Search results

In a sense, yes: He used the intimate, familiar word, "Abba", when referring to His Father, in much the same way as a working class bloke from round here might say "My Old Man".

Church History is a wonderful topic to explore in and of itself, yielding great rewards. I'm talking about the Undivided Church prior to 1054 in particular. You might also want to check out Vincent of Lérins' dictum.

Apologies - just read my original quote and noticed there was an inadvertent error - missing a negative - which I've now corrected as per the above. Hope that that now clarifies the original statement.

That children don't necessarily "belong" to their parents in certain circumstances eg: abuse, JWs refusing transfusions.

They are owned and paid for in the main the the local NHS Trust H M Courts and Tribunals Service

No, "divided bits of the Church" <> "The Church"

Are you saying you agree then? If not, then my post is correct

Some are, some aren't. Frequently the judiciary work against the government not for!

No, the principle appears to be agreed - unless you are saying that JWs' religious beliefs should prevail over the right of their children to life-saving medical treatment

Right, so you agree with the principle that children "belong" as you put it to the parents; we therefore disagree as to the circumstances in which that principle applies.

No members of H M Government were involved: doctors, lawyers, judges and the parents were.

Because of the witness of His Body, the Church.

Just answer the parental rights/ ownership question please: yes or no?

That's not what I was talking about: I was countering the idea that children are somehow the "property" of their parents; do you think that they are or not? If they are, then the JWs have the right to refuse a transfusion for their child.

That's so plainly talking about the Church not the Bible: "God's household ...foundation...Apostles...building...holy temple"; all terms Scripture uses to describe the Church, not itself.

You did also say "my dad ". "Old man" is another term for "father" in any event.

And you said it should be left up to the mother and father. I countered that. Are you seriously suggesting that an ER crash team who've been performing CPR to no avail for an hour should have to contact the next of kin of the patient and get their permission to stop?

The situation isn't as binary as you claim. Firstly, we have a Conservative government responsible for the most vicious cuts in public spending this country has ever seen, so your "socialist dictatorship" claim is risible. Secondly, children are not "property" to be "owned" by anyone in a...

"Call no man Father"...you just did. Therefore it would appear that you no longer think that that particular Scripture means what you thought it meant...

No, it's a decision that is a medical one and therefore is normally rightly taken by the doctors. Here, the parents challenged the doctors so it went to court - several courts in fact, with several top doctors giving evidence on behalf of the hospital and the parents. All of them reached the...