# Alfie Evans



## jmharris23 (Apr 27, 2018)

What’s your opinion on this? 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> What’s your opinion on this?
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/



It is heartbreaking. 
Natural rights are inherited fundamental rights that a person is born with and have existed long before States rights and legal rights. They are beyond the authority of the government.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> What’s your opinion on this?
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/



The necessity of Jesus's death becomes clearer.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2018)

Ive got a couple of opinions -
1. I find it kind of disgusting the author is using this situation to make the "God pitch". Blaming this child's death on a secular attitude while promoting a God who drowned far more kids than just one tells me what the author actually cares about. 
And its not the kid.
2. As a father I think I would be compelled to hunt down every individual responsible for this decision and have a very short discussion about the matter.


----------



## Israel (Apr 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive got a couple of opinions -
> 1. I find it kind of disgusting the author is using this situation to make the "God pitch". Blaming this child's death on a secular attitude while promoting a God who drowned far more kids than just one tells me what the author actually cares about.
> And its not the kid.
> 2. As a father I think I would be compelled to hunt down every individual responsible for this decision and have a very short discussion about the matter.



Yes. This God has eaten women and children, wives, husbands, Kings, and paupers and He has given each one  perfect time to find that with which they will find to reviling or repentance. 

He makes no apology to His creation for His creation...yet He has appeared in it...in time...to demonstrate His intent and purpose to any and all who can receive it.

Who can judge Him as unfair, or unjust in whatever disposition of what is His He cares to purpose?

To what court will one bring Him, to lay accusation? Do you say "but that is stacked for Him, and against me" but one can only say this with His permission in the creation. 

One can only respond with that claim if something in that creation has already spoken of a justice and fairness that one believes exceeds His. So...whence this notion of justice? Of righteousness? That is thought to be in excess of His own? Did it begin in the man...of His creation?

Go ahead, you wouldn't be the first man to find (or think he can) fault with God. For the love of Christ lay all your complaint, all your _excess_ of righteousness next to His for the weighing. 

Skin that smokewagon...and see what happens.

Present yourself as witness against Him, if you must. But if it's fairness you want, understand then, fairness must allow for the calling of His witness, the true and faithful One, then you will know, and it will be plain...

You may think I hereby recommend railing at God. Hardly...but what already rails is heard, no matter the cleverness in which it may seek to conceal it. All is coming to light as the light is shining. What finds _permission to be_ is _among_ all that is allowed. And allowance can make way for inheritance. And permission can make way for seeing purpose to a _thing._

Let every man speak truth with his neighbor.

And if one hates _that_ neighbor, even if that be the only truth of it...it cannot remain hidden.

I say he is a good neighbor. And so much of that learning has come as He has patiently bore my frequent complaint. To a seeing. Because in complaining, I left the door open to His response. I couldn't imagine Him...that just. But...it was my complaint that invited it.
I didn't like it then...but I would be a liar to you to deny He has a way of making friends...that is very very different than one could begin to imagine.


Open rebuke is better than hidden love.

And His rebuke...uncovers what was one hidden, but necessary. Repentance.

It is the kindness of God that leads us to repentance.  But who can stand his proving? Who will stay...in His love?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2018)

..............Parking Lot cheerleaders.............


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> Yes. This God has eaten women and children, wives, husbands, Kings, and paupers and He has given each one  perfect time to find that with which they will find to reviling or repentance.
> 
> He makes no apology to His creation for His creation...yet He has appeared in it...in time...to demonstrate His intent and purpose to any and all who can receive it.
> 
> ...





> Who can judge Him as unfair, or unjust in whatever disposition of what is His He cares to purpose?


Anybody whose personal morals over ride their worship of something that may or may not exist.


----------



## Israel (Apr 28, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Anybody whose personal morals over ride their worship of something that may or may not exist.



That's it? 
Things get clearer. 
It's the morals thing, and the contest of whose is considered superior?

What are morals? Seriously...what are they? What do we mean if, and when, we talk about them? (and you'll see if you care to, I don't usually enter that discussion)

Do we mean "sense of rightness"? Just the sense...with no judgment as to superiority? (Regardless of whether a man follows those or not?)

What man doesn't, then, if that be so, have them? Have you ever met a man who didn't/doesn't believe he knew what was "right"...at the very least to himself? Is there any man then...without "morals"? 

I have never, that is, met any who do not enter into some sort of judgment as to the rightness of themselves. And I have never (myself surely included, if not chiefest) met any who do not put a finger on the scale.

