Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (80) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 195086  
Subject: Amazing Date: 10/14/2001 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Someone told me today that in the wake of the terrorist attack in NYC, Planned Parenthood announced that it would be giving free "medical services" at its New York City offices. "Medical services" includes abortion. I could not find anything in the News section of Planned Parenthood's Web site, but I did find this article talking about it on American Life League's site. How utterly horrifying. I am completely disgusted.

http://www.all.org/news/011001.htm

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: precious1965 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62333 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 9:23 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?

Please do not inflame controversial discussions without facts. I, for one, prefer supported facts.

I could find no mention of free abortion services at the Planned Parenthood website:
http://www.ppnyc.org/new/releases/inthenews/wtcservices.html
"Any woman who has been unable to access care can visit any Planned Parenthood health center in Brooklyn, the Bronx or Manhattan to receive free comprehensive reproductive health services, including GYN care, birth control, emergency contraception, STD and HIV testing and counseling. "

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62335 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 10:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
"Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?"

Emergency contraception is a euphemism for RU486 which is an abortion drug.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: precious1965 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62338 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 11:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition. As stated below (and my own personal opinion) if something prevents pregnancy (implantation), then it is not an abortion.

http://www.choice.org/ecp/whatis.html
"Emergency contraception does not cause an abortion, which is the termination of an existing pregnancy. Medically, a woman is pregnant only after a fertilized egg has already implanted in her uterus. Emergency contraception prevents ovulation, fertilization and/or implantation, so it prevents pregnancy from occurring. Indeed, if a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception will not work and her pregnancy will continue. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) stated in 1996 that EC is ineffective after implantation and that it does not cause spontaneous abortion. EC is not the same as the French Abortion Pill, the common name for mifepristone or RU-486, which is used to end an existing pregnancy. (bold from original quote)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/BIRTHCONTROL/EC.htmlEmergency
"Contraception Is Not a "Morning-After Pill"

"Emergency contraception, also called postcoital contraception, can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. Emergency contraception is provided in two ways: using hormonal contraceptive pills or inserting a copper-releasing IUD (intrauterine device).

"(1) Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECPs) are taken in two doses. The first dose should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, and the second dose 12 hours later (FDA, 1997). (Because ECPs have a three-day window of effectiveness and require multiple doses of pills, the popular term "morning-after pill" is misleading.)

"(2) An IUD can be inserted to prevent pregnancy up to five days after unprotected intercourse (Van Look & Stewart, 1998).

http://www.rcrc.org/pubs/speakout/ec.html
"Public reaction has been enthusiastic. Even the National Right to Life Committee signaled its tacit acceptance because emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy. Unfortunately, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and a small minority of other anti-family planning activists have attempted to generate opposition by claiming that emergency contraception causes abortion. This misinformation campaign threatens to limit the availability of one of the most effective ways to reduce the need for abortion. -- From The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice http://www.rcrc.org/rcrc/rcrc.html Comprised of national Christian, Jewish and other religious organizations, the Religious Coalition provides opportunities for religious people to examine and articulate their own pro-choice positions. We assist clergy in educating their congregations, communities, and elected officials about the theological and ethical dimensions of reproductive choice.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DiabloQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62339 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 11:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?"

Emergency contraception is a euphemism for RU486 which is an abortion drug.


slight disagreement: I've never heard of Ru486 described as emergency contraception. RU486 causes an abortion on an established pregnancy. Emergency Contraception is taking "The Morning After Pill" which is higer doses of birth control pills. IIRC, the morning after pill works to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and is thusly classified by pro-life folks as being an abortifacient. This is different from RU486 which causes an abortion several weeks into a pregnancy.

Planned Parenthaood may have offered free abortions, I can't tell from the letter if they're included or not in the free offer. here's a link to the "OPEN LETTER OF CONDOLENCE AND ENCOURAGEMENT FROM PPNYC AFTER WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS"
http://www.ppnyc.org/new/releases/wtcletter.html
Quote from the letter: For the many women who were displaced or otherwise in need due to the tragedy, PPNYC offered complete reproductive health care from September 18th through September 29th free of cost.

It does appear that Planned Parenthood is looking to expand availability of RU486 and the availability of medical abortions.
Link to news article about RU486:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010924/hl/contraception_1.html
Quote from the article: Feldt noted that eventually, all Planned Parenthood's sexual health clinics, even those that don't now provide abortions, may offer the drug. ``One of the great promises of mifepristone is to be more geographically accessible to women, and so my hope is that the 750 Planned Parenthood clinics (that don't offer surgical abortions) will, over time, begin to provide mifepristone.'






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62341 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 11:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
<< Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?

Please do not inflame controversial discussions without facts. I, for one, prefer supported facts.
>>

First of all, when a girl goes into Planned Parenthood unsure of whether or not she wants to have her baby, they will inevitably try to convince her to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood is in the abortion business because it is highly profitable for them. They hide all of this behind their semantics.


<< birth control, emergency contraception, >>

Second of all, birth control is in many cases abortifacient. The "pill" does not stop ovulation, it only makes the uterine lining insufficient for an embryo to implant itself. Use of condoms, IUDs, etc, reduces the sexual act to mutual m*******tion [1], because the primary purpose of the act becomes pleasure, and not a self-giving which is open to new life.

Thirdly, what exactly do you think emergency contraception is? Oh my gosh! I forgot to take my pill [abortifacient] this morning, I better run and get a dose of RU-486!!!   Sounds like Planned Parenthood is hiding its agenda behind semantics again.


In Christ,
Bryan



[1] You figure out what this word is. I don't want to get a pulled post just because someone is feeling sensitive to a completely adult term used in an appropriate and non-offensive manner today.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62342 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 22
<< A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition. >>

This is a classic example of moral relativism. The answer to this question is simply this:

At Conception, a new genetic code, a new soul, a new dignity, a new life is created. Implantation is simply a relocation of that new life, in the same way that birth is, and in the same way that my relocation to Michigan was last month.

The question is not about "When" the pregnancy occurs. It is about when a new PERSON occurs. If you deny the personhood of an embryo, or fetus, or any other scientific term you want to use, then you can basically justify doing just about anything, including partial birth abortion.

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62345 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 12:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
beejous:

<< A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition. >>

"At Conception, a new genetic code, a new soul, a new dignity, a new life is created."

IIRC, when ensoulment occurred has been a hotly contested point of contention over the centuries.

Regards, JAFO




Print the post Back To Top
Author: Rizzo21 Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62349 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 1:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?

Where did you get the idea that anything Planned Parenthood is involved in does not include abortion?


Print the post Back To Top
Author: DiabloQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62351 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 1:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Where did you get the definition of free "medical services" to include abortion?

Where did you get the idea that anything Planned Parenthood is involved in does not include abortion?


They do offer other services besides abortion. Years ago when I worked a crappy retail job and didn't have health insurnce, I was able to get routine exams & pap smears through them very cheaply.

They do offer abortions but that isn't all they do.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62352 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 1:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
<< IIRC, when ensoulment occurred has been a hotly contested point of contention over the centuries. >>

Even if the soul were not created until Baptism (now wouldn't that be a heresy!), it is fairly irrelevant. Because at conception a new genetic code, a new LIFE is created. It is no longer a cell with just the mother's genetic code, or a cell with just the father's genetic code. It is a new life, with its own genetic makeup, one with its own dignity, by virtue of which it becomes a PERSON. Ephesians 1:4 - "He chose in him before the foundation of the world..." (this may be slightly paraphrased, I don't have the time to look up the verse). Since God planned all of us before the world began, even those babies who are aborted either by chemical (include artificial birth control) or surgical methods, then why wouldn't He ensoul that new LIFE at conception, when it becomes a new LIFE? Wouldn't this be basic logic?

Either way, I think the issue of ensoulment is often brought up to distract from the original argument; it is not necessarily essential to the original argument.

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62356 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 2:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"slight disagreement: "

I accept and thank you for the clarification.

From my perspective, an abortifacient still causes abortions.

I also appreciate your quotes showing PP's position. I'd be very surprised if surgical abortion was not part of what they think of as "complete> reproductive health care".

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62357 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 3:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
beejous:

<< A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition. >>

"At Conception, a new genetic code, a new soul, a new dignity, a new life is created."

