May I take it as you are not very religious? Please I mean no offense, but it seems like you are far too willing to let the people decide over the question of religion and to put tyhe question of man vs God on the side of man. Actually I did say in the original post. I really don't know how to answer and glad I don't have to make the choice. And you know this how? If it was God's intent that man take children to the doctor, why weren't there doctors during the time of Cain and Able? Surley Able would have lived had there been a doctor there to cure him. Whether or not the law allows it isn't the question. The question is more of, "should there be a law"?
Everyone has an Opinion and I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer in this. But i do think that we cannot let our faith put the lives of our children or others in danger. That is just my HO.
Then it can be argued that you simply don't have a powerful enough faith in God. Which is fine, if that is your choice. But whether you put your faith in God or man, you are still utilizing your faith and that faith may put your child in danger.
Actually I am religious. I believe in the Lord and all his divine intervention. As I've stated before on here. My Mom was very religious and I was made to go to church always growing up. That's one of the reasons I have to stand up for the child in this case. We don't live in Heaven with God, so man has to decide. Clif, would you say that mans laws are unimportant? That we as a society should only obey God's laws? Where in God's law does it state to only pray and not seek medical help?
But isn't God everywhere? No, man's laws are important. But when man's laws and God's laws conflict, which one wins out over the other? Where in God's laws does it say to seek out doctors?
That's my whole point. It doesn't state either in the bible. It is up to the parents interpretation of the bible. With that being said, we can't except excuses of this nature, when interpretation is a matter of mental state, etc. We live in a society that has laws and it is up to each of us as individuals to follow them. I could understand if the parent was the one sick and choose not to seek medical help, then let them die because that was their own belief. The child had no choice in the matter. Anyway, I think that about sums up my thoughts on this one...
So then if the parents interpret the Bible to say that God wins out over doctor, then the parents can't be charged if the child dies. Then we're back to the suggestion that you don't really believe in God, and people who do are mentally unstable, etc. The child has no choice in life. It's up to the parents to make decisions. If the parents decide to put the child in one school over another, and the child doesn't get a scholarship, should the parents be held responsible for the poor decision?
Yes it is up to the parents to make the decisions on the well being of the child. I don't think a scholarship in the least compares with death. That would be like me letting my 16 yo drive drunk and go kill someone in a car accident. I would be held accountable for my negligence in that matter. Same difference, because I didn't do everything possible to stop my child from driving while drunk. Just like they didn't do everything possible to seek help for their daughter. Everything would have been prayer and medicine (which they were willfully blind of). NEGLIGENCE - The failure to use reasonable care. The doing of something which a reasonably prudent person would not do, or the failure to do something which a reasonably prudent person would do under like circumstances. A departure from what an ordinary reasonable member of the community would do in the same community. So I have to ask Clif, what community were they apart of that only dealt with Faith Healing? In the criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") element required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offence. It is defined as: careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant.
Fair enough. Ok, so your child is sick and you take him to a doctor. If your child dies, you should be held negligent because you failed to completely vet the doctor to make sure the doctor was completely capable, right? Once again you are relying on faith and that's ok because the one in whom your faith is intrusted is a human. The religious parents had just as much faith that God would heal their child, but their faith is in question because it was intrusted to God. I really don't know if I am explaining myself. My question, for those who really do believe in God, is why is it ok to put your faith in a man but may face negligence in putting your faith in God?
I get your questions. I've got to go...got a b-day bash to get to and I'm delivering the present...so later!
Good luck to the birthday person. When I was a kid my neighbour had a birthday on April 1. She hated it with every fibre of her being.
That's a difficult question to answer completely....... The parents overlooked the reality that God could have worked through someone else either directly or indirectly and provided treatment for the child, and maybe in time healing her when He saw fit. The parental negligence began when they demanded that God work in their time and in their own way. Aren't laws typically made to protect people from other people's actions or inactions......not to protect people from God's actions or "apparent" inactions.
She had a blast and was so suprised. Her DH got her a new Dodge Charger and I got to be the one to deliver it, after he gave her an april fools gift...hehe
She deserved it. She's one of the most grateful people I know, she never complains...she's my BFF!:lol:
Here is the latest on the parents of the girl they let die.....looks like they will be charged, deservingly so, IMO http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2806236/
