PDA

View Full Version : Roe v Wade



Pages : [1] 2

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 08:12 AM
I wonder why it is such a hot-button. I can't believe it is as important to individuals as it seems. I am sorry to hear of abortion taking place but I also am a man and don't feel I should dictate to women in general. It seems to me that the issue of abortion (not the act itself) is an extension of our descending into political-correctness and, if for no other reason, am put off by discussions on it. Now comes a Supreme Court nominee who is pelted with demands of pre-hearing decisions on the topic. Everyone has personal opinions on lots of things…to reject a nominee because he has a personal opinion is stupid on the face of it.
Let me suggest that if a traffic judge thinks it is wrong to jay-walk, then anyone charged with the “crime” is likely to be seen as guilty or more guilty because it pulls that judges chain. Does that mean judges who think jay-walking is wrong shouldn’t be allowed the job?

Garrett Lowell
12-02-2005, 08:13 AM
Not again!

uncas
12-02-2005, 08:16 AM
New bilge pump needed...
Rowe vs. Wade....again...well it probably just hasn't gone away in the last 33 yrs.
Although I tend to agree regarding the politically correct atmosphere we currently live

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 08:17 AM
Sorry Garret...I'm just sick and tired of the partisan rants from both sides.

I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead

[ 12-02-2005, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Phillip Allen ]

uncas
12-02-2005, 08:20 AM
Phillip...the rant has been going on for over thirty years..You are not the only one tired of it..
One more comment...I agree that the questions being asked...not only of this candidate but previous ones can not be really answered...

It's like me being asked whether I would jump into the freezing water to save a drowning swimmer..
Don't know whether I wopuld until the situation arises.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:23 AM
I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead The legalized murder of an innocent child is unimportant????!!!
Have we sunk so low??

Ian McColgin
12-02-2005, 08:30 AM
Alito is a man of such shallow mind and such limited deceptive ability!

First he thought he could conceal his Vanguard holdings and break his written oath to recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard. His fiscal integrity has been exposed as lacking.

Now, the Senate questionnaire asked him to describe the more significant litigation matters he's handled. He tried to conceal his work for the Reagan administration on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists, in which he examined ". . . this opportunity to advance the goals of bringing about the eventual overruling of Roe v. Wade and, in the meanthime of mitigating its effects . . ."

Alito has an avowed goal of stripping from women the right of choise. He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to defend that opinion in his confirmation hearing. He is not entitled to deceptively hide his record and make any claim to an open mind on this issue. This attempted deception exposes his intellectual integrity as every bit as low as his fiscal integrity.

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead The legalized murder of an innocent child is unimportant????!!!
Have we sunk so low??</font>[/QUOTE]We (human kind) do homicides all the time. War is one reason but it is not stopped there. If someone tries to kill me in my bed tonight and I manage to defend myself by first killing him/her that is another sort of homicide. If we have an auto accident and kill someone, it can be argued if we didn't first buy the car the other guy wouldn't be dead. If I didn’t buy the Wal mart shirt the Chinese girl would not have walked to work and gotten in front of the bus and so on. We cannot divorce ourselves from death…we can only mind our own individual integrity…Render unto Caesar that which isn’t yours to render in the first place…

LeeG
12-02-2005, 08:33 AM
Philip, have you talked to a woman about the topic and why it's such a big deal?

Methinks it's an issue where other symbolic issues of power and powerlessness intersect with real ones.

Men in power deciding how those without can choose the direction of their life.

Those in the religious communities identifying with the powerless.

Old men needing Viagra having power over young fertile women.

You name it,,there's something for everyone.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:36 AM
How does killing a baby relate to any of your examples? It is merely an act of convenience.
There is no justification for killing a baby. It cannot defend itself, it cannot get out of the way of the murdering 'doctor', it did not choose to fight a war.
I have come to realize that the bilge dwellers are some cold hearted individuals.
How sad.

LeeG
12-02-2005, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead The legalized murder of an innocent child is unimportant????!!!
Have we sunk so low??</font>[/QUOTE]Oh baby, we can go as low as you want. Viva Las Vegas!
Isn't it time to turn this into a ABB/ridicule the evangelists thread?
HELL YEAH!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/hager.asp

Claim: President Bush has appointed W. David Hager, a physician and anti-abortion activist, to an FDA committee on reproductive drugs.

Status: True

[ 12-02-2005, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

LeeG
12-02-2005, 08:39 AM
WOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOPWOOP

Let's HiJack this threat mateys!!!

ARR,,I'll raise you one Christian gynecologist AND include a sodomizer in door number TWO...

uncas
12-02-2005, 08:46 AM
Norman Bernstein
.
Member # 9303

posted 12-02-2005 08:43 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think abortion and Roe v. Wade is one of those topics about which, feelings and opinions runs so incredibly deep that nobody ever debates the issue itself anymore...

There's the reason...

Memphis Mike
12-02-2005, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
How does killing a baby relate to any of your examples? It is merely an act of convenience.
There is no justification for killing a baby. It cannot defend itself, it cannot get out of the way of the murdering 'doctor', it did not choose to fight a war.
I have come to realize that the bilge dwellers are some cold hearted individuals.
How sad.How would you feel if you were raped by a gorilla and pregnant and forced to have the baby and care for it for the rest of your life?

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 08:49 AM
A baby born into poverty cannot defend itself and sure makes an easily coerced worker in the future. If I cannot defend myself being born into poverty then society must rectify the injustice by bestowing on me...riches

Salty...you are wearing a monoculitic blinder...it is a single issue (no pun intended) for you...it makes life (and death) simple...we are either with you or against you...sound familiar?

Back to the nominee, should we demand a promise from him to vote the way some hell-bound preacher demands? I think not. He is qualified by virtue of his nomination. He could even be a hell-bound preacher, that is what our constitution demands of us…all of us. If we don’t like it strongly enough we can, through our elected representatives, impeach him. If we don’t like the way our elected representatives vote on his impeachment…we get to kick them out of office in the next cycle…and vote in someone who WILL impeach him…that is the way it works

LeeG
12-02-2005, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead The legalized murder of an innocent child is unimportant????!!!
Have we sunk so low??</font>[/QUOTE]not at the bottom yet.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey

Now that the Food and Drug Administration has again delayed over-the-counter sale of the morning-after pill Plan B, new lobbying efforts are underway to make the drug widely available. This report, published in May 30, provides useful background on how the personal ideology of Bush appointees is adversely affecting the health and welfare of women.

For Hager, those moral and ethical issues all appear to revolve around sex: In both his medical practice and his advisory role at the FDA, his ardent evangelical piety anchors his staunch opposition to emergency contraception, abortion and premarital sex. Through his six books--which include such titles as Stress and the Woman's Body and As Jesus Cared for Women, self-help tomes that interweave syrupy Christian spirituality with paternalistic advice on women's health and relationships--he has established himself as a leading conservative Christian voice on women's health and sexuality.

Not once during the uproar over Hager's FDA appointment did any reporter solicit the opinion of the woman now known as Linda Davis--she remarried in November 2002 to James Davis, a Methodist minister, and relocated to southern Georgia--on her husband's record, even though she contributed to much of his self-help work in the Christian arena (she remains a religious and political conservative). She intermittently thought of telling her story but refrained, she says, out of respect for her adult children. It was Hager's sermon at Asbury last October that finally changed her mind. Davis was there to hear her middle son give a vocal performance; she was prepared to hear her ex-husband inveigh against secular liberals, but she was shocked to hear him speak about their divorce when he took to the pulpit.

"In early 2002," Hager told the churchgoers that day, "my world fell apart.... After thirty-two years of marriage, I was suddenly alone in a new home that we had built as our dream home. Time spent 'doing God's will' had kept me from spending the time I needed to nourish my marriage." Hager noted with pride that in his darkest hour, Focus on the Family estimated that 50 million people worldwide were praying for him.

In tandem with his medical career, Hager has been an aggressive advocate for the political agenda of the Christian right. A member of Focus on the Family's Physician Resource Council and the Christian Medical and Dental Society, Hager assisted the Concerned Women for America in submitting a "Citizen's Petition" to the FDA in August 2002 to halt distribution and marketing of the abortion pill, RU-486. It was this record of conservative activism that ignited a firestorm when the Bush Administration first floated his name for chairman of the FDA's advisory committee in the fall of 2002. In the end, the FDA found a way to dodge the controversy: It issued a stealth announcement of Hager's appointment to the panel (to be one of eleven members, not chairman) on Christmas Eve. Liberals were furious that they weren't able to block his appointment. For many months afterward, an outraged chain letter alerting women to the appointment of a man with religious views "far outside the mainstream" snaked its way around the Internet, lending the whole episode the air of urban legend.

Back in Lexington, where the couple continued to live, Linda Hager, as she was still known at the time, was sinking into a deep depression, she says. Though her marriage had been dead for nearly a decade, she could not see her way clear to divorce; she had no money of her own and few marketable skills. But life with David Hager had grown unbearable. As his public profile increased, so did the tension in their home, which she says periodically triggered episodes of abuse. "I would be asleep," she recalls, "and since [the sodomy] was painful and threatening, I woke up. Sometimes I acquiesced once he had started, just to make it go faster, and sometimes I tried to push him off.... I would [confront] David later, and he would say, 'You asked me to do that,' and I would say, 'No, I never asked for it.'"

Sex was always a source of conflict in the marriage. Though it wasn't emotionally satisfying for her, Davis says she soon learned that sex could "buy" peace with Hager after a long day of arguing, or insure his forgiveness after she spent too much money. "Sex was coinage; it was a commodity," she said. Sometimes Hager would blithely shift from vaginal to anal sex. Davis protested. "He would say, 'Oh, I didn't mean to have anal sex with you; I can't feel the difference,'" Davis recalls incredulously. "And I would say, 'Well then, you're in the wrong business.'"

mmd
12-02-2005, 08:50 AM
When asked his opinion on Roe vs. Wade, President Bush replied that he didn't know how most people got out of New Orleans. tongue.gif :D

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:50 AM
My children, 11 & 7 yrs. old, are mighty inconveniet at times. With the logic of abortion supporters I guess I could kill them and it would be o.k. I suppose anyone can kill someone for any reason and it would be o.k.
There are absolutes, right and wrong.

Chris Coose
12-02-2005, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
It is merely an act of convenience.
False.

ishmael
12-02-2005, 08:52 AM
Looks like it's going to be a long winter. :rolleyes:

LeeG
12-02-2005, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I wish the bastards would shut about it and argue about something important instead The legalized murder of an innocent child is unimportant????!!!
Have we sunk so low??</font>[/QUOTE]this is how low,,a veternarian was appointed to replace the director of the advisory board for womens reproductive health issues,,until folks noticed and his name was withdrawn three days later.

A **CKING VETERINARIAN ON THE FDA ADVISORY BOARD FOR WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES.

I think that pretty much says how low we can go.

But the president being an innocent regarding the imminent threats justifying pre-emptive war still takes the cake.

http://www.siecus.org/policy/PUpdates/pdate0203.html

Controversial Appointments

On September 13th, an email was sent to various women's groups by the Office of Women's Health announcing Norris Alderson as the new acting director in place of Wood. Alderson is a long time FDA staff member trained in animal husbandry and has spent much of his career in the agency's Center for Veterinary Medicine.18

Alderson quickly became the subject of controversy and the FDA press office sent out a very different announcement just three days later stating that 20-year FDA veteran Theresa A. Toigo would be the new acting director of the office. The statement regarding Alderson was never mentioned. When questioned, FDA spokeswoman Suzanne Trevino stated that Alderson had never been appointed acting director. “There was no official decision made until we announced Theresa Toigo's appointment,” Trevino said.19

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 08:59 AM
Sorry guys and gals...and now I gotta go to work

Maybe I shoulda kept my opinions to myself.

I'm just tired of stupid arguments...based on the right wing nut position, the act of copulation is itself a killing of millions (even when one sperm makes it to the egg)...it is the logical extreme stopping point in the back tracking of sacred life...(we’re all going to have to become Shakers)

uncas
12-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Yup...surrounded by movers and shakers...
Have a good day Phillip...Thanks for leaving this topic for others to chew on in your absence.

LeeG
12-02-2005, 09:01 AM
say something disinterested, wise and ambivalent por favor.

Del Lansing
12-02-2005, 09:01 AM
Unfortunately the concept is that Roe/Wade decided abortions were legal is incorrect. The decision was about privacy. To further cloud the issue, the "right to privacy" is nowhere mentioned in any part of the Constitution. If the authorities want to track you down, they can follow your cank-card use, what about a "right to privacy" there? So somehow it's OK to kill an unborn child in the name of privacy, but travel to another state is not OK? It is truly a BS litmus test to put nominees through the abortion debate. A candidate can not accurately say how he/she would decide that until they actually heard the arguements placed before the court. Here's a frinstance..."what if you daughter ended up pregnant? would you have her 1)marry the guy, 2)give the baby up for adoption, 3)have an abortion, 4)keep the baby and raise it herself?" See it depends on the conditions, is the guy able to support her? or a crack head? Is the daughter mature enough to deal with either the abortion or giving it up? Old enough to decide to keep it?
You see you can't say for sure until the occasion arises. And a judge cannot say how he would decide a case until he hears it.

LeeG
12-02-2005, 09:03 AM
I think the daughter should do what daddy says.

High C
12-02-2005, 09:16 AM
mmd :D

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 09:47 AM
To quote another Hoosier "You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything"
--John Mellencamp

You folks are lost and don't even know it.
I have no animosity towords you. I suppose I am not eloquent nor knowledgable enough to change any minds here. I wish I could, out of love.

Steve

Katherine
12-02-2005, 09:52 AM
Anyone ever look at this from as woman's health issue? Abortion is a medical procedure.

Rick Tyler
12-02-2005, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Salty...you are wearing a monoculitic blinder...it is a single issue (no pun intended) for you...it makes life (and death) simple...we are either with you or against you...sound familiar?
Phillip, this is the primary reason why we CAN'T have a discussion of abortion... there's a certain percentage of anti-abortion advocates whose faith equivocates to certitude, and for whom any discussion is utterly irrelevant.</font>[/QUOTE]You're kidding yourself. Certitude and inflexibility are equal on both sides of this issue. You only find this intransigence unacceptable in your ideological opponents.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 10:00 AM
Anyone ever look at this from as woman's health issue? Abortion is a medical procedure. While I cannot quote any numbers, I would say that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with a woman's health.
She does not want a child, she's scared, she's too young, she does not know alternatives, etc.. so she aborts.

Whatever the reason, she just killed someone.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 10:01 AM
There is no justification for killing a baby. But we're discussing abortion, not infanticide. This is an example of trying to make a case only by one's choice of words.

The central issue, and one on which there will be no agreement even if we go to 700 posts (again), is the moral status of the early-stage embryo and fetus. Everyone agrees that at nine months, it's a human being fully entitled to the protection of the law. Despite Monty Python, no one seriously argues that "every sperm is sacred". (http://www.taboo-breaker.org/religion/sperm.htm) The beginning of humanity lies somewhere in between. It seems absurd, at least to me, to argue that a fertilized egg or a 32-cell blastocyst, or even a fetus before any higher brain function is possible, is a full human being. OTOH, this is obviously an issue on which opinions are very sharply divided.


Certitude and inflexibility are equal on both sides of this issue. Perhaps. However, anyone who thinks abortion is wrong is completely free to not have one. This is NOT symmetrical; those who oppose abortion wish to regulate the behavior of others.

[ 12-02-2005, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

LeeG
12-02-2005, 10:06 AM
Katherine,,well that's because you're a woman.
You're outnumbered.

Evidently GW thinks it's a religious issue. The predominately male Congress thinks it's a political issue. The predominately male leaders of religions think it's a spiritual issue.
Del thinks it's a fathers issue.

Really these issues of child rearing and reproductive health are best decided in Congress.
Why I've seen diagnosis by video by a congressman recently,,Bill Frist,,yeah, he figured out enough to make political hay on the issue.

If you want this womens issue to matter,,well,,I guess there's voting. Yeah,,voting.

You'd follow the law when it comes to your health wouldn't you?
I'm sure GWs daughters would.

Wild Dingo
12-02-2005, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Katherine:
Anyone ever look at this from as woman's health issue? Abortion is a medical procedure.I tried Kat... oooh how I tried... but sadly I found I was minus a few important bits that women have and had instead other unnessary bits that as a woman I shouldnt have... so I found it bloody hard to do... but I tried!! ;)

But I went lookin for my "inner woman" :cool: ... oooh she was there alright standin hands on hips boobs thrust outward legs akimbo glarin at me :mad: ... I decided discresion was the better part of valor and ran tongue.gif

Hey what can I say Im a male :rolleyes:

LeeG
12-02-2005, 10:13 AM
Salty with 25posts and counting,
I'm sure that in five or six years you'll make a wonderful grandfather.

Bruce Hooke
12-02-2005, 10:24 AM
Salty,

You might want to realize that attitudes like yours have a lot to do with why the left continues to fight so hard to preserve the right to abortion to maximum extent possible. When faced with someone like you who will not even acknowledge that the question of when life begins is a topic on which reasonable people might disagree, the left sees no point in looking for a middle ground and instead sees a situation in which their only choice is to capitulate or continue to fight tooth and nail, for as long as people like you are around. In other words, but taking the approach you take, that no compromise is possible, you are probably doing more to perpetuate access to abortion than others who are at least willing to engage in real discussion on the issue.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 10:45 AM
Bruce Hooke,

What are exactly " people like me ".

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 10:47 AM
How about: those who refer to any abortion as "killing a baby"?

Bruce Hooke
12-02-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Bruce Hooke,

What are exactly " people like me ".Re-read what I wrote. In the first two sentences I clearly defined the attitudes I was talking about.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 10:55 AM
For those of you who are passionately opposed to abortion, simply arguing that abortion is wrong and immoral, and refusing to even tolerate any alternative view, simply perpetuates things . . .
It is a hideous irony that those who are most opposed to abortion are almost always those most opposed to education about methods of preventing pregnancy (other than "just keep your pants on"). No one in their right mind would argue that abortion is a positive good and that every woman should have several. I would be very pleased if it became rare because it's no longer needed.

LeeG
12-02-2005, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Bruce Hooke,

What are exactly " people like me ".I won't get near that one Salty, but how about this one,,my paramedic friend routinely goes into the projects to deliver a 14yr old girl pregnant with her first baby,,a 17yr old with her second,,and the grandmother is younger than the paramedic.

That's a cost to society I wouldn't mind reducing.

ishmael
12-02-2005, 11:03 AM
Fact is, no one knows, scientifically or rationally, if abortion is killing a human life or not; so it might well be killing a baby in broad terms. The only ones who "know" come at the question from a religious/spiritual and, often, very emotional direction. But there is nothing in either reason or science to prove them right or wrong. Hence, it is such a difficult argument to resolve to either sides' satisfaction.

[ 12-02-2005, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: ishmael ]

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 11:19 AM
Mr. Bernstein,

When one doesn't have a leg to stand on in an argument, one tends to call their opponent names.
ie..."Christain Taliban". It is a classic move.