[JAFO] IIRC, when ensoulment occurred has been a hotly contested point of contention over the centuries.

beejous: "Even if the soul were not created until Baptism (now wouldn't that be a heresy!), it is fairly irrelevant. Because at conception a new genetic code, a new LIFE is created. It is no longer a cell with just the mother's genetic code, or a cell with just the father's genetic code. It is a new life, with its own genetic makeup, one with its own dignity, by virtue of which it becomes a PERSON. Ephesians 1:4 - "He chose in him before the foundation of the world..." (this may be slightly paraphrased, I don't have the time to look up the verse). Since God planned all of us before the world began, even those babies who are aborted either by chemical (include artificial birth control) or surgical methods, then why wouldn't He ensoul that new LIFE at conception, when it becomes a new LIFE? Wouldn't this be basic logic?

Either way, I think the issue of ensoulment is often brought up to distract from the original argument; it is not necessarily essential to the original argument."


If you say so, but you brought the new soul (ensoulment) issue first; I only responded to your post.

You new suggestion raises issues related to spontaneous abortion/miscarriage --- why would God ensoul those God did not intend to allow live birth (or be born alive, if you prefer)? BWDIK.

Regards, JAFO





Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62358 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 3:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
<< If you say so, but you brought the new soul (ensoulment) issue first; I only responded to your post. >>

Sorry for any confusion.


<< You new suggestion raises issues related to spontaneous abortion/miscarriage --- why would God ensoul those God did not intend to allow live birth (or be born alive, if you prefer)? BWDIK. >>

Yeah, see, this opens up all kinds of other questions, like why did he allow anyone to live, knowing that they would have to experience pain and suffering in this life? Come on.


In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62362 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
beejous:

[JAFO] << If you say so, but you brought the new soul (ensoulment) issue first; I only responded to your post. >>

"Sorry for any confusion."

No probelms with me. I just did not want the balance of the board thinking that I raised ensoulment initially in an effort to steer the discussion off course.

beejous: {{{{{Since God planned all of us before the world began, even those babies who are aborted either by chemical (include artificial birth control) or surgical methods, then why wouldn't He ensoul that new LIFE at conception, when it becomes a new LIFE? Wouldn't this be basic logic?}}}}} (from the earlier post)

[JAFO] << You new suggestion raises issues related to spontaneous abortion/miscarriage --- why would God ensoul those God did not intend to allow live birth (or be born alive, if you prefer)? BWDIK. >>

"Yeah, see, this opens up all kinds of other questions, like why did he allow anyone to live, knowing that they would have to experience pain and suffering in this life? Come on."

That is not what I said, nor anywhere near what I said.

If you do not want to discuss with me, fine; but this is now the second post in this thread that appears to me to ignoring what I actually said/putting words in my mouth, which I dislike.

You referenced chemical or surgical abortion but wholly ignored miscarriage and then tell me "come on" when I ask how that fits in with your position. I do not think that I am making that much a stretch (miscarriage existing loong before surgical abortion and probably before chemical abortion), and I do not believe that I was disrespectful in my reponses to you (partly because I often like your responses).

Obviously, you are garnering more recs with your position, suggesting that it is more in line with the thinking of the balance of the board, but I fail to see how this most recent response in anyway addresses the issue instead of simply mocking it.

Regards, JAFO











Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62363 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<< You referenced chemical or surgical abortion but wholly ignored miscarriage and then tell me "come on" when I ask how that fits in with your position. I do not think that I am making that much a stretch (miscarriage existing loong before surgical abortion and probably before chemical abortion), and I do not believe that I was disrespectful in my reponses to you (partly because I often like your responses).

Obviously, you are garnering more recs with your position, suggesting that it is more in line with the thinking of the balance of the board, but I fail to see how this most recent response in anyway addresses the issue instead of simply mocking it.
>>


JAFO,

I apologize if my previous post was somewhat crass and did not answer your question. I was on the run and apparently did not take enough time to understand correctly what you were asking.

As for miscarriages, the quick answer is "I don't know". I believe that babies are ensouled at the moment of conception. The new life is co-created by mother, father, and God. As for why God would allow a baby to die before being born, it is a mystery.

Here is an interesting article on ensoulment:
http://www.all.org/abac/jch005.htm

Sorry that I am not able to give a more concise answer to this particular question. Perhaps someone else who shares my view and has studied the question of miscarriages more could give a better answer.

In Christ,
Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62367 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 7:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Precious1965,

I could find no mention of free abortion services at the Planned Parenthood website:
http://www.ppnyc.org/new/releases/inthenews/wtcservices.html
"Any woman who has been unable to access care can visit any Planned Parenthood health center in Brooklyn, the Bronx or Manhattan to receive free comprehensive reproductive health services,...


Sorry to burst your bubble, but Planned Barrenhood's definition of "comprehensive reproductive health services" includes abortions.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62368 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
beejous: "I apologize if my previous post was somewhat crass and did not answer your question. I was on the run and apparently did not take enough time to understand correctly what you were asking."

No problem.

"As for miscarriages, the quick answer is "I don't know". I believe that babies are ensouled at the moment of conception. The new life is co-created by mother, father, and God. As for why God would allow a baby to die before being born, it is a mystery.

Here is an interesting article on ensoulment:
http://www.all.org/abac/jch005.htm

Sorry that I am not able to give a more concise answer to this particular question. Perhaps someone else who shares my view and has studied the question of miscarriages more could give a better answer."


I do not know either, but I thought (and think) it an interesting question (and one that should not be ignored, because I beieve that if it cannot be encompassed by the view under the discussion, then the view has not been thought all the way through).

It is also interesting that in USA, I believe that death is now usually defined as the absence of brain waves and activity (not an exact quote because most my detailed studies on this subject are a long way behind me); this might suggest that the absence of brainwaves/activity of the front side of the life question also means not yeat alive. My recollection of cell division and specializiation is even further behind me and I do not remember the deatils of the charts from when my wife was pregnant, but clearly for some period of time after conception there is no brain wave activity. Food for thought.

Thirdly, full adhesion to the life begins at conception position raises issues with alot of in vitro fertilization clinics; it is my understanding that most do not attempt to fertilize a single egg at a time, meaning that some lives are lived frozen in laboratories or ended (not brought to fruitition) when never implanted. Again, I believe that fertilizing single eggs one at a time would be both more expensive and more time consuming for those couples trying to use in vitro fertilization (whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to each to draw their own conclusion; I have not sorted out my thoughts on the topic); I am unsure whether it would also increase the risk to the potential donor because of an increased frequency of egg harvesting (mainly because I am not familiar enough with the lab procedures and I am too lazy to research at the moment).

Regards, JAFO




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62369 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
precious1965,

A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition. As stated below (and my own personal opinion) if something prevents pregnancy (implantation), then it is not an abortion....

Unfortunately, you're buying into the spin of the pro-abortion crowd. They don't tell the truth about a child in the womb being a living human being, so why do you expect them to speak truthfully about anything else?

In particular, the argument that the "morning after" pill does not cause an abortion because the woman is not pregnant until implantation occurs is seriously misleading. A unique human being comes into existence when an ovum and a sperm cell merge into one. Morally, any willful act intended to cause the death of that child is murder, without exception. That principle includes the use of a "morning after" pill to prevent implantation after conception has occurred. Any debate over semantics as to whether it's strictly an "abortion" is completely moot from a moral perspective.

That said, I certainly would use the term "abortion" in reference to a deliberate act to cause the expulsion of the child from the womb, regardless of whether implantation has occurred or not.

From a group calling itself the "Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice" (remember that "Reproductive Choice" is their euphemism for "Legal Abortion on Demand"), you posted a quote that said, "Even the National Right to Life Committee signaled its tacit acceptance because emergency contraception does not end a pregnancy." This is utterly beyond belief since the National Right to Life Committee is opposed to abortion in any form.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62371 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Bryan,

Thirdly, what exactly do you think emergency contraception is? Oh my gosh! I forgot to take my pill [abortifacient] this morning, I better run and get a dose of RU-486!!! Sounds like Planned Parenthood is hiding its agenda behind semantics again.

Fran is right. You are confusing the "morning after pill" tith RU-486.

The "morning after pill" is a drug that prevents the embryo from implanting in the womb.

