Nun agrees to save woman's life, is excommunicated

[PLAYER57832]

so point out to me where the worship is?

You didn't just point to a handful of examples yourself?

no. none of that is worship.

Many Protestants and particularly the newer "charismatic" churches would say it is. It is a point of contention between the churches.

[Lionz]

Player,

You refused to address questions from me in here and decided to flame me using the word idiocy instead?

How about at least answer this? Would using suction to rip an unborn living human baby to pieces be shedding blood of someone created in an Image of Him?

How would someone back in the day referring to a bucket for baby remains as a bucket for monstors help argue an abortion point for you if it would somehow? o_O

And what do you mean by the Bible if you claim nothing in the Bible tells us that death is an enemy? A Bible without a 1 Corinthians 15:26 version in it?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/1cor15.htm

Woodruff,

When do you personally claim life begins for humans?

You call me out for one or more ocd type statement and should have a pretty good idea about how I communicate by now perhaps. Maybe equating can be defined more than one way, but you responded to two sentences here perhaps...

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points? Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

What suggests to you that I was equating heartbeat with a spirit entering a body with those? Does the first not refer to conceptions points and the second not refer to time around 21st days of development? I was (or am or both?) making one or more point having to do with when life begins maybe. You might personally be an atheist or agnostic who does not believe in spirits in the first place. Those were to Player specifically and not to you and the same goes for a number of things you have replied to maybe.

How would making abortion illegal according to US federal law not decrease an abortion rate if 4,000 or so occured every day in the US alone even by the mid 90's? Are you trying to argue that making abortion illegal according to US federal law would lead to there being 4,000 or so women on a daily basis attempting to abort babies in an underground lab or locked away in a room somewhere with a coat hanger?

You refer to statistics brought up by me in response to a claim having to do with voluntary abortions made by Player maybe, but what are you getting at there? Would access to a clean government condoned abortion clinic not likely make a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who has had an abortion before more likely to choose to have another?

[Lionz]

Whoever claims to be a Christian and thinks that He approves of people using synthetic medication should spend some time looking into Strong's Number G5331 maybe... you might want to search Strong's Number G5331 in a search engine.

[jay_a2j]

Whoever claims to be a Christian and thinks that He approves of people using synthetic medication should spend some time looking into Strong's Number G5331 maybe... you might want to search Strong's Number G5331 in a search engine.

Are you saying God hates Advil?

[Lionz]

I'm not saying that and I'm not sure if He does or not perhaps, but can you come away from a 30 minute study of Strong's Number G5331 convinced that He approves of it?

[Lionz]

This might be a pretty relevant image found online...



: )

[jay_a2j]

I'm not saying that and I'm not sure if He does or not perhaps, but can you come away from a 30 minute study of Strong's Number G5331 convinced that He approves of it?

I'm against a whole lot of "medicine" things like chemo, swine flu vaccine, and the like but pain relief I don't think I could do without. Now if there is a natural pain killer (and nobody say pot either) then I'd try it.

[oddzy]

"This is a point of contention between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Saints, etc and not directly to God, just as an example. We don't give them that power. But you start getting into technical theological questions. It really doesn't matter. That is, it does to those who want to join either church, etc. However, here, it doesn't really."

that is patently false. we are not taught not to pray to god. it may not matter to you, but it matters to me that you are perpetuating a falsehood. as for praying to saints, i believe part of the divide is that catholics do not look at prayer as our ultimate form of worship. that is the act of transubstantiation and the taking of the eucharist. prayer is thanksgiving and honor.

Like I said, Protestants disagree. And a lot of Roman Catholics flatly do pray to God, feeling that parying directly to God is somehow presumptuous. I realize that this is not technically Roman Catholic Doctrine, but it is how it is seem by many followers.

When I said "it doesn't matter" I was not making light of your beliefs. I was saying that the division between Protestants and Roman Catholics is pretty deep and real and is just not going to be resolved here. Also, I never claimed to be an expert. These are things that are sometimes disputes between churches and sometimes within the church. The bit about Mary, for example, is actually central to many in the Mexican Roman Catholic church. There are historical reasons that get somewhat technical. In part, some Roman Catholic missionaries saw substituting their icons for pagan ones as a way to bring the pagans to Christ. I cannot say if that was approved by the Pope of the time or not, but it was what happened. And, it is one reason why the Mexican church was often viewed differently by the Roman Catholic church itself. That gets into technicalities, though that are within the Roman Catholic Church and not things I think I need to discuss here. If you wish to discuss it with other Roman Catholics, fine.