But, maybe that is not what you mean. Maybe you do not merely mean _sense of rightness_ applied to almost everything, applied against almost everything, by the man carrying such a _sense_ of rightness. 

Maybe you extend that beyond mere _sense of rightness_ to a practice. A practice. What _may be seen_ of the man that demonstrates to, and _what_ an observer would then, _or might_, call..._true of him_?

Is that what you mean?

You know these things. Who do you know, who do I know...that would not, at least say "Lying is not good"? or press it further "lying is wrong...evil...period"? 

Now, we must also admit that what a man_ says he embraces_ is one thing and what he does embrace (inwardly) not only may be two different things, but that the latter (the inward) is essentially impossible for anyone "else" to know (and may even be hidden to that man, himself!). So, do we not (even here) among ourselves seek to find a something beyond mere word to indicate "what's really going on inside that man who says to the "outer"... "Lying is wrong".

Why did he even say it? Does he _know_...lying is wrong? (Does he really _believe it_...or is he simply seeking to parade a sense of "morality"?)

So, we watch for consistency...don't we? We watch the speaker in his doing...looking...(with our_ own sense of rightness_ also _always_ at work) for things that either indicate consistency to word that _could _indicate the man is, at least in that, consistent...or...we discover some breaking of it...a thing performed that (to us) shows inconsistency...and we judge...this man doesn't know what he says. And we almost to a man (do we not) say that if the man's words are wrong (found inconsistent _by us)_ to his practice...the man is "wrong".


But we have a problem. It's that "always working " of our own sense of rightness. Our _own sense of rightness _we carry. (And I simply use lying as a _handy_ example) Obviously...the man who says "It is wrong to lie" has de facto caught us...if, and as, we continue to observe him. The proof of _that_ being caught...is in the continued observance. 

It's funny right? But how funny do you find it? 

How funny is it...really? This being caught?

The "you have nothing to say, so I ignore you" is belied. The "that man is absurd and doesn't deserve a response" is belied. It is belied in that... very _response_. Yes...our judgments will "come out"...our own sense of rightness will...come out. If we don't _ignore_ what we _declare_ is worthy of all ignoring...who then..."has" the discrepancy? Who then...in word...in practice...shows that _what they say_ they believe...is not at all consistent in their...practice?

So...might we conclude that man gets tripped up by his own sense of rightness? Is that a fair assessment? The inward approving of what is right (what every man amongst us has, and I say without fear of contradiction, a conviction to himself of a "more refined palate") is meaningless...when in practice it is manifestly shown to be no more than the most craven ...liar.


One _might even _be led to say...it were better for a man to say "I love lies, I lie all the time, I am an inveterate liar"...and be found consistent in that...except...how could anyone believe...man could _know himself_ thus? What man...if...admitting to be liar through and through, (ba11s to bone) could even know...he is a liar? Wouldn't the truth (if that) "I am liar" (if that so be the truth of that man) not be available to even make that statement? Where would it come from?

A liar could never know...of himself...he is one.

So...what can lying man do? Simply tell himself "I am not one."

And what then of this "inner morality" that he exalts (yet is denied in practice) this more_ refined palate_ _better morals _(all of Heaven laughs at me, _knowing_) that excuses its practice because "I must eat hamburger with the rest of these poor slobs, though I am prepared for better...for chateaubriand...who could find fault with me spitting out the lie of hamburger...after all, _we all do it_...see?"




How could that liar know..._above all_, he is only lying to himself, and all the blaming "on others" (and One very particular...Other) for being equipped with such a fine fine (superfine!) palate, yet is in this place that _seems_ all of hamburger? How unfair! 

All is simply too unfair (apparently) to such a "palate". Therefore...this must be the accident of the ages, of _all_ eternity, the ultimate glitch of what must ultimately be the final laugh of chaos...that (in its infinite resource of chaos) even so, ordered a palate and of such refinement, of such _epitome of taste _(in morality) exists. And so exists _as most pure and most singular of accident_ manifest in myself to the _perfection _of such perfect frustration.

I am a liar if I tell you I have had complaint with God..._at times._

"I would surely be good...(consistent in, and out) were it not for these other things...of lesser palate, that always demand I cook... hamburger! "they" provoke me to it! I could be...good...but "they" demand of me lie..."to go along, to get along"

Yes...it is not whether we desire, or even ever could that "our own" apple carts get upended. No man has even the power _to desire_ he be shown wrong. All, wrong. 

All he may come to say in any of it (and all hearers will judge, are pressed to the same inevitability of judgement...that all their own judgement may "come out" and be made plain to them) is that...precisely...it is _inevitable._

Each will _show_, can neither help but show, nor _escape from_ showing...the inevitable.

All our own applecarts, all that is of our palate, and we find...palatable... is presently being relentlessly pursued. To overturning. 

To him who has, more shall be given, but to him who has not, _even that which he thinks he has_, shall be taken from him.

I will tell you...what God knows of me. I am in fearful and most terrible dread of Him. And yet...He tells me to call Him...Father. How...dare I not?
But even this, I do not yet know...as I ought.

As to God...He alone is through and through true to, and in, His word. Who else has promised to appear in perfect judgment...and does?




Do you see and hear a fool singing? You may well be on your way, then, to receiving more. To having more. For you are agreeing...with God.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's it?
> Things get clearer.
> It's the morals thing, and the contest of whose is considered superior?
> 
> ...





> That's it?


Yep that's it. Pretty boring huh?


> It's the morals thing, and the contest of whose is considered superior?


I didn't imply anything about whose morals were superior.
I'm betting/guessing there are things that God has been said to have done that you would find immoral if done by someone other than God.
Your belief in God over rides your morality in that case.
So you asked -


> Who can judge Him as unfair, or unjust


And the (one) answer is people who's morality (should it differ) is NOT over ridden.
No mention of superior or better or good or bad.........
You know I break things down to its simplest form, don't complicate it


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep that's it. Pretty boring huh?
> 
> I didn't imply anything about whose morals were superior.
> I'm betting/guessing there are things that God has been said to have done that you would find immoral if done by someone other than God.
> ...



"Don't complicate it..."
Walt, 
K.I.S.S. &  Occams Razor are very effective for answers.

Lengthy answers that give explicit instructions or that keep a point with examples simplify things too.

But THAT stuff above....protesting too much, boasting too much, unable to keep a point.....is the definition of complicating things.


----------



## Israel (Apr 28, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Yep that's it. Pretty boring huh?
> 
> I didn't imply anything about whose morals were superior.
> I'm betting/guessing there are things that God has been said to have done that you would find immoral if done by someone other than God.
> ...


 
No, I didn't mean to imply boring or inconsequential in "that's it"...but rather that the expression is a necessary thing to a simplicity.

And this is where both problem...and solution is addressed.



> And the (one) answer is people who's morality (should it differ) is NOT over ridden.



Your morals (do we agree to at least in meaning..."a/or some sense of rightness"?) are what they are. I cannot dispute them (yours) anymore than I can deny that, to myself, there is also an "apparent set". So, at least in that sense we could find ourselves on common ground. And to concede then, as you say...it has nothing to do with superiority or contest then, I gladly acquiesce. I merely asked if that were an, or _the issue_.

But, that being said, you have raised (or perhaps you were only seeking to help me be clear in my thinking) the matter of, not only superior/inferior...but of good vs bad...morals.



> No mention of superior or better or _good or bad_...



And again, if you only said this as though to _help_ me..._as though _I were seeking to present a "good and bad" regarding morality, you have. 

But I believe it was a carefulness that didn't allow me to go there...into the realm of "god or bad morals". It appears self nullifying, or self contradictory. And to me, would be.

If (and I am keen to remember, you _have not_ agreed) that morals may be seen (my interpretation _only_ unless agreement is found) as a "sense of rightness" (and regardless of whether one is _perceived_ to act in accord with them), then it's a simple equation. Moral="a _sense_ of rightness". Or maybe better...derived from...that "sense of rightness'. That set of axioms derived...from...a "sense of rightness".

Whether a man _is seen_ or perceived in accord with what he claims here, is not the question, or matter...simply whether each man has this "to himself". A sense of rightness from which he extrapolates a set of "morals".

Hypocrites _may claim_ wonderful morals "don't lie", "don't steal", "don't lie in wait for your neighbor to do him harm" etc. Now...if these are "good things" (and again...we have not agreed) then they are made no less "good" by their apparent (to an observer) lack of practice by a seeming hypocritical speaker. 

Or, am I wrong...are they? Do we agree? I really don't know. Even if my utternace of their goodness condemns me as hypocrite due to lack of _specific performance_...am I still allowed to see them...as good?

We might say if (to me, again _only_) a man is so cynical as to say "no, they are not even "good" things...they mean nothing at all...as evidenced by having in themselves _no power_ to deliver the hypocrite expressing them...from their hypocrisy." In fact...they are, therefore bad things to say! 

Such a cynic _could_ further conclude (depending upon how deep his cynicism)..."in fact they are only and precisely expressed solely as cover...and serve no other purpose...except in service to a lie...and what serves a lie while seeking to appear as truth...is the very worst thing...of all!"