You know nothing about me, nor I you. I am merely trying to plant a seed in your mind. A higher power will take over from there. I realize that I am not going to persuade you to change your mind. Again, I wish you no animosity.

Steve

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 11:43 AM
Mr. Bernstein,

I am the farthest thing from devine. I am no better or worse than anyone else. I am merely forgiven.

I do not with to impose my views on you or anyone else. I am representing a view.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 11:46 AM
I do not wish to impose my views on you or anyone else. With all respect, if you would make abortion punishable by law, you most certainly do wish to impose your views on others.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 11:57 AM
With all respect, Mr. Wilson, I realize that people will have abortions whether it's legal or not. I don't want 'back-alley' procedures either.

Whether you beleive in absolutes or not, they exist. Taking the life of an unborn is wrong, not just by my standard. My standards are nothing. This standard comes from the Creator,not me. He gives life and can take it away.

Regards

George.
12-02-2005, 12:01 PM
This salty hoosier fellow sounds an awful ot like Dutch... ;)

Osborne Russel
12-02-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
I am merely trying to plant a seed in your mind. A higher power will take over from there. I realize that I am not going to persuade you to change your mind. Again, I wish you no animosity.Here we go again. It's not me that's gonna kick your ass, it's my big daddy. Gee whiz, sorry.

Take your threats and jam em.


Originally posted by salty hoosier:
I am no better or worse than anyone else. I am merely forgiven. If it's no better to be forgiven, then what's the point?


But thus shall you deal with them: you shall break down their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. For you are a holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord God has chosen you to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:5-6. Yeah, I know, Christ came to tone down the people who were worshipping the right God in the wrong way. Then Muhammad came along to make things final. Except for the Latter Day Saints, David Koresh, Jim Jones . . . my what a crowded field, all meaning no harm to anyone, merely pointing out their authority in stating God's intentions towards those who don't adopt the proper forms of worship.

Osborne Russel
12-02-2005, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
It's NOT a scientific or 'rational' argument in the first place... it's a moral, philosophical, and religious argument, for which there is no 'reality-based' answer.Precisely. Roe v. Wade is a compromise of competing interests. Once you admit that there are competing legitimate interests, there must be compromise. On the other hand, once you declare that a competing interest is not legitimate, then there must be war.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 12:11 PM
Taking the life of an unborn is wrong, not just by my standard. My standards are nothing. This standard comes from the Creator,not me. Well, that's a way to end discussion. God said so. There we are.

Are you absolutely sure you understand God that well?


I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.

Oliver Cromwell

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 12:12 PM
Sure there is a reality. The reality is there is a dead baby.

Tristan
12-02-2005, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
My standards are nothing. This standard comes from the Creator,not me. He gives life and can take it away.

RegardsWell I have consulted with the Creator and she does not confirm your observations. I wonder if you have consulted with a bogus "Creator." Oh, and I should add, She does speak to me DIRECTLY!

[ 12-02-2005, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Another One
12-02-2005, 12:17 PM
Y'know, this started as just an interesting thread to lurk my way through. Now it's getting fun! You go, Osborne!

A required course for my business degree was World Religions. We went through the belief systems of Judaism, Buddism, Tao, Mormon, and a few others as well as the various versions of Christianity. We didn't get through a single class without the fundamentalist guy in the back row turning purple, and there were several times when he tried to shout down the instructor. But like I said, it was a required class - - so he had to pass it to get his degree. It was quite a show. tongue.gif

Jami
(proud to be a pro-choice voter)

Memphis Mike
12-02-2005, 12:17 PM
Hey Salty! How do you know you're forgiven?

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 12:22 PM
The reality is there is a dead baby. Argument by language again. :rolleyes: Everone agrees that going around with a hatchet chopping up infants in their cradles is wrong. That's not what we're talking about.

Is a fertilized egg, a single cell, "a baby"?
Is a 32-cell blastocyst "a baby"??
Is a 4-week embryo "a baby"??

Tristan
12-02-2005, 12:36 PM
Having an abortion is uaually a tough decision for a woman/girl. It is painful both physically and emotionally, somewhat dangerous, etc. It results in the destruction/killing/removal of a mass of cells or embryo which could become a baby. I've known the emotional pain loosing two would-be, maybe would have been, babies that were aborted spontaneously because they had died in utero. Not easy for anyone.
Interesting, though, that some of the most ardent right to lifers find congent reasons for their own wives and/or teen age, or pre-teen daughters to have abortions. Interesting that some of the most ardent right to lifers are also among the most willing to march into other countries and kill TENS OR HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of women non-combatent men, and children in the name of fighting communism, planting democracy or carrying out God's will or whatever.

[ 12-02-2005, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

htom
12-02-2005, 12:46 PM
I have become convinced that one of the great bad ideas of all time is "You do as I say." It's an ok idea when there's a good parent addressing a badly behaving, self-endangering child, but government is not a good parent and citizens are not children.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 12:54 PM
Memphis Mike,
"How do I know that I am forgiven"

It states in the Bible that if we confess our sins(rebellion) against God, accept his forgiveness through the sacrifice of his Son, then He will forgive us our sins. It's that simple and that difficult.
Through my faith I know I am forgiven. Believe me I am not so special that this gift is just for me. It is for all of us.

On a side note. How cold is it up there? We just got a nasty blast this morning. BRRRRRR

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 12:56 PM
Sorry Mike,
I meant Mr. Wilson up in DER NORT.

Memphis is a great town though.

High C
12-02-2005, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
...Is a fertilized egg, a single cell, "a baby"?
Is a 32-cell blastocyst "a baby"??
Is a 4-week embryo "a baby"??How about a 39 week embryo? Very, very few people support the abortion of a 39 week "embryo", "baby", "cell mass". (pick your favorite)

How about a 32 week?
Or a 28 week?
Or a 24 week?
Or an 18 week?
Or a 12 week?
Or an 8 week?
Or 4?

Where do we draw the line? Clearly, few are comfortable with a line drawn at 39 weeks.

Where's the magic point where the life in the womb becomes worthy of the same protections those of us who made it out enjoy? Is it where premature babies have survived outside the womb? That goes down all the time, now to just a few weeks.

Since so many express the desire to err on the side of caution to preserve the human environment, why does the same principle not apply to preserving human life?

LeeG
12-02-2005, 01:20 PM
Arr mateys this thread is getting weak,,,brb with a c&p,,ARRR,,ARRR

Rick Tyler
12-02-2005, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Everone agrees that going around with a hatchet chopping up infants in their cradles is wrong.Why is it wrong? I mean, infanticide still goes on in some places today, are they wrong? Seriously, why is killing people wrong?

[ 12-02-2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Rick Tyler ]

Tristan
12-02-2005, 01:36 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by salty hoosier:
[QB]Memphis Mike,
"How do I know that I am forgiven"

It states in the Bible that if we confess our sins(rebellion) against God, accept his forgiveness through the sacrifice of his Son, then He will forgive us our sins. It's that simple and that difficult.
Through my faith I know I am forgiven. Believe me I am not so special that this gift is just for me. It is for all of us. [/QB QUOTE]

Well, that's all well and good for YOU, but try to understand that there's other ways to the sacred. There's other ways to the spiritual. As for forgiveness, I can quite easily forgive myself, as the Dhamapada suggests. Hey, Salty, try reading the Dhamapada. Might give you another perspective on the sacred.

Tristan
12-02-2005, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The reality is there is a dead baby. Argument by language again. :rolleyes: Everone agrees that going around with a hatchet chopping up infants in their cradles is wrong. That's not what we're talking about.

Is a fertilized egg, a single cell, "a baby"?
Is a 32-cell blastocyst "a baby"??
Is a 4-week embryo "a baby"??</font>[/QUOTE]Well Keith, it's the egg and the sperm. Imagine, every time we ejaculate we kill millions of BABYS! A woman only kills one at a time when she refuses to copulate and the egg DIES!, but we kill millions and millions. The only solution is castration, get rid of these spermatocytes before spermatogenesis. Imagine all the lives we'd save! Oh, and then we could concentrate on killing children (and not babies) and grown people of other nationalities and races!

[ 12-02-2005, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 02:13 PM
High C, that’s a reasonable question. I think most people would entirely agree that at 39 weeks we have a human being, and so did the Supreme Court in deciding Roe v Wade. Abortions after the second trimester can now only be done for fairly dire medical reasons, and are quite rare. The vast majority of abortions are done before 12 weeks. Babies born before 23 weeks almost never survive, even with the best of modern medicine. Although it may eventually be possible to build an artificial uterus that will allow a fetus to develop outside the womb from a very early stage, even from fertilization, it’s not possible now.

I would set the beginning of humanity at the point where higher brain function starts, but reasonable people may disagree. The reason we don’t completely “err on the side of caution” is that there are very good reasons to allow women the freedom to decide.

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
How does killing a baby relate to any of your examples? It is merely an act of convenience.
There is no justification for killing a baby. It cannot defend itself, it cannot get out of the way of the murdering 'doctor', it did not choose to fight a war.
I have come to realize that the bilge dwellers are some cold hearted individuals.
How sad.Please note the difference between "fetus" and "baby". A fetus is not a baby and a baby is not a fetus. A fetus is potential, nothing more. A baby is a life, nothing less.

IF a fetus can live on it's own outside the womb, THAN it deserves the full protection of society and our laws. Otherwise, you're demanding that a woman be a slave to your religious ideology IMO. It's not a matter of a fetus not being able to speak/defend itself: it' can't - at the period of gestation where legal abortions occur, there's no thought going on there, no identiy. There just isn't enough brain for it.

Please try not to look past the inflamatory rhetoric of "your" side of things.

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 02:44 PM
HighC;

You know that there's a pretty bright line beyond which an abortion is only available under specific emergency conditions. Generally, an "on demand" abortion is available only during the first trimester: that would be 12 weeks or less.

Beyond that, only if continuing to carry the fetus would be a threat to the mother's health/survival would an abortion usually be available.

I'm also aware (know the father involved) where a pregnancy was terminated at 5 months (20 weeks) because the fetus was dead. Are you going to call that an abortion? Do you think that carrying a dead fetus in one's body is healthy?

FWIW, I'm anti-abortion - but I'm more strongly pro-choice! Denying a person's right to choose is nothing more than slavery.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 03:11 PM
Let's try to look past labels. An embryo, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a kid, a teenager, an adult, a senior citizen, each one of these labels is a human life, the most precious of all. Determining which one gets to be protected under the law is the sticky wicket. I sure don't want pro-death persons deciding that for me if I was yet to be born.

A pregnant woman, not caused by rape, is the slave of her own decision. Time to wake up and accept the responsiblity of our own actions.
Now there is a subject for a mega-thread.

LeeG
12-02-2005, 03:12 PM
collateral damage, live with it.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 03:14 PM
I'm anti-abortion - but I'm more strongly pro-choice! Talk about a fence sitting position.

Either be for it or against it. Black and white.

smile.gif smile.gif

Bob Cleek
12-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Oh, we're off into it again, eh? :rolleyes:

If you want to really wrestle with the issue, forget abortion per se. The philosophical question goes beyond that. The dispute seems more elemental. At what point did avoiding the consequences of one's own behavior at the expense of another become a civil right? To me, that's really the question.

Spare the "raped by a gorilla" arguments. Abberations don't prove the rule. 99.99% of "unwanted" pregnancies are the result of somebody taking a chance and losing the bet. Aborting a carelessly occasioned pregnancy is to me really no different than suing Delta because their tablesaw took your thumb off... when you'd removed the guards and done something stupid with it. If people took their sex as seriously as its natural consequences, abortion wouldn't be an issue.

Similarly, the issue isn't whether a prenatal human being is "human" or not. Roe v. Wade predated a whole lot of science. There really isn't any dispute. Given our understanding of DNA, once an egg and sperm connect, it is "life" and if it is human DNA, then it is "human life" from the moment of conception on. Hell, since Roe v. Wade, babies are being conceived in petri dishes and implanted in surrogate mothers. So much for the "viability" argument! In any event, a new born baby has LESS chance of survival without assistance than does any fetus. Does anybody have a problem with Scott Peterson being convicted of TWO murders because he killed his pregnant wife? Of course not.

Bottom line, folks who passionately promote abortion as a "right," really only want the right to avoid the consequences of their own actions. Rather unconvincing, I'd say.

[ 12-02-2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 03:43 PM
"So much for the "viability" argument! In any event, a new born baby has LESS chance of survival without assistance than does any fetus."

I defy you to show me a fetus surviving on it's own outside the womb!

Freedom of choice includes the right to change one's mind.

Choice is not just about reproduction, it's about freedom.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 03:45 PM
Well said Mr. Cleek. :cool:

High C
12-02-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
...I defy you to show me a fetus surviving on it's own outside the womb!On its own? That's not a qualifier for the right to live. Lots of us are unable to live "on our own".

Ian McColgin
12-02-2005, 04:05 PM
I am old enough to recall lives ruined by both unsafe abortions and having a child in an abusive household, usually male dominated whether by the father of the mother or the father of the infant.

I've certainly known people who came to believe that their choice to have or not have the child was wrong, but at least it was their choice.

I am committed to the right of a woman to choose and to choose contrary to wishes or even knowledge of the child's father. That means the father may not impose his desire to have or not have the child on the mother. It also means that if she wants to bear the child, he gets to bear some child support, willingly or grudgingly.

The statement that people passionately committed to a woman's right to choice " . . only want the right to avoid the consequences of their own actions. . " have about as much truth going for them as folk who claim that the anti-choice people only want to punish people who have sex by childbirth.

There are people who rather shallowly view abortion as a convenience, and we've certainly seen monotheistic fundamentalists who wax all too enthusiastic about the punitive value of pregnancy, but in general both pro-choice and anti-abortion people are people of more authentic moral purpose. We do them grave insult to lump them with the deranged extremists.

Because the sides can never actually agree, or even agree to disagree, the question is whether the anti-choice group will again be able to impose horrible consequences upon those who disagree with them.

In Judge Alito, the anti-choice side has found a champion who tried to sneak in concealing his record. Says a lot for their confidence, openness and integrity.

[ 12-02-2005, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Ian McColgin ]

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 04:11 PM
Sorry, Bob, but the argument really doesn’t make logical sense. A fertilized egg is alive, and has human DNA. Every cell in your body is also alive, and has human DNA. They can survive and grow just fine on their own under the right conditions. We slough off uncounted numbers of living cells with human DNA every day and nobody even notices. You can extract the DNA from on of those skin cells, place it inside somebody else’s egg cell, and if you have enough equipment and no scruples, you can produce a human embryo (if not now, then in a couple of years when we learn a little more.) It’s very difficult to see the sense in saying that a fertilized egg is somehow more “human” than a skin cell, or a cloned egg, or human DNA in a jar, or a collection of eggs and sperm, particularly when the argument is that the fertilized egg deserves the same legal protections as you and I, but the liver cells or the egg and sperm separately deserve none whatsoever.

A small thought experiment: assume a fertilized egg is a human being, and entitled to all the legal protections of a full-term baby. Consider two cases:

- A man goes off his rocker, and walks into the local elementary school with an AK-47 and lots of ammunition. Before he’s finally captured by the police, he murders 252 students and teachers.

- A woman gets married at age 20. She never has sex with anyone but her husband. By age 25, they have three children and decide they don’t want any more. She gets an IUD, which prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall. Assume she’s very fertile, and has sex with her husband at least once every menstrual cycle from age 25 to the time she reaches menopause at age 45. In that time, 252 fertilized eggs fail to implant, and get flushed down the toilet.

What is the difference between these two cases? Should they both be tried and punished for murdering 252 people?

And Bob, I’ll listen to you about “responsibility for one’s actions” when you get pregnant.

Tristan
12-02-2005, 04:35 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by salty hoosier:
[QB]Let's try to look past labels. An embryo, a fetus, a baby, a toddler, a kid, a teenager, an adult, a senior citizen, each one of these labels is a human life, the most precious of all.

Sorry Bub, pink cheeked Christian boys have killed tens of thousands of innocent folks (collateral damage) with hardly the blink of an eye. And our brave leaders have marched tens of thousands of pink cheeked Christian (and Jewish and Athiest, etc. etc.) boys to their deaths. Don't preach to me about the preciousness of human life. Human life isn't worth a plugged nickle alongside of big business and the pursuit of a political agenda.

[ 12-02-2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Bob Cleek
12-02-2005, 05:03 PM
"I defy you to show me a fetus surviving on it's own outside the womb!" Well, my daughter, for one. She was born seven weeks premature and at 24 is doing just fine. By definition, a fetus becomes a "baby" when it leaves the womb.

To my mind, Keith, your examples are the same. It is, however, a matter of degree. In the first instance, a whole lot of people will be grieving the school kids and a community will be devastated. In the second, nobody's gonna much notice unless the IUD perforates her uterine wall. From the perspective of everyone else, there may be a difference in the effect the act has on them, but from the perspective of the lives lost, dead is dead.

Tristan, you are absolutely right. Our society, like many others, has become numbed to killing of all sorts. I'd sort of like to imagine we might move away from that attitude.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 05:10 PM
Bob, so you really think the woman in the second example shoud be imprisioned for life without parole (or executed in some states)? If you were in the postion to decide, is that really what you would do?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:11 PM
So abortion of a fetus is a crime, but torturing people at Gitmo is okay...

Yep, I understand.

Did I mention that abortion is legal and available across Canada by law? Oh, Gay marriage is law too. A couple I know very well is getting married in June.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:14 PM
This standard comes from the Creator,not me. He gives life and can take it away. Has it (the creator) shown up in your bathroom in the morning to let you know what it thinks? If not, refrain from making statements that are only belief. I believe aliens are going to abduct you (wait that's hope)

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 05:18 PM
Wow, Tristan, you've really got some issues to work out. Your blind hatred of what you believe to be Christianity has skewed your view of the way things really are. Lot's of bad things have been done in the name of Christ. I can flat out guarantee you they were not followers. Jesus is not your enemy and neither are those who truly believe his message. If you want to blame somebody for the world's ills go look in the mirror, we chose to rebel against God long ago.
The full extent of sin in the world is showing itself. Fortunatley we don't have to be slaves to the sin of the world. Jesus took care of that 2000 years ago(give or take).

Best Regards
Steve

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:23 PM
Bottom line, folks who passionately promote abortion as a "right," really only want the right to avoid the consequences of their own actions. Rather unconvincing, I'd say.
Perhaps they want to change the consequences of their actions. Beyond the argument about when a fetus becomes life, which I don't agree with, there is the reality of who has abortions. Why would someone want a young girl to lose the ability to plot her own life based on a mistake of a sexual nature?

I certainly hope that people who espouse pro life are among the highest givers to single mothers and their children. If not, the hypocrisy is startling.

For Canadians, it's a civil rights issue. I don't have the right to dictate to others my personal beliefs. Gay marriage: same thing.

Phillip Allen
12-02-2005, 05:24 PM
Lucy...I'm home (do I have to clean up this mess before I can have supper?)