It is enough that we agree we can each worship Christ, love God. We are one body, but different parts. But... we don't have to agree on everything.

I don't in any way dispute the right of Roman Catholics to worhip and believe as they wish. I dispute the right of that church or any other, including my own to lobby Congressmen, and to demand passage of laws that are suitable to them, but not many other Christians.

"Protestants practice confession as well, but we live the recrimination and judgement up to God. No earthly penalty truly erases anything you do on earth."

catholics dont believe anything we do erases sin. that is solely through jesus' sacrifice for us. judgement is the purview of the almighty as well. perhaps you should read the actual words that are spoken during the sacrament of reconciliation because then you would see that the prayers following confession are done after absolution...the absolution is not contingent on them. the absol;
ution is given as the result of the blood of jesus.

Sorry, had this conversation with way to many Roman Catholics. Most Roman Catholics do believe that the forgiveness, as bestowed on them by Priests utterly and completely erases the sin. Protestants belief that sins are forgiven. As for the rest.. its a matter of semantics.

You believe what you believe. I just don't agree on many points.

"
"That said, Roman Catholic education tends to teach as much or more about Saints, etc than truly covering the Bible."

that's funny... i had 8 years of catholic education. i abjure that statement as being utterly - again - false. that is what you think, or what one person has told you - probably not even someone who is catholic - and also had a biased ax to grind.

Try again... my family is mostly Roman Catholic. And, I am considering sending my son to Roman Catholic school, so its hardly an esoteric question. I will say this, that not all Roman Catholic schools are equal any more than all parishes are. The teachings where I grew up were more Franciscan. Here they are not. When I quiz people on the Bible or it comes up in discussion, I very often find that I know far more of the Bible than many who attended Roman Catholic schools. They know the liturgy, the saints, pieces of the Bible, but not all of it. I am definitely not an expert.

"
"The Roman Catholic Church also claims that the Pope gets to decide who goes to heaven and who does not. I don't give him that authority, either."

this is a falsehood.

No. Or rather, techinically, you are correct. However, in practice, I am correct. I realize that most Roman Catholics don't look at it the way we do, but it is essentially true... and again, it is one reason why it will be a very long time before the churches meld.

i suggest you read the work by karl keating which explores the history of modern falsehoods systematically bruted about by so-called "bible christians" like tony alamo....say...wasn't he convicted of something? what was that again?

I don't agree with jay on most things. I certainly don't talk of "saving people" from the Roman Catholic church or other idiocies. I recognize it is a Christian Belief system. I disagree on religious grounds, but the problem I have is not that disagreement. The problem I have is the church's recent and increasing propensity to meddle in politics. I say the same of some of the evangelical leaders, its just this article was about a Roman Catholic.

And yes, I do see that areticle as a prime example of Roman Catholic hypocrisy.

do you realize how many times you invoked "technically" and "semantics"? as one 20th century cardinal remarked, many people hate what they think the catholic church is. there is no doubt that many people pervert the teachings of the church, or dont understand them. but their lack of knowledge or proper practice doesnt make that deviation the actual belief of the church.

and falsehoods, when repeated often enough - especially on the internet - take on the patina of truth. a good recent example would be the many issues surrounding the current president of the united states.

[oddzy]

so point out to me where the worship is?

You didn't just point to a handful of examples yourself?

no. none of that is worship.

Many Protestants and particularly the newer "charismatic" churches would say it is. It is a point of contention between the churches.

and what part of that would be worship? the quoting of scripture? the acknowledgement of her position of jesus' mother, which is scripturally based? or the asking of another to pray for you?

help a girl out here.

[Lionz]

You might find some useful results from searching herbal substitutes for pain relief in a search engine.

[PLAYER57832]

Edit: At the time I gave my speech it was in the mid 90's and at that time 4,000 abortions were preformed EVERY DAY in the US alone.
"

That data includes things that would not be considered an abortion by most people... but go on believing as you would.