RU-486 is a drug that induces abortion after implantation has occurred. It's generally used in the early stages of pregnancy, but after the pregnancy tests produce a positive reading.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62375 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< It is also interesting that in USA, I believe that death is now usually defined as the absence of brain waves and activity (not an exact quote because most my detailed studies on this subject are a long way behind me); this might suggest that the absence of brainwaves/activity of the front side of the life question also means not yeat alive. My recollection of cell division and specializiation is even further behind me and I do not remember the deatils of the charts from when my wife was pregnant, but clearly for some period of time after conception there is no brain wave activity. Food for thought. >>

Well, just because the current definition of something is "x" does not mean that it is correct. But my take on this is:   you are correct, there is no brain wave activity for a certain amount of time after conception (I wanna say that it's maybe 6 weeks, but don't quote me on that). This relates to what the writer of the article to which I linked discussed -- potentiality and actuality. While I have some understanding of these philosophical concepts, I am not yet able to discuss them cogently in this type of setting, so I must rely on other's material for now. Here is a link to an article in the Catholic encyclopedia which discusses the philosophical concepts of potentiality and actuality:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01125b.htm

Basically, the "primary matter" in this case is the embryo, which has the potential of becoming fully-developed human person.

Also, another point to make in this discussion is that a soul does not presuppose brain waves. After we die, our soul goes on in eternity, and we certainly do not have brain waves after our bodies have died and are 6 feet under!


<< Thirdly, full adhesion to the life begins at conception position raises issues with alot of in vitro fertilization clinics; it is my understanding that most do not attempt to fertilize a single egg at a time, meaning that some lives are lived frozen in laboratories or ended (not brought to fruitition) when never implanted. Again, I believe that fertilizing single eggs one at a time would be both more expensive and more time consuming for those couples trying to use in vitro fertilization (whether that is a good or bad thing I leave to each to draw their own conclusion; I have not sorted out my thoughts on the topic); I am unsure whether it would also increase the risk to the potential donor because of an increased frequency of egg harvesting (mainly because I am not familiar enough with the lab procedures and I am too lazy to research at the moment). >>

In vitro fertilization is immoral because it separates the unitive and procreative meaning of the marital act. The procreative occurs in a petri dish. The marital act must be an act of self-giving which is open to life. We may be able to say that couples using In Vitro are open to life, but they are not open to GOD'S PLAN FOR LIFE -- they are open to life in a selfish manner and trying to bring it about on their own will.

Persons who are not able to conceive have many other options, such as adoption, or using a morally-sound reproductive therapy such as NaPro (http://www.popepaulvi.com/NaPro1.htm).

An important thing to remember is that the soul is not a material thing. The embryo that you talk about may be frozen, but the soul is not. That embryo may be frozen until the end of time, it may be discarded, or destroyed through lab testing; whatever way, we trust in the merciful and benevolent God who surely opens the doors of heaven to that soul, just as He does for all children who are aborted.

In Christ,
Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: DiabloQueen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62376 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Bryan,

Thirdly, what exactly do you think emergency contraception is? Oh my gosh! I forgot to take my pill [abortifacient] this morning, I better run and get a dose of RU-486!!! Sounds like Planned Parenthood is hiding its agenda behind semantics again.

Fran is right. You are confusing the "morning after pill" tith RU-486.

The "morning after pill" is a drug that prevents the embryo from implanting in the womb.

RU-486 is a drug that induces abortion after implantation has occurred. It's generally used in the early stages of pregnancy, but after the pregnancy tests produce a positive reading.

Norm.


Worth a rec just for the bolded part. :)

Thanks.

-- Fran


Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62377 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/15/2001 8:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<< Worth a rec just for the bolded part. :) >>

Heck, I'll rec it also. My mistake. However, whether it is "emergency contraception" or "RU-486", it still constitutes an abortion if conception has already taken place. Sorry for my unclearness (is that a word? ;-)

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62381 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 12:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<<<In vitro fertilization is immoral because it separates the unitive and procreative meaning of the marital act. The procreative occurs in a petri dish. The marital act must be an act of self-giving which is open to life. We may be able to say that couples using In Vitro are open to life, but they are not open to GOD'S PLAN FOR LIFE -- they are open to life in a selfish manner and trying to bring it about on their own will.

Persons who are not able to conceive have many other options, . . . .>>>>

I am mostly intending to let your post be the end of my postings in this thread, in part, I can see I have touched a nerve, but you have not yet rolled out the RC prohibitions and immorality of barrier contraceptives for interfering with the potentiality of life and numerous other branches of Christendom have reviewed this issue and not come to the same conclusion WRT to barrier contraceptives.

Regards, JAFO

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62396 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 9:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<< I can see I have touched a nerve, but you have not yet rolled out the RC prohibitions and immorality of barrier contraceptives for interfering with the potentiality of life and numerous other branches of Christendom have reviewed this issue and not come to the same conclusion WRT to barrier contraceptives. >>

I don't know what you mean by "touched a nerve"... if you mean that I am getting flustered, well, I'm not. I was simply stating my position.

I think the barrier contraceptive issue has been discussed at length here on this board. I would be happy to bring it up again if you would like to discuss it. Since you mention the "RC" prohibition, I would simply add at this point that the RC church has held the same stance WRT barrier contraceptives for the past 2000 years, while many protestant denominations changed their stance beginning in the 1930s, having previously held the same view as the RC church (eg., that barrier contraceptives are immoral). We can discuss more if you wish.

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62407 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 3:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
How utterly horrifying. I am completely disgusted.

And what is it aside from feeling horrified and disgusted that you are doing otherwise?

Sorry, Bryan and others, but we live in a sin-filled place. This is -not- the world we were created to inhabit. Deal with it. Get out there and relate to those who might otherwise consume these services you're so mortified by. That or wait for the pruning shears.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62409 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
I was trying to refrain from being drawn into a namby-pamby battle of definitions but this has to be answered:

In vitro fertilization is immoral because it separates the unitive and procreative meaning of the marital act. The procreative occurs in a petri dish. The marital act must be an act of self-giving which is open to life. We may be able to say that couples using In Vitro are open to life, but they are not open to GOD'S PLAN FOR LIFE -- they are open to life in a selfish manner and trying to bring it about on their own will.

Persons who are not able to conceive have many other options, such as adoption, or using a morally-sound reproductive therapy such as NaPro (http://www.popepaulvi.com/NaPro1.htm).


With all due respect, you've just insulted a huge portion of the God-fearing population with your narrow-minded view. My coworker, friend, brother in Christ shared with me yesterday the wonderful news of he and his wife's successful in vitro fertilization over the weekend. I'll let no one tell me God doesn't have something wonderful in mind for the child they expect.

Tell us, what is God's plan for life? I doubt you can answer. God's plan for life got torqued over waaaaay back when temptation couldn't be resisted long enough to see what His plan really was.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62410 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
<< And what is it aside from feeling horrified and disgusted that you are doing otherwise?

Sorry, Bryan and others, but we live in a sin-filled place. This is -not- the world we were created to inhabit. Deal with it. Get out there and relate to those who might otherwise consume these services you're so mortified by. That or wait for the pruning shears.
>>


Gosh, Sco, I'm at a loss for words. I don't recall expressing an inability to "deal with it" in my original post, nor do I recall discussing at all what it is that I do with my time (such as praying at abortion clinics) when I am not here on this board.

Perhaps the purpose of my original post was just to alert people to something that was going on so that they could do something about it?

I am not going to waste my breath (or typing, as it were) on giving you a list of things that I do do to "deal with" these atrocities.

Let us all pray for the gift of charity.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62411 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 4:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
"Sco", there is a lot in your post, I'm going to have to break it out by clause:


<< With all due respect, >>

Well, at least you're trying to approach this post with respect. I couldn't say the same for your last post.


<< you've just insulted a huge portion of the God-fearing population with your narrow-minded view. >>

You've just insulted me by calling me narrow-minded. Further, you're painting a broad generalization of the "God-fearing" population. Further further, the view is that which is taught by the Catholic church and one that I and all devout Catholics believe in. For me not to believe this view but to call myself a devout Catholic would be hypocrisy. Lastly, does the fact that a certain statistic of people believe something (in this case, the "huge portion of the God-fearing population") make it right? Heard of moral relativism?