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 05:24 PM
Mr. Jardine,
Why all the hatred???
What have I done to you???
I am offering a different view than yours that's all.
I harbor no ill will towards you or anyone who disagrees with me.
I must add that I am very relieved that we ( the United States) have not descended so far down that we offer "special rights to minority groups" that already have the same rights as everyone else.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:25 PM
Fortunatley we don't have to be slaves to the sin of the world. Jesus took care of that 2000 years ago(give or take).
PROVE IT.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:28 PM
Mr. Jardine,
Why all the hatred??? What are you talking about? I don't hate you, and you shouldn't interpret my point of view as hatred to promote your point of view. I find you point of view narrow and prejudicial. I don't think you hate me.

In Canada, where we have a higher standard of living than the US, and a higher rate of individual freedom as well, we take civil rights extremely seriously.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 05:30 PM
http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/7026ILikeYourChrist.jpg

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:31 PM
Keith.. :D

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 05:35 PM
Actually, that bumper sticker is, like all bumperstickers, kind of a silly oversimplification, and there's some doubt whether Gandhi even said that. Christians are a very diverse lot, even if few of them resemble Jesus any more than non-Christians. I know quite a lot of them who are very much in favor of keeping abortion legal.

However, seeing as we're dealing in one-liners, here's another:

http://www.carryabigsticker.com/images/god_protect_me_500.gif

[ 12-02-2005, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 05:42 PM
Mr. Jardine,
Do you deny that a man named Jesus who lived in what is now Israel existed roughly 2000 years ago?
Something definitley happened in that time period that shook up that part of the world.
That my friend is beyond dispute.
If you don't believe in his existence then our discussion has come to an end.

Please don't include anything about your beloved Canada in your reply.

Memphis Mike
12-02-2005, 05:42 PM
I saw another one the other day:

"I Was Born Just Fine The First Time" :D

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 05:43 PM
Mr. Wilson,

You are the witty one, aren't you.

Another One
12-02-2005, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Do you deny that a man named Jesus who lived in what is now Israel existed roughly 2000 years ago? Something definitley happened in that time period that shook up that part of the world.
That my friend is beyond dispute.
If you don't believe in his existence then our discussion has come to an end.
Just sticking my nose back into this discussion for a second . . . if you set aside the Bible, there is literally no direct historically verified report of a teacher named Yeshua (or in Greek, Jesus) causing a ruckus or getting crucified during the period when the particular rulers mentioned in the new testament were in power. There is a historical reference to John the Baptist, but that's about it. And if you do include the books of the new testament, you really should include the ones thrown out by Constantine when he cherry-picked the "official" books of the new Bible he authorized.

Okay, re-lurking here to enjoy more of the show.

[ 12-02-2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Another One ]

Tristan
12-02-2005, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Wow, Tristan, you've really got some issues to work out. Your blind hatred of what you believe to be Christianity has skewed your view of the way things really are. Lot's of bad things have been done in the name of Christ. I can flat out guarantee you they were not followers. Jesus is not your enemy and neither are those who truly believe his message. If you want to blame somebody for the world's ills go look in the mirror, we chose to rebel against God long ago.
The full extent of sin in the world is showing itself. Fortunatley we don't have to be slaves to the sin of the world. Jesus took care of that 2000 years ago(give or take).

Best Regards
SteveNo Salty, I don't hate. I just believe it's important to WORK for what you seem to perceive as salvation and forgiveness. Just having faith alone doesn't do it for me. I'm sure Jesus was probably a good man (underline "man"). Unfortunately evangelical Christians, who endow Jesus with Godhood, are happy with "I believe!" and precious little in the way of being what they preach. Guess I've known of too many "Christians" who cheated on their wives, molested their daughters or the daughters of other folks, stole, extorted, lied, etc. etc. etc. The Jimmy Swaggerts or Elmer Gantrys of society. Braying, "I am saved! I believe!" carrying a bible and "witnessing" is about the extent of it for many of them. Guess I'm more convinced by real expressions of compassion and wisdom than phony "Jesus loves you" crap.

Keith Wilson
12-02-2005, 05:52 PM
Sorry, got a little self-indulgent there. Salty - (I was looking for an image of "Mr. Salty" off the pretzel box, but . . . hey it's Friday afternoon, cut me some slack ;) )

Seriously - I think the problem a lot of people have with your central argument is that it does not admit rational opposition. You have basically claimed, "God says we have to make abortion illegal." How does one respond to that? "No, he doesn't" is the only possible reponse. A statment supported by no evidence requires no evidence to refute it, but it doesn't make for much of a discussion. The problem is that you are claiming divine sanction for a restriction on other people's freedom.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 05:54 PM
Mr. Jardine,
Do you deny that a man named Jesus who lived in what is now Israel existed roughly 2000 years ago?
Something definitley happened in that time period that shook up that part of the world.
That my friend is beyond dispute.
If you don't believe in his existence then our discussion has come to an end. Oh, I believe that Jesus of Nazareth lived, and was a prophet, and died by crucifixion.

Let me make a parallel statement for you:

Do you deny that a man named Adolf Hitler who lived in what is now Germany existed some 60 years ago? Something definitely happened that shook up that part of the world. That, my friend, is beyond dispute. If you don't believe in his existence, then our discussion has come to an end.

.... now, your point would be??

Tristan
12-02-2005, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Wow, Tristan, you've really got some issues to work out.

Best Regards
SteveNaw, I don't have any more issues to work out than most folks. But have you looked in a mirror lately. Best Regards, Lowell
:D :D

htom
12-02-2005, 06:15 PM
I think it's a pseudo-quote, probably from this exchange cited by E. Stanley Jones, who thought for a while that he could convert Gandhi to Christianity:

Mahatma Gandhi to friend and missionary E. Stanley Jones:

"Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ.

It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-02-2005, 06:21 PM
When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he said he thought it would be a good idea.

Proper god.
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/images/gods/Kali-Shiva-ALI-PBABC_003sm.jpg

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 06:21 PM
Mr. Jardine,
I just wanted to have a starting point about Jesus' existence. A movement that started with a handfull of people mushroomed into a firestorm in short order. Something happened that caused a group of people who had just lost their leader to go and risk their lives in a very hostile world spreading his message. When Adolf Hitler took his own life his followers ran for cover all over the world. The opposite happen with Christ's death. What would make a small band of people risk their lives (and lose them) to spread the news of some kook teacher?? I mean Jesus claimed to be God. He was either telling the truth , he was a monumental liar or he was nut's.
Now I can't directly prove my next statement but examining the results will suffice. Jesus was dead and buried, three days later he brought himself back to life as he said he would and showed himself to his followers and at least 500 others.
These folks saw something that mobilized them into action. I say it was Jesus' return.
These people then went to all parts of their known world, even to the heart of their enemy (Rome) to spread the news. They were willing to be slaughtered for sport to proclaim what they knew, what they saw.

That sir is my argument for now.

Salty

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 06:25 PM
My point, Mr Anonymous, would be that your beliefs are not any better than anyone elses. If I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, you don't have an irrefutable evidence to support that he was.

My basis of faith is not at issue here. It is the issue of whether you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone else. I don't think you do.... or that I have the right either.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 06:27 PM
Mr. Wilson,
You placed so many words into my mouth that I won't try to refute them all. God did not tell me abortion should be illegal. I think any compassionate human being would believe that abortion on demand to rid oneself of an unwanted baby( wanted by those waiting to adopt) should not be endorsed by the federal government.
Yeah, this whole debate boils down to morals.
Whose? Well, that is the question my friend.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 06:29 PM
So Mr Anonymous, what do you think of Gitmo? Any thoughts on torture and it's use by the USA?

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 06:34 PM
Mr. Jardine,
Hey we are making progess!!!!!
I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That is most correct!!
I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone else, just sharing them. That is a right in my country.
By the way my name is Steve Williams not anonymous. I have nothing to hide.
Remember, if you take nothing else away from this conversation take this, I am merely sharing a view that seems to be lacking in the bilge.
I do respect your views and your right to share them.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Steve.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 06:36 PM
We are way off topic here. I can't type fast enough. Take your American hating to another post. Anyway, I've a family to take care of.
I love em.
Later.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 06:39 PM
Mr Williams, I take it by your remarks that you will keep your view on abortion, but not try to make it law in your country. That's good news.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 06:43 PM
Ha!!!! Baiting!!! I see right thru you.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 06:45 PM
I do not have the right to impose my beliefs on anyone else. That is most correct!!
I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone else, just sharing them. That is a right in my country. :confused: Did I miss something?

Ian McColgin
12-02-2005, 06:50 PM
At 1157 Steve asserted, "Taking the life of an unborn is wrong, not just by my standard. My standards are nothing. This standard comes from the Creator,not me."

At 1827 he asserted that, "God did not tell me abortion should be illegal."

OK. "Wrong" and "illegal" have two different meanings. So, in Steve's Christian understanding should abortion be legal, albeit neither moral nor desirable, or illegal?

And to the point of why this is a big issue for Alito's nomination: Should a person who breaks his written oath, attempts to sit on issues in which he has a financial stake, and attempts to disguise his deep commitment to ending a woman's choice to bear or not bear a child be regarded as having the integrity we claim to expect in a Supreme Court Justice?

Tristan
12-02-2005, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
We are way off topic here. I can't type fast enough. Take your American hating to another post. Anyway, I've a family to take care of.
I love em.
Later.Golly Gee, Salty sure get into using the word "hate" a lot. Seems like he's the only one who uses it much. Kind of strange isn't it. :confused: ;)

[ 12-02-2005, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:26 PM
Well Ian, I will assume you have some standards, correct? I try and at times fail to live by God's standards as layed out in the Bible. God did not directly tell me in the first person, "Salty, abortion should be illegal".
By studying His word one can come to the conclusion that he creates life and he alone has the right to take it. I try as best I can to live by the principles and standards set forth in the Bible.

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:31 PM
You know Tristan, I have used that word a few times. Maybe I get a little too emotional at times. I'll try to step back and be emotionally unattached.

Tristan
12-02-2005, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Well Ian, I will assume you have some standards, correct? I try and at times fail to live by God's standards as layed out in the Bible. God did not directly tell me in the first person, "Salty, abortion should be illegal".
By studying His word one can come to the conclusion that he creates life and he alone has the right to take it. I try as best I can to live by the principles and standards set forth in the Bible.Like Alice's Restaurant, one can find anything one wants to in the Bible. If you pick and choose you can find some fairly good ethical standards in the Bible. Good standards in "The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali" and "The Dhammapada" too, and a whole lot more straightforward. As for God's word, I suppose many of us would not take that literally

[ 12-02-2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 08:52 PM
All right your whippin' boy is going to leave for the night. Since no one wants to debate my last post to Mr. Jardine, I'll go ahead and put that one in the W column (if you can figure out what that means). I hope I supplied some food for thought and not just entertainment. I was hoping someone would bet my back but I guess I had to go a loner.
I'll be back sometime. I would like to debate those who 'dislike"(Tristan) our administration and thier policies. Believe it or not I don't agree with all of President Bush's policies. He's a little too liberal for me. Heh, Heh, Heh. smile.gif

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
This standard comes from the Creator,not me.

RegardsUnprovable, either that a creator exists or that such "standards" came from such a being.

Absent any proof, the bible was written by men just as fallible as yourself.

Tristan
12-02-2005, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
I hope I supplied some food for thought smile.gif Naw, just the same old tripe from a faith-based belief mentality.
:D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 09:07 PM
By studying His word one can come to the conclusion that he creates life and he alone has the right to take it. Not only for human rights and individual choice, but against the war in Iraq too. A good guy. ;)

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 09:17 PM
psy·cho·sis
n. pl. psy·cho·ses (-sz)

A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning. emphasis addedSee also: religion ;)

It may be mass psychosis, but it's still psychotic!

salty hoosier
12-02-2005, 09:22 PM
O.k. O.k. after this post I am really leaving.
Mr. Jardine,
I knew you would take that line like a bass goes after spinner bait. Ah, another day perhaps.

Tristan,
Rather smug but I appreciate your debate.

Meerkat,
First I am very sorry for your troubles. I'll pray for you (it won't hurt you). Yes, the Bible was written by man but devinely inspired. That's a faith thing. I cannot prove to you a creator exists. But you will, like us all, find out someday. What if you were wrong? :(

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-02-2005, 09:24 PM
I didn't take it. I merely commented on the expression of belief you made. If, in fact, you believe differently than you have written, you must be caught up in the politics of christianity. Probably a methodist.

[ 12-02-2005, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

Meerkat
12-02-2005, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:

Meerkat,
First I am very sorry for your troubles. I'll pray for you (it won't hurt you). Yes, the Bible was written by man but devinely inspired. That's a faith thing. I cannot prove to you a creator exists. But you will, like us all, find out someday. What if you were wrong? :( IF I'm wrong, I'm wrong. IF he's the merciful god that he's claimed to be and he forgives all sins, then I'll be forgiven at Heaven's Gate.

I don't claim that my standards are divinely inspired, but I live by standards similar to those who make such claims - so, if god does exist, he won't have much to forgive... ;)

Bob Cleek
12-03-2005, 02:46 AM
HOLY CRAP! Who WAS that masked man?

Tristan
12-03-2005, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:

Tristan,
Rather smug but I appreciate your debate.

:( Not smug, just a good bit more sure of myself than you are. :D :D :D

[ 12-03-2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Tristan
12-03-2005, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Meerkat:


I don't claim that my standards are divinely inspired, but I live by standards similar to those who make such claims - so, if god does exist, he won't have much to forgive... ;) [/QB][/QUOTE]

Hi Meercat, I think you are wrong. I expect YOU LIVE by standards which are ONLY TALKED ABOUT by a lot who profess to be christians. The "Jesus loves YOU," and "I'll pray that YOU see the true way," types need to work more on their DEEDS and less on worrying about what other folks believe.
,

[ 12-03-2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

Meerkat
12-03-2005, 02:47 PM
Right on Tristan.

skuthorp
12-04-2005, 08:56 PM
Heh!! I love these threads, so much gnashing of teeth, fire and brimstone!
So just leave the mythical being out of it, by any standards were a species out of control, gone feral. If there was an intergalactic park ranger about there'd be a 3/5 cull. We dont need so many people. The way jobs and environment are going we'll need less and soon else we'll mess our nest so much the species may be in trouble. Think long term, a half million or so years, I expect we'll have gone the way of the dinosaurs, just the odd relict groups left. i expect this particular god to hav dissapeared too.

Phillip Allen
12-05-2005, 06:07 AM
They're brains were small and they died...

Tristan
12-05-2005, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by skuthorp:
Heh!! I love these threads, so much gnashing of teeth, fire and brimstone!
So just leave the mythical being out of it, by any standards were a species out of control, gone feral. If there was an intergalactic park ranger about there'd be a 3/5 cull. We dont need so many people. The way jobs and environment are going we'll need less and soon else we'll mess our nest so much the species may be in trouble. Think long term, a half million or so years, I expect we'll have gone the way of the dinosaurs, just the odd relict groups left. i expect this particular god to hav dissapeared too.Well said me man, well said.

peb
12-05-2005, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by Another One:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Do you deny that a man named Jesus who lived in what is now Israel existed roughly 2000 years ago? Something definitley happened in that time period that shook up that part of the world.
That my friend is beyond dispute.
If you don't believe in his existence then our discussion has come to an end.
Just sticking my nose back into this discussion for a second . . . if you set aside the Bible, there is literally no direct historically verified report of a teacher named Yeshua (or in Greek, Jesus) causing a ruckus or getting crucified during the period when the particular rulers mentioned in the new testament were in power. There is a historical reference to John the Baptist, but that's about it. And if you do include the books of the new testament, you really should include the ones thrown out by Constantine when he cherry-picked the "official" books of the new Bible he authorized.

Okay, re-lurking here to enjoy more of the show.</font>[/QUOTE]WOuld like to reply to a lot more on this thread, but I don't have the time. But when I see a post like this one, I can't resist.

Anopther One, I would suggest you see Josephus. Although I will grant you Josephus's mention of Jesus is disputed, it is undisputed that he corraborates a lot of other parts of the Gospels. He mentions more than just John the Baptist. He also talks of Pontius Pilate, Herod, and James.

Your post tries to cast doubt that ever was a historical Jesus and make it seem like this is an accepted idea in historical circles. What a very deceptive trick. Although modern historians vary and argue a great deal what Jesus actually may have said and done, I believe it is accepted that he did exist.

All,
I would like to be involved in this thread, but I don't have the time.
Good day

ishmael
12-05-2005, 11:23 AM
As you've no doubt gathered, Salty, there is a strong negative feeling about Christianity 'round these parts. Some of it well taken and some of it typical knee-jerk. Not quite lions in the arena, but pretty close atimes. There must be a lot of recovering Catholics in the woods. Those who came of age around the time of Vatican II often have more than one bee buzzing in their bonnets.

Hey, the rest of you. Salty's the mildest and politest evangelist I've encountered in awhile. Give him a break! It is, after all, a part of his religion. If any of you claim to know the actual metaphysics of The Christ, have after it! (This could be rare.)

Has the Dalai Lama ever spoken specifically to abortion? 'Twould seem, to my lay reading of Buddhist scripture, to involve quite a bit of karma.

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 11:27 AM
PEB. Thanks for the info.
It got a little rough out there.
You go ahead a add whatever you need.

Steve.

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 11:33 AM
Thanks for the kind words Ish.
I'm working on a thread that Christianity is not a religion. I am not just playing with words.
It is a relationship with God made possible through the sacrifice of Jesus. A religion is a set of rules, do s and don'ts made up by man, to reconcile themselves to God. That way is not His plan.
I am just sharing information. It is not my job to 'save you'. Its not biblically possible for me to save you anyway.

Regards,
Steve. :D

Meerkat
12-05-2005, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by peb:

Your post tries to cast doubt that ever was a historical Jesus and make it seem like this is an accepted idea in historical circles. What a very deceptive trick. Although modern historians vary and argue a great deal what Jesus actually may have said and done, I believe it is accepted that he did exist.
Actually, there is doubt in "historical circles" as to the existance of Jesus. Quite an intersting presentation about it on PBS within the past couple of years. I believe it was discussed on the forum at the time.

Really, whether or not Jesus existed is moot: one is supposed to know christians by their works. If what they've been working on lately is any indication, I don't want to know them (generally speaking of course)!

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 12:05 PM
Meerkat,
What are 'they' working on lately that would be a problem?

Steve

Meerkat
12-05-2005, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Meerkat,
What are 'they' working on lately that would be a problem?

SteveReproductive rights.

Gay Marriage.

"Intelligent" Design as science.

In general, the attempt to inject religious beliefs into the legal system.

Nothing requires any christian to engage in any of those things they object to, yet they want to force the rest of us to their view.

Another One
12-05-2005, 12:23 PM
Peb, Josephus is the one contemporary writer I was referring to, who mentions John the Baptist (and of course, several other local political figures from his time). As you know, Mark (the earliest of the "cannon" books of the New Testament) wasn't written until at least 70 years later, which was a couple of lifetimes in those days. So the epistles can't be considered contemporary. And yep, most researches see no sign of Yeshua in Josephus' writings.

