Remember, you are in the 21st century. ... A.D., not B.C.!!
As far as I'm concerned, that Andrea Yates shouldn't take the responsibility for knowingly drowning her kids, mental state notwithstanding, the jury is still out on that one.
She knew what she was doing as far as the actions were concerned; ie., she knew that she was killing them by drowning them. That alone keeps me from jumping on the 'poor Andrea. She didn't realize what she was doing' bandwagon. (Oh, did or did not the defense bring up their own expert psychiatric witness clearly showing that Andrea was insane and couldn't understand her actions?)
This is exactly why the insanity defense is very difficult to use in trials like this. It should and ought to be so.
But like I said, the jury is still out, ... so they should have a new trial, *sans* the 'creative' expert witness from Law and Order.
My dear excie, I totally agree with you, I would not have been able to live if something like that happened to my kids and even more if it was me that did it!!!!!
I can't believe this! This person murders her own kids, 5 of them, and we're defending her.
quote: I see Andrea Yates more as a victim than anything else. How could her family and husband not know how sick she was? Some one that ill, that delusional---surely it was noticable, if anyone was paying attention.
I see VPW as more of a victim than anything else. How could his family and wife not know how sick he was? Someone that ill, that delusional---surely it was noticeable, if anyone was paying attention.
quote: The husband on the other hand KNEW she was unstable KNEW she struggled to the degree she did YET continued to demand she have more children. Continued to tell her God will judge her and heal her etc. and that she was weak and condemed her.
Mrs. VP on the other hand KNEW he was unstable KNEW he struggled to the degree he did YET continued to keep his actions a secret. Continued to believe that somehow it was OK with God and that he was weak and sympathized with him.
quote:he set up the crime in my opinon. He had his mother stay with her knowing full well how very very ill she was after the birth of her last child...the Drs. warned them and she got worse with every pregnancy not better. He was the one insisting she go off the medicine to have another child to nurse another child.
Mrs. VP set up the sexual abuse in my opinion. She let him get that motorcoach knowing full well how very very ill he was. She couldn't put out anymore after that surgery. She should've pimped FOR him instead of trusting those strangers......etc.
Johniam--I guess you have never known someone who was mentally ill? Someone you cared about, someone who's entire future and life took an awful turn that they could not control?
My brother was sane as a child. He was bright and funny, had lots of friends and interests, he wanted to be an oceanographer. He got good grades, was in scouts, loved to hike and bike ride. He made money selling nightcrawlers and raising cucumbers. He had all the Hardy Boys books.
In early adolesence he began having delusions(parents caught him walking through the dark house with a hunting knife once--thinking there was an intruder), which my parents wrote off as too much imagination. In later teens--well, must be the hippy influence. But he could act and talk sane enough--he knew to keep the crazy stuff to himself. But sometimes he would confide things to my brother... He also sustained a head injury at age 22, and things got much worse after that.
In his late twenties he disappeared for almost a year, and was found living in an abandoned car. He crashed a bank board of trustee meeting, sure he was on the board. He was filthy, had been panhandling for months. My father was called and flew down to that city, cleaned him up and took him home, where he has lived since then.
Through the years there have been many crisis times, odd disapearances, police dragging him home from some wild stunt etc. We live in a small town, he is well known as the local crazy guy, people know to call my sister or brother or I if he gets out of control. He did take medication but quit when my mother got sick.
When his delusions reached the point that my sister and I could not be alone with him(he thought we were burglers), following my parent's death, we had to get him into a hospital(he would not voluntarily commit.)
I'm sure you would write my brother off as a possessed creep who so deserved his ugly, insane life. Must be some wicked choice he made at 13 or so, right? That was TWI's attitude.
But I remember the boy he was, fun, busy, and full of ideas and plans and hopes. I saw my parents give him the best life they could. In many ways, it is like that boy died. They could have shut him up in a hospital, or left him on the streets.
I'm glad none of them got involved with the Way.
I can't help but think that Andrea Yates did not have loved ones looking out for her, who knows why?
You really think VPW had a mental illness of this severity? Really?
Point 1: VPW is in no way comparable to one who is/has been clinicly proven (note the emphasis) to be mentally insane or delusional. That co**s***er deserves not even a smidgeon of that kind of regard, Johniam.