<< My coworker, friend, brother in Christ shared with me yesterday the wonderful news of he and his wife's successful in vitro fertilization over the weekend. I'll let no one tell me God doesn't have something wonderful in mind for the child they expect. >>

Of course God has something wonderful in mind for that child. Does that mean that the couple had the right to take matters into their own hands, and use an immoral fertilization technique to conceive?


<< Tell us, what is God's plan for life? I doubt you can answer. God's plan for life got torqued over waaaaay back when temptation couldn't be resisted long enough to see what His plan really was. >>

God's plan is that we live in union with him. That is, in union with his will, not ours. In this case, that means that a married couple who isn't able to conceive naturally can, with much prayer and openness to God's will, use morally-acceptable methods of having children (NaPro, adoption, etc).

I already explained why In Vitro is immoral. But here is a link to a full-length article that addresses it in great detail:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/IVF_LIFE.TXT


In Christ,
Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: precious1965 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62412 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 4:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
And I felt insulted by you, Beejous, in your post number 62342 “This is a classic example of moral relativism. The answer to this question is simply this:”. While YOUR view may be the official Catholic church view, it is not the only view, nor the only Christian view.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62413 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 5:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Gosh, Sco, I'm at a loss for words. I don't recall expressing an inability to "deal with it" in my original post, nor do I recall discussing at all what it is that I do with my time (such as praying at abortion clinics) when I am not here on this board.

Perhaps the purpose of my original post was just to alert people to something that was going on so that they could do something about it?

I am not going to waste my breath (or typing, as it were) on giving you a list of things that I do do to "deal with" these atrocities.


I wish you would... otherwise I'm going to be forced to believe many of the other things you've spent time typing out mean more to you. And that's not going to bring a smile to my face.

I see a LOT of exteremly close-minded, condescending, literally Holier Than Thou attitude traded around on this board. What I don't see (and am sorely disappointed in) is caring or encouraging of others in any more tangible a form than to be sickened by the world we're muddling through. Give a man a fish? Teach a man to fish? Feel sorry for the man who doesn't have a fish? Glower that you're not the man without a fish???

It's high time we get our hands dirty in this world. Christ did it! The answers aren't in being ill at the thought of abortion, condemning those around us, or chasing one another's tails in semantics. The answer is in relating to people and revealing that we're broken, imperfect, and every bit as human as they are. And with that humility comes the greatest equalizing fact there is: that God loves us -all- no matter what we've done. Don't forget that. The fib you told your teacher is the same as the abortion a young woman had is the same as the GIJoe man I stole when I was 11 is the same as the hijacking and murders bin Laden plotted. we're separated from God already. Don't trip yourself up from helping someone else be restored to Him.

- Sco

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62415 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Get out there and relate to those who might otherwise consume these services you're so mortified by. That or wait for the pruning shears."

Why would you assume they are not already doing so?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62416 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<< I wish you would... otherwise I'm going to be forced to believe many of the other things you've spent time typing out mean more to you. And that's not going to bring a smile to my face. >>

Sco, you're making a lot of assumptions, and I am not going to provide you with a list of good works that I do.

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62417 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< And I felt insulted by you, Beejous, in your post number 62342 “This is a classic example of moral relativism. The answer to this question is simply this:”. While YOUR view may be the official Catholic church view, it is not the only view, nor the only Christian view. >>

The comment you made was, "To each his or her own view."

This is implying that I can believe one thing and you can believe another thing, both being different (maybe even opposites!), and they both would somehow correct. That is a type of moral relativism. It doesn't matter whether my view is the Catholic view or the Baptist view or the Satanist view. Regardless, there is one view that is objectively correct. This is related to the philosophical theory of non-contradiction. Something can't both be and not be. It either is or is not. I believe that the Catholic view is the one that is objectively correct, and I believe I already provided some substantiation to that claim along with links to articles that address it in further length.

I am sorry if I insulted you.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Urban123 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62418 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Sco said: "Tell us, what is God's plan for life? I doubt you can answer."

I cannot answer since I am nothing, but I can provide God's answer transmitted through and for the ages in the Holy Bible:

KJV Rom 14:11-12 "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.

NKJV Phil 2:10-11 "...that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of the Father."

God's plan for life, then, is to prepare his children for a glorious future that begins when the event described above as elsewhere in the Scripture occurs.

Probably a most relevant Scripture for the pointed discussions we've been having follows right behind the Romans verse quoted above.

NKJV Rom 14:13 "Therefore, let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way."

I love you all with a heart full of Christian love, (1 Cor 13)
Urban

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62419 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
(In) post number 62342 “This is a classic example of moral relativism. The answer to this question is simply this:”. While YOUR view may be the official Catholic church view, it is not the only view, nor the only Christian view.

I've got to go with precious1965 on this moral relativism thang. Unless of course it's relative to the Catholic church's view of morality which again, isn't the only view out there. If saying 'this is the answer' and implying that all else is wrong, whoop-de-do, there's your relative measure of morality! Next subject? All you moral realtivists out there need only elect one poster to write back because you'll waste bandwidth saying the same one thing.

This will sound sacreligious but the Catholic church is just a church. One of many that belive in and worship Jesus as God and Christ. It's simply an established place for men and women to worship God with others. It's teachings and views are steeped in centuries of tradition and are admirable establishments yet they are all made by men. The Pope himself is merely a man. He's no more blessed, cursed, or otherwise closer to God than any of us. I'm sure he'd be the first one to tell you that too! We're all born on the same side of heaven; the outside. And we're all headed for a decision in our lives. Christ said so. His judgment will not arrive before every man has heard the truth and made his choice. I do not believe the Catholic church has established that as its goal. Come to think of it, I don't know any of the Catholic church's goals though I'm beginning to believe 'moral relativism' may be one of them.

And maybe that needs to sound sacreligious... religion and all the trappings that come with it that seem to bind and keep us all from the basics: God created us, Wewere tempted and we sinned, We're separated from God because of it, Only death can eliminate sin, and God loved us enough to become a Man Himself and die in our stead. And because He's the only one in the entirety of existence that can beat death, He can continue and offer us restoration if we believe these things. He wants to hear from us... not Mary or Peter or Paul or anyone else on our behalf. He also wants to hear us speak from our hearts. Reciting prose or reading along with the pastor isn't heartfelt. God is all about relationships; that's why He created us in the first place!

Basic stuff. It's the ice cream in every sundae we try to top with our religious practices, rituals, and doctrine. There's yogurt and tofu out there that looks like ice cream. Tough enough to spot without all the fudge, nuts, bananas, whipped cream, versions of the Bible, denominations, and other extra stuff we put on top. Focus on God and what He wants you to be doing in life. The stuff you put on top is sweet but is not neccessary for you to have the ice cream God has scooped out for us to enjoy. No need to measure how far away you are from the truth when there's little to nothing on top to hide it from view.

- Sco

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62420 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< - Sco >>


I see no point in answering your post. You clearly have a better grasp of things that I ever will. This could easily turn into another "ServeHim/JTRevelator/oppeternity/GoldRushs" episode.

B

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62421 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 6:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I see no point in answering your post. You clearly have a better grasp of things that I ever will. This could easily turn into another "ServeHim/JTRevelator/oppeternity/GoldRushs" episode.

That's a shame. That you'd give yourself so little credit as to try to understand my or anyone else's point of view. Perhaps that's the real difficulty folks have with moral relativism? That it's so inflexible as to allow for the possibility of understanding others? Truly truly sad.