According to you everyone who doesn't share your views is out there advertising for clinics.

You need not defend your beliefs to me, but one greater than I, who's sandals I am unworthy to loose.

On a side note, stop putting words in my mouth, else one can call you a liar.

In this issue, I know a LOT more than you. I wish you would take the time to actually verify the garbage you claim is true. That means looking beyond your usual sources, though, something you have made clear you will not do.
And I have absolutely no fear of answering to God. My issue is never withGod, it is with human's claim that they know better than I God's will for me.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, I will respond to your remarks soon, I have to do some things, however I never said I was forcing anyone to believe what I believe I just think that killing someone is different than using medice. God wants us to use medicine to help us, it tells us to use the things on earth for ourselves. I'm not denying that, but I am denying that using medicine is "playing God"...not true at all... these are things that we can use from the earth. God told us to subdue the earth. Killinng someone is not a type of medicine though...that's what I want to make clear. Regardless of how you feel about it, you are still kiliing a life.

First, I am not debating that point, in fact. I am saying that when there is so much honest and true disagreement among even people within the same church, not just Protestants, but many Roman Catholics, who will follow the Pope, but don't always agree, then demanding that your view, the Roman Catholics church's view or anyone else's personnal view is wrong. Your morals are not superior to mine. We are equal under law. Under the Bible.. well, we have a debate, but that is the point, it IS a debate. We are past the times when one church gets to tell everyone else how to thing. Descending back to that is a very, very slippery slope indeed.

Second, I agree that abortion is bad. The question is whether making abortion illegal is really and truly the way to prevent it. This, in turn has 2 parts. The first is that some of what are called "abortions" under law are actually surgically removed miscarriages. They are, per my understanding from local Parish Priests and the local Bishop, fully authorized by Roman Catholic law when a doctor considers it to be the best way to preserve a mother's future reproductive and general health. Though The Roman Catholic church and many others wish to deny it, the real truth IS that many, particularly first trimester abortions ARE really and truly miscarriages. That is, they are strictly to remove a child that has already died. You referred to "preserving the mother's ability to have future children. The truth is that surgical removal is often the BEST way to ensure that. This is especially true for woman such as myself who are Rh negative. If we get exposed to an Rh positive child, we develop and allergic reaction. Once you get close to the end of that third trimester, there is enough blood to possibly start that process. One still has to go in, twice. Once to draw blood, which is used to create the serum (a vaccination, in essence) and then again to get it injected. In the local hospitals, this means going first to the lab, then later that day going up to Obstetrics. On one occasion, I had to sit there by the elevator watching while 2 very pregnant women were placed right in front of me, awaiting an open delivery room. Now, I know the doctors were busy and that taking care of a living child was more urgent than injecting me, but it would have taken just 2 seconds to usher me to a room. For that matter, there was no real and true reason why I had to go up to obstetrics to get that injection. Understand that each time, it was worse because each time, I was less and less sure that I could carry a child to term. What really made me angry, and made me lay a big portion of blame on the local Roman Catholic church (and, by extention, Rome), is the response of the nurses. Every one, EVERY ONE was firmly convinced that I was there because I had a fully voluntary abortion. They did not bother to even ask. I had not had a child, was getting post-partum treatment, so I had a voluntary abortion. When I went in for the procedure, several nurses flat out, where I could hear, refused to even deal with me. One was "gracious" enough, but she could not be bothered to understand that the child was already dead. Only once, after I sat for 1/2 hour by the women ready to give birth, did I EVER get any kind of sympathy. I held it together up until I was in the room, alone. Then I could not help but cry. One nurse, only one came in. Only after I was there bawling did she bother to ask "You don't want to be here, do you". The look of shock on her face spoke volumes! Here I was facing the worst day of my life, facing the definite possibility that I would never, ever have a living child, and only one nurse could even bother to notice that I was upset. That is not from Christ. That is from a male-dominated church that cannot be bothered to truly understand women's issues, that is too blind to even see that they don't know, don't understand what women endure! Christ understand. The Roman Catholic Pope... Well, I am sure John Paul would have. But this new one? He cannot be bothered!

