Good morning Fanta, I see you're still refusing to give direct answers to direct questions. I was hoping to see better today, I won't bother posting any more questions. Have a nice day.

Is that a question?

One day, all the Christians are going to get beamed up like on Star Trek to a spaceshipcity in outerspace. Then a supervillain (that can hypnotize people), is going to take over the world for seven years. This supervillain will get all the people in the world injected with microchips and then get all the worlds armies to attack Israel. Then Jesus will land in a giant spaceshipcity on top of Jerusalem smashing it ,and then all the christians will get out and kill all the unbelievers and then everyone will live happily ever after for 1000 years or so.

Here's where you can find it in scripture. The parts of it that can actually be found in scripture that is.You have to read the bible this way to come up with this story Pay close attention,you have to read it in this order to get the story right






1. Turn to Ezekiel 38 & 39. Don't read the first 37 chapters of Ezekiel, they don't matter. And don't read Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 -- they don't matter either. You're supposed to start reading Ezekiel at Chapter 38. That's obviously why it's Chapter 38.

2. Turn from Ezekiel 39 to 1 Thessalonians 4:16, being very careful not to read verses 13 and 14 of this chapter. (Those verses introduce the section that follows as being about death, hope and grieving and you're going to have to try, instead, to read this section as though it is about the disappearance of all of the earth's children, which it doesn't actually mention.) Anyway, read on through the 11th verse of the following chapter and then jump to the obvious next passage in the plainest, most literal and logical reading of the Bible ...

3. Revelation Chapter 11. Don't read the first 10 chapters of Revelation -- not yet. First finish Chapter 11, then turn to ...

4. Revelation 6:1-2. Don't read the third verse yet, because first you need to turn to ...


5. The ninth chapter of Daniel. Skip the first 19 verses and start with Daniel 9:20.


There are a lot of people that actually believe this

NOOOooo,,,

LMAO

Nope, wouldn't waste my time typing one.

That;s probably best since you fail to accept any answer that doesn't conform to your sensitivities!

You seem content with making these personal quibbles instead!

Not hardly. I asked you questions repeatedly yesterday and every time you subverted the question. I finally made a very simple yes or no question conforming to all your little BS excuses for not answering and you simply ignored the question. In the other thread where you requested that I send you a link via email to prove my point (since I felt the link could be me booted from the site if I posted it publically). I met that request and you refused to even open the email. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall only the brick wall often makes more sense.

I concur.

again....it's hard to be clear cut on where to draw the line...like the examples given..YES the government needs to speak up for the children. as far as the OP...the judge gave them a chance to do something, then the courts would do something. so in this case...I think it was fair

I don't think Fanta agrees with you on that, but he won't say.

I've asked in every way I know how if he thinks there is some point at which a childs physical welfare takes precident over a parents religious beliefs.

ehhhh whatcha gonna do. I know the government can go overboard with over stepping their boundaries but in some cases...someone needs to fight for the little ones

I tend to agree it's just how to establish the limit that's the question. I will note that such cases have been being fought ever since I can remember and each time it seems it's a huge question. In general I see that as a good thing, as it helps keep the gov from overstepping their bounds. Unfortunately it also means that some kids are not helped soon enough to save their lives.

Davey...sadly but true.

As used by U.S. courts, the term neglect denotes the failure of responsibility on the part of defendants or attorneys. Neglect is related to the concept of Negligence, but its rather limited use in the law sets it apart from that much broader doctrine. Generally speaking, neglect means omitting or failing to do something that is required. Neglect is often related to timeliness: examples include the failure of a taxpayer to file a timely income tax return and the failure of an attorney to meet a deadline for filing an appeal. In determining whether to rule against a party, courts consider the reason for the neglect, which can range from unavoidable accidents and hindrances to the less acceptable extreme of carelessness and indifference to duty.

now that could be subjective....which is why IMO it's not black and white

again if it can not be proven they are not living by their religion that they are using as a basis for their objection to said treatment

then their religious freedom as given by the constitution out ranks any busy bodied person that is trying to but in

Nice to see you have the balls to actually answer a simple question with a simple answer. While I do have serious conflicted feelings on the issue I'm still of a mind that there are times when a religious belief is going to cause death it may be appropriate to step in. IMO there should atleast be some allowance for the wishes of the child in cases of life and death.

I think its great, I wish all the religious would do the same.

Then natural selection would kick in and we wouldn't have to worry about this after enough generations went by.

You think science is evil, or of the debil, that's great don't use the cures.

I am all for this, just make sure its what the kid wants. Tell him point blank your chance of death is 95% and let him sign the waiver along with the parents.

I still think religion can produce ignorance