Well, lemme encourage you... nah... lemme remind you first that you're a human being with a God-given will of your own. I'll encourage you to exercise it and maybe open up to the possibilities out there. And yes, that includes the possibility that the Catholic church and its views aren't all there is. The choice is yours even if you don't think it is.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: KingMullet Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62425 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 8:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<And we're all headed for a decision in our lives. Christ said so. His judgment will not arrive before every man has heard the truth and made his choice. I do not believe the Catholic church has established that as its goal.>>

You are incorrect. I would provide a citation to the Catechism, but I doubt you'd change your point of view if I did. If that presumption is not true, let me know and I will look it up.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: KingMullet Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62426 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/16/2001 9:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<I doubt you'd change your point of view if I did. If that presumption is not true, let me know and I will look it up.>>

I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt since I have to run. Here you go:

Regarding evangelism, this is hardly the only reference, but a good one (emphasis added):

767 "When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church."[174] Then "the Church was openly displayed to the crowds and the spread of the Gospel among the nations, through preaching, was begun."[175] As the "convocation" of all men for salvation, the Church in her very nature is missionary, sent by Christ to all the nations to make disciples of them.[176]

768 So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in thi
s way directs her."[177] "Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God, and she is on earth the seed and the beginning of that kingdom."[178]


As JPII stated in Redemptor Homilis:

What should we do, in order that this new advent of the Church connected with the approaching end of the second millennium may bring us closer to him whom Sacred Scripture calls "Everlasting Father"? . . . To this question, dear Brothers, sons and daughters, a fundamental and essential response must be given. Our response must be: Our spirit is set in one direction, the only direction for our intellect, will and heart is-towards Christ our Redeemer, towards Christ, the Redeemer of man. We wish to look towards him-because there is salvation in no one else but him, the Son of God- repeating what Peter said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life"(24).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html

Regarding moral relativism, which can be defined:

Moral relativism, as opposed to other forms of relativism, is the view that moral standards are grounded only in social custom. The most famous statement of relativism in general is by the ancient Greek sophist Protagoras (480-411 BCE.): "Man is the measure of all things," or in a more complete and contemporary translation, "A human being is the measure of all things - of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not that they are not."

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/m/m-relati.htm

The Catechism has this to say on morality:

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.

Continuing on for several more paragraphs I have not copied.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/salve.html#MORAL

Also, on the discernment of the morality of an act:

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/dignity.html#MORALITY

Thus it can be seen that the Church clearly affirms God as the divine source of morality, and fixes the first test of the morality of any act as its inherent goodness or evil according to objective standards of morality. Therefore, the assertion that the Church adheres to a philosophy of moral relativism is demonstrably incorrect.

Now, off to wallpaper some more. Avenge my death!

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jammer2 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62440 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 8:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
beejous:

I am not going to waste my breath (or typing, as it were) on giving you a list of things that I do do to "deal with" these atrocities.

Since I was not involved in the conversation perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with a list of things that you do to "deal with" these atrocities. I am curious.

Thanks,

Jammer2

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62441 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 9:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<And we're all headed for a decision in our lives. Christ said so. His judgment will not arrive before every man has heard the truth and made his choice. I do not believe the Catholic church has established that as its goal.>>

You are incorrect. I would provide a citation to the Catechism, but I doubt you'd change your point of view if I did. If that presumption is not true, let me know and I will look it up.


Which part am I incorrect about? I'm pretty certain those first three things are truthful. I've quoted myself saying that I don't believe the Catholic church has set a goal of furthering the truth to every Man (inducting or hastening Christ's assurance not to judge before all have heard/decided). If they have (and boy do I hope so) please quote the Catechism for me; I would like to see I'm wrong on that.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62442 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 9:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Now, off to wallpaper some more. Avenge my death!

D'oh! That'll teach me to catch up on my boards before I post! Gomen nasai! (That's "forgive me" in Japanese)

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62443 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 9:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
Jammer2,

"perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with a list of things that you do to "deal with" these atrocities. I am curious."

And you are whom to even be curious about a list, much less request one?

Would a list of one fall short in your estimation? Five? Would a list of 25 evoke your "admiration" or would it instead make you accuse someone of being a "do-gooder"? How many things, in your estimation, would be sufficient? What are you looking for?

Christians are not to count the cost, much less keep a list or provide one to satisfy the questionable source of your curiousity.

Pam


Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62444 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 10:02 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with a list of things that you do to "deal with" these atrocities. I am curious."

And you are whom to even be curious about a list, much less request one?

Would a list of one fall short in your estimation? Five? Would a list of 25 evoke your "admiration" or would it instead make you accuse someone of being a "do-gooder"? How many things, in your estimation, would be sufficient? What are you looking for?

Christians are not to count the cost, much less keep a list or provide one to satisfy the questionable source of your curiousity.


Speaking as the one who asked the question in the first place, I'd still like to know what it is others do -in-addition-to- spending time here grousing about the injustices they perceive in this world. Do I need a list to admire or an example to follow? Maybe... but that's not being offered. Instead, I'm being told it's a waste of time and energy to itemize those things that just -might- balance out that spent crabbing about how disgusting the things evil organizations are doing in the aftermath of the attack on the United States. Who are any of us to challenge one another? We're Christians (presumably on this board) and we ought to enourage one another and hold each other accountable. I don't think it's a waste of time to challenge my brother when I think he's stuck.

- Sco

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62446 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 10:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<< Since I was not involved in the conversation perhaps you would be kind enough to provide me with a list of things that you do to "deal with" these atrocities. I am curious. >>


No, no. You first.

Humbly,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62448 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
"I don't think it's a waste of time to challenge my brother when I think he's stuck. "

What is a waste of time is responding to someone who decides that one is "stuck" without knowing a thing about that person or what they do. You make a completely unfounded accusation and then expect someone to spend their time and energy defending themself? And you cloak this as "Christian accountability"?

Personally I hope that beejous continues to ignore this request. For one thing we are told to do our good deeds in secret. And before you quote the verse that says do your good deeds before men so that your Father in Heaven is glorified, consider that there is a difference between defending yourself against the kind of accusation you have made and simply doing deeds and letting whoever, or no one, see them. But talking about them afterwards is not the same as just doing them.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62449 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<< Personally I hope that beejous continues to ignore this request. For one thing we are told to do our good deeds in secret. And before you quote the verse that says do your good deeds before men so that your Father in Heaven is glorified, consider that there is a difference between defending yourself against the kind of accusation you have made and simply doing deeds and letting whoever, or no one, see them. But talking about them afterwards is not the same as just doing them. >>

Well said, Rich, and also thanks also to Pam for her well-stated reply in this thread.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62450 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 10:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
What is a waste of time is responding to someone who decides that one is "stuck" without knowing a thing about that person or what they do. You make a completely unfounded accusation and then expect someone to spend their time and energy defending themself? And you cloak this as "Christian accountability"?

Cloak? As in hide, cover up, keep from view? In what way has anything I've placed in a -public- forum been hidden? You're darned right I'm gonna ask what someone who wails at the sorrow and horror he perceives is actually -doing- about it. And I'm gonna call him on it when it looks like all he's doing is crying for the sake of hearing his own voice. Yeah, that's accountability, raw, open, for all to see. What remains is the humility we each need to realize we might be stuck ourselves.

As for deciding someone is stuck, I'm operating from only what energy my brother expends to tell me what he's doing. My challenge, and now others, go unanswered. But I ask anyway. And I'll resist the dogmatic tail-chasing that keeps us from relating to real people outside the church because I -know- it's unneccessary to bringing people the truth. My only wish is to lay the tow cables on my brothers and sisters I see mired in the mud of doctrine that's become more important than truth. If I can get them out while making my way, I'm gonna try.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62451 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
<< Cloak? As in hide, cover up, keep from view? In what way has anything I've placed in a -public- forum been hidden? You're darned right I'm gonna ask what someone who wails at the sorrow and horror he perceives is actually -doing- about it. And I'm gonna call him on it when it looks like all he's doing is crying for the sake of hearing his own voice. >>

Is there any way that my actions could be apparent in a text message on an internet message board, unless I came right out and said what I did? And then, if I did say what I was doing, specifically as you would like, wouldn't that be disclosing my good deeds? Please see Rich's very well-stated post again for an explanation of why it would be improper for me to sit here and flaunt my good deeds for public approval.


<< What remains is the humility we each need to realize we might be stuck ourselves. >>

You are clearly an expert on humility. Maybe someday I will be as humble, but I think I might have to do some more good works first.


<< As for deciding someone is stuck, I'm operating from only what energy my brother expends to tell me what he's doing. My challenge, and now others, go unanswered. But I ask anyway. >>

You're asking because you want to judge my actions. Not because you really need to know what I am doing.


<< And I'll resist the dogmatic tail-chasing that keeps us from relating to real people outside the church because I -know- it's unneccessary to bringing people the truth. My only wish is to lay the tow cables on my brothers and sisters I see mired in the mud of doctrine that's become more important than truth. If I can get them out while making my way, I'm gonna try. >>

Dogmatic tail-chasing? Not relating to real people outside the church? Wow, so many assumptions. Doctrine being more important than truth? Wait a second, isn't it doctrine that says what truth is?