Also, even when it is not required to protect the mother, many women prefer to have the surgery either just to "get it over with more quickly" (waiting for a "natural" process can mean 2-3 days, days that you may have to stay home from work or risk having a massive bleed present itself) and, frankly.. the idea of a doctor taking the child is often more palatable than what happens in a "natural" miscarriage.. well, you figure it out, its hardly a sanitary place it winds up. The child is already dead. . The reason this is true is because a first trimester child has no "legal standing", essentially. I don't want to pretend to be a lawyer here, but the bottom line is that no records are kept, at least in PA on whether the child removed was dead already or not. Legally, the child does not have life yet. Some records even include later term procedures that were truly intended as "last ditch" efforts to save the child's life. (not just the mother's!) Sometimes those go wrong and the child dies. Some records also include deaths that follow an amniocentisis or other, similar procedures. The first is not even considered a real abortion by the Roman Catholic Church. Some Roman Catholics and other extremists consider the other two to be "abortions", but that is hardly a universal position, even among Roman Catholic clergy. (the last is more so, because the church does not see a reason for any such procedure).
Player, I will respond to your remarks soon,
Then you have a whole group that yes, the Roman Catholic church and many others would consider to be a true "abortion", but which many, many even conservative Christians feel is justifiable. That is when you are faced with the certainty of a "bad outcome. This includes many ectopic pregnancies. This is a pregnancy held outside the uterus. Such pregnancies almost never succeed (when they do, it is with some very particular circumstances.. I won't get into the full medical details here). Even today, even with all the medical advances this is one of the most life-threatening occurances that can happen in pregnancy. It is one reason why EMTs and such are taught to ALWAYS consider abdominal pain in a child-bearing age woman to be an emergency, even wehn the teen girl is absolutely and firmly swearing they "could not be pregnant". Think of the placement of the uterus, teh close proximity to the aorta (which, if breached can cause someone to irrecoverably bleed out in a few seconds... even if they are on the operating table, with blood ready to transfuse!). Also consider the heavy amount of blood designed to protect and feed the child, etc. AND, consider what happens when the fallopian tubes are ruptured, etc. You may feel it is "justified" that a woman should not be able to have another child, that this is somehow "God's will", but I don't and many theologians, other Christians do not.

Consider also that if the doctor waits until the pregnancy has already failed, saving the mother and her future reproductive health is often not possible. In an emergency, a doctor often just doesn't have time to worry about making nice, neat perfect cuts. He has to get in their FAST and stop the bleeding, etc. Saving the mother's life is his first responsibility. Saving her reproductive future is secondary. You may not care about that, but believe me, millions of women DO.

Then you have the whole group of people faced with children who will endure things that no one would even have considered 50 years ago, never mind 2000 years. Sure, life has sanctity, but when and what does that mean. Does someone who had no brain, but is breathing and has a beating heart (functions controlled by the brain stem, not the brain) really qualify as "human life?" Does a child born to be in pain his entire life really glorify God? I realize you answer that these children should be saved, but many Bible-reading, heartfelt Christians do not. It was not so long ago that midwives were given a bucket for "monstors" and told "not to let the child cry". I am not going to argue about why. That is a debate for you within your church. MY issue is whether you and your church has the right to claim "moral superiority" here and has enough justification in that claim to change the law. I, and many, many others say "no", but it is a "bully pulpit". When the Roman Catholic Bishop meets a Roman Catholic in his office and politely, but firmly explains that he will have no choice but to excommunicate that Congressperson unless they vote against a law permitting abortion, unless they vote in favor of a law further proscribing the procedure, that is not something any believing Roman Catholic will (or should) take lightly! But, it is a very gross overstepping of that Bishops' role. This is NOT a theocracy. If you and others insist that is OK, then we will be returning to a time when Roman Catholics will not be voted into office except in some majority-Catholic regions. Even then, its not certain because, as I said, many Roman Catholics understand quite well the distinction between a law that they must follow and dictating that others follow those rules.