My point is that a belief in Jesus and his works is a matter of faith, not fact. The original story, whatever it was, has been filtered through so many other writers and their opinions that it is not credible as historical, literal fact. And the teachings of the Bible as it stands now have much, much more to do with the beliefs of Paul and Emperor Constantine than those of Jesus.

To bring us full circle: while terminating a pregnancy (or a newborn, in the first few days before "the spirit entered it") was common in some Roman cities of the era, it is not addressed in the Bible at all (to my admittedly limited knowledge).

Before anyone brings it up, "Thou shalt not kill" meant not only that you couldn't take out your neighbor, but that you couldn't butcher your own sheep. All meat had to come by way of the temple. So that commandment has much more to do with your McRib Sandwich than it does with a woman's right to control her own body.

I respect your right, and Salty's, to your belief system, and it was inappropriate of me to denigrate it as "entertainment." But I disagree with your beliefs, and I strongly disagree with your intent to impose them on me or my children.

Jami

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 12:45 PM
I respect your right, and Salty's, to your belief system, and it was inappropriate of me to denigrate it as "entertainment." But I disagree with your beliefs, and I strongly disagree with your intent to impose them on me or my children.
Are you not already imposing your beliefs on me and my children by way of the courts?

You might believe that under the constitution it is a woman's choice to carry her baby to term. I believe under most circumstances that a person does not have a right under the constitution to kill someone.

These are two distinct beliefs, yours is law right now mine is not. They both greatly impact others. Is is not wiser to impact someone's life by letting them live?

Steve

Alan D. Hyde
12-05-2005, 12:48 PM
Jami, "thous shalt not kill" is an English translation of text that was originally written (IIRC) in Aramaic, then later translated into Greek.

The original words might be better translated as "thou shalt not do murder" (i.e. commit an unlawful killing). Some killings were entirely lawful, and death was in fact the prescribed Biblical penalty for many crimes.

Meerkat said---

"IF I'm wrong, I'm wrong. IF he's the merciful god that he's claimed to be and he forgives all sins, then I'll be forgiven at Heaven's Gate."

This is clearly inaccurate.

God's mercy is available to ALL--- he knocks (thru Christ) at our doors. But, it is WE who must open them.

That means we must repent our sins (acknowledge their wrongfulness, and seek to sin no more), and we must accept God's grace. Without these efforts on our part, we will have rejected God's offer of mercy...

And, hence, must live-- and die--- with the consequences.

Alan

[ 12-05-2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

TomF
12-05-2005, 12:59 PM
Steve,

By necessity, a viewpoint that says "my way is the only one" can't peaceably coexist with another. That's what we're bumping into. We can be as polite as we wish, but if I believe that abortion can in some cases be morally justified, and you believe the opposite ... only one of us will get our way in the courts. The other will have to live with that.

My personal views, grounded in my own Christian faith, don't align with yours here. Who's to say which of our respective Christian faiths is "correct" on this issue? So far as I can tell, only God.

Our societies - your and mine - are each increasingly diverse. Many are not Christian, and many Christians disagree. In such a situation, it's up to the democratic political process to determine the laws ... not my moral view, or yours. If you're uncomfortable with such a state of affairs ... then likely you'd rather live in an explicitly theocratic state. There are precious few, if any, Christian ones left.

Another One
12-05-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
Are you not already imposing your beliefs on me and my children by way of the courts?

How so? Is anyone mandating that you or your children have abortions?


Originally posted by salty hoosier:
I believe under most circumstances that a person does not have a right under the constitution to kill someone.
As the man said, "There you go again." Please see exhaustive discourse, above, regarding whether a selective first trimester abortion is in any way equivalent to "killing someone."

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 01:09 PM
Meerkat,
I think that the opposition to gay marriage goes beyond just Christains.

To me the debate is very simple, black and white, a gay person has exactly the same rights as the rest of us. If he or she would like to have an officially recognized marriage,then marry someone of the opposite sex just like the rest of us.

People who ascribe to "the lifestyle" want special rights. What if my lifestyle included not requiring me to pay for anything with money. Should I have a right to steal whatever I want. I might have been born with an innate (one n or two??) disire to steal. Of course that is riduculous but so are the arguments that "gay rights advocates" use.

Another One
12-05-2005, 01:12 PM
Salty, where do you stand on interracial marriage? It used to be illegal, justified in part by some of the arguments you cite.

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 01:20 PM
TomF
I never said "my way is the only way". I beleive people see in person's post what they want to see.

Do I think I am going to win some sort of debate with others on this forum? No. I realize this.

I try to express views that are orthodox(not Eastern) Christain but they will be 'spiced' with my own, sometimes wrong, views because it is hard to separate them.

I am open to all views. I will compare them to those views I hold and if I think they are better, I will change them. I am sure all of you operate roughly the same way. Don't just discard mine because you think I am some sort of right wing nut. So let's keep offering up different views and see what happens.

peb
12-05-2005, 02:23 PM
AnotherOne,


My point is that a belief in Jesus and his works is a matter of faith, not fact. The original story, whatever it was, has been filtered through so many other writers and their opinions that it is not credible as historical, literal fact. And the teachings of the Bible as it stands now have much, much more to do with the beliefs of Paul and Emperor Constantine than those of Jesus Well, it is a small victory...
I see that now you are changing your argument from simply disputing even the existence of Jesus to disputing the "Jesus AND HIS WORKS". But to stress my original point, almost all serious historians will acknowledge Jesus was a real historical person. His works may be disputed, but not his historical existence.


As you know, Mark (the earliest of the "cannon" books of the New Testament) wasn't written until at least 70 years later, which was a couple of lifetimes in those days. So the epistles can't be considered contemporary. And yep, most researches see no sign of Yeshua in Josephus' writings Well, first of all, Mark is a gospel not an epistle. Most bibilcal scholars do think Paul's letters (the epistles) were actually writtn by Paul betweem the time of Jesus death and around 65 A.D., definitely not a couple of lifetimes. They were written within 35 years of the events.

As for your statement "As you know ... Mark was written at least 70 years later", well I do not know this at all. I will grant you that many biblical scholars place the writing at a later date, but others do not. It is disputed and at this time scholarship is "heading" towards earlier dates.


I respect your right, and Salty's, to your belief system, and it was inappropriate of me to denigrate it as "entertainment." But I disagree with your beliefs, and I strongly disagree with your intent to impose them on me or my children.
Your apology for denigrating our beliefs is accepted.

I would like to point out that I have no intent to impose my religious beliefs on you. I would love to see you accept them. And I pray that all non-believers come to believe in Christ. In my own way, I like to think I even work towards that goal. But I fail to see out this is imposing them on you.

[ 12-05-2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

uncas
12-05-2005, 02:26 PM
OKAY...why not...gonna throw a curve ball..
Did Jesus know how to write?
If not...the Bible is second person and heresay..
Just rattlin' chains...
Not many people back then did know how to write afterall. In fact, only the elite did....and someone who was born in a manger,in a barn, and the son of a carpenter on top of that was not a member of the upper class.,,,

[ 12-05-2005, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

Tristan
12-05-2005, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:


God's mercy is available to ALL--- he knocks (thru Christ) at our doors. But, it is WE who must open them.

That means we must repent our sins (acknowledge their wrongfulness, and seek to sin no more), and we must accept God's grace. Without these efforts on our part, we will have rejected God's offer of mercy...

AlanAlan, You talking about YOUR God or MY God? The way you and Salty talk YOUR God is the only real god. I believe YOUR God is a myth. MY GOD is the ONLY TRUE GOD! Get with it man! Even Meister Eckhart and Thomas (see the Gospel of Thomas, no relation) had inklings of my God. My God is everywhere and everything. My God can be seen everyday, everywhere. It's all sacred. Oh, and MY GOD doesn't worry about any mythic Kingdoms either.

[ 12-05-2005, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]

peb
12-05-2005, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by peb:

Your post tries to cast doubt that ever was a historical Jesus and make it seem like this is an accepted idea in historical circles. What a very deceptive trick. Although modern historians vary and argue a great deal what Jesus actually may have said and done, I believe it is accepted that he did exist.
Actually, there is doubt in "historical circles" as to the existance of Jesus. Quite an intersting presentation about it on PBS within the past couple of years. I believe it was discussed on the forum at the time.

Really, whether or not Jesus existed is moot: one is supposed to know christians by their works. If what they've been working on lately is any indication, I don't want to know them (generally speaking of course)!</font>[/QUOTE]I missed your PBS show and your discussion, so I can't really comment.

I will provide one simple quote from the Wikipedia's entry on Jesus:

"Jesus is generally accepted to have been a historical person who lived from around 8-4 BC/BCE to 26-36 AD/CE"

The existence of Jesus is moot? This is false and you know it. If you could prove that he did not exist, you would love to bring that up in many debates. It would help you defend many of you positions. You say his existence is moot and you say it is an open question because those statements are the next best alternatives.

peb
12-05-2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
OKAY...why not...gonna throw a curve ball..
Did Jesus know how to write?
If not...the Bible is second person and heresay..
Just rattlin' chains...
Not many people back then did know how to write afterall. In fact, only the elite did....and someone who was born in a manger,in a barn, and the son of a carpenter on top of that was not a member of the upper class.,,,Almost certainly he knew how to write. Your statement "not many people back then knew how to write" shows a lack of knowledge of Jewish history and tradition. The level of literacy among male Jews at the time of Christ (actually at almost any time in history) would have been extremely high. Learning to read was part of their religious training and was mandatory for all.

[ 12-05-2005, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: peb ]

uncas
12-05-2005, 02:38 PM
peb...I may lack knowledge of the Jewish faith...as I'm not...But..there are no quotes in the bible...except..one's which have been repeated by someone else.
Correct me if I am wrong...Don't mind being wrong.

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 02:39 PM
Another One,
Interracial marriage. No problem at all.
"All men were created in the image of God"
therefore all men(and women) are equal in His eyes. That's good enough for me.

Meerkat,
Back to intelligent design (just a wishy washy term for creationism IMO), you show me any logic or proof of macro-evolution. Don't go to the cellular level because those little buggers are micro machines and it won't help your argument. I don't know if I can scientifically prove creation. Logically, I think it's no problem. I had a lenghty discussion with a physics prof. on this one.
We agreed to disagree.

Steve

TomF
12-05-2005, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
TomF
I never said "my way is the only way". I beleive people see in person's post what they want to see.

...No, Salty, you never said "my way is the only way." And you are explicit in being open to discuss ... good on you for that. I'm sorry if I misjudged you.

As Christians though, we've got to admit that the orthodox Christian position is pretty exclusive. That exclusivity is frequently based on this bit from John's gospel: "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except by Me."

The conventional reading of that passage rules out salvation (and hence, avoiding hellfire) except via an explicit acceptance of Christ. It's certainly been sold that way by orthodox Christianity, mutually reinforcing themes in Mark's "mini-Apocalypse," and comments in Paul. That line has generally been more firmly taken by conservative Protestants than conservative Catholics. And it doesn't get much more exclusive ... either you're part of "the elect" being gathered in ... or you're not.

Folks who believe themselves to be part of "the elect" can frequently come across to make other statements, e.g. about abortion, or gay marriage, or etc., which give the impression of speaking for God, giving clear and unambiguous rules. But frankly, so far as I can tell, God hasn't spoken ... except to say "Love God, Love your Neighbour .., and work out how to best do that in your own context."

That's the touchstone: What would love most look like in this situation. Bearing in mind that Jesus generally supported Moses' laws, but freely broke them if in a given context they acted against love.

So abortion? For me, there's not a hard and fast "always" rule. Should abortion be a default birth-control mechanism? No - out of love for the nascent life. Should it always be prohibited? No, out of love both for the nascent life, and for the adults involved. You have to ask the touchstone question - how is love best served here? It is a prayerful, sorrowful choice whichever way it goes.

t.

Rick Tyler
12-05-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
[QUOTE]In Canada, where we have a higher standard of living than the USAs someone famously wrote earlier in this thread:

PROVE IT

peb
12-05-2005, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by uncas:
peb...I may lack knowledge of the Jewish faith...as I'm not...But..there are no quotes in the bible...except..one's which have been repeated by someone else.
Correct me if I am wrong...Don't mind being wrong.I am not disputing that Jesus chose not to write anything down. I was simply disputing your point that Jesus was likely illiterate.

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 03:40 PM
TomF
If John's gospel isn't clear to you, well .... This isn't some exclusive club of mine. It is God's plan for salvation. It is not my plan. God has provided a way for us to be recociled to him. How can you consider His way to be exclusive(which IMO is politically correct liberalspeak)?? God would have everyone accept his gift that none shall perish (John 3:16).
He excludes no one from his plan.
This has to be the most open "club" in existence.

Steve

TomF
12-05-2005, 03:54 PM
Steve,

John's gospel was written by people in John's community, likely in Jerusalem, after HE died. It reflected the teachings of Jesus, as interpreted and expressed by John's community. Virtually none of the words attributed in John to Jesus are in common with any of the other Gospels, or in other records of the sayings of Jesus (e.g. Gospel of Thomas). It was written in a form, and language, that Jesus did not speak.

It does, however, reflect the conflict between the Johannine community, and the synagogue Jews of the time, and the need for the Johannine community to differentiate themselves.

Which is a roundabout way of saying: that bit of John isn't necessarily God's plan either. What we have from Jesus' mouth in the synoptic gospels is "Love God, Love your Neighbour."

t.

Alan D. Hyde
12-05-2005, 03:59 PM
Tristan, I am talking about traditional Christian belief as embraced by both Catholics and mainstream protestants for the last thousand years or so.

I was merely responding to David's (Meerkat's) comment, within its own implied parameters.

Obviously, there are at least eight other major systems of belief from which various assumptions about the Divinity may be drawn, as well as an infinity of less popular permutations and variations.

Alan

George.
12-05-2005, 04:23 PM
It's not the hearsay words written by the four "approved" ( ;) ) evangelists that cause so much trouble. It is the words written by Paul, which are not even hearsay - just marketing mixed with a troubled psyche...

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 05:45 PM
What we have from Jesus' mouth in the synoptic gospels is "Love God, Love your Neighbour." You are right Tom, love your neieghbor enough to share with him the good news. Don't hound him about it, just share it and live it. God's Holy Spirit will take over from there.

Steve.

Tristan
12-05-2005, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Tristan, I am talking about traditional Christian belief as embraced by both Catholics and mainstream protestants for the last thousand years or so.

Obviously, there are at least eight other major systems of belief from which various assumptions about the Divinity may be drawn, as well as an infinity of less popular permutations and variations.

AlanWell, you need to know that, while the three major monotheistic religions may offer some reasonable ethical advice, their concepts of "God" are created in man's image, not the other way around.
:D :D :D

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2005, 05:58 PM
Logically, I think it's no problem Okay then. I have no response to someone who says that about creating the earth in seven days. :rolleyes:

As for Canada's standard of living... see any index you like, the UN, The Economist, etc etc etc... We are always above the US.

I believe Jesus lived.

Did I mention abortion and gay marriage are completely legal in Canada? Thank you. ;)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2005, 06:01 PM
Hey Salty, Do you believe George Bush is a good Christian?

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 10:12 PM
Mr. Jardine,
I don't really know.
What is the definition of 'a good christian'.

I am glad for you than Canada has such I high standard of living.

I have been very blessed here in the States, couldn't want for more.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2005, 10:16 PM
Do you like George Bush? Do you think he makes good choices for America and the World?

salty hoosier
12-05-2005, 10:22 PM
Mr. Jardine,

I would say he makes the tough choices that no other leaders seem to be able to make.
What is popular and what is necessary can be two vastly different things.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2005, 10:23 PM
So the War in Iraq is necessary you think?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-05-2005, 10:24 PM
How about his decision to use torture as an interrogation method? Do you think that's necessary?

Meerkat
12-05-2005, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by salty hoosier:
TomF
I never said "my way is the only way". I beleive people see in person's post what they want to see.

Do I think I am going to win some sort of debate with others on this forum? No. I realize this.

I try to express views that are orthodox(not Eastern) Christain but they will be 'spiced' with my own, sometimes wrong, views because it is hard to separate them.

I am open to all views. I will compare them to those views I hold and if I think they are better, I will change them. I am sure all of you operate roughly the same way. Don't just discard mine because you think I am some sort of right wing nut. So let's keep offering up different views and see what happens.That's kind of a hard position to defend, considering you, in your post previos to this one, said that marriage is of a particular form and there can be (by inference) no other way.

Feel free to steal - and when you're caught, we'll feel free to put you in jail. tongue.gif

On the other hand, just how does gay marriage harm anyone else?

Sam F
12-06-2005, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by peb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by peb:

Your post tries to cast doubt that ever was a historical Jesus and make it seem like this is an accepted idea in historical circles. What a very deceptive trick. Although modern historians vary and argue a great deal what Jesus actually may have said and done, I believe it is accepted that he did exist.
Actually, there is doubt in "historical circles" as to the existance of Jesus. Quite an intersting presentation about it on PBS within the past couple of years. I believe it was discussed on the forum at the time.

Really, whether or not Jesus existed is moot: one is supposed to know christians by their works. If what they've been working on lately is any indication, I don't want to know them (generally speaking of course)!</font>[/QUOTE]I missed your PBS show and your discussion, so I can't really comment.

