By Snowden on Monday, July 2, 2001 - 06:29 am:

Philly, it's a matter of belief, isn't it. To those of us who do believe the Bible, and in what is in it, it has but one true author, the Holy Spirit. That's the one book we say, with deep belief, is "inspired," meaning literally "breathed in," as the Holy Spirit breathed the truth to the human author.

Some of the "discrepancies" may be because some of the stories are the "parable" type of story that Jesus used; a story instead of just a preaching. The story illustrates the point being made, rather than an actual occurrance. It is a way the Jews had in their teachings. Jesus, being a Jew, used this method; the difference seems to be that He let it be very clear that it was a parable, whereas we sometimes don't realize it in the Old Testament.

This is from a Christian perspective, of course; and I believe it is the point you are making.

The Gospels, written after the resurrection, are from the viewpoint of the teller. Matthew, a man who kept records, has one perspective; Mark another. Luke apparently came later; a disciple of Paul, a physician, a man who researched carefully, obviously even to the point of "interviewing" Mary. John's book is not meant to be biographical even of the three years he was a disciple; his book is pure theology. He was the last to write his "memoirs," and was careful not to repeat what had already been told. We have the end of his Gospel saying if the things Jesus did on earth were all written down, there would not be room in the world to contain the books.

Of course, one wonders how big he thought the world to be! But it shows us that we are told only the bare minimum; there is so much yet to find out. I guess it will take eternity for us to understand.

Snowden, yes I do agree with most of what you say,however I don't believe biblical scholars would agree with the assumption that Luke interviewed Mary. I think they agree that the infancy narratives were Luke's way of showing Jesus to be truly human. None of the Gospels are biographical and John's was written in times of persecution and with hidden meanings for the church of the time. John's gospel was written about 100 years AD. Hence may not have been penned by him personally. We could go on and on with theology however none of this answers the question of whether there is a God. It is an unanswerable question unless you believe it and have experienced God for yourself. I belive faith is a straightforward descision in favour of God. In fact much like one's committment to anything.
One decides YES then gets on with it. respectfully yours Philly.

Philly the last line of your post [One decides YES then gets on with it. respectfully yours Philly.] could just as easily been stated One decides YES or NO then get on with it. The use of YES only is your prerogative. I think fear of death and blind faith helps people get
through their daily lives. I also think people that believe in some type of religion have difficulty understanding people that don’t. Obviously this is a comfort for them; my thought is to each his own and I leave it at that. I don’t fear death and I live my life in a
decent moral manner. When I die my choice is cremation; no since in taking up land that could be used to feed the ever growing population. Your wish that I have a meaningful and happy life was kind. If meaningful relates to 3 prosperous and healthy children, a fun
filled 39 yr. marriage that is still in progress, the extremely good health of both my wife & I, just to mention a few then my life has been meaningful but my life isn’t over yet so there is time to add to the list. Happy life-- happiness comes in so many forms and at
different stages [ages] of life. Only by being able to reflect on the things that made us unhappy can we really enjoy what has make us happy. I am discovering the older I get the minor things in life bring me joy, like exchanging thoughts with total strangers.

Sandman Sorry
You are absolutely right YES or NO would have been more appropriate. I don't believe I have blind faith. I have done much searching The more I learn the less I KNOW ( in the usual sense of the word) and therefore the more faith I have. My choice is cremation also. I too have 3 properous and healthy children and a happy marriage of 34 years and am finding happiness in the little things and I do enjoy exchanging thoughts with strangers especially those such as yourself. I try to be respectful in what I say and feel that you do too. Thanks for your input regards Philly

Philly, I understand that many theologians believe Luke interviewed Mary in order to give her reactions, such as when Gabriel appeared, and the reaction of Simeon on seeing the Baby. But of course we have no proof.

John lived quite a long time; yes, his Gospel was written many years after the resurrection, which was in about 33 (I am stating the Christian point of view, of course). However, a few years ago; two or three, a copy of Matthew's Gospel was discovered and dated (however they date these things!) as having been written about 13 years after the resurrection. So his memories were fresh.

It's possible for Luke to have talked with Mary; they were both in Turkey at the time when Luke was a disciple of Paul and accompanying Paul all over that part of the world. So it's sort of up for grabs, I guess. Of course, I am a believer, and with two of my sons priests and the third a theologian, I could ask them for more particulars, but it's something we have discussed quite a bit over the past quarter of a century, and what I stated is what I do believe happened.

But of course, I must admit it is what I believe; I cannot prove it. I just have faith in it. And most of what I have studied about my faith I have studied either with or from my sons as they started their journeys in faith, and I mine. They are way beyond me now!

I understand SandMan's point, but of course, I did as your last sentence suggests you have done; I said YES and gone on. Like you, I don't believe my faith is blind faith. I continue to search and study.

Snowden, you said 'many theologians', this of course would be true ,just as 'many theologians'disagree. This goes to show that there are as many different opinions on this subject as there are people. The fact remains that we can only speak for ourselves.It seems that you and I believe in God but have probably experienced Him in totally different ways.
I too have discussed and studied these questions over many years. My personal view,and it is just that, is that the disecting of the bible and it's stories is irrelevant and i don't believe it was ever mean't to be read that way.
How would the joy of stories be lost if we wanted to know - How tall was prince charming? was he blonde or did he have black hair? what colour was cinderella's dress? did they have any children?what were their names? were they boys or girls?
these questions detract from the story and does it matter anyway?
I prefer to ask myself when reading the bible ,why was this story preserved and recorded and what is it saying to me.

Further to my previous message posted,I would like to say that I am no closer to understanding the pain and suffering in this world . No one can know another's pain fully.
I'd like to think I do what I can to help those whose lives touch mine, to live through their pain and to share in their joys. I am extremely fortunate to have family and friends to share these times in my life.
I wish you all the same.

Philly, I can not disagree with one thing you say. And, as you say; it's what the stories have to say to each of us that is important. I think that's why they have remained the vibrant and wonderful stories they are. We are closer to full agreement than we may either think.

The important thing, to me, is that we both love the Book and what it stands for and tells us. I love to look at it deeply, and we may approach it differently, but in the long run I think we can agree. Also as to understanding pain and suffering. We may know why, but we need the love and support of others. Sometimes we find it when we least expect; and friends as well.

No Proof, I just believe!

For me it's the faith in going
to sleep in the dark of night,
knowing the sun will rise even,
if I do not see it ever again!

I cannot see my "G-d"
it's a Spirit only faith
acceptance and love keeps
present within my soul.

My belief does not mean
I'm correct that "G-d" exists,
nor does it mean you are wrong
if you believe that "God" does
not exist.

Respectfully we have a
right to different opinions!

:>) TC

Thanks Snowden I your appreciate reply. I'm glad we had this discussion, I think you are right we do agree cetainly on the important things.


TC hello there. Yes I love what you say, i agree we all have the right to our own opinions and how diverse they are as I said before as individual as each one of us. Whatever helps us to get through this sometimes difficult life.

And to all who do not believe in my God, I hope that whatever you believe in is good for you. Take care Philly.

While I respect the right of everyone to believe or doubt, even deny, but there is the creator. God does not want anyone to believe in something other than Himself. He is a jealous god.

So while I respect their right, I know they are wrong. Does that make sense?

Love you all.

Yes. I respect your right, and know , profoundly, that you are wrong, Joyous.

Ian, I respect your right, and know, profoundly, that you are wrong. Oh well; that's the way it goes, isn't it!

Phillyfoal, re: 07/03/01@11:10pm

Thank you Phillyfoal, caught your boomerang and returning it with hugs from Florida.

:>) TC

Thanks TC hugs to u too.

God Bless u all.   

By Christmas on Friday, July 6, 2001 - 11:56 am:

MAYBE HE deals with those of us who are OPEN to LEARNING.

I do believe that each of us that is open, is dealt with according to how God choses. I am beginning to wonder WHY some are open and why some are not and why some who seem so dead strong against GOD get it like PAUL, big time introduction.

Had a boss once who told me I wasn't paid to think, just do. Who knows about the unknown, I sure don't. But I do KNOW WHAT I KNOW and have experienced and for others maybe there is nothing, but for me, THANK YOU GOD for the introduction and acceptance into the KINGDOM.

Now, you don't know me and you say....her mouth ain't no prayer book just cause it opens and closes and I truly understand where you are coming from since I AM FROM MISSOURI...one of those YOU HAVE TO SHOW ME TYPE.

HE SHOWED ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, I know what I know and am truly sorry that others haven't experienced the same joy. And, why IT was handled as He CHOSE I will find out "over there".
Meanwhile, I am happy and satisfied with what I have been given.

Way to go, Christmas! God bless you.

"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church."
..........Ferdinand Magellan

hmmmm what church was that?

The one with the Bible
Religion taught us that the Earth was the center of the solar system, the stars were laid down upon a hard surface called the firmament, that arrows shot into the sky would bring the wrath of God, that a global flood occurred, that the Earth was flat, the sun stopped for a day, Pi is 3, bats are birds, and that insects have four legs. Since then we've shown that the Sun is the center of the solar system, stars are part of other solar systems, galaxies, and planets, we shoot rockets and space shuttles and no wrath, the global flood never happened, the Earth is elliptical, the sun never stopped for a day, Pi is 3.14 (and some), bats are mammals, and insects have six legs.

Probably the same church that sent the spanish off to concor the world and kill people in the name of god.

Maybe it would be better if we started out "At one time, the church taught that the world was flat," if we are applying what Magellan said to what the church(es) say today! I think we've debunked that theory to even that church's satisfaction since his day!

And I believe it was the church I now belong to; the Catholic Church. At least, I know the Catholic Church at one time maintained that the sun revolved around the earth, and they made Galileo recant when he disagreed.

Churches are set up and run by man; an imperfect implement. Sometimes I wonder why God left it to us to run the church; but then it's not my problem, so I don't worry about it too much. I'm just happy to know Who He is, since I am a Christian and am certain that I do know!

And if you are of some other faith or no faith, you are just as certain that you know. We're sort of that way about things, we people. That's one reason, I suppose, that we make so many mistakes.

By Christmas on Saturday, July 7, 2001 - 07:01 pm:

I don't belong to a "church".

I belong to God thru his Son Jesus.

I am above average in mental if not emotional capabilities or at least I was evaluated as such by the local university. It was more than I was aware of and surprised me very much. I only say this to say, evidently I must THINK some of the time.

But, I don't think there is GOD, I am fortunate in that I know! I invited him into my life and he came with his arms wide open to hold me til roll call.

We are a sum total of our choices. I made mine and am very glad of my choice. If spelled out IT spells, PEACE.

By Think on Saturday, July 7, 2001 - 07:20 pm:

Christmas , you stated in your previous post
"MAYBE HE deals with those of us who are OPEN to LEARNING. "......My posts dealt with the fact that the way christianity is presented, with such emphasis on such an inaccurate book, hinders learning unless it is challenged.

Christmas, your post of July 6,at 11:56 AM is one of the greatest courage of convictions and is an inspiration. It matters not that someone argues, but that you KNOW that God is real and true. You KNOW the Bible is the true, inspired Word of God and all the doubts of others do not sway you.

You are always an inspiration to me. Thank you.

An inspiration to me, too; I do belong to an organized church, obviously. But if I were not convinced of the reality of God, of Jesus -- the Trinity, and that the Bible is indeed the true, inspired Word of God, I wouldn't bother with any of it.

It is restrictive, or is supposed to be, regarding how we live our lives. Being a wilfull human being, I'm against being restricted. But I think if we study other cultures we will find that women at least, have been severely restricted except in Christianity. Jesus set us free to be children of God.

I find that most acceptable! Christmas and Shar, I'm on the same team. Or should that be, in the same family?!

"There was a time in this country when I should have been punished for not going to church. In the good old Puritan and Pilgrim days, though only a third or a sixth of the citizens were church members, the parsons were in power and they fined people and put them in the stocks if they stayed away or if the pastor did not like their expressions.
They whipped more than one for criticizing a sermon. They tried to sell two Boston children into slavery because they could not pay their fine for staying away from the church. And they would have done it, too, if the ungodly shipmasters had not refused to carry the children off."

It is incessantly astonishing how often the laity have had to restrain the clergy from cruelty. The Puritan elders held that "the gathering of sticks on the Sabbath may be punished with death." Sometimes a mob would rescue Quaker women from the whips, but in Cambridge, Benanuel Bower, a Quaker who obstinately stayed away from the Puritan church, was fined annually for twenty years, hauled down a flight of steps by the heels, kept in prison for more than a year, and with his wife publicly whipped several times.


As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

the renowned reformer Martin Luther could not see any benefit from a woman but bringing into the world as many children as possible regardless of any side effects:

"If they become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there"

By Snowden on Sunday, July 8, 2001 - 08:34 am:

Think, your first paragraph is true. I don't know the final quote; but it's a doozy.

Paul did say for wives to be submissive to their husbands. In a way it was good advice, since most brides were about 12 at the time! The groom was a good bit older, since it was necessary that he be somewhat settled in a job and able to provide housing for both the bride and any subsequent children.

But Paul's admonishment was actually quite a positive breakthrough for females. At that time, women were neither mentioned in public, nor allowed to gather publicly among the men. To address women who were not your family was simply not done. Jesus had taken the step first, allowing women among His disciples. But still, outside the Christian community (which was still in its infant stage), men did not address women. By doing so, Paul was going against all the "politically correct" ideas of his day.

So then, having dared tell wives how to conduct themselves where formerly forbidden even to be in attendance, he dared to address their husbands like this: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Jesus Christ(Messiah) also loved the church, and gave himself for it;..." Eph. 5:25 Jesus had died for the church, so Paul was actually telling men that far from beating and/or maltreating their wives, they were to be willing to die for her. (Of course, I've added Messiah since the former word is pretty apt to be red-dotted out!)

Now that was quite a difference from treatment given wives up to that time! I love Paul.

By Think on Sunday, July 8, 2001 - 09:09 am:

Snowden , Martin Luther made a great many such statements and St. Thomas Aquinas considered women as defective:

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence."
---------------------------------
The birth of a daughter is a loss" (Ecclesiasticus 22:3).
Such statements evoked a culture of cruelty and injustice that lasted for centuries.There are few belief systems that have not inherited base attitudes from specious , misleading doctrines.

By Snowden on Sunday, July 8, 2001 - 11:24 am:

You know, Think; I love being a woman. But when I see the destruction of my former church, I can only date it from the time when they started ordaining women to the priesthood.

I believe we have many ministries, many wonderful attributes, and are certainly no less intelligent and able than men to do just about anything we wish to do. It also seems to me that you may be a better Catholic than I! I have never read Eccesiasticus. It's not a very sweet quote, is it! But boy children have always seemed to be preferred. For one thing, they have less chance of survival, for whatever reason. I don't know why; and with God's grace all three of mine are still with us.

No, I don't argue that girls were and in many parts of the world still are considered inferior. I guess that's why I am glad to be a Christian, where we are treated so much better; or at least the men are told to do so.

But there are some things we should leave to the men, I believe. And some things that should be left to and/or allowed us.

By Think on Sunday, July 8, 2001 - 12:24 pm:

Certainly women would never have evolved a religion so cruel and so obsessed with death.

Think, I don't know about that. Death is rather formidable from our point of view, but God is on both sides of the screen, and to Him it has to be an entirely different picture.

I can't say I'm afraid of death; in some ways I look forward to it. It's a world not yet known, and I expect to see that world. How I get there, now I think that's where we pause for thought. But it's going home to me; and sometimes I feel downright excited about it.

Of course, I don't know what religion you are; but as a Christian, I really am not afraid of dying. Hopefully it will be not too painful, but once it's over, I expect wonders beyond my wildest expectations. And, considering my wildest expectations, that's really going to be exciting.

Of course, just being loved for myself is really an exciting thought to me.

Whatever makes you feel comfortable , I guess.

Hello, I am a new member.....name is maxie..22 years ago I thought there was a God; but in 1979, Oct. 25th @ 10AM I met him in person. I found myself on my knees after 23 years of alcoholism, asking Him to forgive me for all the sins I had committed. I didn't know enough to do this, but, here I was...doing it. After the happend and I stood back up....I NEVER needed another drink. I have been walking with HIM ever since. I have not always done right, but, I know HE is with me. I go to church,,,read my Bible .....and pray daily....and my life has been wonderfully different ever since. End of my part of this discussion........thank you for reading this. maxie

D ...............   By cat on Monday, July 9, 2001 - 02:48 am:

maxie.....congratulations. thanks for sharing that. god is all power, no doubt. glad you have become a member here at this site and hope to see more of your postings

No, never alooooone
No, never alone
He promised never to leaveee me, never to leave me alone.

I wonder how, I wonder why, but I don't wonder IF cause like you Maxie, I met HIM as well. And while I can't give anyone "their" absolute proof, I can know what I have experienced and share that fact.

PLEASED TO MAKE YOUR ACCQUAINTANCE, I AM SURE, SMILE

Maxie, what a wonderful story of the power of the Almighty! A beautiful witness, doubly so from being so unexpected.

My husband gave up smoking pretty much the same way; simply gave it to the Lord, tossed his pipes, tobacco and cigarettes away at the request of our middle son. He had asked our son what he wanted for his birthday, and the son said, "for you to stop smoking." He has never craved a smoke since that day.

Like Cat and Christmas, I hope we hear more from you. I find most ex-alcoholics (including my late father) are delightful people. Especially when it's a miraculous healing.

We must always be on guard against the cruelties and intolerances of religions. To just accept them will be at our peril, they are a constant threat to world peace.

H.J., religion is only one threat to world peace; there are many. I think it's a threat to be always looking for someone to shoot or be shot by! There is nothing more threatening than fear, for instance. If we are afraid we will be targeted, or are looking for enemies, I think we endanger ourselves.

For the most part, people are content just to live and enjoy the company of others. Won't you consider just being a friend among friends? We are a rather nice group here, I find. The nicest group of people I've come across for a long time.

And we are very glad to have you as one of us; we offer you no threat in any way. Verbally or any other way. Just smile and come on in.

I am in , have been " in" for some time , I don't consider myself an outsider..I have found good like- minded people in here. I am a friend to them and find them decent and funny, and well informed.You feel free to make comments and I feel secure to make comments. I doubt if there will be many times I am in agreement with you but do not wish to change you ..but I dare say I will challenge your more outrageous statements.( One of them is your frequent use of the royal ' we'....a bully tactic...best speak for yourself otherwise you may sound a touch condescending)

By Snowden on Monday, July 9, 2001 - 01:51 pm:

H.J., I know you've been here, I've enjoyed many of your posts. I was afraid I started too many sentences with "I" -- never occurred to me I was "we-ing" (oh, dear, that's a bit unfortunate, isn't it!). Anyway, I'll keep your admonishment in mind! Thanks for telling me; usually I'm referring to some of the others in here who I consider friends; and of course, I come from a large family -- it was large; getting smaller now. But I will remember to drop the royal "we" which, as you say, could sound condescending.

I enjoy posting, and do so quite a bit, but am still rather new to it, so please don't take offense, even when we do disagree. Do challenge me though; I enjoy the repartee.

By Anonymous on Monday, July 9, 2001 - 05:46 pm:

smoooooth!!!!

By Snowden on Monday, July 9, 2001 - 06:49 pm:

Think, I have a quotation for you from St. Maximus the Confessor (7th Century monk), from the *Four Hundred Chapters on Love*, Cent. 2: 30: "The one who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of detachment knows no distinction between one's own and another's, between faithful and unfaithful, between slave and freeman, or indeed between male and female. But having risen above the tyranny of the passions and looking to the one nature of men he regards all equally and is equally disposed toward all. For in Him there is neither Greek nor Jew, neither male nor female, neither slave nor freeman, but Jesus is everything and in everything." (Of course the allusion to St. Paul is obvious.

For cruelty, one need look to the pagan systems, including the Hindu Suhtee (outlawed by the Anglican colonialists). It was always the spread of Christianity that ended cruelty, just as its demise must always bring the return of cruelty. Despite the wiccan, or goddess, myth, only Christians, and those benefiting from a once Christian culture, can either be free or remain free of cruelty, which cruelty includes subjugation of woman as inferior.

This is history; not my opinion.

Anonymous, I do love you; you're a gem.

Think, finally I found my study Bible! My youngest son has a passel of them in the family room, but his furniture is also there, so I cannot get to them. Anyway, no wonder you were upset at the Ecclesiasticus verse; you only saw the part of it that was against us women. Here is the whole verse:

"An evil-nurtured man is the dishonor of his father that begot him, and a foolish daughter is born to his loss."

Oh what a cruel culture, to see the birth of all sons as a dishonor- at least creative editing could be used that way.

No wonder you were upset if you accepted someone else's efforts to the same hideous, dishonest effect regarding girl babies! The one I lost was a girl; a double loss since obviously it was my only chance for a daughter!

Christians free from cruelty...you HAVE to be kidding!
"Torture was enthusiastically applied by early Church officials for three reasons:

 To force confessions or secret information from those accused of heresy or witchcraft, whether guilty or innocent;

To discourage dissent and intellectual freedom; and

To persuade Jews, Muslims, and other non-believers to accept Christianity.

Among the worst examples of systematic brutality are the Papal, Roman, and Spanish Inquisitions. These institutions were established and perpetuated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate dissenters, apostates, heretics, Jews, witches and anyone out of favor with church authorities. These included great scientists of the day such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo. The church conspired with secular monarchs to stamp out dissent among citizens throughout Europe. The most hideous torture methods and devices were employed toward this purpose. The vast amount of personal property confiscated during the Inquisition has made the Catholic Church one of the wealthiest businesses in the world. Today, the Church enjoys political influence far beyond its due. It actively campaigns against sexual freedom, birth control, equality for women, and promotes censorship in all forms of media. It influences the government on all these issues in direct violation of their tax exemption.

It is true that the Inquisition no longer tortures or kills people in the name of God. We are pleased that differing opinions can now be expressed in most countries without fear of bodily harm. But there are more subtle forms of religious oppression that are still in place even in the most modern countries. People can still lose their jobs due to religious differences. We are still required to take religious "God" oaths during many legal or governmental proceedings. Government officials and bodies regularly use their power and authority to push a religious agenda. Citizen's tax dollars are used to provide churches with free services, while those same churches openly lobby and petition government on a variety of issues which effect us all.'

Snowden smooth? Nah , more like snake oil.

It would appear we have not abandoned the search for Truth. May we never settle for a good fantasy.

If we breath, feel, see, hunger, thirst, love, hate, laugh, cry, doubt, live and die, we are displaying evidence of the existance of God.

If you are feeling all those things , TT you are displaying the evidence of the existence of an over active thyroid.

anonymous, which side of the bed did you get out of this morning???seems to me like the wrong side. get back into bed and try getting out the other side and see if that helps your disposition!

Thom, Cat; always good to hear from you all. I was a bit concerned when you skipped a day, Thom. Of course, you know that, since I e-mailed you!

I think your thyroid, whatever it does, is nothing for you to worry about! Mine is a bit sluggish these days...

It's downright hot and muggy here today; but that's always the case in July, isn't it. It's why I love October.

Think, I didn't mean to skip you; and you are correct in your history. No "religion," pagan or otherwise, is perfect. The reason, I believe, is because most religions are started by man; Judiasm and Christianity were started by God. Even so, man has been in charge on earth in its continuation, and man is often cruel.

I did not say that all Christians are kind; only that only in Judeo-Christianity (to stretch it to its root) is there equality between the sexes; we were talking about the denigration of women. Charlemagne, who was said to be a great Christian had a wonderful idea. His way of convincing the pagans to become Christian was to make an offer they couldn't refuse; baptism or beheading. Not much of a choice!

As for the Roman Catholic church, it was the only one at the time with any authority in Europe; hence all the blame is, as it should be, heaped on its head. During the inquisitions, the picture had changed somewhat if memory serves. I believe the reformation had started. That caused all kinds of trouble. But the men in charge were, as you say, cruel beyond belief. But at least they finally ceased these tactics, and tried (from time to time) to do as Jesus told us to do. To love one another; surely the simplest and least observed of all the commandments!

So you get no argument from me about this; just about who to blame. You seem to blame God; I blame mankind.

As for sexual freedom, it can cause problems far beyond the need for birth control. I agree with you that birth control is necessary and all right. Not abortion; to me that's murder. But sexual freedom? That's a whole different discussion.

I don't blame god, there are no god or gods, I just want any dogma or doctrine out of decision making and law structure. (just to be safe)

am busy reading and one thing you said snowden, I used to agree with but not any more. that is the statement on abortion. I believe in abortion, when in fact there is going to be harm to the mother. If that mother has very high chances of not being here to raise that child and may have several other children to look after and was taking precaution NOT to get pregnant and does then ,(back to my main feelings) unless I have walked in her shoes I cannot pass judgement. Not all choices are easy to make but sometimes have to be made, and then have to be lived with. but for the most part snowden, I agree totally with you. hey this could be quite a discussion....abortion. the one other thing I think we as christians have to be aware of is that we have to be careful that in saying something we are not pushing "that" other person away from God. when it comes right down to it only God will sit in the judgement seat. thank heavens for that!!

A very humane post, cat.Good for you.

Cat, I couldn't agree more with your final point. And I know the issue of abortion has a lot more facets to it than I am ready to think about. The child is always a victim, and quite often the mother as well. The government clinics seem to be a maze of dangers, and in most cases where both mother and child could be safe the mother is being forced by either her parents or the baby's father to have the baby killed.

My middle son worked for years with young women who were facing this decision. He said they broke his heart; usually too young to know what was best, and always suffering no matter what their final decision. If the mother's life is in danger, well; as you said, God is the judge, and I thank Him for being willing to do that. He can see into our hearts; we can't do that.

I will say, since I have never been in that position I should probably avoid the topic like the plague! But of course, I won't! (You knew that, didn't you!?) If I were in such a position, I think I would decide to let the child live; but we'll never know what my decision would be. Hanging on to life is a strong instinct. But I know I would go through life feeling guilty. Heck, I do that anyway, with a lot less reason!

There was a line in a TV show once, Law and Order; Michael Moriarity said, "...I'm Catholic, I can feel guilty about anything!" That's me, Cat; and I was not raised Catholic. It was my choice. (I think in the show, the implication was that people who are raised Catholic have that problem.

ANother great post Cat.
take care
elk

By Bones on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 02:41 am:

I was really hoping the subject of abortion wouldn't come up, but here it has. It is so extremely important to judge each case by itself and not put a blanket, "I would never do that!", or, "It's absolutely wrong, how could a mother do that?" on it. I just ask that you stand in the shoes of the one making the decision to abort, relinquish, etc. One of my views is that if all the anti-abortionists feel so adamantly about this, they....THEY...should provide the love and nurturing of the unwanted child. Sometimes, allowing a child to be born is to expose it to unfathomable hell.

Those that absolutely object to abortion should write their congressman/congresswoman to have an identification symbal added to their names so an added $500.00 a year could be automatically be part of their tax. Logic of that is,like anything else. Put your money where your mouth is. That of course is not going to happen because the things people believe and what they do about it other than voice an opinion are two different things.

Bones, you said it better than I. I do have the terrible feeling, the belief even, that it would be, must be, is, murder. But how can I, especially at my age and being Catholic now (not when young), know what I would have done in such a position? I do know that for some there is a feeling of guilt they are never free from afterwards; but even those have no idea beforehand how they will later feel.

Panic leaves little room for other emotions. As Ted said above, it's impossible to have two emotions at the same time; especially when they conflict, I think.

I know there could come a time when the girl will look back, either by wishing she had that child or being glad the child did not have "this" -- whatever "this" may be -- to go through.
Many times is it not her choice, as I said above.

But what the alternative is, I can't say. Sure, the good old advice, skirt down, panties up, zipper remain zipped. And when did that work in every case? What has all that to do with the reality of the moment? The reality is that loving at different ages is not all that different, and sex is a powerful drive.

This is the way God made us; He knows how we are because it's the way He chose for us to be. If we "misuse" it, or get a bit ahead of the preacher, whatever; where's the big surprise? It's as old as Adam and Eve, but new with each generation. And the consequences are not always expected. And which ones are thinking "consequences?" -- or much else, for that matter?

So I can't condemn anyone; I wish abortion would never be a consideration for anyone. I do not believe there is such a thing as an illegitimate child, but sometimes even that outmoded way of thought prevails. By Gods word on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 09:23 am:

Examine the Bible to see if what I have written is true!

"For it is written: As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Rom. 14:11-12.

ROMANS 14:13
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way. Interpreted to mean that let us not judge a womans decision to abort a child. Our personal feelings about abortion should not be a stumblingblock. Government intervention is hypocritical because on the one hand it stops abortion but does not recognize a fetus as a living sentient being so therefore is not tax deductible.

Goodness, this can get downright confusing, can't it? I have no inclination to argue with God's Word; either here or when I face Him. And Romans is a favorite book of mine; I used to have a bumper sticker on my car, "Every Knee Shall Bow." Well, that car is gone, sticker with it. But the words remain in my heart.

And verse 13 is also true. I don't understand, Anonymous, just how you managed that step to taxes; but that's probably because the child, if left to be born, would be a tax deduction, but certainly is not if aborted! I agree with you that the Government should have no part in it; either by enabling or forbidding. It should be a personal decision, not legal, in my opinion.

I think judging another person is wrong, so we have no argument there; I think you are stretching it a bit to say someone's feelings about abortion could cause a stumbling block for someone else, since scripturally a stumbling block is in some way stopping someone from doing something that could enable the second person to be saved. Seduction, perhaps? Not necessarily sexual; there are many types of seduction. (No, I don't think sexual seduction causes damnation. If so, I'm afraid heaven will be nearly as sparcely populated after this earth burns as it was before the universe was started.)

To force someone into making a decision contrary to that person's convictions, whether regarding abortion or anything else; that could be considered a stumbling block. We don't have that right; again I agree with you.

By Anon on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:53 am:

Most good governments of the Western world provide assistance to the women who choose to abort. How else would the poor and needy women be safe and supported ?  By Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 10:54 am:

Snowden confusion is what makes all this work. Confusion in the sense that another opinion “might” make sense and be contrary to what we have been thinking. The leap to tax was strictly for demonstration purposes. Your thought that government should nose out of peoples lives on this type of issue was the intent of that comparison.
Stumblingblock and my interpretation is. Any time a person is restricted from making a personal decision then a restriction has been placed in their path, the path of their thought
process.Now your thought about seduction, I’m not sure where that came from. but interesting nevertheless. My thought on that is everywhere in nature seduction takes places. Beautiful flowers seduce bees, brightly plumed birds seduce other birds. That covers the birds and bees; humans have all manner of ways to seduce. The intent of the seduction by humans if morally right and achieved its goal is what keeps our planet going.

By Snowden on Wednesday, July 11, 2001 - 02:06 pm:

Anonymous, thank you! You have taught me something that never occurred to me. I am glad you explained about the tax jump; it was very effective. Obviously! I jumped right on it.

And my jump to seduction; you are right of course, I wonder where that came from? But it is definitely part of the overall plan, and when I first used the word I was thinking of material things. Sexual seduction then came to mind -- sex is usually what we think of in relation to that word, "seduction."

And it is certainly what keeps the planet going. In all manners of life. Long may it reign -- and, as you say, morally right. That's the real key, isn't it.