LAST, look at the truly voluntary abortions.
This does include rape and incest, but I will mostly set those aside. Again, only a few would claim that type of abortion is wrong. Under the old Testament, not just that child, but that child's progeny would be doomed for 7 generations. Death hardly seems horrible compared to that! Yes, we no longer hold such, but there are a LOT of issues biologically, medically, psycologically when you tell a woman that she has to carry this child, this child who is always part her and part ... the rapist/close male relative. Give it up for adoption? That is not a peaceful choice. The child, part of her, still exists. It thrusts the problem onto someone else, but does it erase genetic difficulties from incest? NO. Does it erase the genetic input of that rapist, who is likely not the person most people would want for a parent, even "just" a genetic parent? I don't say for sure carrying such a child is wrong. In fact, were I to have to deal with a rape (incest is just not a question, thankfully!), I would carry the child. However, I say that there is enough of a grey area, there are enough people on BOTH sides to make it clear this is not a pure moral choice. There is disagreement. That disagreement is enough to warrant keeping this out of the realm of the judiciary. You, the Roman Catholic church would have doctors performing this procedure in JAIL, for heavens sake! That is not an act from God, that is human judgement. You believe God will condemn these women and that doctor? Fine, let them face that judgement. Let them face it like you believe anyone who is not a practicing Roman Catholic will face it. I have no problem with facing God. It is humans I have issues with!

Finally, you have those who feel they cannot raise a child. I will lump them together with those who think abortion is just "another form of birth control". (and that last is important per Roman Catholic doctrine, because it does not distinguish!)
I am going to say flat out that I find almost all of those plain repugnant. In fact, I don't think you will find anyone, even abortion doctors, who really and truly think abortion is "wonderful" or the best choice. The BEST choice is to prevent those pregnancies from the beginning!

Here, too, the Roman Catholic church stance is plain idiotic. They persist in promoting "abstinance only" so-called education. The truth is that real education is the best way to reduce abortion AND unwanted pregnancies. Claims that sex education, properly conducted, actually increases the chance of kids having sex is just wrong. Furthermore, children are just plain raised under different values. It is not your place or mine to tell other parents what is right and wrong for their child. It is our job to debate, to educate. It is the schools job to educate. Contrary to the baloney put forward by the right, a good sex education does NOT teach 12 year old or 14 year olds that it is "OK to have sex". It acknowledges the sad fact that many kids get that message at home and many others just don't get any message at home and will take their "education" from the media, which certainly does glorify sex. (though most shows are doing a better job now of showing problems with teen pregnancies and even unwed pregnancies). It does 2 things. It gives kids the scientific reasons why sex should be delayed.. the fact, the true fact that no birth control is 100%. It does NOT exaggerate. Some programs mention various controversial ideas, ranging from this idea that Birth control causes irrevocable harm to a woman's future reproductive health (NOT accurate, not taken in the full context of women's health choices and options..t hat is, yes, there are cases where that has happened, but there are far, far more cases where it has helped. Anything medical has drawbacks and benefits. The key is to weigh them, not to focus on only one impact and claim that is the "whole truth"). It also does not gloss over issues like STDs. It talks about condoms, other forms of protection and absolutely mentions their limits, BUT does not ignore the fact that these things, once one has already decided to have sex, can help prevent it from becoming either a death sentance or result in a child.

The real truth is that if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion, the most effective way is to take 2 approaches. First, to teach morality where parents will accept it. That is, churches need to do a better job of explaining WHY "rules" are what they are. God's rules all make sense. The time when simply saying "this is how it is, child..do it or else!" is enough is long past. It works for some, but not most children. Even when it seems to "work", often it is a matter of superficial obedience. That's enough in an "emergency".. a child about to run into the road doesn't need a debate, they need to be grabbed and sat down or otherwise reprimanded. HOWEVER, later, need to be told why you took that action. Do that and before long, the rule is just unnecessary. I agree that more discussion of abortion needs to happen, but in the full context of sex education. I also think that what is taught through churches is quite distinct from what is appropriate in fully public schools that don't just cater to kids raised with one set of values.

You don't know if the mother will survive or not,

Often times, a doctor very much does. Medical science has come a very, very long way and continues to advance.

but if you can save the baby you should as from a Catholic stance at least....which brings me to the point.

I am not going to argue the right or wrong of Roman Catholic doctrine with you. That is your debate, not mine. I simply say I find it abhorrant. I am not Roman Catholic and do not have to agree with you or your Bishop or the Pope. In this case, I do not.