OK folks, let's throw out the bible, sell the ranch, and wait for the comet to come and take us home!

Trying to be Charitable,
Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Shadowfen Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62452 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:18 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
OK folks, let's throw out the bible, sell the ranch, and wait for the comet to come and take us home!

Trying to be Charitable,


Really?

Shadowfen

Print the post Back To Top
Author: xebec Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62453 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Because at conception a new genetic code, a new LIFE is created. It is no longer a cell with just the mother's genetic code, or a cell with just the father's genetic code. It is a new life, with its own genetic makeup, one with its own dignity, by virtue of which it becomes a PERSON.

This idea raises some interesting questions. When does the soul leave the body? The easy answer is 'at death'. But when does death occur? I read about these cells, taken from a women, which were developed into an 'immortal' cell line. These cells are kept alive and reproduce, and so contain the unique genetic code of this woman. They were widely used in experiments and still live, often contaminating other experiments. Is this woman still alive, as a PERSON? Do these cells have a soul? Is it unique?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62454 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
<< Really?

Shadowfen
>>


Yeah. Note that I did not say "succeeding". Also, you don't know what it was that I really wanted to say.

God Bless,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62455 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
...an explanation of why it would be improper for me to sit here and flaunt my good deeds for public approval.

How about an explanation of why it's -proper- for any of us to sit here and moan without doing anything about it... much less answering if someone asks us what we're doing.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62456 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
<< This idea raises some interesting questions. When does the soul leave the body? The easy answer is 'at death'. But when does death occur? I read about these cells, taken from a women, which were developed into an 'immortal' cell line. These cells are kept alive and reproduce, and so contain the unique genetic code of this woman. They were widely used in experiments and still live, often contaminating other experiments. Is this woman still alive, as a PERSON? Do these cells have a soul? Is it unique? >>

The woman met her natural end, death, but the cells were artificially kept alive. A person is a being, or an individual essence. The soul is attached to the individual, not a few of the individual's cells. If the individual woman met her natural end, then her soul would move to its next natural destination, judgment, then to heaven or hell from there. The cells would remain as a relic of that individual.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62457 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
<< How about an explanation of why it's -proper- for any of us to sit here and moan without doing anything about it... much less answering if someone asks us what we're doing. >>

You are now using manipulative means to try to coerce me, and the rest of us presumably, to provide you with a list of what we are doing about "it". You are assuming that all I do with my time is sit here and moan, and that is simply not true.

I must admit, I'm starting to get a little distressed about the amount of moaning you are doing about my supposed moaning.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62458 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Whoops... hit the tab and the carriage return too fast...

<< As for deciding someone is stuck, I'm operating from only what energy my brother expends to tell me what he's doing. My challenge, and now others, go unanswered. But I ask anyway. >>

You're asking because you want to judge my actions. Not because you really need to know what I am doing.


Inai yo! (No way!) I ask because I -want- to know what you're doing. I've got no clue what you're doing away from your computer but I can page back through posts and see how you've spent time otherwise. You look stuck on your Catholic curriculum and I think that's holding you back; keeping you from real relationships that both delight and hurt but which are key to restoring men and women to God by our examples. Ya with me on that? Skip being charitable for moment and just be honest. Are you more concerned with people or more concerned with rules?

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62460 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
<< You look stuck on your Catholic curriculum and I think that's holding you back; >>

According to your definition of truth, apparently I am stuck. Oh well.


<< keeping you from real relationships that both delight and hurt but which are key to restoring men and women to God by our examples. Ya with me on that? >>

Ohhhhhhh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!

OK, sarcasm aside, do you know me? Do you know what kind of relationships I've had? You are assuming an awful lot. Emphasis on 'awful' and 'lot'.


<< Skip being charitable for moment and just be honest. Are you more concerned with people or more concerned with rules? >>

Trust me, you do not want me to skip being charitable.


I must be going now.

B

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62461 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<< You look stuck on your Catholic curriculum and I think that's holding you back; >>

According to your definition of truth, apparently I am stuck. Oh well.


If you're being honest, I -definitely- encourage you to look back at my definition of truth. I posted it right here: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=15937447

If you're adding anything to it, it's toppings on your ice cream. What's in the bottom of your dish before the Rosary, the hymnals, the coconut, and the cherry go on top?


<< keeping you from real relationships that both delight and hurt but which are key to restoring men and women to God by our examples. Ya with me on that? >>

Ohhhhhhh, sweet mystery of life at last I've found you!

OK, sarcasm aside, do you know me? Do you know what kind of relationships I've had? You are assuming an awful lot. Emphasis on 'awful' and 'lot'.


Yep, I'll acknowledge that. But I've done that once already today and yes I know how to spell assume. Yet the impression remains and I still think you're swamped in Catholicism more than the foxhole feelings in your heart that motivate men; that which is all the way at the bottom that you stand on when all else fails. (including organized religion)


<< Skip being charitable for moment and just be honest. Are you more concerned with people or more concerned with rules? >>

Trust me, you do not want me to skip being charitable.

I must be going now.


Please, when you get back, lay it on me. Put it out here, in public, and tell us which you're more concerned with. Don't be afraid to say it's one or the other if it's how you really feel. I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know.

- Sco

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62462 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 12:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< What's in the bottom of your dish before the Rosary, the hymnals, the coconut, and the cherry go on top? >>

Well, I did put one of those paper lace liners on the bottom of the dish since it was a special occasion.

B

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62465 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 12:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<< What's in the bottom of your dish before the Rosary, the hymnals, the coconut, and the cherry go on top? >>

Well, I did put one of those paper lace liners on the bottom of the dish since it was a special occasion.


HAHAHAHAHA! :)

I think I needed to know you've got a sense of humor on the subject. I haven't said this yet but I am -not- attacking you. I am trying to hold up a mirror and see if you see what I'm seeing though this black n white method isn't the ideal.

- Sco

...just starting to wonder about where the doiley fits in his ice cream picture... ;)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62466 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 12:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 14
"What's in the bottom of your dish..."

It doesn't take much to realize that pompous self-righteousness is in the bottom of yours. It's seeping through what you're trying to use to cover it up, and it's not working.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62467 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"What's in the bottom of your dish..."

It doesn't take much to realize that pompous self-righteousness is in the bottom of yours. It's seeping through what you're trying to use to cover it up, and it's not working.


Well, trouble with that is I'm not covering a thing. I'm not real sure where I've shown that anything in addition to the truth I believe in and have spelled out earlier is in my dish. I'm concerned that I'm coming across that way and will open up to any questions to assuage that much as I'm trying to see if I can't ask.

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jammer2 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62470 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 12:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
HisDelight:

And you are whom to even be curious about a list, much less request one?

I am a human being looking for answers. I do not post much on this board, but when I do it is because I feel that it is worth my time to learn more about something I do not understand. I do not need to justify who I am to you or anyone else. My question was simple and fair and I don't need to be spit on by your "who the hell are you?" attitude.

Would a list of one fall short in your estimation? Five? Would a list of 25 evoke your "admiration" or would it instead make you accuse someone of being a "do-gooder"? How many things, in your estimation, would be sufficient? What are you looking for?

I have no expectations so I expect nothing but an answer to my question. I asked a simple question and I hoped for a simple answer. Is that too much to ask in order to learn?

Christians are not to count the cost, much less keep a list or provide one to satisfy the questionable source of your curiousity.

Fair enough. Other posts have said the same thing. If you had said this at the beginning instead of standing on a podium and looked down at me with fire in your typing I could have accepted it. I learn better by a simple explanation than the third degree. I thought you said you were getting better at not doing that as much anymore.

Again, however, I don't see what the harm is in answering the question. Beejous stated twice that he has a list of things he does to "deal with the atrocities" before I posted. He has said it again since. I would think that he would like to share the list since he is obviously proud of it and believes that he is being a true Christian by following it. Therefore, other Christians would benefit from the list as well.

Jammer2

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62472 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< I have no expectations so I expect nothing but an answer to my question. >>

You just contradicted yourself.