Point 2: Bramble, despite all of your brother's suffering, has he ever killed some kids, *knew* that he was killing them, had a pretty good idea that killing was morally and biblically wrong, and would react like Yates did when she was told that her conviction was overturned, if he was in her shoes?
I don't believe so.
Mental illness on Yates part? a pretty strong maybe if not yes. But, she had enough awareness to realize what she was doing (KILLING the children), and the consequenses thereof.
Also note, that _nowhere_ in the overturning ruling was her mental state, nor how it affected her judgement ever addressed. Nowhere.
I knew my brother was very ill long before my children were born, he was never alone with them or even unobserved, like in a room with a closed door.
We did have an incident where he threatened my sister with a knife, one of the burgler incidents--that is why he is in a hospital now. Yes, he knew he had the knife and was threatening to use it on a burgler who had broken into his house. He was not aware it was my sister. And it didn't bother him, he didn't apologise or acknowledge it even happened.
Immediatly afterward, my brother, who was with her, talked to him for a while, he snapped out of it and asked my sister how her son's football game went. Yes it was weird and creepy.
We are not sure how well his memory works when he is delusional or hallucinating. His thoughts are not normal, neither is his memory. He is insane.
He is unpredictable.
Mentally ill people need treatment. Some mentally ill people need treatment in a facility for most or all of their lives. I think that is where Andrea Yates should be, since she is so dangerous. SHeesh, she testified that Satan told her to do it.
Andrea Yates reaction--I would not be surprised by anything she might do or feel. She had a history of postpartum depression and schizophrenia. Would you have left your children in her care, knowing that, and knowing she was unmedicated? Would you ever trust her, even if medicated? I wouldn't.
Johniam--yup, maybe her husband had no idea she was ill, no idea she had been treated for mental illness in the past, no idea being off medication might be a bad thing, no idea he was leaving his kids with someone unstable, no idea an unstable person might do something bad to his kids.
Maybe he was totally innocent and had no responsibility at all in this situation.
And btw, I believe Mrs W knew and turned a blind eye to VPW.
Well he knew she was ill and getting worse all the time.
He condemed her for her illness and considered it her problem that God did not heal her.
He knew she was sick he insisted she have more and more children at one point they were forced to live in a bus for lack of funds and poverty yet he still stood as a deacon in the church, and insist she get pregnate again .
he knew she could not take the medicine pregnate and nursing he knew she was in dire shape avoiding the hospital because no one was available to keep the children or she was pregnate again.
come on he is just a nice guy doing the best he can for his family or is he a selfish ego ridden arrogant liar who used her for what he thought made him look good, and then claimed innocence after her many years of suffering and sacrafice for him in spite of her very serious illness. she was abused no doubt, does this make her murders right? No but he ought to be held accountable for what he did to her and those children as well.
he in the very least cold have stopped having children with her after her first very serious depression that hospitalized her and got worse with each additional child and responsibility.
I find the comparison between vpw and this case insane as well.
MAYBE and that is a loud maybe mrs Weirwille did know vpw was cheating onh er, we do not know ,but denial is common in many marriages. She did not force him to do what he is accused of and did not have anything to do with it.
The husband in this case knew she adrea suffered and made the situation worse on her by not supporting her in the illness and encouraging her to get pregnate again and agin without any help except a prayer or to .
vpw didnt suffer in his actions nor did mrs. weirwille she stood by his man till the end such was their marriage.adrea yates sufered until she broke to the point she took action to make it stop. I see a huge difference.
after one of their children was born and she was doing very very poorly mentally, the doctor said NO MORE BABIES and also put her on a drug that helped a lot.
then the husband decided she should have another baby and told her she should get off that drug
the thing that burns my butt is he was a famous man in the church haha a deacon who denied his wifes illness and claimed Gods deliverence of her illness (hence more and more children) to the church to allow him that position .
His appearance of being a fine and good Christian head of household at all cost (lying and blinding himself to the truth he saw every day as she declined farther and farther into insanity)and then the mighty VICTIM after she murdered the children just makes me so angry .
Remember, you are in the 21st century. ... A.D., not B.C.!!
Garth, so then demons and evil spirits aren't around anymore?
I think Yates was definitely possessed with the spirit of murder. If her actions do not qualify, what does? What it took for her to murder her children was an incredibly violent act. Kids were crying kicking and screaming all the way to the bathtub. She takes them and holds them down by the throat, one by one, boldly and fiercely, until they gave up the ghost. That's possession.
No, that's prethought malvolence, possibly coupled with mental illness and/or extreme depression.
In either case of mental illness, or deliberate action, NO 'demons' or 'devil spirits' were involved. In other words, I don't buy the 'Its not in man's nature to kill' explanation of demonic possession, especially not when you consider that in the OT, God's people were slaughtering the unbelievers in such a wholesale fashion as to make what Yates did look like a Shirley Temple flick!
Also, if devil spirit possession was involved, and the poor murderer couldn't stop him/herself because of it, then why have the trial for murder and the capital punishment that goes along with it? I mean, isn't that part of a 'godly' legal system?
And how does that deal with the devil spirit, since you can't kill it, and it will just go on to 'possess' someone else?
Hhhmmmm?
Science and medicine has come a long way since the 21st century B.C. and the times of believing in demons, my friend.
So I strongly suggest that you 'reset' your clock. -->
quote:... I don't buy the 'Its not in man's nature to kill' explanation of demonic possession, especially not when you consider that in the OT, God's people were slaughtering the unbelievers...
It's not in man's nature to kill their own offspring, that's one reason why it's murder.
Don't compare Yates' act as the same as Old Testament killing, i.e. killing a race of people, for a purportedly godly reason, that if not eliminated will eventually kill or contaminate you. That also has something to do with (I believe) the Nephiliam which was a race of beings that was ungodly, so killing that bloodline would be a godly thing. Therefore I view that OT killing as an act of self or national defense; whereas killing your own offspring in the violent way Yates did, for no godly reason whatever, is possession.
quote:... then why have the trial for murder and the capital punishment that goes along with it? ...
I believe twofold... defense and justice. (1) Defense in the sense that the person will never kill again AND that spirit is not inhabiting that body any longer; and (2) justice for the dead children.
quote: It's not in man's nature to kill their own offspring, that's one reason why it's murder.
Don't compare Yates' act as the same as Old Testament killing, i.e. killing a race of people, for a purportedly godly reason, that if not eliminated will eventually kill or contaminate you.
Your post is so wrong in so many ways.
For one thing, what about killing infants and sucklings, like the prophet Samuel told Saul to do, as well in many other places? Why is it natural and godly to do that, while it isn't natural and godly for Yates to kill her children?
Get this straight: There IS NOT nor WILL NEVER BE a 'godly' (read that which is good and right) reason to kill anybody like that, be it Yates kids, nor men, women, or children because they might 'contaminate' you because of their unbelief. That kind of behavior is, and should be treated as a capital crime/crime against humanity by a civilized society, regardless of what god is worhipped/or not, by its people.
I am SO glad that I am not mentally bound and chained by the TWI/fundamentalist based viewpoints that you have just expressed any longer. I have declared my independence (read 'flipped the finger') from them (and that kind of 'god') several years ago.
*not in man`s nature to kill their own offspring*... no but (as distastefull as one finds it) at times simply necessary, as long as it is for a Godly purpose..isn`t that what we were taught?
Andrea slaughtered her offspring, because she was convinced that it was God`s will... she has demons, but when we were required to destroy our offspring in twi, we did it for REAL Godly reasons and are therefor spiritual....ok `sa mighty blurred line to draw between killing for God and killing for Satan.....
quote:For one thing, what about killing infants and sucklings, like the prophet Samuel told Saul to do, as well in many other places? Why is it natural and godly to do that, while it isn't natural and godly for Yates to kill her children?
It had to do with the contaminated bloodline of those days. It had to do with God, and prophesy. I believe the people were forewarned that, if they were not going to kill those infants, that they themselves would be killed, eventually.
It's something like taking a life for self defense. If someone is threatening to kill you, you have a justifiable godly reason to take their life, before they take yours. That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT.
AND I think it's an error for using that as an example, for the subject we are talking about NOW.
quote:not in man`s nature to kill ones offspring, no but at times, it is simply necessary, as long as it is for a Godly purpose..isn`t that what we were taught?
Difference is a fetus is not an alive human being and there's no debate about that in our laws. If the laws viewed fetuses as alive human beings, mothers would be tried for murder after authorizing abortions. Doctors would be their accomplices.
quote: It's something like taking a life for self defense. If someone is threatening to kill you, you have a justifiable godly reason to take their life, before they take yours. That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT.