I will provide one simple quote from the Wikipedia's entry on Jesus:

"Jesus is generally accepted to have been a historical person who lived from around 8-4 BC/BCE to 26-36 AD/CE"

The existence of Jesus is moot? This is false and you know it. If you could prove that he did not exist, you would love to bring that up in many debates. It would help you defend many of you positions. You say his existence is moot and you say it is an open question because those statements are the next best alternatives.</font>[/QUOTE]Good work Peb. What I find illuminating is how people know for certain that something is so - like speculation about when who or what "community" supposedly wrote one or another book in the Bible . Having some familarity with the evidence for such speculation one would be hard pressed to convict a dog on such evidence let alone imagine it to be fact.
Then there's the highly selective nature of what is viewed with skepticism what what is swallowed with nary a complaint. For instance here's a nice bit of mythology for you :D

The Birth of the Buddha

Translated from the Introduction to the Jtaka (i. 4721)


NOW while the Future Buddha was still dwelling in the city of the Tusita gods, the “Buddha-Uproar,” as it is called, took place. For there are three uproars which take place in the world,—the Cyclic-Uproar, the Buddha-Uproar, and the Universal-Monarch-Uproar. They occur as follows:— 1
When it is known that after the lapse of a hundred thousand years the cycle is to be renewed, the gods called Lokaby&utilde;has, inhabitants of a heaven of sensual pleasure, wander about thorugh the world, with hair let down and flying in the wind, weeping and wiping away their tears with their hands, and with their clothes red and in great disorder. And this they make announcement:— 2
“Sirs, after the lapse of a hundred thousand years, the cycle is to be renewed; this world will be destroyed; also the mighty ocean will dry up; and this broad earth, and Sineru, the monarch of the mountains, will be burnt up and destroyed,—up to the Brahma heavens will the destruction of the world extend. Therefore, sirs, cultivate friendliness; cultivate compassion, joy, and indifference; wait on your mothers; wait on your fathers; and honor your elders among your kinsfolk.” 3
This is called the Cyclic-Uproar. 4
Again, when it is known that after a lapse of a thousand years an omniscient Buddha is to arise in the world, the guardian angels of the world wander about, proclaiming: 5
“Sirs, after the lapse of a thousand years a Buddha will arise in the world.” 6
This is called the Buddha-Uproar. 7
And lastly, when they realize that after the lapse of a hundred years a Universal Monarch is to arise, the terrestrial deities wander about, proclaiming:— 8
“Sirs, after the lapse of a hundred years a Universal Monarch is to arise in the world.” 9
This is called the Universal-Monarch-Uproar. And these three are mighty uproars. 10
When of these three Uproars they hear the sound of the BuddhaUproar, the gods of all ten thousand worlds come together into one place, and having ascertained what particular being is to be The Buddha, they approach him, and beseech him to become one. But it is not till after omens have appeared that they beseech him. 11
At that time, therefore, having all come together in one world, with the Ctum-Mahrjas, and with the Sakka, the Suyma, the Santusita, the Paranimmita-Vasavatti, and the Maha, or of a Brahma, or of a Universal Monarch, that you fulfilled the Ten Perfections; but it was to gain omniscience in order to save the world, that you fulfilled them. Sir, the time and fit season for your Buddhaship has now arrived.” 12
But the Great Being, before assenting to their wish, made what is called the five great observations. He observed, namely, the time, the continent, the country, the family, and the mother and her span of life. 13
In the first of these observations he asked himself whether it was the right time or no. Now it is not the right time when the length of men’s lives is more than a hundred thousand years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals then forget about birth, old age, and death. And if The Buddhas, who always include in their teachings the Three Characteristics, were to attempt at such a time to discourse concerning transitoriness, misery, and the lack of substantive reality, men would not think it worth while listening to them, nor would they give them credence. Thus there would be no conversions made; and if there were no conversions, the dispensation would not conduce to salvation. This, therefore, is not the right time. 14
Also it is not right time when men’s lives are less than a hundred years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals are then exceedingly corrupt; and an exhortation given to the exceedingly corrupt makes no impression, but, like a mark drawn with a stick on the surface of the water, it immediately disappears. This, therefore, also is not the right time. 15
But when the length of men’s lives is between a hundred years and a hundred thousand years, then is it the right time. Now at that time men’s lives were a hundred years; accordingly the Great Being observed that it was the right time for his birth. 16
Next he made the observation concerning the continent. Looking over the four continents with their attendant isles, he reflected: “In three of the continents the Buddhas are never born; only in the continent of India are they born.” Thus he decided on the continent. 17
Next he made the observation concerning the place. “The continent of India is large,” thought he, “being ten thousand leagues around. In which of its countries are The Buddhas born?” Thus he decided on the Middle Country. 18
The Middle Country is the country defined in the Vinaya as follows:— 19
“It lies in the middle, on this side of the town Kajan˜gala on the east, beyond which is Mah-Sla, and beyond that the border districts. It lies in the middle, on this side of the river Salalavat on the southeast, beyond which are the border districts. It lies in the middle, on this side of the town Setakannika on the south, beyond which are the border districts. It lies in the middle, on this side of the Brahmanical town Thu˜na on the west, beyond which are the border districts. It lies in the middle, on this side of the hill Usraddhaja on the north, beyond which are the border districts.” 20
It is three hundred leagues in length, two hundred and fifty in breadth, and nine hundred in circumference. In this country are born The Buddhas, the Private Buddhas, the Chief Disciples, the Eighty Great Disciples, the Universal Monarch, and other eminent ones, magnates of the warrior caste, of the Brahman caste, and the wealthy householders. “And in it is this city called Kapilavatthu,” thought he, and concluded that there he ought to be born. 21
Then he made the observation concerning the family. “The Buddhas,” thought he, “are never born into a family of the peasant caste, or of the servile caste; but into one of the warrior caste, or of the Brahman caste, whichever at the time is the higher in public estimation. The warrior caste is now the higher in public estimation. I will be born into a warrior family, and king Suddhodana shall be my father.” Thus he decided on the family. 22
Then he made the observation concerning the mother. “The mother of a Buddha,” thought he, “is never a wanton, nor a drunkard, but is one who has fulfilled the perfections through a hundred thousand cycles, and has kept the five precepts unbroken from the day of her birth. Now this queen Mah-My is such a one; and she shall be my mother.”—“But what shall be her span of life?” 1 continued he. And he perceived that it was to be ten months and seven days. 23
Having thus made the five great observations, he kindly made the gods the required promise, saying,— 24
“Sirs, you are right. The time has come for my Buddhaship.” 25
Then, surrounded by the gods of the Tusita heaven, and dismissing all the other gods, he entered the Nandana Grove of the Tusita capital,—for in each of the heavens there is a Nandana Grove. And here the gods said, “Attain in your next existence your high destiny,’ and kept reminding him that he had already paved the way to it by his accumulated merit. Now it was while he was thus dwelling, surrounded by these deities, and was conceived in the womb of queen Mah-My. And in order that this matter may be fully understood, I will give the whole account in due order. 26
It is related that at that time the Midsummer Festival had been proclaimed in the city of Kapilavatthu, and the multitude were enjoying the feast. And queen Mah-My, abstaining from strong drink, and brilliant with garlands and perfumes, took part in the festivities for the six days previous to the day of full moon. And when it came to be the day of full moon, she rose early, bathed in perfumed water, and dispensed four hundred thousand pieces of money in great largess. And decked in full gala attire, she ate of the choicest food; after which she took the eight vows, and entered her elegantly furnished chamber of state. And lying down on the royal couch, she fell asleep and dreamed the following dream:— 27
The four guardian angels came and lifted her up, together with her couch, and took her away to the Himalaya Mountains. There, in the Manosil table-land, which is sixty leagues in extent, they laid her under a prodigious sal-tree, seven leagues in height, and took up their positions respectfully at one side. Then came the wives of these guardian angels, and conducted her to Anotatta Lake, and bathed her, to remove every human stain. And after clothing her with divine garments, they anointed her with perfumes and decked her with divine flowers. Not far off was Silver Hill, and in it a golden mansion. There they spread a divine couch with its head towards the east, and laid her down upon it. Now the Future Buddha had become a superb white elephant, and was wandering about at no great distance, on Gold Hill. Descending thence, he ascended Silver Hill, and approaching from the north, he plucked a white lotus with his silvery trunk, and trumpeting loudly, went into the golden mansion. And three times he walked round his mother’s couch, with his right side towards it, and striking her on her right side, he seemed to enter her womb. Thus the conception took place in the Midsummer Festival. 28
On the next day the queen awoke, and told the dream to the king. And the king caused sixty-four eminent Brahmans to be summoned, and spread costly seats for them on ground festively prepared with green leaves, Dalbergia flowers, and so forth. The Brahmans being seated, he filled gold and silver dishes with the best of milk-porridge compounded with ghee, honey, and treacle; and covering these dishes with others, made likewise of gold and silver, he gave the Brahmans to eat. And not only with food, but with other gifts, such as new garments, tawny cows, and so forth, he satisfied them completely. And when their every desire had been satisfied, he told them the dream and asked them what would come of it? 29
“Be not anxious, great king!” said the Brahmans; “a child has planted itself in the womb of your queen, and it is a male child and not a female. You will have a son. And he, if he continue to live the household life, will become a Universal Monarch; but if he leave the household life and retire from the world, he will become a Buddha, and roll back the clouds of sin and folly of this world.” 30
Now the instant the Future Buddha was conceived in the womb of his mother, all the ten thousand worlds suddenly quaked, quivered, and shook. And the Thirty-two Prognostics appeared, as follows: an immeasurable light spread through ten thousand worlds; the blind recovered their sight, as if from desire to see this his glory; the deaf received their hearing; the dumb talked; the hunchbacked became straight of body; the lame recovered the power to walk; all those in bonds were freed from their bonds and chains; the fires went out in all the hells; the hunger and thirst of the Manes was stilled; wild animals lost their timidity; diseases ceased among men; all mortals became mild-spoken, horses neighed and elephants trumpeted in a manner sweet to the ear; all musical instruments gave forth their notes without being played upon; bracelets and other ornaments jingled; in all quarters of the heavens the weather became fair; a mild, cool breeze began to blow, very refreshing to men; rain fell out of season; water burst forth from the earth and flowed in streams; the birds ceased flying through the air; the rivers checked their flowing; in the mighty ocean the water became sweet; the ground became everywhere covered with lotuses of the five different colors; all flowers bloomed, both those on land and those that grow in the water; trunk-lotuses bloomed on the trunks of trees, branch-lotuses on the branches, and vine-lotuses on the vines; on the ground, stalk-lotuses, as they are called, burst through the overlying rocks and came up by sevens; in the sky were produced others, called hanging-lotuses; a shower of flowers fell all about; celestial music was heard to play in the sky; and the whole ten thousand worlds became one mass of garlands of the utmost possible magnificence, with waving chowries, and saturated with the incense-like fragrance of flowers, and resembled a bouquet of flowers sent whirling through the air, or a closely woven wreath, or a superbly decorated altar of flowers. 31
From the time the Future Buddha was thus conceived, four angels with swords in their hands kept guard, to ward off all harm from both the Future Buddha and the Future Buddha’s mother. No lustful thought sprang up in the mind of the Future Buddha’s mother; having reached the pinnacle of good fortune and of glory, she felt comfortable and well, and experienced no exhaustion of body. And within her womb she could distinguish the Future Buddha, like a white thread passed through a transparent jewel. And whereas a womb that has been occupied by a Future Buddha is like the shrine of a temple, and can never be occupied or used again, therefore it was that the mother of the Future Buddha died when he was seven days old, and was reborn in the Tusita heaven. 32
Now other women sometimes fall short of and sometimes run over the term of ten lunar months, and then bring forth either sitting or lying down; but not so the mother of a Future Buddha. She carries the Future Buddha in her womb for just ten months, and then brings forth while standing up. This is a characteristic of the mother of a Future Buddha. So also queen Mah-My carried the Future Buddha in her womb, as it were oil in a vessel, for ten months; and being then far gone with child, she grew desirous of going home to her relatives, and said to king Suddhodana,— 33
“Sire, I should like to visit my kinsfolk in their city Devadaha.” 34
“So be it,” said the king; and from Kapilavatthu to the city of Devadaha he had the road made even, and garnished it with plantain-trees set in pots, and with banners, and streamers; and, seating the queen in a golden palanquin borne by a thousand of his courtiers, he sent her away in great pomp. 35
Now between the two cities, and belonging to the inhabitants of both, there was a pleasure-grove of sal-trees, called Lumbini Grove. And at this particular time this grove was one mass of flowers from the ground to the topmost branches, while amongst the branches and flowers hummed swarms of bees of the five different colors, and flocks of various kinds of birds flew about warbling sweetly. Throughout the whole of Lumbini Grove the scene resembled the Cittalat Grove in Indra’s paradise, or the magnificently decorated banqueting pavilion of some potent king. 36
When the queen beheld it she became desirous of disporting herself therein, and the courtiers therefore took her into it. And going to the foot of the monarch sal-tree of the grove, she wished to take hold of one of its branches. And the sal-tree branch, like the tip of a well-steamed reed, bent itself down within reach of the queen’s hand. Then she reached out her hand, and seized hold of the branch, and immediately her pains came upon her. Thereupon the people hung a curtain about her, and retired. So her delivery took place while she was standing up, and keeping fast hold of the sal-tree branch. 37
At that very moment came four pure-minded Mah-Brahma angels bearing a golden net, and, receiving the Future Buddha on this golden net, they placed him before his mother and said,— 38
“Rejoice, O Queen! A mighty son has been born to you.” 39
Now other mortals on issuing from the maternal womb are smeared with disagreeable, impure matter; but not so the Future Buddha. He issued from his mother’s womb like a preacher descending from his preaching-seat, or a man coming down a stair, stretching out both hands and both feet, unsmeared by any impurity from his mother’s womb, and flashing pure and spotless, like a jewel thrown upon a vesture of Benares cloth. Notwithstanding this, for the sake of honoring the Future Buddha and his mother, there came two streams of water from the sky, and refreshed the Future Buddha and his mother. 40
Then the Brahma angels, after receiving him on their golden net, delivered him to the four guardian angels, who received him from their hands on a rug which was made of the skins of black antelopes, and was soft to the touch, being such as is used on state occasions; and the guardian angels delivered him to men who received him on a coil of fine cloth; and the men let him out of their hands on the ground, where he stood and faced the east. There, before him, lay many thousands of worlds, like a great open court; and in them, gods and men, making offerings to him of perfumes, garlands, and so on, were saying,— 41
“Great Being! There is none your equal, much less your superior.” 42
When he had in this manner surveyed the four cardinal points, and the four intermediate ones, and the zenith, and the nadir, in short, all the ten directions in order, and had nowhere discovered his equal, he exclaimed, “This is the best direction,” and strode forward seven paces, followed by Mah-Brahma holding over him the white umbrella, Suyma bearing the fan, and other divinities having the other symbols of royalty in their hands. Then, at the seventh stride, he halted, and with a noble voice, he shouted the shout of victory, beginning,—
“The chief am I in all the world.”
43
Now in three of his existences did the Future Buddha utter words immediately on issuing from his mother’s womb: namely, in his existence as Mahosadha; in his existence as Vessantara; and in this existence. 44
As respects his existence as Mahosadha, it is related that just as he was issuing from his mother’s womb, Sakka, the king of the gods, came and placed in his hand some choice sandal-wood, and departed. And he closed his fist upon it, and issued forth. 45
“My child,” said his mother, “what is it you bring with you in your hand?” 46
“Medicine, mother,” said he. 47
Accordingly, as he was born with medicine in his hand, they gave him the name of Osadha-Draka [Medicine-Child]. Then they took the medicine, and placed it in an earthenware jar; and it was a sovereign remedy to heal all the blind, the deaf, and other afflicted persons who came to it. So the saying sprang up, “This is a great medicine, this is a great medicine!” And thus he received the name of Mahosadha [Great Medicine-Man]. 48
Again, in the Vessantara existence, as he was issuing from his mother’s womb, he stretched out his right hand, and said,— 49
“Pray, mother, is there anything in the house? I want to give alms.” 50
Then, after he had completely issued forth, his mother said,— 51
“It’s a wealthy family, my son, into which you are born;” and putting his hand in her own, she had them place in his a purse containing a thousand pieces of money. 52
Lastly, in this birth he shouted the shout of victory above-mentioned. 53
Thus in three of his existences did the Future Buddha utter words immediately on issuing from his mother’s womb. And just as at the moment of his conception, so also at the moment of his birth appeared the Thirty-two Prognostics. 54
Now at the very time that our Future Buddha was born in Lumbini Grove there also came into existence the mother of Rhula, and Channa the courtier, Kludyi the courtier, Kanthaka the king of horses, the Great Bo-tree, and the four urns full of treasure. Of these last, one was a quarter of a league in extent, another a half-league, the third three-quarters of a league, and the fourth a league. These seven 2 are called the Connate Ones. 55
Then the inhabitants of both cities took the Future Buddha, and carried him to Kapilavatthu.

Osborne Russel
12-06-2005, 08:56 PM
Hey Sam, where ya been?

Kind of long post there. Can you summarize?

Also, look into veneration, in various temples, of relics such as the Buddha's tooth, leg bone, etc.

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 09:00 PM
Uh OH
Sam's back :eek:

How do you greet a doorknocking religious nut? (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=027972) :D

I say now we go to 35 pages. Sorry Katherine your nice little nonpolitical fun thread is history now. This one will go on and on and on and ..... :rolleyes:

[ 12-06-2005, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Meerkat
12-06-2005, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
For instance here's a nice bit of mythology for you :D
Virgin birth.

Walking on water.

Raising the dead.

Loaves and fishes.

Rising from the dead.

Yup... a fine fantasy! tongue.gif tongue.gif :D :D :D

[ 12-06-2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Sam F
12-06-2005, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
For instance here's a nice bit of mythology for you :D
Virgin birth.

Walking on water.

Raising the dead.

Loaves and fishes.

Rising from the dead.

Yup... a fine fantasy! </font>[/QUOTE]
Now the Future Buddha had become a superb white elephant, and was wandering about at no great distance, on Gold Hill. Descending thence, he ascended Silver Hill, and approaching from the north, he plucked a white lotus with his silvery trunk, and trumpeting loudly, went into the golden mansion. And three times he walked round his mother’s couch, with his right side towards it, and striking her on her right side, he seemed to enter her womb. Thus the conception took place in the Midsummer Festival. Yup... a fine fantasy!
Now tell me, as a self-professed Buddhist, where's your room to talk?

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 09:37 PM
Literature Network>Leo Tolstoy>War and Peace> Chapter I
Chapter I



"Well, Prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes. But I warn you, if you don't tell me that this means war, if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend, no longer my 'faithful slave,' as you call yourself! But how do you do? I see I have frightened you- sit down and tell me all the news."

It was in July, 1805, and the speaker was the well-known Anna Pavlovna Scherer, maid of honor and favorite of the Empress Marya Fedorovna. With these words she greeted Prince Vasili Kuragin, a man of high rank and importance, who was the first to arrive at her reception. Anna Pavlovna had had a cough for some days. She was, as she said, suffering from la grippe; grippe being then a new word in St. Petersburg, used only by the elite.

All her invitations without exception, written in French, and delivered by a scarlet-liveried footman that morning, ran as follows:

"If you have nothing better to do, Count [or Prince], and if the prospect of spending an evening with a poor invalid is not too terrible, I shall be very charmed to see you tonight between 7 and 10- Annette Scherer."

"Heavens! what a virulent attack!" replied the prince, not in the least disconcerted by this reception. He had just entered, wearing an embroidered court uniform, knee breeches, and shoes, and had stars on his breast and a serene expression on his flat face. He spoke in that refined French in which our grandfathers not only spoke but thought, and with the gentle, patronizing intonation natural to a man of importance who had grown old in society and at court. He went up to Anna Pavlovna, kissed her hand, presenting to her his bald, scented, and shining head, and complacently seated himself on the sofa.

"First of all, dear friend, tell me how you are. Set your friend's mind at rest," said he without altering his tone, beneath the politeness and affected sympathy of which indifference and even irony could be discerned.

"Can one be well while suffering morally? Can one be calm in times like these if one has any feeling?" said Anna Pavlovna. "You are staying the whole evening, I hope?"

"And the fete at the English ambassador's? Today is Wednesday. I must put in an appearance there," said the prince. "My daughter is coming for me to take me there."

"I thought today's fete had been canceled. I confess all these festivities and fireworks are becoming wearisome."

"If they had known that you wished it, the entertainment would have been put off," said the prince, who, like a wound-up clock, by force of habit said things he did not even wish to be believed.

"Don't tease! Well, and what has been decided about Novosiltsev's dispatch? You know everything."

"What can one say about it?" replied the prince in a cold, listless tone. "What has been decided? They have decided that Buonaparte has burnt his boats, and I believe that we are ready to burn ours."