<< Again, however, I don't see what the harm is in answering the question. Beejous stated twice that he has a list of things he does to "deal with the atrocities" before I posted. He has said it again since. I would think that he would like to share the list since he is obviously proud of it and believes that he is being a true Christian by following it. Therefore, other Christians would benefit from the list as well. >>

Whoa. You're putting words in my mouth and assigning me vices that I do not necessarily have. I did not say that I have a "list of things" that I do to deal with the atrocities. I simply said that I was not going to tell you, Scotaku, or anyone else here what they were. Second, since I did not say that I had a list, I "obviously" was not being proud about "it". Also, never once have I made the claim that I am being a true Christian in my works. That would be proud. Finally, if I had proudly posted "a list", it would not necessarily mean that the contents of same are beneficent or that other Christians could benefit from it.

In Christ,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Jammer2 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62475 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Jammer2:

I have no expectations so I expect nothing but an answer to my question.

beejous:

You just contradicted yourself.

I'll spell it out for you. I have no expectations regarding what the answer is, so all I ask for is an answer.

Whoa. You're putting words in my mouth and assigning me vices that I do not necessarily have. I did not say that I have a "list of things" that I do to deal with the atrocities. I simply said that I was not going to tell you, Scotaku, or anyone else here what they were. Second, since I did not say that I had a list, I "obviously" was not being proud about "it". Also, never once have I made the claim that I am being a true Christian in my works. That would be proud. Finally, if I had proudly posted "a list", it would not necessarily mean that the contents of same are beneficent or that other Christians could benefit from it.

In post # 62410 you stated the following:

I am not going to waste my breath (or typing, as it were) on giving you a list of things that I do do to "deal with" these atrocities.

Now, I gathered from your post that you had a list. If I misinterpreted I apologize. My misunderstanding.

So now I'm even more curious. If you are not being a true Christian in your "works" (since you made "works" plural it suggests that you can make a list by the way) why are you doing it? Also, if your methods could not be of benefit to other Christians than why do you do them? I thought Christains were team players on God's team.

Jammer2


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62476 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I would be remiss to not address some of the issues in this post:

<< I've got to go with precious1965 on this moral relativism thang. Unless of course it's relative to the Catholic church's view of morality which again, isn't the only view out there. If saying 'this is the answer' and implying that all else is wrong, whoop-de-do, there's your relative measure of morality! Next subject? All you moral realtivists out there need only elect one poster to write back because you'll waste bandwidth saying the same one thing. >>

No. That is not what I said to precious1965. Precious said something to the effect of "to each his or her own view". That is moral relativism -- suggesting that there is not an objective view that would apply to all. You seem to be basing your view on the fact that there are many "view[s] out there". The fact that there are multiple representations of something does not answer the question of what truth is or even provide a substantiation for the claim that there is no objective truth, as you seem to assert.


<< This will sound sacreligious but the Catholic church is just a church. One of many that belive in and worship Jesus as God and Christ. It's simply an established place for men and women to worship God with others. It's teachings and views are steeped in centuries of tradition and are admirable establishments yet they are all made by men. >>

To say that the teachings of the Catholic church are all made by men would be a colossal heresy in relation to Christianity itself. Many of the Church's teaching on faith and morals can be explicitly found in the Sacred Scriptures, which is the divinely-inspired Word of God. These are not teachings that were randomly developed by men.


<< The Pope himself is merely a man. He's no more blessed, cursed, or otherwise closer to God than any of us. I'm sure he'd be the first one to tell you that too! We're all born on the same side of heaven; the outside. And we're all headed for a decision in our lives. Christ said so. His judgment will not arrive before every man has heard the truth and made his choice. I do not believe the Catholic church has established that as its goal. Come to think of it, I don't know any of the Catholic church's goals though I'm beginning to believe 'moral relativism' may be one of them. >>

You make a bunch of random claims here, and provide no substantiation for any of them. That doesn't do much for credibility's sake.


<< And maybe that needs to sound sacreligious... religion and all the trappings that come with it that seem to bind and keep us all from the basics: God created us, Wewere tempted and we sinned, We're separated from God because of it, Only death can eliminate sin, and God loved us enough to become a Man Himself and die in our stead. And because He's the only one in the entirety of existence that can beat death, He can continue and offer us restoration if we believe these things. >>

You seem to believe in God... do you believe in anything Scripture says? Did not Christ establish a church? Would not a church suppose an organized religion? Where do you get these ideas that death eliminates sin?


<< He wants to hear from us... not Mary or Peter or Paul or anyone else on our behalf. He also wants to hear us speak from our hearts. Reciting prose or reading along with the pastor isn't heartfelt. >>

Perhaps it isn't heartfelt when you do it. Otherwise, you are just casting a blanket judgment on most Christians who do, in addition to their own personal prayers, recite pre-written prayers from time to time. You can say a pre-written prayer with as much dedication and heartfelt desire of God as you can a prayer that you make up in your head. It all has to do with intention.


<< God is all about relationships; that's why He created us in the first place! >>

Yeah, man, it's all good!    *smirk*


<< Basic stuff. It's the ice cream in every sundae we try to top with our religious practices, rituals, and doctrine. There's yogurt and tofu out there that looks like ice cream. Tough enough to spot without all the fudge, nuts, bananas, whipped cream, versions of the Bible, denominations, and other extra stuff we put on top. Focus on God and what He wants you to be doing in life. The stuff you put on top is sweet but is not neccessary for you to have the ice cream God has scooped out for us to enjoy. No need to measure how far away you are from the truth when there's little to nothing on top to hide it from view. >>

Hmmm, the problem is that when I started focusing on God He told me that he liked toppings.


In Christ,
Bryan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62480 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<< Now, I gathered from your post that you had a list. If I misinterpreted I apologize. My misunderstanding. >>

No. I never said I had a list. I only said that I was not going to make a list.


<< So now I'm even more curious. If you are not being a true Christian in your "works" (since you made "works" plural it suggests that you can make a list by the way) why are you doing it? Also, if your methods could not be of benefit to other Christians than why do you do them? I thought Christains were team players on God's team. >>

I don't recall the title of this board being "Christian Show-and-Tell". Perhaps you could request a board with that title; maybe a few folks will post there. I surely will not.

Good day.
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62481 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Jammer2,

"spit on" Please.
"fire in your typing" Give me a break; if anything, it was a wet match. Besides, I've seen some posts of yours. You're not that sensitive.
"I thought you said you were getting better" I don't recall saying that, but I am getting better. Not perfect, but better.
"standing on a podium" *rolling my eyes* Anyway, I'm not quite 5'1", habits are hard to break. At least you didn't say "standing on a sheet of paper". I hate that. If you want to pick on short people, let's deal with that separately.

Trying to lighten up.

Pam





Print the post Back To Top
Author: MsVeeDub Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62482 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well, trouble with that is I'm not covering a thing. I'm not real sure where I've shown that anything in addition to the truth I believe in and have spelled out earlier is in my dish. I'm concerned that I'm coming across that way and will open up to any questions to assuage that much as I'm trying to see if I can't ask.


This is just the way they are, Sco. Sorry.

Susan


Print the post Back To Top
Author: xebec Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62488 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
A person is a being, or an individual essence. The soul is attached to the individual.

But what is an individual? If someone were to keep a head alive without a body, is that head an individual? How about a body without a head?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: precious1965 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62490 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 1:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
When I post, I post my opinion and provide background support as to how I arrived at that opinion. When I posted in 62338 "A person's definition of pregnancy may be at "conception" or at "implantation" or maybe some alternative point. To each his or her own definition.", the part "to each his or her own definition" applies to the definition of pregnancy as it relates to the discussion that was at hand i.e. abortion, and not to the morality of abortion itself.

I remain insulted by you, Beejous, in your application of moral relativism to my opinion as stated in your post number 62342 “This is a classic example of moral relativism. The answer to this question is simply this:” and again in post number 62476 "That is moral relativism -- suggesting that there is not an objective view that would apply to all. You seem to be basing your view on the fact that there are many "view[s] out there". The fact that there are multiple representations of something does not answer the question of what truth is or even provide a substantiation for the claim that there is no objective truth, as you seem to assert." Your apology in post number 62417 was rendered moot by your second application of moral relativism to me. You, Beejous, claim I have applied moral relativism when I have not.

I speak my mind when so driven to do so. I provide supportive and educational material and links as appropriate and applicable. In post number 62338 I provided two links from a secular viewpoint and one link from a non-secular viewpoint. I believe this to be a balanced view point and a furtherance of discussion, not the hindrance of discussion. I see several posters here trying to hinder discussion with one truth, one way, their way.