The nun is Catholic right? So if she firmly believes otherwise then she shouldn't be Catholic, so why would she care if she is excommunicated? That is my point...and that is why I wrote that whole thing from before.

First, this is hardly a uniform position within your church. But again, that is a debate for you and your church, not me. I already reject it.

As for why I care? First because it is just a gross injustice and any caring person cares about injustice. Second, these things no longer stop just at the doors of the Roman Catholic church. When Bishops decide they have the right to lobby MY legislators and MY congressmen, then they can no longer hide behind the church. They give up the right to say "this is a matter of religious freedom". It no longer is. It is a matter of whether the Roman Catholic church has the right to dictate MY laws, and laws that every other American must follow. THAT is the clear distinction.

Player, I will respond to your remarks soon

With all respect, I am not going to debate the intricacies of Roman Catholic versus Protestant beliefs. What I stated is how Protestants, not just a few "biased individuals" as you like to claim, but the educated, highly sensitive, theological and religious community think. I understand that you don't agree. That is why we have 2 seperate churches and likely will for a very long time. We plain disagree.

I myself am not an expert. What I said IS the real truth.. the truth in what many, many Roman Catholics, real people with whom I talk and have spoken, feel AND the truth of the theological differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. One thing the Roman Catholic church does NOT do very well is teaching about the bredth of Christian thinking. They don't because it is, to them, irrelevant. Protestants, by contrast, tend to find it very relevant. It is relevant because we are often faced with Roman Catholics who want to lecture us or change laws, etc. It is relevant because many of us, myself included will wind up marrying Roman Catholics. My church has no issue with that, not at all. And, per my supposed "bias" agains the church, I actually told my husband that I would be willing to have my child baptized a Roman Catholic, to have him attend CCD, etc. That did not mean any kind of "capitulation" in my beliefs. It means that I fully recognize Roman Catholicism to be Christian. I also fully recognize that, despite the partial reconcilliation of Vatican II, tolerance is mostly one way. The local Priest did assure my husband and I that a baptism from the Lutheran church would be accepted. That was mostly to appease my mother-in law. However, my husband has a LOT of anger toward the Roman Catholic church. How much, I did not fully realize until after I had married him or I would have insisted he resolve those issues before we married. However, the bottom line is that I am not "anti" Roman Catholic. I am against their politicizing their beliefs. I hold that stance regarding ANY church, for the reason that I believe freedom of religion is our best protection. I have nothing to fear from other people's religious beliefs or moral stances, because I am firm in my own beliefs. I am raising my sons the same way.

[PLAYER57832]

so point out to me where the worship is?

You didn't just point to a handful of examples yourself?

no. none of that is worship.

Many Protestants and particularly the newer "charismatic" churches would say it is. It is a point of contention between the churches.

and what part of that would be worship? the quoting of scripture? the acknowledgement of her position of jesus' mother, which is scripturally based? or the asking of another to pray for you?

help a girl out here.

This is a theological debate.

I am not an expert and not claiming to be. I believe my church, certainly know that these teachings (on either side) don't come from a point of hatred or such. They come from each reading, studying the Bible and seeing, because we are different human beings with different experiences, a different message.

So, to really get into why this is considered so, you really need to look up Protestant theologians.

Beyond that, there are 2 points. The first is that many people, humans that they are, go beyond the Roman Catholic doctrine (even including many clergy) and really do teach praying to Mary, the saints, etc and really do discourage any but Priests from praying directly to God. Among hispanic Catholics, it is very common to give more importance to Mary than to Christ, even, in a real sense. Now, they would say they consider Christ above Mary, but the real impact, from a Protestant (and even, to a point, Roman Catholic) perspective is that they place Mary next to God/Christ in a way that is just inappropriate.

The second part is that even true Roman Catholic doctrine, we feel, gives far too much power to saints, to Mary. We don't believe there is validity to praying to dead people. Mary, the saints are all dead. They are honored, they will arise again, but they are now resting. We don't pray to saints or any other entity but God. We consider doing so in any fashion to be wrong. Folks in some churches go further. They sometimes say that people praying to saints, for example, might be actually praying to evil entities. I do NOT believe that! I only mention it because it is a belief held by some. Note that even that extreme position does not really come from bigotry (usually), it again comes from their understanding of the Bible, etc.

