Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers

[melon]

These same courts believed a man who damaged his own credibility by cheating on his wife and having 3 kids by another woman when he said that Terri had told him she wouldn't have wanted to remain on a feeding tube, even though he had not one shred of proof. That doesn't exactly inspire trust in those courts.

"Cheating on his wife." She was in a PVS for years, and he moved on with another woman after he came to the conclusion that Terri wasn't coming back.

Is there any evidence that Michael Shiavo cheated on his wife prior to her entering the hospital and losing all consciousness for 15 years?

In fact, I think many people might empathize with his situation. Films and TV shows that have done fictionalized versions of people in comas for years and years on end almost always end up in a spouse that has moved on with another person. Thus, the "conflict" of what to do when the original spouse wakes up. In this case, however, there was no reasonable doubt: Terri Shiavo was never going to get better.

Melon

 

[melon]

Need I remind you that Michael Schiavo didn't allow therapy on Terri after 91 or 92?

Evidence? I believe it was around 1998 that Michael Shiavo started to petition the courts.

A woman with no consciousness or mental functions cannot enter therapy.

And why should we put our trust in courts in reference to a medical issue?

That's what medical experts are for. Michael Shiavo was allowed to present medical experts, along with the Schindlers. There were also court-appointed doctors for the sake of neutrality. The court-appointed doctors, along with Shiavo's doctors unanimously said she was in a persistent vegetative state. The autopsy confirmed that.

Melon

 

[BonosSaint]

80's, I think most people can differentiate between the teachings of Christ and the way some Christians choose to convolute the message. There is a vast chasm between those teachings and the perception of Christianity via those who use it loudly to suit their own purposes. In some ways, I would think you would be angrier with them than defensive towards me. They are carrying a banner that does more damage to the cause of Christ than I ever could. What they do is a particularly odious brand of blasphemy.

I have never questioned the wisdom and the power of the "red words", which frankly is the only part of the Bible I pay much attention to although I've read it all. Anything beyond those words is a direction man has taken it, sometimes destructively.
The harsh words I used describe a direction some people have taken this religion and the perception under which that religion is becoming widely viewed.

Christianity is infinitely better than that. Take it back.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I have never questioned the wisdom and the power of the "red words", which frankly is the only part of the Bible I pay much attention to although I've read it all. Anything beyond those words is a direction man has taken it, sometimes destructively.

On what basis do you believe the "red words" and not the rest of the Bible?

Why are the "red words" from God, and the rest from man?

How do you know that Jesus' words are authentic?

See that's the thing I've never understood; people often say "That's Paul, not Jesus, so I don't accept it as the truth". That doesn't make sense to me. Paul met the Lord while on a trip to Damascus to continue his long-held habit of persecuting Christians. He suddenly turned his life around and began to preach the Gospel, most often risking his life to do so. Why is he not credible for some people?

The whole of the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, unfolds the story of man, his destruction, and the path of redemption. It all works together like a clock. If you don't believe me, read the prophets and their prophecy of the coming Christ, and how Jesus fulfilled everyone. And then read Paul in Romans, when he's talking about the purpose of the Jewish law and how the animal sacrfice system of the Old Testament foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ, and his blood shed for our sins. Then read Paul's assertions that the spirit of a Christian is perfect, which is an extension and fulfillment of Christ's command "Be perfect even as my father in Heaven is perfect". It all flows together like a well-oiled machine. To take anything out is like taking cherries form the Cherries Jubilee. The book of Revelations warns against taking anything out of the Word of God.

But even if you do heed only the words of Jesus (and you are missing a lot if that's the course you take), Jesus wasn't exactly a "do what you wnat as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" kind of guy. Christ spoke against sin often, and yes, he offered forgiveness for those sins - for those who desire it and desire to follow him. But he didn't exactly exhibit a "warm fuzzy attitude" toward the sins of the Pharisees, did he? Why? Because they were unrepentant and refused to see their eveil for what it was. He was actually friends with two pharisees, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimetheus. They sought truth, they were repentant.

The fact is that God hates unrighteousness. That is repeated often in the Bible. To water that fact down, as some who claim to be Christians do (I'm not saying you), is to deny those who hear our words the opportunity to see themselves as the sinners they are. And if they never see themselves as sinners, they never see the need for a savior. And if they don't see the need for a savior, they'll be lost forever.

Now, should we condemn people for their sins? No! As soon as they realize that they, like everyone else, are sinners, then we spring upon them the good news of God's grace and forgiveness via the cross.