I shall take my truth from my God and not from anyone else on earth, which also excludes organized religion. I will, however, take instruction and education from those around me, including organized religion.

Precious1965
-- as always, pro-choice, anti-abortion.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: coralville Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62491 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 2:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
I realize that for many, their beliefs on abortion are defined by their interpretation of God's will. It is that this discussion will change their view, and that is not my intent. However, for those (like me) who are less clear about God's will on this matter, such a debate might be useful.

I think there are a few difficulties with the belief of ensoulment at the moment of conception. JAFO brings up spontaneous abortions. It is estimated that 50% of embryos are lost prior to the time of the first menstrual period after conception and about 15% lost before the 20th week (more on this later). So a large number of fertilized eggs never make it even to implantation. This natural "expendability" of the fertilized egg is difficult to reconcile (at least for me) with the belief that God considers them to be ensouled persons.

There is also the problem of identical twins. Beejous justifies his view by emphasizing the linkage between a new genetic combination and a new soul, "At Conception, a new genetic code, a new soul, a new dignity, a new life is created. " This obviously can't be the case with twins that are genetically identical, unless one supposes they share a single soul.

We also have the situation at the time of clinical death, defined by the loss of higher brain function. At this time at least portions of the rest of the body can be kept alive thereby preserving the unique genetic combination that defines this individual. If the soul is linked to genetics, then clearly we have an obligation to keep the remaining cells alive. Yet I don't think even Beejous would advocate this. Apparently at some point during the person's life, the foundation of the soul shifts from the genes to the brain. I'm not sure what the biblical basis for this is.

One the other hand, the web site suggested by Beejous (http://www.all.org/abac/jch005.htm) makes the following statement:

" Rational logic and deduction verify to us the effects of the vegetative operations of the soul which are demonstrable in the human zygote: mitotic cleavage, protein synthesis, DNA synthesis, etc. "

The living cells of a brain-dead person are capable of performing the listed "vegetative operations of the soul" so perhaps there is a moral obligation to keep the body alive even after the brain is dead!

St. Augustine argued the notion of delayed ensoulment in which the fetus achieved a soul at the time when the fetus begins to independently move (quickening). Interestingly, this occurs at about 20 weeks when the higher brain becomes functional. This is also approaching the time of possible viability outside the womb and when the frequency of naturally failing pregnancies sharply declines (see above). So I think a far more consistent rational argument can be made that ensoulment occurs with the initiation of higher brain activity, and that is when a fetus becomes a person.

This discussion admittedly ignores the issue of potential. Clearly the fertilized egg is potentially a person. The moral value one wants to give to this potential compared to the rights of the mother to control her body is a whole other debate.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62495 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
"Cloak? As in hide, cover up, keep from view? In what way has anything I've placed in a -public- forum been hidden? "

When you hide your self-righteous judgement and criticism, on something you know nothing about, by calling it accountability.

"Yeah, that's accountability, raw, open, for all to see. "

You want accoutability, here is accountability. Beejous has made many positive contributions to this board. What have you done besides criticize? When did you earn the right to hold anyone here accountable? Where in the scriptures does it say that you should go around holding complete strangers that you know nothing about accountable? Because you are a complete stranger here and you know nothing about beejous' life or the lives of any of us. You are making surmises based on absolutely nothing. That is pride and self-righteousness, not accountability. And it is to beejous's credit that he doesn't rise to your bait to try to make himself look good in your eyes.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62496 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 2:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This is just the way they are, Sco. Sorry.

Hey there! I'm counting on the capacity for change when I'm asking what I ask. Ain't gonna doubt my own either so I have to be just as open to the possibilities as I'm asking for. I don't think I'm facing polar opposites... tangents as worst... at I hope. :}

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Urban123 Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62501 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 3:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dear Sco,

I read your post where you say you gave your definition of truth - lots of words and discussion and points, but you only refer to "truth" as a term to be defined in the last paragraph. In my experience, if it takes that many words to define a five-letter word, one should be concerned about the accuracy, validity and usefulness of the definition.

I'll say it again: I know nothing. I have my faith only in the Lord God. Here is His definition of "Truth":

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life..." (emphasis mine)

Therefore, Jesus is the Truth. He said it. I believe it. Add to it? You cannot. Detract from it? You cannot.

Jesus = Truth
Truth = Jesus

Simply simple.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (2Cr. 13:14)

Urban



Print the post Back To Top
Author: scotaku Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62510 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 4:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life..." (emphasis mine)

Therefore, Jesus is the Truth. He said it. I believe it. Add to it? You cannot. Detract from it? You cannot.

Jesus = Truth
Truth = Jesus

Simply simple.


I heard that! He finishes off with, "...no man comes to the Father expect by me."

And yeah, I take a longer colorful way of saying the same thing, but it's my way of relating, literally presenting a picture of that which I believe. I don't think we're disagreeing per se because Jesus Himself didn't add, subtract, etc from what He said.

It's been said before that organized religion might be the worst thing ever to happen to the church... that is to Christians... I don't agree 100% with that extreme view either but do worry when Christians get wrapped up in so much (or sometimes so little) of the busy-work that organized religion preoccupies our time with. I think we need to be out there interacting, behaving like Christ, setting the example (both when we succeed and when we fail).

My challenge for every day: to find what Christ would do in my shoes and do it. Today it's my Birkenstocks. They're relatively new so my average in them is still pretty good. My other shoes aren't so hot. ;)

- Sco

Print the post Back To Top
Author: beejous Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62514 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 4:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
<< because Jesus Himself didn't add, subtract, etc from what He said. >>

You clearly have an underlying point in this statement, going back to your previous remark about the man-made teachings. Again, you did not substantiate your claim in any credible way.

I see no point in participating any further in this discussion. Perhaps I participated too long.

Regards,
Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: KingMullet Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62536 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 7:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<St. Augustine argued the notion of delayed ensoulment in which the fetus achieved a soul at the time when the fetus begins to independently move (quickening). Interestingly, this occurs at about 20 weeks when the higher brain becomes functional. This is also approaching the time of possible viability outside the womb and when the frequency of naturally failing pregnancies sharply declines (see above). So I think a far more consistent rational argument can be made that ensoulment occurs with the initiation of higher brain activity, and that is when a fetus becomes a person.>>

The science of St. Augustine's day was quite limited. The quickening is not the point at which the fetus first moves, it's when the mother can first detect such movement. Anyone who has had an ultrasound will know that fetal movement occurs much, much earlier than 20 weeks.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: KingMullet Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 62545 of 195086
Subject: Re: Amazing Date: 10/17/2001 7:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<but do worry when Christians get wrapped up in so much (or sometimes so little) of the busy-work that organized religion preoccupies our time with.>>

Does organized religion really get involved in mere busywork? Is communal worship busywork?

From the same reference as yesterday, Redemptor Homilis:

Indeed, it is by the command of Christ himself, her Master, that the Church unceasingly celebrates the Eucharist, finding in it the "fountain of life and holiness"(36), the efficacious sign of grace and reconciliation with God, and the pledge of eternal life. The Church lives his mystery, draws unwearyingly from it and continually seeks ways of bringing this mystery of her Master and Lord to humanity-to the peoples, the nations, the succeeding generations, and every individual human being-as if she were ever repeating, as the Apostle did: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified".

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_04031979_redemptor-hominis_en.html

If this is what is to be derided as busywork, I am at a loss for words. In my parish, we have 7 masses on the weekend (not counting Sat. daily mass), and two daily masses every weekday. That's 18 masses, plus Holy Hour on Wednesday (basically, a straight hour of prayer). Also, there's confession three times a week. Finally, we are blessed to have Perpetual Adoration, where our chapel is open 24/7/363 (I'll let you guess the two days it is closed) for prayers before the Host. Many parishioners have scheduled hours such that the chapel is never (never!) empty.

Did I mention our St. Vincent de Paul society, which directly contributes to the poor around $300,000 per year? Busywork indeed. Yet still I have only scratched the surface of what is accomplished in our parish, and in our diocese, and in the Church as a whole. I would go on, but it would serve no purpose other than to bore the many denizens of this board whose organized religion of different denominations have an equal list of merits, and who further recognize that attribute in the churches of their fellow Christians.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (80) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement