Well said.

found that those who attend services at least once a week were 35 per cent more likely to live longer

That makes no sense to me.

Shouldn't that be simply "more likely to live longer," assuming that the statistical data are correct?

The secret to long life is to accept scientific medicine, agriculture and public health measures.

A hundred years ago, everybody went to church and the average age at death was about 45.

Today, half of us never go to church and most of us are past 70 when we die.

Harry:

That's all just hygeine.

Seems hygiene beats going to church.

Jeff:

Even within the community that's experienced improved health due to hygeine the church-going do better. The best bet is to wash and believe.

Thanks, but I'll take my chances.

No you don't.

Well, if by "believe" you mean I believe all organized religions are made from whole cloth, then you are right.

But I doubt that is what you mean.

No, I mean your beliefs are merely reactionary.

It doesn't matter what you mean. It was my statement, what I meant by it is what counts.

I don't believe in anything like the sense the article mentions.

Rather than bear false witness, I'll take my chances.

Jeff;

No, what you feel is what counts. Your atheism is mere lashing out at the Father.

OJ:

I'll take no instruction from you about what I feel, thank you very much.

then you'll not get well.

OJ:

Doing, fine, thanks. And when it comes to hubris, far healthier than you.

For the record, and you should know this, I am an areligious agnostic, not an atheist.

My areligiousness bears no resemblance to your melodramatic, and arrogantly phrased, "mere lashing out at the Father," Rather, it is nothing more than a simple disinclination to participate in empty exercises.

As I said with respect to the article: I'll take my chances.

I'm doing just fine, thank you very much. Especially in comparison with your hubris.

For the record, and you should know this, I am an areligious agnostic. What you call "... mere lashing out ..." is nothing other than being disinclined to participate in empty exercises.

Also, for the record, the article, and my comment, referred to church attendance. I'll take my chances.

Ah, but the point of the story is that the exercise is anything but empty. You've mentioned often how little regard you have for life, including your own, but we value it, which is why we seek to church you.

OJ:

My point is that for me to engage in such an exercise would be both empty and sinful, since bearing false witness is supposedly high on the hit parade of bad things.

I racked my brain, but was unable to conjur up even one example of where I stated how little regard I have for life. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.

Going to church isn't bearing false witness.

The whole shtick about you and your wife killing each other at the first hint of expense or inconvenience and your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero--not to mention your eager support for such practices generally--reflects a profound disregard for life, not least your own.

OJ:

Please provide direct quotes to substantiate those statements. If you can't, I really prefer you stop making them, as they are quite wrong.

Going to church as a non-believer is, if I am right, a waste of time; or, if I am wrong, a deliberate lie to a Supreme Being who will no better.

Never mind that failing to have the strength of ones convictions is scarcely something to admire.

Jeff:

Go to any euthanasia post and you'll find your comments about your murder/suicide pact with your wife.

God won't mind a lost sheep coming looking for Him.

OJ:

I have. Nothing I have ever written bears even the slightest resemblance to what you have alleged.

Now, if you can produce a direct quote that proves my memory faulty, then I will be happy to admit my mistake.

Otherwise, as I suggested above, please stop mischaracterizing my statements.

An apology would be nice, too.

Go to any euthanasia post and you'll find your comments about your murder/suicide pact with your wife.

I did. I am not in the business of proving negatives.

In stating

The whole shtick about you and your wife killing each other at the first hint of expense or inconvenience and your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero--not to mention your eager support for such practices generally--reflects a profound disregard for life, not least your own.

you either made a mistake--forgivable, considering how much you write--or posed a knowing lie.

Unless, of course, you can quote me directly to show I am wrong, in which case I will humbly apologize.

Which is it?

Look at just about any post on euthanasia in the archives and you'll find yourself praising it generally and citing your own specific pact.

OJ:

I'm not your research department. You made the charge, you back it up by providing just one such quote. A very simple task that would take less time--if their is any truth behind what you have said--than your evasive quibbling has done so far.

Your inability to do so speaks volumes, none of them good.

You care. I don't.

It's entirely typical of the seciulasrist to insist on the rightness of his amorality but then be repelled by how they appear in the cold light of day.

OJ:

I care because you asserted I said something bearing absolutely no resemblance to anything I have ever written.

This discussion has nothing to do with my morality, but rather your repeated willingness to bear false witness.

