of Moses" reference) prohibited child sacrifice. You asked for a cite and I provided one.


Also, while I do not think human sacrifice is either appropriate or called for by christians in general, I do not think IT (IT being your guess as stated above)stands to reason based on the premises you suggest.

Why not? Admittedly, I'm no scholar in Christian doctrine, but my argument seemed pretty reasonable to me as a compelling reason as to why this particular law (against child sacrifice) should stand for Christians today when (according to them) most of the laws of the Torah have been abrogated.

Zev Steinhardt

[gex gex]

Are you saying, Libertarian that you believe death is only the loss of the physical body? If so, why is murder wrong?

[zev_steinhardt]

Are you saying, Libertarian that you believe death is only the loss of the physical body? If so, why is murder wrong?

Robbery involves the loss of even less than that - only one's money - and yet you would surely view robbery as wrong, no?

Zev Steinhardt

[Liberal]

It is always the moral decision itself, and never the act itself, that is wrong. Life is all about the execution of free moral agency. The universe is our mis-en-scene in which we act out our moral play. We all will die. And we all will lose everything we have. Sooner or later. One way or the other. But what is important is the moral decisions we make until then. God is about morality. He values goodness above all other aesthetics. Love is the distribution of goodness. Sin is the obstruction of it. The brain merely carries out whatever instructions the heart has given it. Before the murder, there was the decision that the life was worthless. Before the theft, there was the decision that the consent was worthless. In matters of morality, it is the heart that commands the brain.

[Typo Negative]

Ya know, in my whole life, God has never said word one to me.


If he did, out of the blue, and told me to do something on the extreme side like that, I think I might run it by someone else. Because if He did, there'd be 2 possibilities.

A) It's actually God talking to me

or

B) I've gone insane.

Now I don't know about you all, but I think I'd want to rule out possibility B before continuing. Talk to preists and ministers, see a psychaiatrist, get a CAT scan......Because I might actually miss my loved ones....and might feel a little guilty if I offed them due a treatable mental defect.

But then again, it may just be the fact that GOD NEVER TALKS DIRECTLY TO ME OR ANYONE ELSE I HAVE EVER MET that might make me a tad cautious.

[gex gex]

originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Robbery involves the loss of even less than that - only one's money - and yet you would surely view robbery as wrong, no?
Of course. But if one sees the only crime committed in murder as being the irreparable battery of a body, than I can only assume that such a person would consider murder to only be a rather heinous form of assault. I see it as something far more serious, because I see it as the end of life.

However, Libertarian has replied to my post, so I can turn my attention to what he has to say, rather than rely on conjecture:

It is always the moral decision itself, and never the act itself, that is wrong.
Agreed.

For the rest of your post, beneath the theological rhetoric, I basically agree with you. However, I am confused about some aspects of your discussion:

If you think that those whom many would consider dead are actually alive (For example, the children discussed in the OP, about whom you say: "The children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh"), then surely by harming their bodies, you aren't really deciding that their lives are "worthless."

If someone thinks as you do, surely you are only killing their flesh? And since they are still alive, you aren't showing that you consider their lives worthless, only that you consider their ability to decide what is to happen to their bodies to be worthless?

And to help my understanding, I would like to know when you think the children discussed in the OP will die. You have stated "the children are alive. Nothing is dead but rotting flesh," but have also said "we all will die. And we all will lose everything we have. Sooner or later."

If both your statements are correct, when will these children die, considering you do not consider them dead already?

[Liberal]

The way I look at it, Gex, is that it is all to complicated for me or anyone else to judge. The only way that I could safely judge your moral motives is to have experienced everything you have experienced, in other words, to be you. We all live in subjective reference frames and can see only from our own very narrow point of view. God, as the objective reference frame in all cases, knowing all that we have done from beginning to end, is the only One qualified to judge our morality. And yet, He has seen fit to waive His own judgment and allow us to judge ourselves by His standard. The Father gave all rights to judge to the Son, and the Son waived His rights, leaving us to judge ourselves.

So I can't tell you what the moral significance is when one man kills another, even if they both believe as I do. For one thing, I don't want to kill anybody, so that would leave both of them not killing. Still, there is no way that I could be privvy to the myriad, millions of tiny things that have led people to be where they are and do what they do. Yes, the children are alive. But that's because their essence is not flesh. Their essence is spirit. They are God's own breath. They are, in fact, God. As Jesus teaches, we all are Gods.