Ahh no, Oldies. God specifically told them that they were to kill the unbelievers in Canaan because they 'worshipped' other gods, and he didn't want them to be 'contaminated' with that worship. Therefore, slaughter them all. (Not exactly Constitution-friendly, doncha think? -->)
... Except for the female virgins. Gotta have all them good looking 15-18 year old babes to ((cough)) 'undershepard', you see. ..... Dang! Sounds like how Weirwille woulda run things, ya think? ;)-->
"That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT."
Rationalize, you mean. Yeah, you'd be amazed what kind of rationalization goes on when people defend their beliefs, no matter how psychotic/immoral they are. -->
Garth, that's the rationale that makes the most sense to me and until something comes along that makes better sense, I'm sticking with it. If you have a better or more godly rationale for the killing, other than "I am SO glad that I am not mentally bound and chained by the TWI/fundamentalist based viewpoints that you have just expressed any longer", I'm all ears.
Your ridicule is not a rationale.
If you have answers as to why it was done in the OT, that makes sense and gives us some understanding why God wanted it done, I'm listening.
But even so, the things done thousands of years ago has nothing to do with Yates' actions. You're comparing apples & oranges.
ohhhh... Fetus is not considered offspring... silly me... it is officially offspring after 8 or 9 mos....THAT makes all the difference.
Lemmee get this straight....destruction of offspring can be considered the will of God or not, simply depending on a time line.....the number of days since conception.......funny I thought that there was plenty of debate going on about that nationally, and you are saying that as long as it IS`NT against the law in the good ole usa, it is ok spiritually......but then erm, what about all of the OTHER practices in the usa that allow homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc to be practiced unaposed....there is no debate about that lawfully either.....I suppose that makes these things acceptable to God as well?? Shoot he is gonna have to do some rewriting no doubt.
I think I understand, as long as you think God tells you, and it ISNT against the law, it is ok.......
quote:destruction of offspring can be considered the will of God or not, simply depending on the number of days since conception........
I never said or believed that abortion was the will of God. But I never believed (and still don't) that all abortion is murder, as some teach. Doesn't mean abortion is the will of God in your life. It could be a terrible mistake. I guess it could also be murder, if one is possessed and want that fetus killed to satisfy that lust. But your experience in twi, when you were told that you should have an abortion because its better to move the word in the Corps now, than have a baby now. That's your experience. You followed it once and you didn't follow it once, right? Your choice, both times.
(1) I think they were wrong in suggesting you get an abortion, for many many reasons...and
(2) I think that has nothing to do with this thread and Yates' actions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
24
16
26
Popular Days
Jan 11
54
Jan 10
43
Jan 13
37
Jan 7
29
Top Posters In This Topic
oldiesman 20 posts
GarthP2000 24 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
johniam 26 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2005
54 posts
Jan 10 2005
43 posts
Jan 13 2005
37 posts
Jan 7 2005
29 posts
GarthP2000
Oldies,
Remember, you are in the 21st century. ... A.D., not B.C.!!
As far as I'm concerned, that Andrea Yates shouldn't take the responsibility for knowingly drowning her kids, mental state notwithstanding, the jury is still out on that one.
She knew what she was doing as far as the actions were concerned; ie., she knew that she was killing them by drowning them. That alone keeps me from jumping on the 'poor Andrea. She didn't realize what she was doing' bandwagon. (Oh, did or did not the defense bring up their own expert psychiatric witness clearly showing that Andrea was insane and couldn't understand her actions?)
This is exactly why the insanity defense is very difficult to use in trials like this. It should and ought to be so.
But like I said, the jury is still out, ... so they should have a new trial, *sans* the 'creative' expert witness from Law and Order.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
Shell, it said in one of the interviews that the attorney went to her and told her that it was overturned and she was excited and smiled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
My dear excie, I totally agree with you, I would not have been able to live if something like that happened to my kids and even more if it was me that did it!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I can't believe this! This person murders her own kids, 5 of them, and we're defending her.
quote: I see Andrea Yates more as a victim than anything else. How could her family and husband not know how sick she was? Some one that ill, that delusional---surely it was noticable, if anyone was paying attention.
I see VPW as more of a victim than anything else. How could his family and wife not know how sick he was? Someone that ill, that delusional---surely it was noticeable, if anyone was paying attention.
quote: The husband on the other hand KNEW she was unstable KNEW she struggled to the degree she did YET continued to demand she have more children. Continued to tell her God will judge her and heal her etc. and that she was weak and condemed her.
Mrs. VP on the other hand KNEW he was unstable KNEW he struggled to the degree he did YET continued to keep his actions a secret. Continued to believe that somehow it was OK with God and that he was weak and sympathized with him.
quote:he set up the crime in my opinon. He had his mother stay with her knowing full well how very very ill she was after the birth of her last child...the Drs. warned them and she got worse with every pregnancy not better. He was the one insisting she go off the medicine to have another child to nurse another child.
Mrs. VP set up the sexual abuse in my opinion. She let him get that motorcoach knowing full well how very very ill he was. She couldn't put out anymore after that surgery. She should've pimped FOR him instead of trusting those strangers......etc.
Makes about as much sense!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Johniam--I guess you have never known someone who was mentally ill? Someone you cared about, someone who's entire future and life took an awful turn that they could not control?
My brother was sane as a child. He was bright and funny, had lots of friends and interests, he wanted to be an oceanographer. He got good grades, was in scouts, loved to hike and bike ride. He made money selling nightcrawlers and raising cucumbers. He had all the Hardy Boys books.
In early adolesence he began having delusions(parents caught him walking through the dark house with a hunting knife once--thinking there was an intruder), which my parents wrote off as too much imagination. In later teens--well, must be the hippy influence. But he could act and talk sane enough--he knew to keep the crazy stuff to himself. But sometimes he would confide things to my brother... He also sustained a head injury at age 22, and things got much worse after that.
In his late twenties he disappeared for almost a year, and was found living in an abandoned car. He crashed a bank board of trustee meeting, sure he was on the board. He was filthy, had been panhandling for months. My father was called and flew down to that city, cleaned him up and took him home, where he has lived since then.
Through the years there have been many crisis times, odd disapearances, police dragging him home from some wild stunt etc. We live in a small town, he is well known as the local crazy guy, people know to call my sister or brother or I if he gets out of control. He did take medication but quit when my mother got sick.
When his delusions reached the point that my sister and I could not be alone with him(he thought we were burglers), following my parent's death, we had to get him into a hospital(he would not voluntarily commit.)
I'm sure you would write my brother off as a possessed creep who so deserved his ugly, insane life. Must be some wicked choice he made at 13 or so, right? That was TWI's attitude.
But I remember the boy he was, fun, busy, and full of ideas and plans and hopes. I saw my parents give him the best life they could. In many ways, it is like that boy died. They could have shut him up in a hospital, or left him on the streets.
I'm glad none of them got involved with the Way.
I can't help but think that Andrea Yates did not have loved ones looking out for her, who knows why?
You really think VPW had a mental illness of this severity? Really?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Point 1: VPW is in no way comparable to one who is/has been clinicly proven (note the emphasis) to be mentally insane or delusional. That co**s***er deserves not even a smidgeon of that kind of regard, Johniam.
Point 2: Bramble, despite all of your brother's suffering, has he ever killed some kids, *knew* that he was killing them, had a pretty good idea that killing was morally and biblically wrong, and would react like Yates did when she was told that her conviction was overturned, if he was in her shoes?
I don't believe so.
Mental illness on Yates part? a pretty strong maybe if not yes. But, she had enough awareness to realize what she was doing (KILLING the children), and the consequenses thereof.
Also note, that _nowhere_ in the overturning ruling was her mental state, nor how it affected her judgement ever addressed. Nowhere.
Got a question for ya. .....
What if it had been your kids?
Hmmmm??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I knew my brother was very ill long before my children were born, he was never alone with them or even unobserved, like in a room with a closed door.
We did have an incident where he threatened my sister with a knife, one of the burgler incidents--that is why he is in a hospital now. Yes, he knew he had the knife and was threatening to use it on a burgler who had broken into his house. He was not aware it was my sister. And it didn't bother him, he didn't apologise or acknowledge it even happened.
Immediatly afterward, my brother, who was with her, talked to him for a while, he snapped out of it and asked my sister how her son's football game went. Yes it was weird and creepy.
We are not sure how well his memory works when he is delusional or hallucinating. His thoughts are not normal, neither is his memory. He is insane.
He is unpredictable.