But, that could be a cynic...speaking. I will tell you where that leads if the cynic be not found himself a liar and hypocrite. Silence. It must. For _any word_ spoken (as he has concluded) contains with in it the implication the speaker bears _some _truth. But he has seen hypocrites seeking to express truth...and having concluded this is all and only in service to lie...what must he himself then...have to express...that is not "of lie"?
Or...does he foolishly imagine he of all men is sole "not hypocrite", and the one not condemning himself when he seeks to speak "a truth"? 

He might just as well come right out and say ALL his logic..."_all men_ are liars...and that's the TRUTH! except me! (of course!)" (As though this is not plainly seen...and encountered daily)

Ya gotta love cynics, I mean...what else can you possibly do with them?

But, I do run far afield.

As to..."good and bad". If _a_ moral or set thereof _can be_ described as "a sense of rightness"...we would have to judge whether this "thing of itself"...a _sense of rightness_ is itself...a good...or evil/bad thing.
(Some can throw up their hands here and simply say "no matter" this is such foolish talk) But they must realize then they exclude themselves from speaking of matters...right or wrong...good or evil. For if they cannot agree to a _sense of rightness_ as being a _real thing_ they have no part in the matter. 

And they _may be_ free to do this: "whmnjkghustlighnjkolimnotblgigertiy" or...something there-like. He is forcibly and legitimately recused from communication.

But this has still not addressed whether_ this thing_..."a sense of rightness" can be judged as either good or bad. Good or evil.

For if it is judged good, then there can be no "bad morals"...perhaps (OH! so very very...perhaps) the _lack of them_...but not "bad morals". 

And if a _sense of rightness_ that _sense of rightness_ is adjudged evil (truly) then man is forbidden, actually forbids himself in that judgment...from any and all communication.


Just think about it a moment if you can...or will. For all communication...ALL communication is established in agreement to what is "right" between any parties to that...communication.

There is...NOT metaphorically, but metaphysically, but metaphonetically...something real. A seeming metaphoric Rosetta Stone. But He...is real.

He is what _allows for man_ to have this...even his own "sense of rightness" and be/exist there...till He comes. His allowance is grace...as is His coming.

You may think me liar, fool, con artist and soft soap salesman, and I cannot tell you, you are mistaken.

But this I will, each man will have his own "sense of rightness" completely overturned and _over ridden_ even the very best of what he may think he possesses of more "refined palate" to the exceeding of the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.

That "sense of rightness" has only One place safe for it...returning it to Him who gave it by submission...or be found and displayed as one from whom even that is not immune to robbery...and left a mad and quite solitary...thing. There is a woe for those thinking this is their own to do with as they will. It can be taken and they be left...and found...as those calling evil good, and good, evil.

I know of a man who has been there, O! so briefly. And was forced to agreement...not by my morals, not by a "better sense", not by anything other than an unbreakable word spoken to whose depths was once not realized in its truth. He is  just a man who was forced to it. By the force of "it". Whether this man was in this as a result of faith, or lack of it...is not at all clear. Therefore this man is not quickly able of himself to know...who has faith...who does not.
But these words were translated to that man in all the depth of "not good" I am convinced that man, till that time...could bear. They were translated in word...to true...word.


"It is _not good_ for the man to be alone"

And there was no succor in that terror, no turning on a light...or reaching out to spouse upon that bed.
Only a reach in hope of relief to the only One knowing where that man was.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 29, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> What’s your opinion on this?
> 
> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/alfie-evans-case-americas-future/



What else can be expected when a society cuts all vertical moorings of morality.  The author nailed it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2018)

Here's a seemingly more objective, less editorial write up about Alfie's case:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained

Alfie's case is truly heart wrenching.  My belief has always been that the only natural right anybody has is to their own body and their own life.  As a parent, I feel that extends to my child as well, but only to a certain point.  

The main issue I see here is the role of Government.  Do we want laws that protect children from abusive parents?  I think so.  Like in the other thread:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=916737

the question comes up as to when should the Govt. (and I operate from the position that the Govt. ideally represents the democratically elected will of the people) be able to call parents abusive?  If they deny a child medical treatment on the grounds of religious belief can the govt. step in?  How about if they perform genital mutilation on their kids?  How about if they perform extreme corporal punishment on them?  These questions remain unanswered even by those who feel that they have some sort of superior vertical morality.