 

[80sU2isBest]

"Cheating on his wife." She was in a PVS for years, and he moved on with another woman after he came to the conclusion that Terri wasn't coming back.

Then why didn't he divorce her at that point, and then move on? Could it be, perhaps, because he wanted the insurance money?

Is there any evidence that Michael Shiavo cheated on his wife prior to her entering the hospital and losing all consciousness for 15 years?.

That doesn't matter squat, melon. He took his vows to stand by her side, in sickness and in health. If she was still married to him when he impregnated another woman 3 times, he was cheating on her.

In fact, I think many people might empathize with his situation. Films and TV shows that have done fictionalized versions of people in comas for years and years on end almost always end up in a spouse that has moved on with another person. Thus, the "conflict" of what to do when the original spouse wakes up. In this case, however, there was no reasonable doubt: Terri Shiavo was never going to get better.
Melon

I don't think most people do empathize with him in this situation. I would think most people would be asking the same thing I do:

"If he wanted to move on, why didn't he divorce her like the parents wanted him to?"

 

[80sU2isBest]

Evidence? I believe it was around 1998 that Michael Shiavo started to petition the courts.

I don't think so. I'll find it tomorrow.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I agree with this, but that being said there are still huge differences in what this means. But there are differences on how "grace" is defined, is it truly mankind? Or just those that claim Christianity, and what does it mean to claim Christianity? See what I mean there, is a lot of gray that will never be defined universally.




You say it's in black and white, but the truth is, it's not. There's a lot of red in mine, which happens to be my favorite part. There are several different interpretations, people confuse the portions that are man's word and Christ's word all the time, and to be honest how do we know for 100% which scripts were included and which weren't?

There are many things that are not exactly open for interpretation. Many things' meanings are as clear as if I wrote "the sky is blue".

If you doubt that all parts of the Bible are the true word of God, on what basis do you believe that any of it is?

 

[BonosSaint]

I do not want to argue beliefs with you. I posted merely to note that the way "Christianity" is being hijacked for reasons other than following Christ is damaging to your religion and your religion deserves better than that.

But to answer your question, I have no idea whether the "red words" are authentic. I choose to believe they are. I am aware of the teachings of sin and salvation, the meaning of the Cross and the prophesies. I spent 14 years in a semi-fundamentalist church so have similar background and interpretation to you.

I never felt the teachings of Christ were warm and fuzzy. I think it is an immensely hard teaching. But judgment belongs to God, not man. Not to sound flip, but I think it is dangerous and against Christ's teachings when Christians spend more time worrying about other's sins than their own. And this vocal minority I keep ranting about spends more time carping about sin than offering the message of salvation.

 

[melon]

Then why didn't he divorce her at that point, and then move on? Could it be, perhaps, because he wanted the insurance money?

I don't presume to know what was going on inside his head. But to automatically presume it was for the insurance money is arrogant, at best. There are many people around the world, Christian and non-Christian alike, who thinks it would be horrible to be in such a state and believe it is the most humane to let her die.

That doesn't matter squat, melon. He took his vows to stand by her side, in sickness and in health. If she was still married to him when he impregnated another woman 3 times, he was cheating on her.

I'll leave that up to individual conscience. The fact remains that she would have been dead 15 years ago, had she not been kept alive by artificial means. If we're going to question morality, let's question the morality of feeding tubes and life support on people who have no hope of survival. I mean, Christianity believes in stuff like "Heaven" right?

I don't think most people do empathize with him in this situation. I would think most people would be asking the same thing I do:

"If he wanted to move on, why didn't he divorce her like the parents wanted him to?"

If he was Roman Catholic like Terri, technically speaking, divorce is not an option.

Secondly, if Michael believed that her parents were completely nuts, he perhaps didn't want to see her languish like that for even more decades.

Again, I do not presume to know what's going on inside his head. But I'm aware of how conservative Christians tend to "demonize" everything into neat-and-tidy "good" and "evil" categories to justify their opinions.

Let's put it this way:

If Michael Shiavo was an otherwise upright fundamentalist Christian minister who had remained single and celibate for 15 years and believed that it was still the right thing to unhook Terri from her feeding tube against her parents wishes, what would your opinion be?

Melon

 

[hiphop]

It's one of the saddest things I've seen happen to Christianity, to watch it descend from a really revolutionary message to a philosophy that no longer strives to be like Christ but lies content in the smug assumption that God is just like them--nationalistic, flagwaving, sexphobic, humorless, approving of aggression, disapproving of science, concerned with life only in the womb or in a vegetative state, wanting a whole of humanity that thinks alike. I guess I'd like a religion to that didn't demand anything of me except follow a few rules, attend a few prayer sessions and quote the Biblical text to support everything I am, while conveniently ignoring the text that challenges everything I'm not.

I think these vocal misanthropes are a minority. They gain their power by their voices and their aggressiveness. How often do they actually quote the words of Christ? Rarely, if ever. Very few of the "red words" bolster their position. I think most Christians either are the Sunday and holiday Christians, who actually don't think much about Christianity until they perceive a threat to it, or are part of a group of quietly practicing Christians who go about their business the way Jesus taught, who struggle with the issues, but make a sincere effort to live the message taught, humbled by how often they cannot achieve it.

The "red words" of Christianity are a powerful philosopy, simple to understand when they aren't being convoluted and hard to follow. They ask for a complete turnaround of human nature--to give instead of take, to forgive instead of seek revenge, to love strangers as we love ourselves. It is not a philosophy about sin. It is a philosophy about life. It is instruction on how to handle yourself in this world.

I respect the original intent of Christianity immensely. I respect many Christians who try to live by that intent.

But when someone uses Christianity as a weapon instead of a tool, I'm just not interested.

Yeah

 

[hiphop]

Really? Is that why many, if not most, of the organizations that feed and shelter the children of the world, such as Feed The Children, Compassion International and World Vision, are founded and run by Christians?

Many. And it is a good thing. But you will probably agree that most of the initiatives that feed the children of the world aren´t initiatives made up by the type of conservative Christians we are talking about. Indeed, one would wish they would turn an eye to helping the poor, when they seem to be more concerned about imposing their lifestyle on others.

 

[hiphop]

What they do is a particularly odious brand of blasphemy.

Exactly.

 

[hiphop]

To take anything out is like taking cherries form the Cherries Jubilee. The book of Revelations warns against taking anything out of the Word of God.

But many parts of the Bible were abandoned over the years. For example, in today´s Bible, there is no mentioning of Adam´s first wife, Lilith. Everyone knows the story of Adam and Eve, but few know the story of Lilith and Adam. Those parts were cleaned out in medieval age I think.

Historically, it often was a political power issue if and which parts were removed from the original Bible.

 

[hiphop]

And if they don't see the need for a savior, they'll be lost forever.

I disagree. I also don´t see any part of the Bible that supports your assumption (and I am only talking about this sentence, I agree with much of your posts).

Jesus will also save those who don´t see the need to be saved right now.

 

[BonosSaint]

Hi, hiphop.

80's, I'll leave the final word up to you as far as I'm concerned.
I use this forum to crystallize my own position on something and I did so. I don't discuss politics and religion at home and it is such a relief to realize I don't have anymore to say on either topic. It was nice to reread the "red words". It's been a while, so I thank you for that.

Good luck in your faith.

I've attached the Terri Schiavo timeline for you if you haven't found it yet. I don't have anything to say on that issue either, but I got bored so I googled.

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Back to my real world. Think I'll stick to music for a while. I don't usually argue music.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Not to sound flip, but I think it is dangerous and against Christ's teachings when Christians spend more time worrying about other's sins than their own. And this vocal minority I keep ranting about spends more time carping about sin than offering the message of salvation.

I agree with you. Christians do need to worry about their own sin. However, we are to tell people about sin and its consequences, so that they will find the way to Christ. But targeting specific individuals and their specific sin is not the way to do it. For instance, I have the same message for everyone, whether their sin is sexual sin, greed, hatred, etc. My message is simply - "Are you a sinner? Do you have a repentant attitude and want to be forgiven? If so, I can tell you how."

 

[80sU2isBest]

I'll leave that up to individual conscience. The fact remains that she would have been dead 15 years ago, had she not been kept alive by artificial means. If we're going to question morality, let's question the morality of feeding tubes and life support on people who have no hope of survival. I mean, Christianity believes in stuff like "Heaven" right?

melon, why do you consistently leave out the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her alive? We believed that it WASN'T a hopeless situation. We believed there WAS hope.

If he was Roman Catholic like Terri, technically speaking, divorce is not an option.

If he was Roman Catholic like Terri, cheating on his wife was even less of an option, but he took that option.

Secondly, if Michael believed that her parents were completely nuts, he perhaps didn't want to see her languish like that for even more decades.