We also don't accept Purgatory, don't accept the Roman Catholic concept of sin removal. That gets into some technicalities. Again, rather than my trying to explain, it would be better if you went directly to the theological arguments. Else, its too easy for me to just misstate something. And, like I said above, there is also a difference between things that are very commonly believed by many Roman Catholics and what is really and truly taught as Roman Catholic doctrine.

[jay_a2j]

Edit: At the time I gave my speech it was in the mid 90's and at that time 4,000 abortions were preformed EVERY DAY in the US alone.
"

That data includes things that would not be considered an abortion by most people... but go on believing as you would.

According to you everyone who doesn't share your views is out there advertising for clinics.

You need not defend your beliefs to me, but one greater than I, who's sandals I am unworthy to loose.

On a side note, stop putting words in my mouth, else one can call you a liar.

In this issue, I know a LOT more than you. I wish you would take the time to actually verify the garbage you claim is true. That means looking beyond your usual sources, though, something you have made clear you will not do.
And I have absolutely no fear of answering to God. My issue is never withGod, it is with human's claim that they know better than I God's will for me.

If you believe God has no problem with abortion, YOU don't know much at all. All the "garbage" was verified. The only garbage around here are your posts.You know a lot more than me on this issue why??? Because you are a female? Don't be such a repulsive bigot! I've done the research you are the one in the wrong.

[Timminz]

Wow. You really are a despicable person, aren't you.

[jay_a2j]

Wow. You really are a despicable person, aren't you.

If you mean one easily angered by people who claim to be Christian and then go against almost every single Christian belief, I guess so. I have NEVER met anyone quite like her. And it angers me she proclaims herself Christian yet at every turn contradicts the teachings of scripture. But like you care, you are just stirring the pot. Get a hobby already.

[Timminz]

A yes, anger. Wonderful emotion, that.

[PLAYER57832]

This might be a pretty relevant image found online...



: )

It is neither relevant, nor an accurate representation of evolution. And I already gave you plenty of chance to actually debate that issue. You never bothered to even read most of what I wrote. You don't get respect because you have long since shown you don't deserve real respect.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow. You really are a despicable person, aren't you.

If you mean one easily angered by people who claim to be Christian and then go against almost every single Christian belief, I guess so. I have NEVER met anyone quite like her. And it angers me she proclaims herself Christian yet at every turn contradicts the teachings of scripture. But like you care, you are just stirring the pot. Get a hobby already.

I have not come even close to "at every turn [contradicting] the teachings of the scripture" or going "against every single Christian belief." You violate a prime commandment right there, by putting forth false witness.

Christ never even spoke of evolution, He also did not mention abortion and, though there is a legitimate dispute over this point (to clarify, "dispute" means that intelligent, educated, faithful people disagree) neither did he directly mention homosexuality (all references are second hand, and as I said, debateable). So, even if I were espousing the views you claim I espouse, how, precisely can you consider those primary teachings of the scripture?

Second, you don't represent my point at all and have never shown you even bothered to read my points.. you just key in onto one or two phrases and go off on your lecture. That is not how Christ taught us to act.

The truth is I never said that I agree with homosexuality and don't agree with abortion, except in some very narrow circumstances. I disagree on the response. I believe tolerance and love go far further. I also don't believe I am free enough of sin to proclaim the right to dictate to others how they should act. That is between them and God, excepting only when their actions actually get in the way of my safety or religious practice. As for evolution.. at least I KNOW the creationist debate. You dispute what you don't even bother to understand! You refuse to even consider real evidence, and therefore have no idea how ridiculous your claims of "proof" are..

Ignoring dissenters, claiming to refute what you don't understand and proclaiming falsities about the position of others are not what Christ taught us.

Yes, I did exaggerate when I said you think anyone opposed to you might as well be advertising for abortion clinics, but given the context, that was pretty well understood. Only an idiot would claim it was supposed to be a literal statement. Are you, then that mush of an idiot, that you cannot distinguish? I don't think so, though sometimes you like to play the part.

[Woodruff]

But in this argument... not sure of the connection. How is someone too ill to move to an operating room? That makes no fing sense to me.