I brought up a thought experiment once in the Political Forum to illustrate a point about what I feel is my rightful place as a parent and what I believe are the rights of my child.  I asked, if me and my child were in the burning twin towers, would I have the right to take them with me and jump to our deaths?  If she's a baby, the answer seems obvious.  If she's a toddler the answer still seems obvious.  If she's old enough to ask "Do you want to go with Daddy?" it starts getting tricky.  What if she says no?  There's no time to argue with her.  Do I stay with her and we both burn to death in excruciating agony?  What does vertically moored morality have to say about that?  The point is that in some cases we all have to work it out with fear and trembling.  I'm charged with doing what I deem is best for my child.  But what if I'm wrong?

I think in Alfie's case the state had over stretched its authority but only because the parents were no longer beholden to it financially.  There were other agents willing to support the parents financially.  It seems a strange place to draw the line but it has to be considered.  How many times in the Political Forum have I seen the vertically moored moralists say "I'm sorry but if you don't have the money for treatment then you just have to die"?  Plenty of times.  It divides across the lines of those who have actually been in that situation and those that just like to moralize.

I also think that the parent's were not acting rationally.  Is it fair to expect them to at a time like that?  I would hope I would do better even though I'm only working with my secular morality and my rationality.  The fact that Alfie was completely brain dead and thus probably couldn't feel any pain is crucial to how I view this case.  The parents should have been allowed to throw as much money and effort into keeping him alive if that's what they needed to do to cope so long as it wasn't state resources and so long as Alfie _WASN"T SUFFERING_, which he wasn't.  

Where is compassion in all of this?  If the parents keep Alfie alive is that compassion?  If the state allows him to die is that compassion?  If he was euthanized is that compassion?  I only know what me and my conscience would have done if I had 5 minutes alone with my daughter if she were in Alfie's place.

What do you think, Mark?  How do you view all this through your perspective?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Here's a seemingly more objective, less editorial write up about Alfie's case:
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained
> 
> ...



Mostly I just think it's sad. Spiritually, I can't separate it from my belief in God and what I believe are the ethics related to that. 

Politically, I don't believe the government should be able to tell parents when they can and cannot make healthcare related decisions for their children, even if I don't agree with the decision.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> Mostly I just think it's sad. Spiritually, I can't separate it from my belief in God and what I believe are the ethics related to that.
> 
> Politically, I don't believe the government should be able to tell parents when they can and cannot make healthcare related decisions for their children, even if I don't agree with the decision.



Not ever?  So are you're saying that there shouldn't be any abuse laws?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 30, 2018)

Sure there should. I just wasn't and don't consider laws regarding healthcare and laws regarding abuse and safety as being that similiar in nature. 

It's one thing to tell a parent they can't beat the crap out of their kid. It's quite another to tell them that they can't take every measure available to keep them alive.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> Sure there should. I just wasn't and don't consider laws regarding healthcare and laws regarding abuse and safety as being that similiar in nature.
> 
> It's one thing to tell a parent they can't beat the crap out of their kid. It's quite another to tell them that they can't take every measure available to keep them alive.



I agree with you.  They should be able to keep a brain dead kid on life support for as long as they want or until their resources run out.

How about denying their kid care?  Can the govt. step in then?


----------



## jmharris23 (Apr 30, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I agree with you.  They should be able to keep a brain dead kid on life support for as long as they want or until their resources run out.
> 
> How about denying their kid care?  Can the govt. step in then?



That's where it gets stickier, isn't it? Personally I think people who don't get their kids medical care for religious reasons or because "jesus will heal them" are kinda quacky. 

That said, I have a hard time saying that it isn't their right to do so. 

I still think it is different than laws made to prevent parents from beating their kids to death or neglecting them while they smoke crack and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored around.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2018)

jmharris23 said:


> That's where it gets stickier, isn't it? Personally I think people who don't get their kids medical care for religious reasons or because "jesus will heal them" are kinda quacky.
> 
> That said, I have a hard time saying that it isn't their right to do so.
> 
> I still think it is different than laws made to prevent parents from beating their kids to death or neglecting them while they smoke crack and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored around.




GASP!!!!!!  You said a bad word!!!!

Just kidding.  It is kind of funny though, you being a moderator and all.

There are more sticky questions than cut and dry ones when it comes to laws about protecting kids.  I'm still forming my own ideas.  It doesn't seem any easier for a Christian.  How are you to regard the welfare of someone else's kids?  As an atheist I can only try to reason through it.  As a citizen of a community, in keeping with social agreements, I see the welfare of the children in the community as a concern of all the members of the community.  Still pretty vague, huh?  It's the principle I start with and then I have to hash out the details.  Talking to people like you helps that process.


----------