Unless, of course, I am remembering incorrectly. Since I can't find anything to relieve my faulty memory in this regard, I am counting on you to do so, inasmuch as you have apparently have the definitive quote at hand.

Which is it? Are you a either someone loath to admit their own mistake, or a liar?

Alternatively, of course, I am perfectly willing to apologize if you can demonstrate there is a need for me to do so.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

Stop equivocating.

The whole shtick about you and your wife killing each other at the first hint of expense or inconvenience and your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero--not to mention your eager support for such practices generally--reflects a profound disregard for life, not least your own.

This isn't the first time I've informed you about you about this--your characterization is a strawman of the very worst kind.

Alternatively, since I have said you are wrong, it is up to you to provide the substantiating quotes.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

My quotes are out there. Pose them next to your statement and let's see if they track.

I'm saying they don't. Either demonstrate that they do, or knock it off.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

Stop equivocating. That isn't the issue. You made some emphatic assertions about what my stated positions on these issues are.

I'm telling you that if you put my actual statements against your assertions, they will bear no resemblance.

Either admit your mistake, apologize, and refrain from doing so again, or prove me wrong.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

Your characterization is so far astray from anything I have said as to constitute an outright lie.

Unless, of course, you can stop your equivocating long enough to refute my assertion.

Until then, I am not about to discuss the subject with you any further.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

It isn't what I believe that is at issue here, but your characterization of my beliefs.

At the very least you need to substantiate:

at the first hint of expense or inconvenience

your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero

your eager support for such practices

Produce quotes to back up those characterizations--put them against my exact words.

Because if you can't, and your so far singular inability to do so speaks volumes, then you are engaging in libel, which I certainly will never dignify with a reply.

Is that all this is about, "desire" and "eager"?

OJ:

What this is all about is ethical and intellectual integrity.

When you characterize my position on something, you are obligated to do so as accurately as you can.

In using terms such as "...at the first hint of expense ...", "... my stated desire ..." or "... eager support ..." you conveyed terms as mine I never used.

As a mistake, that is understandable.

But it wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate. I know it, and you know it. Such a thing in the course of a discussion betrays a casual disregard of intellectual integrity.

What is worse, though, is the ethical failing. You are commanded to never bear false witness, yet you have done so here repeatedly, in the absence of temptation or duress. If your find it so easy to compromise your ethical code over such a thing, what possible trust should anybody put in your truthfulness when it comes to something big.

Finally, you have either ignored, or neglected, unintended consequences. The site meter at the bottom of my screen shows 62,229. This is a public forum. That means people who know me might visit this site, and might read your gross mischaracterization of my words, my ideas as being the things themselves.

I should rephrase that last sentence a little bit. A half dozen people over the last year have tracked me down by Google--this is what pops up first.

I am perfectly happy to justify, or apologize, for things I have in fact said. But I find your casual willingness to put me in a position of explaining what I have never said offensive and irresponsible.

So you haven't agreed to kill your wife and vice versa? And no longer support euthanasia and abortion? Because for several years now you've vociferously argued for such things and used your own intentions to kill and be killed as an example.

OJ:

It isn't what I think that is at issue here, but rather your characterization of it.

Since you haven't shown your use of the terms "...at the first hint of expense ...", "... my stated desire ..." or "... eager support ...", I can only conclude you are a liar.

Congratulations.

but you an advocate of murder. i can't congratulate you for that.

I didn't ask you to; obtaining your approval hasn't been a particular consideration.

But regardless of your opinion about my actual position on this, that is no reason to portray a flagrant lie.

Is intentional libel appropriate for a member of the Remnant?

A reasoned discussion of what I actually believe, and the consequences could potentially change my attitude--one thread did just that, to a certain extent (No, I'm not going to say which, or how; I don't trust you anymore.)

But with your flagrantly offensive display above, you have only succeeded in virtually draining a considerable reserve of goodwill I have had towards you and your work here.

Like I said, Congratulations.

Jeff;

Arguing that you should have a right to kill your wife and children in certain circumstances where you deem it fit, and doing so over and over again, is necessarily a quest for approval.

The fact remains, I think it evil.

I suspect you do too, since you get so exercised whenever you see it laid out in terms other than those you comfort yourself with.

Your goodwill or lack of same for me matters not one whit. It's your will to kill that matters.