Oh, because he loved his wife so much, right?

If Michael Shiavo was an otherwise upright fundamentalist Christian minister who had remained single and celibate for 15 years and believed that it was still the right thing to unhook Terri from her feeding tube against her parents wishes, what would your opinion be?

Melon

If I believed there was still hope, I would not want her feeding tube removed.

 

[80sU2isBest]

quote by 80sU2isBest: "And if they don't realize their need for a savior, they'll be lost forever."

I disagree. I also don´t see any part of the Bible that supports your assumption (and I am only talking about this sentence, I agree with much of your posts).

Jesus will also save those who don´t see the need to be saved right now.

No one can become a Christian without first realizing he/she is a sinner and seeing their need for a savior. That's part of becoming a Christian - admitting your sin and asking forgiveness for it.

Unless a person sees the need for a savior, he will not become a Christian. God doesn't force anyone. Give me a biblical example of anyone being saved against his own will.

 

[80sU2isBest]

But many parts of the Bible were abandoned over the years. For example, in today´s Bible, there is no mentioning of Adam´s first wife, Lilith. Everyone knows the story of Adam and Eve, but few know the story of Lilith and Adam. Those parts were cleaned out in medieval age I think.

Historically, it often was a political power issue if and which parts were removed from the original Bible.

Many books were left out because they couldn't be credibly verified.

 

[Rono]

. Christians do need to worry about their own sin. However, we are to tell people about sin and its consequences, so that they will find the way to Christ. But targeting specific individuals and their specific sin is not the way to do it. For instance, I have the same message for everyone, whether their sin is sexual sin, greed, hatred, etc. My message is simply - "Are you a sinner? Do you have a repentant attitude and want to be forgiven? If so, I can tell you how."

accept free will, we will stand trail ourself. Accept non believers, they have the right to make their own choice. I accept that you get horny by the thoughts of your government making laws that make christians happy and other people suffer.


You can give us all kinds of information you want and i will read and make my choice, if you want to push it through my throught by law, you only a dictator.

 

[80sU2isBest]

accept free will, we will stand trail ourself. Accept non believers, they have the right to make their own choice.

Where did I say that I dodn't accept non-believers? I can't force the decision to follow Christ on any one. But I have an obligation and a desire to tell people about Christ so that they might have eternal life.

If you don't like that, I really don't care. I sometimes receive a tiny bit of flack for witnessing about Christ, but it's nothing compared to Christians in China and other countries who are exceuted and killed for sharing their faith. But if someone should hear the message and be saved, even just one person, it's worth it.

Originally posted by Rono I accept that you get horny by the thoughts of your government making laws that make christians happy and other people suffer.

There was no need for that. That was a real jerky thing to say. When you say things like that, you may think it's "funny" or "cute", but I would almost guarantee that no one thinks its funny besides you and a very few others who pass out insult like candy. The rest of us respond to that kind of post by thinking "Grow Up."

 

[melon]

melon, why do you consistently leave out the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her alive? We believed that it WASN'T a hopeless situation. We believed there WAS hope.

Because you and many others were lead to believe there was hope by a subordinate hegemony that you identify with, to put it philosophically. I guess I can't blame you, really. These days, the messenger is more important than the message.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.

 

[anitram]

Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.

What about those of us, who, as scientists "chose" to believe those who said they were not because our educational backgrounds and work expertise lead us to agree with them?

Turns out we were right.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What about those of us, who, as scientists "chose" to believe those who said they were not because our educational backgrounds and work expertise lead us to agree with them?

Turns out we were right.

What "turned out to be right" doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I am speaking soley of the motivation of trying to keep the feeding tube attached, and Danforth's misrepresentation of those motives.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.

what's been breathtaking in this discussion is your refusal to listen to science, either before or after the physical death of Terri Schiavo.

all your scientific "there might have been hope" arguments have been revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking, just like the diagnosis via videotape you and Sen. Frist appear to be comfortable making. we now know her vision centers of the brain were dead, so she couldn't see a thing, not a baloon, not the face of her parents, nothing.

i suppose what's really going on here is that you've chosen to be manipulated, you've chosen to listen only to those who support what you want to know, and you've chosen to deamonize, through cheap innuendo and lame conspiracy theory, Michael Schiavo in the face of a complete and total vindication of his case.

it's not often that we get such a clear cut resolution to matters of faith vs. science. and this time, it is crystal clear: you people -- again, you said "we" -- were wrong.

the story ends.

let her body rest in peace.