Dawson did not die because of any moral choice by anyone. He died because science does not yet have the answer for brain cancer. Jesus teaches that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, we must become like little children. When we judge ourselves, what happens is that we make a final choice. Do we love the light? If so, we go to the light. Do we love the darkness? If so, we go away from the light. God stands still. We decide where we will go. Children love the light because they are innocent and filled with love.

But the man who might seem to be the most horrible creature imaginable might, for all we know, be that way as the result of circumstances that we ourselves can scarcely imagine. It might be that he gave up on love a long time ago, but once he sees the Living Love, he will run toward it having finally found what he has searched for all his life. We just cannot know what is in the hearts of men. But they know themselves. And God made them free moral agents.

Regarding "we all will die" versus "they are alive", it is the use of the word in two senses: the physical death or life and the spiritual death or life. One is trivial, and the other significant because one lasts a few years on an anthill and the other is unbounded by time or space. What is real is what is eternal. What is fleeting is just an illusion. The Catch-22, of course, is that knowledge of that is no release from the moral burden. If anything, it makes it all tougher because, even though the atoms are not real, the spirit that makes the moral decisions is very real. It is possible to damage the spirit with or without damaging the body. To me, using the amoral (not immoral) universe as a mis-en-scene for our morality play was brilliant in its conception. We can't blame the universe for decisions we make.

[RickJay]

Why doesn't god ever tell anyone to lead a quiet, but meaningful life? No one ever says, "God came to me and told me to pay my bills, not take on too much debt, do some good works, be a nice person, and not hassle anyone."
That's what He told me.

He also asked me to pass along that you should stop picking your nose. Yes, he can see you. Get that finger outta there!

:D

[Blonde]

Libertarian, I respect your religious convictions. At the same time, I have to wonder why a crack addict who guns down someone in a 7-11 gets the death penalty, and someone who brutually beats their small children to death will live to see another day. Her religious convictions led her commit this brutal act. That's a slap in the face to the God you love, as is all the atrocious acts being commited across the world in the name of God. The current state of affairs really makes me wonder what I should teach my children about religion.

[SanguineSpider]

The God I know wouldn't command a woman to stone her two young children to death. And if He would, then He's not the god I want to believe in. I'm not a devout Christian anyway but I could not kill a child, mine or someone else's. I'd have to be insane to do anything like that but even insane, I'd deserve the death penalty. I don't see her being reformed into a productive member of society ever again. I am NOT saying all non-productive members of society should be killed. In this one instance, I feel she should. This is a horrible, tragic, heartbreaking event and nothing good will come out of it, even if she was to be put to death. Her kids are gone and I can't get into "only the flesh is dead" way of thinking.

And just because someone does something horrible due to insanity, why shouldn't their punishment fit the crime? Now, remember... I'm strictly dealing with this OP. This is also MY opinion. I have "an eye for an eye" attitude even in this judical three-ringed circus world we live in. Innocent people are locked away and put to death but so are the guilty and the truly deserving (I define thusly as serial killers, rapists, child molestors, etc...). There will always be something like this that shocks and horrifies us, which is the truly sad part of life.

[Liberal]

Libertarian, I respect your religious convictions. At the same time, I have to wonder why a crack addict who guns down someone in a 7-11 gets the death penalty, and someone who brutually beats their small children to death will live to see another day. Her religious convictions led her commit this brutal act. That's a slap in the face to the God you love, as is all the atrocious acts being commited across the world in the name of God. The current state of affairs really makes me wonder what I should teach my children about religion.Whoever has no love in her heart will not live to see another day. She is dead already.

[Lamia]

But if so, well, how do you know God didn't tell this woman to kill her children?


Well, this is just my atheist outside take on things, but I'd guess that Christians could know that their God didn't tell a mother to murder her children because they know that's just not the kind of thing their God does. If this woman heard a voice telling her to murder her children, it couldn't have been God's. Maybe it was the Devil or something, or maybe she's just crazy.

However, if I believed in a God that literally talked to people by putting a voice in their heads, I'd have to wonder why God didn't put his voice in this woman's head and straighten out the misunderstanding personally. Maybe God tried and she didn't believe him, but you'd think God could manage to be more convincing than a delusion.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

Breaking news (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040404/ap_on_re_us/children_slain&cid=519&ncid=716) I don't quite know what to say, except I hope that woman gets the psychiatric help she needs now. :(