Mentally ill people need treatment. Some mentally ill people need treatment in a facility for most or all of their lives. I think that is where Andrea Yates should be, since she is so dangerous. SHeesh, she testified that Satan told her to do it.
Andrea Yates reaction--I would not be surprised by anything she might do or feel. She had a history of postpartum depression and schizophrenia. Would you have left your children in her care, knowing that, and knowing she was unmedicated? Would you ever trust her, even if medicated? I wouldn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Bramble:
quote: You really think VPW had a mental illness of this severity? Really?
No, I think blaming her husband for what SHE did is as ludicrous as blaming Mrs. VP for what HE did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Johniam--yup, maybe her husband had no idea she was ill, no idea she had been treated for mental illness in the past, no idea being off medication might be a bad thing, no idea he was leaving his kids with someone unstable, no idea an unstable person might do something bad to his kids.
Maybe he was totally innocent and had no responsibility at all in this situation.
And btw, I believe Mrs W knew and turned a blind eye to VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Well he knew she was ill and getting worse all the time.
He condemed her for her illness and considered it her problem that God did not heal her.
He knew she was sick he insisted she have more and more children at one point they were forced to live in a bus for lack of funds and poverty yet he still stood as a deacon in the church, and insist she get pregnate again .
he knew she could not take the medicine pregnate and nursing he knew she was in dire shape avoiding the hospital because no one was available to keep the children or she was pregnate again.
come on he is just a nice guy doing the best he can for his family or is he a selfish ego ridden arrogant liar who used her for what he thought made him look good, and then claimed innocence after her many years of suffering and sacrafice for him in spite of her very serious illness. she was abused no doubt, does this make her murders right? No but he ought to be held accountable for what he did to her and those children as well.
he in the very least cold have stopped having children with her after her first very serious depression that hospitalized her and got worse with each additional child and responsibility.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I find the comparison between vpw and this case insane as well.
MAYBE and that is a loud maybe mrs Weirwille did know vpw was cheating onh er, we do not know ,but denial is common in many marriages. She did not force him to do what he is accused of and did not have anything to do with it.
The husband in this case knew she adrea suffered and made the situation worse on her by not supporting her in the illness and encouraging her to get pregnate again and agin without any help except a prayer or to .
vpw didnt suffer in his actions nor did mrs. weirwille she stood by his man till the end such was their marriage.adrea yates sufered until she broke to the point she took action to make it stop. I see a huge difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
as i understand it, feel free to correct me,
after one of their children was born and she was doing very very poorly mentally, the doctor said NO MORE BABIES and also put her on a drug that helped a lot.
then the husband decided she should have another baby and told her she should get off that drug
i'll try to find where i read this
meanwhile, can hearts break anymore than this ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
the thing that burns my butt is he was a famous man in the church haha a deacon who denied his wifes illness and claimed Gods deliverence of her illness (hence more and more children) to the church to allow him that position .
His appearance of being a fine and good Christian head of household at all cost (lying and blinding himself to the truth he saw every day as she declined farther and farther into insanity)and then the mighty VICTIM after she murdered the children just makes me so angry .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and they lived on a bus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Garth, so then demons and evil spirits aren't around anymore?
I think Yates was definitely possessed with the spirit of murder. If her actions do not qualify, what does? What it took for her to murder her children was an incredibly violent act. Kids were crying kicking and screaming all the way to the bathtub. She takes them and holds them down by the throat, one by one, boldly and fiercely, until they gave up the ghost. That's possession.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
No, that's prethought malvolence, possibly coupled with mental illness and/or extreme depression.
In either case of mental illness, or deliberate action, NO 'demons' or 'devil spirits' were involved. In other words, I don't buy the 'Its not in man's nature to kill' explanation of demonic possession, especially not when you consider that in the OT, God's people were slaughtering the unbelievers in such a wholesale fashion as to make what Yates did look like a Shirley Temple flick!
Also, if devil spirit possession was involved, and the poor murderer couldn't stop him/herself because of it, then why have the trial for murder and the capital punishment that goes along with it? I mean, isn't that part of a 'godly' legal system?
And how does that deal with the devil spirit, since you can't kill it, and it will just go on to 'possess' someone else?
Hhhmmmm?
Science and medicine has come a long way since the 21st century B.C. and the times of believing in demons, my friend.
So I strongly suggest that you 'reset' your clock.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It's not in man's nature to kill their own offspring, that's one reason why it's murder.