 

[80sU2isBest]

what's been breathtaking in this discussion is your refusal to listen to science, either before or after the physical death of Terri Schiavo.

GOOD GRIEF, IRVINE!

I will say this AGAIN. I am, not talking about AFTER THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO at all. The entire point of my argument here was that Danforth made a misrepresentation of the motivation of those of us who wished the feeding tube to remain. He said it was for power reasons, and I said that is a misrepresentation, because for most of us, it was about life. Period. Now, there were indeed neuro-specialtists who said she was not a vegetable. I listened to those. Whether they were wrong or not HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION, as again, I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOTIVATION of people like me.

I have typed this in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS so that you will not be able to miss them. But I'm sure that won't help, because I have made these points over and over again, but you and melon keep talking about WHAT THE AUTOPSY REVEALED, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

all your scientific "there might have been hope" arguments have been revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking, just like the diagnosis via videotape you and Sen. Frist appear to be comfortable making. we now know her vision centers of the brain were dead, so she couldn't see a thing, not a baloon, not the face of her parents, nothing.

.

There you go again, talking about what was revealed AFTER SHE DIED. You said "we now know". Maybe so, but that wasn't available before she died. There was no certainty about the vision centers being dead BEFORE SHE DIED, and I don't even remember that anyone even speculated that they were, so once again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

i suppose what's really going on here is that you've chosen to be manipulated, you've chosen to listen only to those who support what you want to know.

No, what's going on here is that you and Melon REFUSE to address my argument which ONCE AGAIN, was that Danforth misrepresented the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her on the feeding tube.

And as far as "choosing whom to listen to", your side did the same thing. You chose to listen to the doctors that were on your side even though there were other specialists who disaagreed.

and you've chosen to deamonize, through cheap innuendo and lame conspiracy theory.

Demonize? I don't have to demonize him. He's done a good job of that with his own actions. Cheap innuendo? I made no innuendo. I said it plainly; he shacked up with and had three kids with another woman while still married to his wife. That is called adultery.

Lame conspiracy theory - are you talking about the insurance money theory? I'm not the only one who has said that. What other reason could he have possibly had for not divorcing her since he obviously didn't love her enough to stay by her side, but continued to seek the termination of her life? Go ahead, give me one plausible reason. And don't try that "no divorce/Catholicism" thing on me like melon did, because as I told him, adultery is against Roman Catholic beliefs also, but that didn't seem to bother him. If he wasn't going to stay by her isde until the end and remian faithful to her, he should have set her free by divorcing her. But no, he had to keep control, even though he was screwing another woman.

let her body rest in peace.

I didn't bring this subject up, Irvine. In fact, I haven't brought it up since she died. John Danforth's commentary, which was posted here, brought it up. Someone asked me what I thought, and I told him.

 

[anitram]

Now, there were indeed neuro-specialtists who said she was not a vegetable. I listened to those.

80s, with all due respect, why did you listen to them? They were on the fringes, they numbered a tiny, TINY minority to whom the vast majority of the field gave absolutely no credibility. So why listen to them? Because you wanted to agree with what they were saying rather than opening up your eyes to the possibility, that the vast majority of experts, with absolutely no motivations apart from offering their expertise (unlike say, Frist and DeLay, who in the end sounded not only incompetent medically, but liars as well) just may be correct in their assessment?

When you want to hear only what you want to hear, you can find any "expert" to justify it. But when the other 99% are telling you otherwise, perhaps it would be scientifically prudent to evaluate a little bit closer why it is that they all disagree with you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

80s, with all due respect, why did you listen to them? They were on the fringes, they numbered a tiny, TINY minority to whom the vast majority of the field gave absolutely no credibility. So why listen to them? Because you wanted to agree with what they were saying rather than opening up your eyes to the possibility, that the vast majority of experts, with absolutely no motivations apart from offering their expertise (unlike say, Frist and DeLay, who in the end sounded not only incompetent medically, but liars as well) just may be correct in their assessment?

When you want to hear only what you want to hear, you can find any "expert" to justify it. But when the other 99% are telling you otherwise, perhaps it would be scientifically prudent to evaluate a little bit closer why it is that they all disagree with you.

Did the 99% who disagreed with them ever actually spend time with Terri, or are they part of the big crowd of people who were never even in the same room with her?

 

[anitram]

Did the 99% who disagreed with them ever actually spend time with Terri,

You mean like the good Senator Frist did?