Prince Vasili always spoke languidly, like an actor repeating a stale part. Anna Pavlovna Scherer on the contrary, despite her forty years, overflowed with animation and impulsiveness. To be an enthusiast had become her social vocation and, sometimes even when she did not feel like it, she became enthusiastic in order not to disappoint the expectations of those who knew her. The subdued smile which, though it did not suit her faded features, always played round her lips expressed, as in a spoiled child, a continual consciousness of her charming defect, which she neither wished, nor could, nor considered it necessary, to correct.

In the midst of a conversation on political matters Anna Pavlovna burst out:

"Oh, don't speak to me of Austria. Perhaps I don't understand things, but Austria never has wished, and does not wish, for war. She is betraying us! Russia alone must save Europe. Our gracious sovereign recognizes his high vocation and will be true to it. That is the one thing I have faith in! Our good and wonderful sovereign has to perform the noblest role on earth, and he is so virtuous and noble that God will not forsake him. He will fulfill his vocation and crush the hydra of revolution, which has become more terrible than ever in the person of this murderer and villain! We alone must avenge the blood of the just one.... Whom, I ask you, can we rely on?... England with her commercial spirit will not and cannot understand the Emperor Alexander's loftiness of soul. She has refused to evacuate Malta. She wanted to find, and still seeks, some secret motive in our actions. What answer did Novosiltsev get? None. The English have not understood and cannot understand the self-abnegation of our Emperor who wants nothing for himself, but only desires the good of mankind. And what have they promised? Nothing! And what little they have promised they will not perform! Prussia has always declared that Buonaparte is invincible, and that all Europe is powerless before him.... And I don't believe a word that Hardenburg says, or Haugwitz either. This famous Prussian neutrality is just a trap. I have faith only in God and the lofty destiny of our adored monarch. He will save Europe!"

She suddenly paused, smiling at her own impetuosity.

"I think," said the prince with a smile, "that if you had been sent instead of our dear Wintzingerode you would have captured the King of Prussia's consent by assault. You are so eloquent. Will you give me a cup of tea?"

"In a moment. A propos," she added, becoming calm again, "I am expecting two very interesting men tonight, le Vicomte de Mortemart, who is connected with the Montmorencys through the Rohans, one of the best French families. He is one of the genuine emigres, the good ones. And also the Abbe Morio. Do you know that profound thinker? He has been received by the Emperor. Had you heard?"

"I shall be delighted to meet them," said the prince. "But tell me," he added with studied carelessness as if it had only just occurred to him, though the question he was about to ask was the chief motive of his visit, "is it true that the Dowager Empress wants Baron Funke to be appointed first secretary at Vienna? The baron by all accounts is a poor creature."

Prince Vasili wished to obtain this post for his son, but others were trying through the Dowager Empress Marya Fedorovna to secure it for the baron.

Anna Pavlovna almost closed her eyes to indicate that neither she nor anyone else had a right to criticize what the Empress desired or was pleased with.

"Baron Funke has been recommended to the Dowager Empress by her sister," was all she said, in a dry and mournful tone.

As she named the Empress, Anna Pavlovna's face suddenly assumed an expression of profound and sincere devotion and respect mingled with sadness, and this occurred every time she mentioned her illustrious patroness. She added that Her Majesty had deigned to show Baron Funke beaucoup d'estime, and again her face clouded over with sadness.

The prince was silent and looked indifferent. But, with the womanly and courtierlike quickness and tact habitual to her, Anna Pavlovna wished both to rebuke him (for daring to speak he had done of a man recommended to the Empress) and at the same time to console him, so she said:

"Now about your family. Do you know that since your daughter came out everyone has been enraptured by her? They say she is amazingly beautiful."

The prince bowed to signify his respect and gratitude.

"I often think," she continued after a short pause, drawing nearer to the prince and smiling amiably at him as if to show that political and social topics were ended and the time had come for intimate conversation- "I often think how unfairly sometimes the joys of life are distributed. Why has fate given you two such splendid children? I don't speak of Anatole, your youngest. I don't like him," she added in a tone admitting of no rejoinder and raising her eyebrows. "Two such charming children. And really you appreciate them less than anyone, and so you don't deserve to have them."

And she smiled her ecstatic smile.

"I can't help it," said the prince. "Lavater would have said I lack the bump of paternity."

"Don't joke; I mean to have a serious talk with you. Do you know I am dissatisfied with your younger son? Between ourselves" (and her face assumed its melancholy expression), "he was mentioned at Her Majesty's and you were pitied...."

The prince answered nothing, but she looked at him significantly, awaiting a reply. He frowned.

"What would you have me do?" he said at last. "You know I did all a father could for their education, and they have both turned out fools. Hippolyte is at least a quiet fool, but Anatole is an active one. That is the only difference between them." He said this smiling in a way more natural and animated than usual, so that the wrinkles round his mouth very clearly revealed something unexpectedly coarse and unpleasant.

"And why are children born to such men as you? If you were not a father there would be nothing I could reproach you with," said Anna Pavlovna, looking up pensively.

"I am your faithful slave and to you alone I can confess that my children are the bane of my life. It is the cross I have to bear. That is how I explain it to myself. It can't be helped!"

He said no more, but expressed his resignation to cruel fate by a gesture. Anna Pavlovna meditated.

"Have you never thought of marrying your prodigal son Anatole?" she asked. "They say old maids have a mania for matchmaking, and though I don't feel that weakness in myself as yet,I know a little person who is very unhappy with her father. She is a relation of yours, Princess Mary Bolkonskaya."

Prince Vasili did not reply, though, with the quickness of memory and perception befitting a man of the world, he indicated by a movement of the head that he was considering this information.

"Do you know," he said at last, evidently unable to check the sad current of his thoughts, "that Anatole is costing me forty thousand rubles a year? And," he went on after a pause, "what will it be in five years, if he goes on like this?" Presently he added: "That's what we fathers have to put up with.... Is this princess of yours rich?"

"Her father is very rich and stingy. He lives in the country. He is the well-known Prince Bolkonski who had to retire from the army under the late Emperor, and was nicknamed 'the King of Prussia.' He is very clever but eccentric, and a bore. The poor girl is very unhappy. She has a brother; I think you know him, he married Lise Meinen lately. He is an aide-de-camp of Kutuzov's and will be here tonight."

"Listen, dear Annette," said the prince, suddenly taking Anna Pavlovna's hand and for some reason drawing it downwards. "Arrange that affair for me and I shall always be your most devoted slave- slafe wigh an f, as a village elder of mine writes in his reports. She is rich and of good family and that's all I want."

And with the familiarity and easy grace peculiar to him, he raised the maid of honor's hand to his lips, kissed it, and swung it to and fro as he lay back in his armchair, looking in another direction.

"Attendez," said Anna Pavlovna, reflecting, "I'll speak to Lise, young Bolkonski's wife, this very evening, and perhaps the thing can be arranged. It shall be on your family's behalf that I'll start my apprenticeship as old maid."

Meerkat
12-06-2005, 09:38 PM
Same place as yours: about 1/2" below my nose! tongue.gif

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-06-2005, 09:39 PM
God must laugh at all the fairy tales we humans have written. :D

Katherine
12-06-2005, 09:40 PM
Joe, Ya gonna post that a page at a time? :D

Katherine
12-06-2005, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Peter Malcolm Jardine:
God must laugh at all the fairy tales we humans have written. :D Could be he just laughs at the humans.

Sam F
12-06-2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
Same place as yours: about 1/2" below my nose! "Per usual, [Meer] continues to completely miss the point... "

Katherine
12-06-2005, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Same place as yours: about 1/2" below my nose! "Per usual, [Meer] continues to completely miss the point... "</font>[/QUOTE]And Sam will write 20 pages trying to force it down our throats. :rolleyes:

Meerkat
12-06-2005, 09:45 PM
:rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
Joe, Ya gonna post that a page at a time? :D 15 books & TWO Epilogues :D
Book One: 1805 all XXVIII Chapters
Book Two: 1805 all XXI Chapters
Book Three: 1805 all XIX Chapters
Book Four: 1806 all XVI Chapters
Book Five: 1806-07 all XXII Chapters
Book Six: 1808-10 all XXVI Chapters
Book Seven: 1810-11 all XIII Chapters
Book Eight: 1811-12 all XXII Chapters
Book Nine: 1812 all XXIII Chapters
Book Ten: 1812 all XXXIX Chapters ( oooh thats a long one )
Book Eleven: 1812 all XXXIV Chapters
Book Twelve: 1812 all XVI Chapters
Book Thirteen: 1812 all XIX Chapters
Book Fourteen: 1812 all XIX Chapters
Book Fifteen: 1812-13 all XX Chapters
First Epilogue: 1813-20 all XVI Chapters
Second Epilogue: 1813-20 all XII Chapters

Whew :eek:

Epic historical novel by Leo Tolstoy, originally published as Voyna i mir in 1865-69. This panoramic study of early 19th-century Russian society, noted for its mastery of realistic detail and variety of psychological analysis, is generally regarded as one of the world's greatest novels. War and Peace is primarily concerned with the histories of five aristocratic families--particularly the Bezukhovs, the Bolkonskys, and the Rostovs--the members of which are portrayed against a vivid background of Russian social life during the war against Napoleon (1805-14). The theme of war, however, is subordinate to the story of family existence, which involves Tolstoy's optimistic belief in the life-asserting pattern of human existence. The heroine, Natasha Rostova, for example, reaches her greatest fulfillment through her marriage to Pierre Bezukhov and her motherhood. The novel also sets forth a theory of history, concluding that there is a minimum of free choice; all is ruled by an inexorable historical determinism

http://www.online-literature.com/authorpics/tolstoy.jpg

[ 12-06-2005, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

Katherine
12-06-2005, 09:58 PM
So for every Sam post, we get a War & Peace post? :D

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
So for every Sam post, we get a War & Peace post? :D AYUP :D

Kinda appropriate don't ya think ? ;)

Ya know Leo Tolstoy titled his novel as "War and Society", NOT "War and Peace"! When the Bolsheviks overthrew the Russia's Government in 1917, they decided to omit several letters from the Russian Alphabet as duplicate and unnecessary. That's why the word "MIP?" = SOCIETY ceased to exist. The dotted " i " and "yat'" disappeared from the scene. The closest word "???" = PEACE was used instead and the famous novel got it's new name - "WAR AND PEACE" instead of original "WAR AND SOCIETY".

High C
12-06-2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Katherine:
So for every Sam post, we get a War & Peace post? :D AYUP :D </font>[/QUOTE]Don't you dare. I'd think you might've learned not to harrass members whose posts you don't care for. tongue.gif

Just skip over them if'n you don't like 'em.

Sam F
12-06-2005, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Meerkat:
Same place as yours: about 1/2" below my nose! "Per usual, [Meer]
continues to completely miss the point... "</font>[/QUOTE]And Sam will write 20 pages
trying to force it down our throats. </font>[/QUOTE]Think so Katherine? In case you didn't know, my reply is an exact quote from none other than Meer himself from another current thread - only the name had been changed. :D

As for my “20 pages” of “trying to force” anything, I challenge you to demonstrate where
I have ever “forced” or tried to force anyone to anything.

I am most certainly guilty of pointing out a few uncomfortable facts and documenting those facts - That, while it may be a dull sort of pedagogy, is not force.
Nor do you have even a sheer quantity of posts to back up your assertion.

Let's examine some numbers... you’re a numbers kind of a person aren’t you?

Please note the date registered and the # of posts:

Sam F
Member Number: 4363
Registered: 01-03-2002
Posts: 4,306

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson with a fondness for looong quotes from Tolstoy)
Member Number: 4659
Registered: 02-28-2002
Posts: 15,356

Meerkat
Member Number: 4667
Registered: 03-01-2002
Posts: 21,197

Why even you, having registered only last year, have more postings... :eek:

Katherine
Member Number: 8880
Registered: 09-02-2004
Posts: 4,689

You’ll kindly note that of the group above, I have the oldest registration and the smallest
# of postings. I couldn’t keep up if I tried and I most definitely will not do so.
But nevermind - any stick will do to shut up an orthodox Christian. Whether it's a made up charge, a groundless insult or clogging a thread with Tolstoy. Right?

Katherine
12-06-2005, 10:25 PM
We could use a little culture (very little) ;) .

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by High C:
Don't you dare. I'd think you might've learned not to harrass members whose posts you don't care for. tongue.gif

Just skip over them if'n you don't like 'em.I think the Epic historical novel of early 19th-century Russian society, noted for its mastery of realistic detail and variety of psychological analysis of human condition is germain to the War on a woman's rights. Therefore I think it is pertinent to this thread. Folla ? ;)

Or at least it's about as germain as Sam's bible quoting C&P and nauseating quoting usually is :D

[ 12-06-2005, 10:29 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

High C
12-06-2005, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
...Folla ? ;) Never tongue.gif :D

Katherine
12-06-2005, 10:34 PM
What's next, Anna Karina? Madame Bovary? Maybe a little Edith Wharton? It's winter, we need the depression. :rolleyes: :D

Sam F
12-06-2005, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
...
Or at least it's about as germain as Sam's bible quoting C&P and nauseating quoting
usually is Not only are you engaging in your usual illiberal harassment, you can't even be bothered to read. The only religious quote I posted is from the Jataka: "a voluminous body of folklore and mythic literature, primarily associated with the Theravada Buddhist tradition..." and it was clearly labeled as such.

[ 12-06-2005, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Sam F ]

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Think so Katherine? In case you didn't know, my reply is an exact quote from none other than Meer himself from another current thread - only the name had been changed. :D

As for my “20 pages” of “trying to force” anything, I challenge you to demonstrate where
I have ever “forced” or tried to force anyone to anything.

I am most certainly guilty of pointing out a few uncomfortable facts and documenting those facts - That, while it may be a dull sort of pedagogy, is not force.
Nor do you have even a sheer quantity of posts to back up your assertion.

Let's examine some numbers... you’re a numbers kind of a person aren’t you?

Please note the date registered and the # of posts:

Sam F
Member Number: 4363
Registered: 01-03-2002
Posts: 4,306 AND ALMOST EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM ADVOCATING THE ROMAN CATHOLIC AGENDA.

:D

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:46 PM
Time for a lil
Chapter II

We are getting close to the part where Tolstoy makes it clear that Roe V Wade is important to woman's rights. Should be just a few more books ;)



Anna Pavlovna's drawing room was gradually filling. The highest Petersburg society was assembled there: people differing widely in age and character but alike in the social circle to which they belonged. Prince Vasili's daughter, the beautiful Helene, came to take her father to the ambassador's entertainment; she wore a ball dress and her badge as maid of honor. The youthful little Princess Bolkonskaya, known as la femme la plus seduisante de Petersbourg,* was also there. She had been married during the previous winter, and being pregnant did not go to any large gatherings, but only to small receptions. Prince Vasili's son, Hippolyte, had come with Mortemart, whom he introduced. The Abbe Morio and many others had also come.

*The most fascinating woman in Petersburg.

To each new arrival Anna Pavlovna said, "You have not yet seen my aunt," or "You do not know my aunt?" and very gravely conducted him or her to a little old lady, wearing large bows of ribbon in her cap, who had come sailing in from another room as soon as the guests began to arrive; and slowly turning her eyes from the visitor to her aunt, Anna Pavlovna mentioned each one's name and then left them.

Each visitor performed the ceremony of greeting this old aunt whom not one of them knew, not one of them wanted to know, and not one of them cared about; Anna Pavlovna observed these greetings with mournful and solemn interest and silent approval. The aunt spoke to each of them in the same words, about their health and her own, and the health of Her Majesty, "who, thank God, was better today." And each visitor, though politeness prevented his showing impatience, left the old woman with a sense of relief at having performed a vexatious duty and did not return to her the whole evening.

The young Princess Bolkonskaya had brought some work in a gold-embroidered velvet bag. Her pretty little upper lip, on which a delicate dark down was just perceptible, was too short for her teeth, but it lifted all the more sweetly, and was especially charming when she occasionally drew it down to meet the lower lip. As is always the case with a thoroughly attractive woman, her defect- the shortness of her upper lip and her half-open mouth- seemed to be her own special and peculiar form of beauty. Everyone brightened at the sight of this pretty young woman, so soon to become a mother, so full of life and health, and carrying her burden so lightly. Old men and dull dispirited young ones who looked at her, after being in her company and talking to her a little while, felt as if they too were becoming, like her, full of life and health. All who talked to her, and at each word saw her bright smile and the constant gleam of her white teeth, thought that they were in a specially amiable mood that day.

The little princess went round the table with quick, short, swaying steps, her workbag on her arm, and gaily spreading out her dress sat down on a sofa near the silver samovar, as if all she was doing was a pleasure to herself and to all around her. "I have brought my work," said she in French, displaying her bag and addressing all present. "Mind, Annette, I hope you have not played a wicked trick on me," she added, turning to her hostess. "You wrote that it was to be quite a small reception, and just see how badly I am dressed." And she spread out her arms to show her short-waisted, lace-trimmed, dainty gray dress, girdled with a broad ribbon just below the breast.

"Soyez tranquille, Lise, you will always be prettier than anyone else," replied Anna Pavlovna.

"You know," said the princess in the same tone of voice and still in French, turning to a general, "my husband is deserting me? He is going to get himself killed. Tell me what this wretched war is for?" she added, addressing Prince Vasili, and without waiting for an answer she turned to speak to his daughter, the beautiful Helene.

"What a delightful woman this little princess is!" said Prince Vasili to Anna Pavlovna.

One of the next arrivals was a stout, heavily built young man with close-cropped hair, spectacles, the light-colored breeches fashionable at that time, a very high ruffle, and a brown dress coat. This stout young man was an illegitimate son of Count Bezukhov, a well-known grandee of Catherine's time who now lay dying in Moscow. The young man had not yet entered either the military or civil service, as he had only just returned from abroad where he had been educated, and this was his first appearance in society. Anna Pavlovna greeted him with the nod she accorded to the lowest hierarchy in her drawing room. But in spite of this lowest-grade greeting, a look of anxiety and fear, as at the sight of something too large and unsuited to the place, came over her face when she saw Pierre enter. Though he was certainly rather bigger than the other men in the room, her anxiety could only have reference to the clever though shy, but observant and natural, expression which distinguished him from everyone else in that drawing room.

"It is very good of you, Monsieur Pierre, to come and visit a poor invalid," said Anna Pavlovna, exchanging an alarmed glance with her aunt as she conducted him to her.

Pierre murmured something unintelligible, and continued to look round as if in search of something. On his way to the aunt he bowed to the little princess with a pleased smile, as to an intimate acquaintance.

Anna Pavlovna's alarm was justified, for Pierre turned away from the aunt without waiting to hear her speech about Her Majesty's health. Anna Pavlovna in dismay detained him with the words: "Do you know the Abbe Morio? He is a most interesting man."

"Yes, I have heard of his scheme for perpetual peace, and it is very interesting but hardly feasible."

