Negligent parents allow child to die, waiting for God to heal her

My point is that that is not your decision to make. Beyond that, has anyone substantiated the claim that this has even taken place? Further, does anyone here commenting know the circumstances under which it took place? Were you there? Does anyone here know the family? C'mon, you want to talk about intelligence, how about wisdom? Have the wisdom to realize patience is extremely lacking in this commentary as people are jumping rapidly to conclusions without any evidence, while others who are impressionable have their preceptions shaped by the thinly-veiled hatred of an ideology being masqueraded as compassion for a child.

"The more ignorant one is, the less one is aware of it." - Louis Pasteur

Ha, how ironic coming from liberals. =/

I must admit, I do not share very much with the post-modernists. I find their deconstructive beliefs to be kind of counter-productive, but I do have to give them credit that they did do a great deal to break absolutism's hold on philosophical thought.

As for the comment on monotheism, it is focused on a very specific ideology that can be taken from each of the "big three" but does not in any way encompass every aspect of their religious belief. Just think, Christianity alone is splintered into Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant. These three can then be deconstructed further into the seperate ideologies that are still debated today. All of these different aspects of Christianity stem from a religious conceptualization that had been developed under extreme prejudice for over three hundred years after the death of Jesus of Nazareth (whether you believe he is Christ the Savior, or not, you have to be a rather staunch skeptic to argue that the man did not exist at all and that he did not foster a spiritual/political revolution in the local populations.) How his beliefs were translated further alienates the concept of the ideologies that stemmed from him. The point being that your man Onfrey had found carefully chosen similarities between the religions to fit his concept that he had developed before understanding those religions and simply persued the validation of said concept.

Congrats RS57, way to miss the forest for the trees. Beyond that, would you mind showing me the case that set said precedent? As far as I know, legal competency is still a very hotly debated concept. Considering the legal right of a pre-birth child's right to life or an indigent person's right to die, but again, please don't deconstruct this statement line by line. The point is not that the child's death was not tragic, but that many of the comments on this topic have been thinly-veiled attacks at religion based upon unsubstantiated claims on a blog. We can throw words at each other or we can communicate, but that requires at least two people to transfer the actual concepts they are trying to convey. Something impossible to do to absolute perfection, but we can try our best right?

Did you read the rest of the post? Did you ignore it or was it simply just not possible for you to process it? I'm sorry, it isn't your fault that I cannot communicate my thoughts to you in a less cryptic way. I suppose it is my own shortcoming.

Because arrogance can be conveyed so well through written discourse. Would that be in reference to my apology in my inability to convey my point? If my apology was insufficient for you then please explain to me how I could have better phrased it. If I had meant to say what I had said, I would have noted my own sarcasm. By the way, to validate that, the first statement of this post was to be sarcastic. Congratulations again, not only did you continue to expound on the 'trees' of my commentary, unfetted by my attempts to explain that you were missing the point of what I was saying, you then try to tell me that the words I have written somehow conveyed a condescending tone. You realize the perception you read the words I have written from molds the insinuations you develop from them. Anything beyond my own words is completely created by you.

As far as the credibility of the source, no I was not aware, which is why I asked. As far as the apology, I'm sorry you came to such a pessimistic conclusion. If you find this apology to be insincere as well, I don't know what further I could do for you. Perhaps it is simply the way I write that you find so conflicting with your own personality. I know know what more I can do to convince you otherwise, but I guess it really doesn't matter. We are only holding some random dialogue between two specters of the internet on a jazzed up message board after all. Good luck to you in the rest of your discussions.

A word in an article is going to bias your opinion?

I hate to tell you this, but if your mind wasn't open enough to read past that then it's not open enough for you to make your own decision.

Saladin, your profound insight on another commentor's entire mindset based on one statement must mean you are some kind of genius or psychic or something. Please teach me your ways... *cough* sarcasm *cough*