Don't compare Yates' act as the same as Old Testament killing, i.e. killing a race of people, for a purportedly godly reason, that if not eliminated will eventually kill or contaminate you. That also has something to do with (I believe) the Nephiliam which was a race of beings that was ungodly, so killing that bloodline would be a godly thing. Therefore I view that OT killing as an act of self or national defense; whereas killing your own offspring in the violent way Yates did, for no godly reason whatever, is possession.
I believe twofold... defense and justice. (1) Defense in the sense that the person will never kill again AND that spirit is not inhabiting that body any longer; and (2) justice for the dead children.Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Oldies,
Your post is so wrong in so many ways.
For one thing, what about killing infants and sucklings, like the prophet Samuel told Saul to do, as well in many other places? Why is it natural and godly to do that, while it isn't natural and godly for Yates to kill her children?
Get this straight: There IS NOT nor WILL NEVER BE a 'godly' (read that which is good and right) reason to kill anybody like that, be it Yates kids, nor men, women, or children because they might 'contaminate' you because of their unbelief. That kind of behavior is, and should be treated as a capital crime/crime against humanity by a civilized society, regardless of what god is worhipped/or not, by its people.
I am SO glad that I am not mentally bound and chained by the TWI/fundamentalist based viewpoints that you have just expressed any longer. I have declared my independence (read 'flipped the finger') from them (and that kind of 'god') several years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
*not in man`s nature to kill their own offspring*... no but (as distastefull as one finds it) at times simply necessary, as long as it is for a Godly purpose..isn`t that what we were taught?
Andrea slaughtered her offspring, because she was convinced that it was God`s will... she has demons, but when we were required to destroy our offspring in twi, we did it for REAL Godly reasons and are therefor spiritual....ok `sa mighty blurred line to draw between killing for God and killing for Satan.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It's something like taking a life for self defense. If someone is threatening to kill you, you have a justifiable godly reason to take their life, before they take yours. That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT.
AND I think it's an error for using that as an example, for the subject we are talking about NOW.
Difference is a fetus is not an alive human being and there's no debate about that in our laws. If the laws viewed fetuses as alive human beings, mothers would be tried for murder after authorizing abortions. Doctors would be their accomplices.Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Ahh no, Oldies. God specifically told them that they were to kill the unbelievers in Canaan because they 'worshipped' other gods, and he didn't want them to be 'contaminated' with that worship. Therefore, slaughter them all. (Not exactly Constitution-friendly, doncha think?
-->)
... Except for the female virgins. Gotta have all them good looking 15-18 year old babes to ((cough)) 'undershepard', you see. ..... Dang! Sounds like how Weirwille woulda run things, ya think?
;)-->
"That's the way I view the rationale for the killing in the OT."
Rationalize, you mean. Yeah, you'd be amazed what kind of rationalization goes on when people defend their beliefs, no matter how psychotic/immoral they are.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Garth, that's the rationale that makes the most sense to me and until something comes along that makes better sense, I'm sticking with it. If you have a better or more godly rationale for the killing, other than "I am SO glad that I am not mentally bound and chained by the TWI/fundamentalist based viewpoints that you have just expressed any longer", I'm all ears.
Your ridicule is not a rationale.
If you have answers as to why it was done in the OT, that makes sense and gives us some understanding why God wanted it done, I'm listening.
But even so, the things done thousands of years ago has nothing to do with Yates' actions. You're comparing apples & oranges.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
ohhhh... Fetus is not considered offspring... silly me... it is officially offspring after 8 or 9 mos....THAT makes all the difference.
Lemmee get this straight....destruction of offspring can be considered the will of God or not, simply depending on a time line.....the number of days since conception.......funny I thought that there was plenty of debate going on about that nationally, and you are saying that as long as it IS`NT against the law in the good ole usa, it is ok spiritually......but then erm, what about all of the OTHER practices in the usa that allow homosexuality, adultery, fornication, etc to be practiced unaposed....there is no debate about that lawfully either.....I suppose that makes these things acceptable to God as well?? Shoot he is gonna have to do some rewriting no doubt.
I think I understand, as long as you think God tells you, and it ISNT against the law, it is ok.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
(1) I think they were wrong in suggesting you get an abortion, for many many reasons...and
(2) I think that has nothing to do with this thread and Yates' actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.