"You think so?" rejoined Anna Pavlovna in order to say something and get away to attend to her duties as hostess. But Pierre now committed a reverse act of impoliteness. First he had left a lady before she had finished speaking to him, and now he continued to speak to another who wished to get away. With his head bent, and his big feet spread apart, he began explaining his reasons for thinking the abbe's plan chimerical.

"We will talk of it later," said Anna Pavlovna with a smile.

And having got rid of this young man who did not know how to behave, she resumed her duties as hostess and continued to listen and watch, ready to help at any point where the conversation might happen to flag. As the foreman of a spinning mill, when he has set the hands to work, goes round and notices here a spindle that has stopped or there one that creaks or makes more noise than it should, and hastens to check the machine or set it in proper motion, so Anna Pavlovna moved about her drawing room, approaching now a silent, now a too-noisy group, and by a word or slight rearrangement kept the conversational machine in steady, proper, and regular motion. But amid these cares her anxiety about Pierre was evident. She kept an anxious watch on him when he approached the group round Mortemart to listen to what was being said there, and again when he passed to another group whose center was the abbe.

Pierre had been educated abroad, and this reception at Anna Pavlovna's was the first he had attended in Russia. He knew that all the intellectual lights of Petersburg were gathered there and, like a child in a toyshop, did not know which way to look, afraid of missing any clever conversation that was to be heard. Seeing the self-confident and refined expression on the faces of those present he was always expecting to hear something very profound. At last he came up to Morio. Here the conversation seemed interesting and he stood waiting for an opportunity to express his own views, as young people are fond of doing.

Meerkat
12-06-2005, 10:49 PM
I'm not a Theravada Buddhist. ;)

Sam F
12-06-2005, 10:52 PM
this is the primary reason why we CAN'T have a discussion of abortion... there's a certain percentage of pro-abortion advocates whose faith equivocates to certitude, and for whom any discussion is utterly irrelevant.

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Meerkat:
I'm not a Theravada Buddhist. ;) See Sam doesn't even pay attention to your kind of Buddhism :rolleyes: How rude ;) . Its all about the Roman Catholics.

Tsk tsk tsk, for shame Sam what ye do to the least of my brothers. Meerkat is one of my favorite brothers ;) :D

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Sam F:
this is the primary reason why we CAN'T have a discussion of abortion... there's a certain percentage of pro-abortion advocates whose faith equivocates to certitude, and for whom any discussion is utterly irrelevant.Ya giving up ? ;)

Cause ya know the clue may be in

Chapter III :D



Anna Pavlovna's reception was in full swing. The spindles hummed steadily and ceaselessly on all sides. With the exception of the aunt, beside whom sat only one elderly lady, who with her thin careworn face was rather out of place in this brilliant society, the whole company had settled into three groups. One, chiefly masculine, had formed round the abbe. Another, of young people, was grouped round the beautiful Princess Helene, Prince Vasili's daughter, and the little Princess Bolkonskaya, very pretty and rosy, though rather too plump for her age. The third group was gathered round Mortemart and Anna Pavlovna.

The vicomte was a nice-looking young man with soft features and polished manners, who evidently considered himself a celebrity but out of politeness modestly placed himself at the disposal of the circle in which he found himself. Anna Pavlovna was obviously serving him up as a treat to her guests. As a clever maitre d'hotel serves up as a specially choice delicacy a piece of meat that no one who had seen it in the kitchen would have cared to eat, so Anna Pavlovna served up to her guests, first the vicomte and then the abbe, as peculiarly choice morsels. The group about Mortemart immediately began discussing the murder of the Duc d'Enghien. The vicomte said that the Duc d'Enghien had perished by his own magnanimity, and that there were particular reasons for Buonaparte's hatred of him.

"Ah, yes! Do tell us all about it, Vicomte," said Anna Pavlovna, with a pleasant feeling that there was something a la Louis XV in the sound of that sentence: "Contez nous cela, Vicomte."

The vicomte bowed and smiled courteously in token of his willingness to comply. Anna Pavlovna arranged a group round him, inviting everyone to listen to his tale.

"The vicomte knew the duc personally," whispered Anna Pavlovna to of the guests. "The vicomte is a wonderful raconteur," said she to another. "How evidently he belongs to the best society," said she to a third; and the vicomte was served up to the company in the choicest and most advantageous style, like a well-garnished joint of roast beef on a hot dish.

The vicomte wished to begin his story and gave a subtle smile.

"Come over here, Helene, dear," said Anna Pavlovna to the beautiful young princess who was sitting some way off, the center of another group.

The princess smiled. She rose with the same unchanging smile with which she had first entered the room- the smile of a perfectly beautiful woman. With a slight rustle of her white dress trimmed with moss and ivy, with a gleam of white shoulders, glossy hair, and sparkling diamonds, she passed between the men who made way for her, not looking at any of them but smiling on all, as if graciously allowing each the privilege of admiring her beautiful figure and shapely shoulders, back, and bosom- which in the fashion of those days were very much exposed- and she seemed to bring the glamour of a ballroom with her as she moved toward Anna Pavlovna. Helene was so lovely that not only did she not show any trace of coquetry, but on the contrary she even appeared shy of her unquestionable and all too victorious beauty. She seemed to wish, but to be unable, to diminish its effect.

"How lovely!" said everyone who saw her; and the vicomte lifted his shoulders and dropped his eyes as if startled by something extraordinary when she took her seat opposite and beamed upon him also with her unchanging smile.

"Madame, I doubt my ability before such an audience," said he, smilingly inclining his head.

The princess rested her bare round arm on a little table and considered a reply unnecessary. She smilingly waited. All the time the story was being told she sat upright, glancing now at her beautiful round arm, altered in shape by its pressure on the table, now at her still more beautiful bosom, on which she readjusted a diamond necklace. From time to time she smoothed the folds of her dress, and whenever the story produced an effect she glanced at Anna Pavlovna, at once adopted just the expression she saw on the maid of honor's face, and again relapsed into her radiant smile.

The little princess had also left the tea table and followed Helene.

"Wait a moment, I'll get my work.... Now then, what are you thinking of?" she went on, turning to Prince Hippolyte. "Fetch me my workbag."

There was a general movement as the princess, smiling and talking merrily to everyone at once, sat down and gaily arranged herself in her seat.

"Now I am all right," she said, and asking the vicomte to begin, she took up her work.

Prince Hippolyte, having brought the workbag, joined the circle and moving a chair close to hers seated himself beside her.

Le charmant Hippolyte was surprising by his extraordinary resemblance to his beautiful sister, but yet more by the fact that in spite of this resemblance he was exceedingly ugly. His features were like his sister's, but while in her case everything was lit up by a joyous, self-satisfied, youthful, and constant smile of animation, and by the wonderful classic beauty of her figure, his face on the contrary was dulled by imbecility and a constant expression of sullen self-confidence, while his body was thin and weak. His eyes, nose, and mouth all seemed puckered into a vacant, wearied grimace, and his arms and legs always fell into unnatural positions.

"It's not going to be a ghost story?" said he, sitting down beside the princess and hastily adjusting his lorgnette, as if without this instrument he could not begin to speak.

"Why no, my dear fellow," said the astonished narrator, shrugging his shoulders.

"Because I hate ghost stories," said Prince Hippolyte in a tone which showed that he only understood the meaning of his words after he had uttered them.

He spoke with such self-confidence that his hearers could not be sure whether what he said was very witty or very stupid. He was dressed in a dark-green dress coat, knee breeches of the color of cuisse de nymphe effrayee, as he called it, shoes, and silk stockings.

The vicomte told his tale very neatly. It was an anecdote, then current, to the effect that the Duc d'Enghien had gone secretly to Paris to visit Mademoiselle George; that at her house he came upon Bonaparte, who also enjoyed the famous actress' favors, and that in his presence Napoleon happened to fall into one of the fainting fits to which he was subject, and was thus at the duc's mercy. The latter spared him, and this magnanimity Bonaparte subsequently repaid by death.

The story was very pretty and interesting, especially at the point where the rivals suddenly recognized one another; and the ladies looked agitated.

"Charming!" said Anna Pavlovna with an inquiring glance at the little princess.

"Charming!" whispered the little princess, sticking the needle into her work as if to testify that the interest and fascination of the story prevented her from going on with it.

The vicomte appreciated this silent praise and smiling gratefully prepared to continue, but just then Anna Pavlovna, who had kept a watchful eye on the young man who so alarmed her, noticed that he was talking too loudly and vehemently with the abbe, so she hurried to the rescue. Pierre had managed to start a conversation with the abbe about the balance of power, and the latter, evidently interested by the young man's simple-minded eagerness, was explaining his pet theory. Both were talking and listening too eagerly and too naturally, which was why Anna Pavlovna disapproved.

"The means are... the balance of power in Europe and the rights of the people," the abbe was saying. "It is only necessary for one powerful nation like Russia- barbaric as she is said to be- to place herself disinterestedly at the head of an alliance having for its object the maintenance of the balance of power of Europe, and it would save the world!"

"But how are you to get that balance?" Pierre was beginning.

At that moment Anna Pavlovna came up and, looking severely at Pierre, asked the Italian how he stood Russian climate. The Italian's face instantly changed and assumed an offensively affected, sugary expression, evidently habitual to him when conversing with women.

"I am so enchanted by the brilliancy of the wit and culture of the society, more especially of the feminine society, in which I have had the honor of being received, that I have not yet had time to think of the climate," said he.

Not letting the abbe and Pierre escape, Anna Pavlovna, the more conveniently to keep them under observation, brought them into the larger circle.

Sam F
12-06-2005, 11:03 PM
Too bad Meer hasn't explained which of the Birth of Buddha stories he happens to believe in.
Come on Meer, come clean - which version of Buddhist mythology do you accept? There's no need to hide behind an excuse like "I'm not a fill-in-the-blank-guess-me-if-you-can-Buddhist"

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:04 PM
Chapter IV

Just them another visitor entered the drawing room: Prince Andrew Bolkonski, the little princess' husband. He was a very handsome young man, of medium height, with firm, clearcut features. Everything about him, from his weary, bored expression to his quiet, measured step, offered a most striking contrast to his quiet, little wife. It was evident that he not only knew everyone in the drawing room, but had found them to be so tiresome that it wearied him to look at or listen to them. And among all these faces that he found so tedious, none seemed to bore him so much as that of his pretty wife. He turned away from her with a grimace that distorted his handsome face, kissed Anna Pavlovna's hand, and screwing up his eyes scanned the whole company.

"You are off to the war, Prince?" said Anna Pavlovna.

"General Kutuzov," said Bolkonski, speaking French and stressing the last syllable of the general's name like a Frenchman, "has been pleased to take me as an aide-de-camp...."

"And Lise, your wife?"

"She will go to the country."

"Are you not ashamed to deprive us of your charming wife?"

"Andre," said his wife, addressing her husband in the same coquettish manner in which she spoke to other men, "the vicomte has been telling us such a tale about Mademoiselle George and Buonaparte!"

Prince Andrew screwed up his eyes and turned away. Pierre, who from the moment Prince Andrew entered the room had watched him with glad, affectionate eyes, now came up and took his arm. Before he looked round Prince Andrew frowned again, expressing his annoyance with whoever was touching his arm, but when he saw Pierre's beaming face he gave him an unexpectedly kind and pleasant smile.

"There now!... So you, too, are in the great world?" said he to Pierre.

"I knew you would be here," replied Pierre. "I will come to supper with you. May I?" he added in a low voice so as not to disturb the vicomte who was continuing his story.

"No, impossible!" said Prince Andrew, laughing and pressing Pierre's hand to show that there was no need to ask the question. He wished to say something more, but at that moment Prince Vasili and his daughter got up to go and the two young men rose to let them pass.

"You must excuse me, dear Vicomte," said Prince Vasili to the Frenchman, holding him down by the sleeve in a friendly way to prevent his rising. "This unfortunate fete at the ambassador's deprives me of a pleasure, and obliges me to interrupt you. I am very sorry to leave your enchanting party," said he, turning to Anna Pavlovna.

His daughter, Princess Helene, passed between the chairs, lightly holding up the folds of her dress, and the smile shone still more radiantly on her beautiful face. Pierre gazed at her with rapturous, almost frightened, eyes as she passed him.

"Very lovely," said Prince Andrew.

"Very," said Pierre.

In passing Prince Vasili seized Pierre's hand and said to Anna Pavlovna: "Educate this bear for me! He has been staying with me a whole month and this is the first time I have seen him in society. Nothing is so necessary for a young man as the society of clever women."

Anna Pavlovna smiled and promised to take Pierre in hand. She knew his father to be a connection of Prince Vasili's. The elderly lady who had been sitting with the old aunt rose hurriedly and overtook Prince Vasili in the anteroom. All the affectation of interest she had assumed had left her kindly and tearworn face and it now expressed only anxiety and fear.

"How about my son Boris, Prince?" said she, hurrying after him into the anteroom. "I can't remain any longer in Petersburg. Tell me what news I may take back to my poor boy."

Although Prince Vasili listened reluctantly and not very politely to the elderly lady, even betraying some impatience, she gave him an ingratiating and appealing smile, and took his hand that he might not go away.

"What would it cost you to say a word to the Emperor, and then he would be transferred to the Guards at once?" said she.

"Believe me, Princess, I am ready to do all I can," answered Prince Vasili, "but it is difficult for me to ask the Emperor. I should advise you to appeal to Rumyantsev through Prince Golitsyn. That would be the best way."

The elderly lady was a Princess Drubetskaya, belonging to one of the best families in Russia, but she was poor, and having long been out of society had lost her former influential connections. She had now come to Petersburg to procure an appointment in the Guards for her only son. It was, in fact, solely to meet Prince Vasili that she had obtained an invitation to Anna Pavlovna's reception and had sat listening to the vicomte's story. Prince Vasili's words frightened her, an embittered look clouded her once handsome face, but only for a moment; then she smiled again and dutched Prince Vasili's arm more tightly.

"Listen to me, Prince," said she. "I have never yet asked you for anything and I never will again, nor have I ever reminded you of my father's friendship for you; but now I entreat you for God's sake to do this for my son- and I shall always regard you as a benefactor," she added hurriedly. "No, don't be angry, but promise! I have asked Golitsyn and he has refused. Be the kindhearted man you always were," she said, trying to smile though tears were in her eyes.

"Papa, we shall be late," said Princess Helene, turning her beautiful head and looking over her classically molded shoulder as she stood waiting by the door.

Influence in society, however, is a capital which has to be economized if it is to last. Prince Vasili knew this, and having once realized that if he asked on behalf of all who begged of him, he would soon be unable to ask for himself, he became chary of using his influence. But in Princess Drubetskaya's case he felt, after her second appeal, something like qualms of conscience. She had reminded him of what was quite true; he had been indebted to her father for the first steps in his career. Moreover, he could see by her manners that she was one of those women- mostly mothers- who, having once made up their minds, will not rest until they have gained their end, and are prepared if necessary to go on insisting day after day and hour after hour, and even to make scenes. This last consideration moved him.

"My dear Anna Mikhaylovna," said he with his usual familiarity and weariness of tone, "it is almost impossible for me to do what you ask; but to prove my devotion to you and how I respect your father's memory, I will do the impossible- your son shall be transferred to the Guards. Here is my hand on it. Are you satisfied?"

"My dear benefactor! This is what I expected from you- I knew your kindness!" He turned to go.

"Wait- just a word! When he has been transferred to the Guards..." she faltered. "You are on good terms with Michael Ilarionovich Kutuzov... recommend Boris to him as adjutant! Then I shall be at rest, and then..."

Prince Vasili smiled.

"No, I won't promise that. You don't know how Kutuzov is pestered since his appointment as Commander in Chief. He told me himself that all the Moscow ladies have conspired to give him all their sons as adjutants."

"No, but do promise! I won't let you go! My dear benefactor..."

"Papa," said his beautiful daughter in the same tone as before, "we shall be late."

"Well, au revoir! Good-by! You hear her?"

"Then tomorrow you will speak to the Emperor?"

"Certainly; but about Kutuzov, I don't promise."

"Do promise, do promise, Vasili!" cried Anna Mikhaylovna as he went, with the smile of a coquettish girl, which at one time probably came naturally to her, but was now very ill-suited to her careworn face.

Apparently she had forgotten her age and by force of habit employed all the old feminine arts. But as soon as the prince had gone her face resumed its former cold, artificial expression. She returned to the group where the vicomte was still talking, and again pretended to listen, while waiting till it would be time to leave. Her task was accomplished.

Sam F
12-06-2005, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sam F:
this is the primary reason why we CAN'T have a discussion of abortion... there's a
certain percentage of pro-abortion advocates whose faith equivocates to certitude, and for
whom any discussion is utterly irrelevant.Ya giving up ?

Cause ya know the clue may be in
</font>[/QUOTE]Whatsmatter Joe? You didn’t object to that quote when Norman Bernstein said it on page
one. Watch out Joe - isn't your hypocrisy showing a little there? :D

High C
12-06-2005, 11:10 PM
I wonder if Tolstoy had a copyright?

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:12 PM
Chapter V

"And what do you think of this latest comedy, the coronation at Milan?" asked Anna Pavlovna, "and of the comedy of the people of Genoa and Lucca laying their petitions before Monsieur Buonaparte, and Monsieur Buonaparte sitting on a throne and granting the petitions of the nations? Adorable! It is enough to make one's head whirl! It is as if the whole world had gone crazy."

Prince Andrew looked Anna Pavlovna straight in the face with a sarcastic smile.

"'Dieu me la donne, gare a qui la touche!'* They say he was very fine when he said that," he remarked, repeating the words in Italian: "'Dio mi l'ha dato. Guai a chi la tocchi!'"

*God has given it to me, let him who touches it beware!

"I hope this will prove the last drop that will make the glass run over," Anna Pavlovna continued. "The sovereigns will not be able to endure this man who is a menace to everything."

"The sovereigns? I do not speak of Russia," said the vicomte, polite but hopeless: "The sovereigns, madame... What have they done for Louis XVII, for the Queen, or for Madame Elizabeth? Nothing!" and he became more animated. "And believe me, they are reaping the reward of their betrayal of the Bourbon cause. The sovereigns! Why, they are sending ambassadors to compliment the usurper."

And sighing disdainfully, he again changed his position.

Prince Hippolyte, who had been gazing at the vicomte for some time through his lorgnette, suddenly turned completely round toward the little princess, and having asked for a needle began tracing the Conde coat of arms on the table. He explained this to her with as much gravity as if she had asked him to do it.

"Baton de gueules, engrele de gueules d' azur- maison Conde," said he.

The princess listened, smiling.

"If Buonaparte remains on the throne of France a year longer," the vicomte continued, with the air of a man who, in a matter with which he is better acquainted than anyone else, does not listen to others but follows the current of his own thoughts, "things will have gone too far. By intrigues, violence, exile, and executions, French society- I mean good French society- will have been forever destroyed, and then..."

He shrugged his shoulders and spread out his hands. Pierre wished to make a remark, for the conversation interested him, but Anna Pavlovna, who had him under observation, interrupted:

"The Emperor Alexander," said she, with the melancholy which always accompanied any reference of hers to the Imperial family, "has declared that he will leave it to the French people themselves to choose their own form of government; and I believe that once free from the usurper, the whole nation will certainly throw itself into the arms of its rightful king," she concluded, trying to be amiable to the royalist emigrant.