OJ:

My arguments, as they are stated, not as you sacrificed any notion of integrity in portraying, had nothing to do with gaining approval, but rather to demonstrate how a complex problem may lead to different solutions. Further, your simplistic notions carry their own complications that don't go away simply because you hold them.

What exercises me is lying in general, and in particular when the lie steals my thoughts and makes them something else. As a separate example, entirely removed from this subject, you, in slavish deference to Paul Vitz, and apropos of nothing, stated I hate my father. I got just as exercised then as now, for precisely the same reasons.

How do you know my father doesn't read this blog? Did you even stop for one second to consider the damage your thoughtless lie could conceivably inflict?

You term my acquiescence to my wife's clearly stated desires murder. Others, myself included, view the conditions upon which that desire is based--not ones you invent out of whole cloth--simply allowing nature to take its course.

Which is the problem. Your lie attributes to me a course of action I would not take, and removes from consideration the course of action unavoidable absent medical technology, a fruit of rational technology. Never mind the ironty, who is closer to God's plan, you or me?

Never mind ironic, your position is hypocritical. On the one hand you advocate continued, scientistic, measures to keep the body alive long after the brain has gone. Yet, on the other, you are perfectly OK with allowing a Jehovah's Witness to commit suicide rather than be forced to accept a life saving transfusion.

What if that JW was your wife?

As for your other lies, they are purely that. You can look low and high, and never find one instance where I said what I would do in the event of a child with problems in utero.

The intellectual benefit I have derived from your blog is substantial. My wife who, like most women, could scarcely care less for this sort of thing has on occasion read over my shoulder.

Two things struck her: the intellect and thought behind the comments, and the virtually complete absence of slanging matches.

I have noted that distinction also.

Unfortunately, your flagrant lying not only contravenes your purpose--when was the last time pissing someone off made them likely to seriously consider someone else's point of view. It also means I have to filter every thing I type through the suspicion that sometime you will twist it beyond recognition and portray it as mine.

That is an ethical failure in action far worse than anything I have done--or stand any other than the tiniest chance of doing--on this subject.

Jeff:

They're not complex problems--that's what folks say to justify immoral choices.

Jehovahs refuse treatment. You and your wife could do the same and no one would have much objection. Euthanasia is quite different. It is murder, not suicide.

Your repulsion at seeing your own views characterized is the first step towards change.

OJ:

1) Refusing treatment is all I have ever discussed.

2) Suicide is murder; that the victim and the perpetrator are one and the same doesn't change that. But since you put so much faith in the Catholic Church's dictates, perhaps you can use them to explain how I got that wrong.

3) Oh, but they are complex problems, since the basis for solution is far from clear. One person's declined treatment is another's murder, and likely another's irrelevance since they would have died by their own refusal far earlier. My wife declines further treatment under different conditions than you would choose, which is different still from the JW. Absent the simplistic approach of just imposing your decision upon her, how is achieving a solution simple?

4) But let's assume for the moment you are absolutely correct. Please explain to me how that justifies your blatant lies. I'd love to hear how sparking significant antagonism in someone you hope to convert to your point of view is not an act against your interests. Oh, and I'd love to learn how bearing false witness is a sin unless you think it is OK.

The most noble men I have known were the ones I served with in the military; their nobility stemmed from their uncommonly high regard for personal integrity.

You would not have passed their muster.

(1) No, you've asserted a right to end treatment.

(2) Yes, but suicide enbdangers your own soul. Requiriung someone murder you endangers theirs.

(3) She can end her own life but can't have others do so.

(4) They aren't lies, just your views.

OJ:

Pretty rich from someone who advocates stoning gays to death, burning witches, and the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons.

Your characterization of my views are lies thoroughoing lies, as demonstrated by your inability to back them up.

The most noble men I have known were the ones I served with in the military; their nobility stemmed from their uncommonly high regard for personal integrity.

You would not have passed their muster.

You don't pass mine, either.

I have a rule about carrying on conversations with unrepentant liars; I regret not having adhered to it earlier.

Yes, we do all those things for the exact same reason that we mustn't prey on the ill and unborn nor require that others murder us.

BTW:

Here's just one post where you not only claim a right to murder a child with Down Syndrome (including your decision to kill your own, in the event) but suggest it might be immoral to bear the child.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/008430.html

Thank you for proving my point. This is precisely the exchange I hoped you would bring up.

Here is what I said:

The distribution of Down's is random for any given age bracket.

