ARCHIVE: Turns out Victory Church is not responsible
- Thread starter Merfbliff
- Start date
- Status
Dylan's parents asked Victory church for guidance and counsel. They wanted to know what they should do.... should they starve Dylan to death or let him live.Merfbliff said:
In what way did victory church discourage the starvation of Dylan?
Please be specific.
So you affirm it was wrong to starve Dylan?Merfbliff said:
Victory Church didn't starve Dylan. If you're blaming them for not preventing it... well, Bob Enyart didn't prevent it either no one did. It's quite a stretch to blame VC. Buddy was cousiling Dylan's grandparents, not his parents. The parents are responsible for taking away the feeding tube, you don't know what they went through, it's a very difficult decision to make, it's not black and white. It's not murder. Dylan was in a vegitated state, he would have died naturally without life support anyway. They didn't murder him, they gave him life for four more years than he would have had.
nowheredude
New member
Hello.... Bob Enyart did not know about Dylan untill he was DEAD!Merfbliff said:
Merfbliff said:
VC and Buddy were in a position to attempt preventing it, unlike Bob E and 99.999% of us.
If "it's not black and white", err on the side of caution and let him live! :duh: It darn well better be "black and white" if you are going to kill him on purpose!
(I really wanted to use the other word, didnt know if it would fly here)
They gave him life for four more years. You say that like they did him a favor. So which is it? If it's right to kill him, giving him four more years was wrong! You are trying to soften what happened with this comment, but you weaken your argument because the statement implies that his life had value.
BTW, I don't want to throw these people under the bus, I want them to see what they did was wrong and repent.
Last edited:
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Merfbliff said:
SmurfBluff-
How long have you been a member at Victory Church?
What did Pastor Conn say to you when you asked him about the allegations and the web site for Dylan?
If he had a coversation with the parents (which he did) and he didn't warn them not to kill thier son (which he didn't), Dylans blood is on his hands.
http://www.dylanwalborn.com/
This web site http://www.dylanwalborn.com/ gives evidence that the Conn and therefore the VC were responsible. Where is your evidence?
Why hasn't Conn or your head pastor Ware come out with a statement opposing the Denver Post and the web site http://www.dylanwalborn.com/ to deny the allegations?
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Merfbliff said:
You are right I don't know what it is like to murder, but that doesn't mean I can't judge murder as evil and absolutly WRONG! Starving someone to death on purpose is murder. Sounds like you've got the bloodlust.
Merfbliff said:
He didn't have "life support" They took away his food and murdered him. Food is not "life support," we call it food.
Merfbliff said:
Starving someone to death on purpose, because you are tired of caring for them is called murder. "would have had?" you mean if they didn't murder him sooner? Sounds like you would have told the parents - CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!!!!!
And you call yourself a Christian! I rebuke you SmurfBluff! You need to Repent for advocating murder!
Exodus 20:13
“You shall not murder.
The Denver Post article describes Dylan's birth as a "difficult delivery". I'm guessing that means they used modern technological (unnatural) means to save the baby. If that were the case, would it be murder to forgo the modern technology necessary to save the otherwise dying baby? "Morally, it is justifiable to allow a dying person to die," states dylanwalborn.com. This is more of a hypothetical question, but still.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
Lucky said:
HA! The medical community calls just about every birth "difficult" Ask most mom's and they would agree!
Anyway, "Morally, it is justifiable to allow a dying person to die," within reason. In other words we need to use our brains and no, we should not just let babies die when they pop out. If the means (technology, and financial feasability, for example) are available we should try to save the child.
If your 84 year old Grandma just went through 3 surgeries in the last month and they was to to operate on her again and she has been steadily deteriorating and she is in great pain and has lost the will to live and she whispers to you "I am ready to go, let me go" or even if she is comatose with very little chance of recovery then it would be OK to unplug her ventalator and other machines and let her die. Even, in this case though we shouldn't start starving her! Now if she wasn't hungry and refused food that would also be permissable.
I am going skiing. Bye!
I agree. But the problem with using all means possible all of the time is that we occasionally end up with a veg like Dylan. A veg that probably wouldn't have made into this world if it were not for unnatural means. A veg that probably wouldn't have made it at all 100 years ago, before we had all this modern technology. Not that the technology is bad, but it does have its side effects. And it seems like it's becoming a bigger issue as medical technology gets better and better. A growing dilemma.CRASH said:
Have fun.
So are you saying the story that was reported in the paper is not true?Merfbliff said:
Please explain what really happened.
By just reading the article you can't find blame in Victory Church, unless you are a finger pointing, "stone-her-she's-a-sinner", Pharisee, going over all their words with a microscope looking for splinters in their eyes. It never occurred to you or Bob Enyart and most of these jerks on this site, that Dylan's family has had to make the hardest decicion they've ever made. You think they made the wrong decicion... fine, ok that's great. What are you gonna do from here? Be like Jesus? or be a moron???? Pastor Buddy and Pastor Mike, Dylan's Family and all of VC, these TOO are people Jesus died on the cross for - they are just as valuable to Him as Dylan was.
- Status