"That is doubtful," said Prince Andrew. "Monsieur le Vicomte quite rightly supposes that matters have already gone too far. I think it will be difficult to return to the old regime."

"From what I have heard," said Pierre, blushing and breaking into the conversation, "almost all the aristocracy has already gone over to Bonaparte's side."

"It is the Buonapartists who say that," replied the vicomte without looking at Pierre. "At the present time it is difficult to know the real state of French public opinion.

"Bonaparte has said so," remarked Prince Andrew with a sarcastic smile.

It was evident that he did not like the vicomte and was aiming his remarks at him, though without looking at him.

"'I showed them the path to glory, but they did not follow it,'" Prince Andrew continued after a short silence, again quoting Napoleon's words. "'I opened my antechambers and they crowded in.' I do not know how far he was justified in saying so."

"Not in the least," replied the vicomte. "After the murder of the duc even the most partial ceased to regard him as a hero. If to some people," he went on, turning to Anna Pavlovna, "he ever was a hero, after the murder of the duc there was one martyr more in heaven and one hero less on earth."

Before Anna Pavlovna and the others had time to smile their appreciation of the vicomte's epigram, Pierre again broke into the conversation, and though Anna Pavlovna felt sure he would say something inappropriate, she was unable to stop him.

"The execution of the Duc d'Enghien," declared Monsieur Pierre, "was a political necessity, and it seems to me that Napoleon showed greatness of soul by not fearing to take on himself the whole responsibility of that deed."

"Dieu! Mon Dieu!" muttered Anna Pavlovna in a terrified whisper.

"What, Monsieur Pierre... Do you consider that assassination shows greatness of soul?" said the little princess, smiling and drawing her work nearer to her.

"Oh! Oh!" exclaimed several voices.

"Capital!" said Prince Hippolyte in English, and began slapping his knee with the palm of his hand.

The vicomte merely shrugged his shoulders. Pierre looked solemnly at his audience over his spectacles and continued.

"I say so," he continued desperately, "because the Bourbons fled from the Revolution leaving the people to anarchy, and Napoleon alone understood the Revolution and quelled it, and so for the general good, he could not stop short for the sake of one man's life."

"Won't you come over to the other table?" suggested Anna Pavlovna.

But Pierre continued his speech without heeding her.

"No," cried he, becoming more and more eager, "Napoleon is great because he rose superior to the Revolution, suppressed its abuses, preserved all that was good in it- equality of citizenship and freedom of speech and of the press- and only for that reason did he obtain power."

"Yes, if having obtained power, without availing himself of it to commit murder he had restored it to the rightful king, I should have called him a great man," remarked the vicomte.

"He could not do that. The people only gave him power that he might rid them of the Bourbons and because they saw that he was a great man. The Revolution was a grand thing!" continued Monsieur Pierre, betraying by this desperate and provocative proposition his extreme youth and his wish to express all that was in his mind.

"What? Revolution and regicide a grand thing?... Well, after that... But won't you come to this other table?" repeated Anna Pavlovna.

"Rousseau's Contrat social," said the vicomte with a tolerant smile.

"I am not speaking of regicide, I am speaking about ideas."

"Yes: ideas of robbery, murder, and regicide," again interjected an ironical voice.

"Those were extremes, no doubt, but they are not what is most important. What is important are the rights of man, emancipation from prejudices, and equality of citizenship, and all these ideas Napoleon has retained in full force."

"Liberty and equality," said the vicomte contemptuously, as if at last deciding seriously to prove to this youth how foolish his words were, "high-sounding words which have long been discredited. Who does not love liberty and equality? Even our Saviour preached liberty and equality. Have people since the Revolution become happier? On the contrary. We wanted liberty, but Buonaparte has destroyed it."

Prince Andrew kept looking with an amused smile from Pierre to the vicomte and from the vicomte to their hostess. In the first moment of Pierre's outburst Anna Pavlovna, despite her social experience, was horror-struck. But when she saw that Pierre's sacrilegious words had not exasperated the vicomte, and had convinced herself that it was impossible to stop him, she rallied her forces and joined the vicomte in a vigorous attack on the orator.

"But, my dear Monsieur Pierre," said she, "how do you explain the fact of a great man executing a duc- or even an ordinary man who- is innocent and untried?"

"I should like," said the vicomte, "to ask how monsieur explains the 18th Brumaire; was not that an imposture? It was a swindle, and not at all like the conduct of a great man!"

"And the prisoners he killed in Africa? That was horrible!" said the little princess, shrugging her shoulders.

"He's a low fellow, say what you will," remarked Prince Hippolyte.

Pierre, not knowing whom to answer, looked at them all and smiled. His smile was unlike the half-smile of other people. When he smiled, his grave, even rather gloomy, look was instantaneously replaced by another- a childlike, kindly, even rather silly look, which seemed to ask forgiveness.

The vicomte who was meeting him for the first time saw clearly that this young Jacobin was not so terrible as his words suggested. All were silent.

"How do you expect him to answer you all at once?" said Prince Andrew. "Besides, in the actions of a statesman one has to distinguish between his acts as a private person, as a general, and as an emperor. So it seems to me."

"Yes, yes, of course!" Pierre chimed in, pleased at the arrival of this reinforcement.

"One must admit," continued Prince Andrew, "that Napoleon as a man was great on the bridge of Arcola, and in the hospital at Jaffa where he gave his hand to the plague-stricken; but... but there are other acts which it is difficult to justify."

Prince Andrew, who had evidently wished to tone down the awkwardness of Pierre's remarks, rose and made a sign to his wife that it was time to go.

Suddenly Prince Hippolyte started up making signs to everyone to attend, and asking them all to be seated began:

"I was told a charming Moscow story today and must treat you to it. Excuse me, Vicomte- I must tell it in Russian or the point will be lost...." And Prince Hippolyte began to tell his story in such Russian as a Frenchman would speak after spending about a year in Russia. Everyone waited, so emphatically and eagerly did he demand their attention to his story.

"There is in Moscow a lady, une dame, and she is very stingy. She must have two footmen behind her carriage, and very big ones. That was her taste. And she had a lady's maid, also big. She said..."

Here Prince Hippolyte paused, evidently collecting his ideas with difficulty.

"She said... Oh yes! She said, 'Girl,' to the maid, 'put on a livery, get up behind the carriage, and come with me while I make some calls.'"

Here Prince Hippolyte spluttered and burst out laughing long before his audience, which produced an effect unfavorable to the narrator. Several persons, among them the elderly lady and Anna Pavlovna, did however smile.

"She went. Suddenly there was a great wind. The girl lost her hat and her long hair came down...." Here he could contain himself no longer and went on, between gasps of laughter: "And the whole world knew...."

And so the anecdote ended. Though it was unintelligible why he had told it, or why it had to be told in Russian, still Anna Pavlovna and the others appreciated Prince Hippolyte's social tact in so agreeably ending Pierre's unpleasant and unamiable outburst. After the anecdote the conversation broke up into insignificant small talk about the last and next balls, about theatricals, and who would meet whom, and when and where.

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by High C:
I wonder if Tolstoy had a copyright?Nope :D

George Jung
12-06-2005, 11:25 PM
Well, this is certainly interesting; has all the makings of a free for all...
On one hand, SamF taking Meer to task, in what looks like an escape and take down... what is that, two points?
And Katherine... well, that looked like a No Mas!... good move. This thing could get ugly..


Sam F
.
Member # 4363

posted 12-06-2005 10:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
this is the primary reason why we CAN'T have a discussion of abortion... there's a certain percentage of pro-abortion advocates whose faith equivocates to certitude, and for whom any discussion is utterly irrelevant. I think you miss the point here, SamF; I've been around here long enough to see how these topics 'ripen', recall just how frustrated your assembled debatees get, and recognize they really don't want to go down that path with you again. Don't you recall how royally pi$$ed some folk got? Yet after your recent hiatus, they actually came to MISS you (isn't that touching?); this place really has been a bore of late; not much controversy and all....
Anyway, I figured someone with a short memory for one of the 'classics' would throw out the bait, just for old times sake.... but the means of dealing with these arguments has changed. If you can't go toe to toe, you'd better be able to rope'a'dope. The biggest problem with this is, we all learn from these little developments. It may be possible to derail an argument with you using this tactic; certainly it's been more effective than actually arguing based on merit. But recognize it sets precedent. Next time someone gets going on a tangent that someone else doesn't like, I expect we'll see C and P from "The History of the World" or some such tome. Maybe Joes sailing pictures, which I believe we all enjoy, disrupted by pastes from "Little Women". You get my drift. This whole method of disruption is inappropriate, but apparently tolerated. Unfortunately, it robs the rest of us of the opportunity to enjoy a thread; and more unfortunate, it lowers the bar on civility. We all lose on that one.

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:29 PM
Do we ALL enjoy these monthly Roe V Wade debate's ?

By the way I never missed Sam ;)

Katherine
12-06-2005, 11:30 PM
Did anyone mention Darwin yet?

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:31 PM
Darwin

:D

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:34 PM
By the way if Katherine, LisaS, Margo or any OTHER WOMAN would like to contribute to this debate I would be more than willing to forgo trying to illuminate this ONE sided Male discussion with Tolstoy's version. Ahh but I do think the fair sex is way to smart to entertain Sam's Catholic hyperbole. :D

Katherine
12-06-2005, 11:35 PM
Joe, tongue.gif

Really, though, how many of you have ever asked your wives/mothers/daughters/sisters how they felt about abortion? You men sit here and argue it, but when it comes down to it, it's not your body that has to go through it.

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:36 PM
I don't argue cause I know it's not my choice ;)

Katherine
12-06-2005, 11:38 PM
There are really much healthier ways for a woman not to have a baby then to have an abortion. Using it as a form of birth control is just bad medicene.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-06-2005, 11:41 PM
Sam pretty much has the lock on christianIdon'tbelieveinevolutionorabortionsorgays ornaything mychurchdoesn'tsayisaok. ;)

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
There are really much healthier ways for a woman not to have a baby then to have an abortion. Using it as a form of birth control is just bad medicene.I personally agree with your CHOICE on the subject. ;)

Katherine
12-06-2005, 11:43 PM
PMJ, your stream of consciousness is twisted. :D

Katherine
12-06-2005, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Katherine:
There are really much healthier ways for a woman not to have a baby then to have an abortion. Using it as a form of birth control is just bad medicene.I personally agree with your CHOICE on the subject. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Now if they could just teach it to young women. :rolleyes:

Joe (SoCal)
12-06-2005, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by Katherine:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Katherine:
There are really much healthier ways for a woman not to have a baby then to have an abortion. Using it as a form of birth control is just bad medicene.I personally agree with your CHOICE on the subject. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Now if they could just teach it to young women. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]I teach my daughter
You teach yours when you have one - DEAL ;)
Thats how it's done. Simple.

But I know if my daughter would ever be in a position that her CHOICE would possibly be to have an abortion, I know I will be much more understanding of HER CHOICE than Sam ;)

I also hope I may have taught her about her options before she needs to make such a hard CHOICE.

Art Read
12-07-2005, 02:52 AM
Joe, you're behaving like an ass. Again.

ishmael
12-07-2005, 04:45 AM
So, I've not read every jot and tittle, but I still wanna know. Has the Dalai Lama ever spoken specifically to abortion?

Joe (SoCal)
12-07-2005, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Art Read:
Joe, you're behaving like an ass. Again.No I'm behaving like Joe. Again. :D
And your behaving like Art. Again, nothing new. It was expected. ;)

TomF
12-07-2005, 08:16 AM
Hi Sam - it's been a long time.

Joe, did I ever mention that my wife's family (her mother's side) apparently was friends with the Tolstoys? Seems her grandfather Iglevski was a minor Russian aristocrat, and the family left White Russia in a bit of a rush ...

uncas
12-07-2005, 08:18 AM
TomF...we have a connection!

Joe (SoCal)
12-07-2005, 08:20 AM
Tom & Jamie see I knew I would achieve relevance in this thread :D

A common ground we all can appreciate ;)

uncas
12-07-2005, 08:24 AM
Ya Joe...Anna Tolstoy used to live fairly close to you...actually...until her death in 75...

TomF
12-07-2005, 08:29 AM
Smaller world than one might think, Jamie.

The other story passed down about the Iglevski family is how the old man was bitterly disdainful of the swill passed off as vodka, when he lived in Toronto's Russian ghetto. So he tried making some of his own out of potatoes ... with explosive results. :D

Never met that side of the family - Sasha's mom died very young, and relations were ... difficult.

uncas
12-07-2005, 08:32 AM
TomF...very few members of that side of the family made it...1917 and all of that...
Anna I met once...in around 1970...through my grandmother's cousin..A volkonsky...(sp?American)
as in War and Peace...

Tristan
12-07-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Sam F:
Too bad Meer hasn't explained which of the Birth of Buddha stories he happens to believe in.
Come on Meer, come clean - which version of Buddhist mythology do you accept? There's no need to hide behind an excuse like "I'm not a fill-in-the-blank-guess-me-if-you-can-Buddhist"Well Sam, the birth of the Buddha isn't important. The Buddha was ONLY a man, not the son of god. Repeat, only a man, like you. Big difference though, he woke up.

peb
12-07-2005, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Katherine:
We could use a little culture (very little) ;) .Culture matters. A lot.

George Jung
12-07-2005, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
Do we ALL enjoy these monthly Roe V Wade debate's ?

By the way I never missed Sam ;) This is so easy, Joe; don't miss participating in these 'monthly' (?) debates? Hmmm... what options could you have? 1) throw a hissy fit and try to disrupt it for those who are interested or 2) don't participate. Maybe you didn't know you could direct which thread comes up on your Apple. Freedom of choice and all, ya know... tongue.gif

Keith Wilson
12-07-2005, 09:40 AM
Joe, cut the crap. Yes it's sort of funny, but not very. Sam does write long posts (I've been accused of the same) and is quite persistent (likewise) but trying to drown him out with noise isn't OK. If you don't like what he writes, don't read it.

High C
12-07-2005, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Damn... I miss all the good threads because I'm only rarely on late at night :( Which thread would that be Norman? I'd like to move over to a good one... ;)

uncas
12-07-2005, 09:42 AM
High C...that's easy..
The ones Norman posts!!!! :D

That's a tongue.gif Norman!!!!

uncas
12-07-2005, 09:47 AM
Heck...there would be no posts except for ones which agree with the author...
There are no Gods on the forum. Trolls maybe but Gods no.

[ 12-07-2005, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

uncas
12-07-2005, 09:51 AM
Define Spirious and offensive...What may be to one is not to another...
Can you make the determination..or is the determinations based upon your definitions?
It can't be done Norman...
We are all biased in one way or another.

I used to have faith in human nature and good intentions...Now that I am over fifty...well, that faith has shall I say erroded

[ 12-07-2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: uncas ]

Katherine
12-07-2005, 09:52 AM
I think Joe missed my point. I thing abortion should not be allowed as a form of birth control, but there should be better education on how to not get pregnant. Abortion has a lot of physical and emotional ramifications. In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option.

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Katherine:
Abortion has a lot of physical and emotional ramifications. In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option.Hear, hear! I second that.

Jami
(per Joe's request, another uterus-equipped poster) ;)

[ 12-07-2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Another One ]

uncas
12-07-2005, 10:04 AM
Thanks Joe..Where do I hang it...? :D

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Edited to add: ooops, I guess you're 'con'... at least in terms of abortion being used as 'birth control'....therefore, my question is: how would you distinguish the use of abortion as a menas of birth control, from any other reason?Norman, why is it necessary to distinguish this? Going back to the original basis for Roe v. Wade, it's none of our business to review and approve/disapprove someone else's choice. Someone who abuses their body in this way is just as sad as someone who abuses their body with cigarettes or alcohol or some other means. But in each case, it remains their personal choice.

George.
12-07-2005, 10:14 AM
" In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option "

How about date rape?

Joe (SoCal)
12-07-2005, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Katherine:
I think Joe missed my point. I thing abortion should not be allowed as a form of birth control, but there should be better education on how to not get pregnant. Abortion has a lot of physical and emotional ramifications. In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option.Nope I didn't miss your point, I agree with your CHOICE ;)

Oh and for others I will post what ever the hell I want don't like it don't read it. ( remember that one ;) ) The only person on this forum I have to listen to is Scot and until he tells me that Tolstoy has no place in this debate stop. Until then I will do as I please :D

[ 12-07-2005, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

uncas
12-07-2005, 10:16 AM
In my books...and my definition...Date Rape is rape!
Just my definition though...anyone who would like to can disagree...

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by George.:
" In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option "

How about date rape?What's the difference? Rape is rape is violence on women.

ETA: Uncas, you're way ahead of me! ;)

[ 12-07-2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Another One ]

George.
12-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Very well, then. How do you propose to determine if a woman seeking an abortion on the grounds of date rape actually suffered date rape, or is just claiming it?

George.
12-07-2005, 10:25 AM
Another question for you and Katherine: suppose a woman is violently raped by a stranger. Suppose that for whatever reason she does not get an abortion. Would you allow her to expose the newborn baby?

uncas
12-07-2005, 10:27 AM
George...well...for starters...I would think that a date rape incident would be reported to the police...Maybe I'm not being realistic..because of the guilt factor but I think more and more women are reporting such incidents.
Hence there is a police record.
I know...such an incident is difficult to acknowledge muchless report...but more and more women seem to be taking that route.

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by George.:
Very well, then. How do you propose to determine if a woman seeking an abortion on the grounds of date rape actually suffered date rape, or is just claiming it?You don't. It would be paternalistic crap to stand over a woman and judge whether she "deserves" to have control of her body or should be "punished" by being forced to continue the pregnancy.

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by George.:
Another question for you and Katherine: suppose a woman is violently raped by a stranger. Suppose that for whatever reason she does not get an abortion. Would you allow her to expose the newborn baby?No, because as we discussed earlier (and as the courts have discussed at length) in our culture we differentiate between a newborn child and a thumbnail-sized bit of tissue. You're asking for an apples v. oranges comparison.

Katherine
12-07-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by George.:
" In the cases of rape, incest, or medical health of the mother, I think it should be an option "

How about date rape?That's still rape, duh. :rolleyes:

George.
12-07-2005, 10:48 AM
I don't understand your position, Another One and Kat. A woman should not be allowed an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, but should for an unwanted father? And abortion is murder, but murder is allowed in case of rape? Two wrongs making a right?

Another One
12-07-2005, 10:50 AM
Exceptions based on rape or incest are 'judgment exceptions', which I find to be hypocritical in the context of opposition to abortion. Ah! I take your point and agree.

uncas
12-07-2005, 10:52 AM
I maybe throwing a curve ball..
If a woman decides to have a baby due to either a date rape...or another violent attack from an unknown person...Does a mother's love...overcome the reasons for the child's presence...Or is there always the feeling in the mother's mind as to why that child exists...a loove hate situation!