My medical expertise amounts to watching episodes of M*A*S*H. However, on M*A*S*H this sort of thing did happen from time to time.

you may be right man... honestly my knowledge on emergency medicene is very limited

Clearly, you need to watch more M*A*S*H.

[Woodruff]

When do you personally claim life begins for humans?

"Life" is a very different thing from "viable human life" - which do you mean?

You call me out for one or more ocd type statement and should have a pretty good idea about how I communicate by now perhaps. Maybe equating can be defined more than one way, but you responded to two sentences here perhaps...

Maybe perhaps you could fucking be a little more specific instead of talking in vague generalities possibly?

When do spirits enter physical bodies if not right at conception points?

You tell me...with proof. For that matter, prove that there is such a thing as a "spirit" in a body at all.

Do babies not generally get regular heart beats around a 21st day of development either way?

And?

What suggests to you that I was equating heartbeat with a spirit entering a body with those?

Your question to me certainly implied that you were. Why else ask it that way?

Does the first not refer to conceptions points and the second not refer to time around 21st days of development?

No, "a spirit entering a body" absolutely does NOT refer to conception's point, at least as far as I'm concerned. I'll refer you back to my request for proof on this one, since you seem to be trying to claim it as fact.

I was (or am or both?) making one or more point having to do with when life begins maybe. You might personally be an atheist or agnostic who does not believe in spirits in the first place. Those were to Player specifically and not to you and the same goes for a number of things you have replied to maybe.

So if I don't believe in spirits, then my opinion is invalid? Is that what you're saying?

This might be a pretty relevant image found online...

: )

That may well be the most insipid chart I've ever seen in my life. In fact, it looks like the sort of stupidity that would come from a Chick tract. Do you like Chick tracts, Lionz?

You might find some useful results from searching herbal substitutes for pain relief in a search engine.

You might also find a whole heaping load of utter crapola that at best just won't do anything damaging to your body.

[Woodruff]

Wow. You really are a despicable person, aren't you.

If you mean one easily angered by people who claim to be Christian and then go against almost every single Christian belief, I guess so. I have NEVER met anyone quite like her. And it angers me she proclaims herself Christian yet at every turn contradicts the teachings of scripture. But like you care, you are just stirring the pot. Get a hobby already.

Where is PLAYER's position on abortion in contradiction with the teachings of scripture, Jay? Do you even know what PLAYER's position on abortion IS?

[jay_a2j]

Player just so you know, Christ's teachings are not the only teachings in scripture. Scripture DOES address homosexuality and abortion. You now state that you are against both? Really? You really need to go back and read your countless posts that ally yourself with homosexuality. While you're at it re-examine your posts on abortion. Are you bi-polar? Something is definitely wrong in your mental process. Do me a favor, being that this is my final post addressed to you, do not respond to my posts. (I won't see them) You go on with your faith, and continue to lead people astray, that is your choice.



Love in Christ,

jay_a2j



and as always.....the debate IS over!

[Woodruff]

Player just so you know, Christ's teachings are not the only teachings in scripture. Scripture DOES address homosexuality and abortion. You now state that you are against both? Really? You really need to go back and read your countless posts that ally yourself with homosexuality. While you're at it re-examine your posts on abortion. Are you bi-polar? Something is definitely wrong in your mental process. Do me a favor, being that this is my final post addressed to you, do not respond to my posts. (I won't see them) You go on with your faith, and continue to lead people astray, that is your choice.

The problem is clearly that you need to learn how to read. PLAYER's position has never been that she is in favor of abortion with the exception of extremely limited circumstances. She is personally anti-abortion. However, she believes that it is not her place to dictate her morals onto other people by rule of law.

[PLAYER57832]

Player just so you know, Christ's teachings are not the only teachings in scripture. Scripture DOES address homosexuality and abortion. You now state that you are against both? Really? You really need to go back and read your countless posts that ally yourself with homosexuality. While you're at it re-examine your posts on abortion. Are you bi-polar? Something is definitely wrong in your mental process. Do me a favor, being that this is my final post addressed to you, do not respond to my posts. (I won't see them) You go on with your faith, and continue to lead people astray, that is your choice.

Yes, well, you make it clear you feel you have the perfection that allows you to judge other people. I don't.