And Down's certainly doesn't select for morally compromised secularists.

Which, on average, means nearly 9 out of 10 who say they would never do such a thing would find themselves hypocrites come the actual event.

Which is more moral? Bringing the Down's child into the world, or one without Down's?

The decision isn't a both, it is an either/or.

To you:
That was a pure question, not a statement, or even a statement masquerading as a question.

David asked:
However, what could possibly be immoral about not aborting a child with Down's syndrome?

Nothing. But that doesn't make aborting it immoral, either.

My wife was 35 when she had our first child. We agonized over the prospect, and came to a decision. I have no idea whether we would have acted on it in the actual event.

These are a connected series of statements. You may quibble with my choice of words, but the second emphasized sentence is clearly related to my question and David's response. I was clearly looking to others for an answer, and David's response was not one.

Hence my rejoinder.

And my final statement says absolutely nothing about what my wife and I had decided to do in the event of Down's.

You cannot possibly read the entirety of what I said here and have any idea what I advocate.

There are two reasons for this:

1. I really wanted some answers, and took significant pains to avoid interjecting my feelings on the subject.

2. I was well aware by this time of your propensity to twist what others have said well beyond any meaning they had intended or expressed. I thought with sufficient care, you wouldn't be able to later spew some attribution to me distorted beyond any recognition.

I wasn't carefuel enough, because from that you concocted this:

your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero

Stated? Even given you unparalleled ability to abuse word meaning, I defy you to find the sequence of words I wrote that even remotely approximate your characterization.

That is what I mean by your being a liar. Whether through willfully disregarding syntax, meaning, and context, or some form of brain damage that prevents you recognizing them, you have perpetrated a lie.

It was bad enough the first time I brought this up. To repeat it is appalling.

Heck, I forgot your most recent statement.

... you not only claim a right to murder a child with Down Syndrome (including your decision to kill your own, in the event) but suggest it might be immoral to bear the child.

Since I went to the effort of coalescing my entire exchange on the subject, I am sure you will be able to provide my word sequences that substantiate:

... claim a right to murder a child with Down Syndrome ...

... your decision to kill your own, in the event

... suggest it might be immoral to bear the child.

The last one might be tricky for you, since you must take into account the entire preceding exchange.

No more prevarication. It is time for you to stand and deliver.

If you answer an either/or you've chosen your position.

But I didn't answer that, did I?

Since I went to the effort of coalescing my entire exchange on the subject, I am sure you will be able to provide my word sequences substantiating the accuracy of your characterization.

Now is not the time for equivocation, prevarication, or guibbling. If you have a shred of integrity, you will either directly substantiate what you said, or apologize.

Which is more moral? Bringing the Down's child into the world, or one without Down's?

The decision isn't a both, it is an either/or.

However, what could possibly be immoral about not aborting a child with Down's syndrome?

Nothing. But that doesn't make aborting it immoral, either.

My wife was 35 when she had our first child. We agonized over the prospect, and came to a decision. I have no idea whether we would have acted on it in the actual event.

You pose a question, which you say is either/or. You acknowledge that having the child is moral, which makes murdering it immoral. You say your wife and you had decided what you'd do, but don't know if you could have followed through on the act.

That's all self-explanatory, even if it looks ugly to you now.

BTW: Had one of our kids had a serious defect that was identified in utero I might well have killed him too. But I'd not try to conive at the notion I'd acted morally.

And that's why the life of another shouldn't be left in our hands. We'll generally do what's expedient, not what's right.

Huh?

Do you even read any of this?

First off, emphasized text is David's question. Surely I can't be blamed for that.

Secondly, you must have noted the double negative, and my agreement that there is nothing immoral about NOT aborting a Down's child.

In case you have trouble with double negatives, I am agreeing with David it is moral to keep the child.

Your ability to equivocate far surpasses anything I have ever seen. I have asked you a couple simple, direct, questions. Don't you think it is about time you answered them?

And moral to murder him if you don't want the burden?

What does it take to get you to answer a direct question?

Using my words, in sequence, how do you justify the following?

... your stated desire to murder your kids if they'd been problems in utero ...

... claim a right to murder a child with Down Syndrome ...

... your decision to kill your own, in the event

... suggest it might be immoral to bear the child.

This And moral to murder him if you don't want the burden? does not constitute an answer.

What's the question?