Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[acd]

Consuming food is something you do every day, whether pregnant or not. Next. You don't get a commendation for not killing a child by simply doing what you do every day anyway.

Again, I repeat, there are loads of agnostic folk who also find abortion to be what it is, by very definition- the intentional killing of another human. Murder is a legal term, not a biblical one.

And, I do comprehend your take. But it is still just a loophole to kill. The woman isn't being maimed.

Besides..

If you carry the child to term and give it away then no worries, because as you so eloquently pointed out ^^ "If you fail to feed him someone else can."

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. A fetus does not have the same rights as your son, or anyone else who is born and capable of eating, breathing, etc. etc. without relying on another person's body to eat, breathe, etc. etc.

You are arguing that abortion is murder. I get that. I don't think it's murder as a fetus is biologically dependant on the biological functions of it's mother's to form and survive. It is a part of her body. As it is a part of her body, it should be her choice to carry or not. You seem to conflate abortion with infanticide. They are clearly not the same.

 

[acd]

@acd
What are your thoughts on late term abortion?

I think it's a very desperate life and death situation in most of those cases but often people unfairly claim it's a lazy form of birth control. Late term abortions usually occur when something goes wrong in a very much wanted pregnancy. Either for the mother's health or condition discovered in the fetus that is not compatible with life once born.

There are NICU units where pre mature babies as young as 21 weeks can survive. I have a cousin who was born premature at 26 weeks who is in his 20s now thanks to NICU staff. I think if a fetus can be saved once viable all attempts to do so should be made.

 

[Misty]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. A fetus does not have the same rights as your son, or anyone else who is born and capable of eating, breathing, etc. etc. without relying on another person's body to eat, breathe, etc. etc.

You are arguing that abortion is murder. I get that. I don't think it's murder as a fetus is biologically dependant on the biological functions of it's mother's to form and survive. It is a part of her body. As it is a part of her body, it should be her choice to carry or not. You seem to conflate abortion with infanticide. They are clearly not the same.

I'm not conflating a single thing. I'm an intelligent woman & can quite easily differentiate the difference.

Clearly you confuse my tongue-in-cheek turn about of your own words for literalism. My point was clear when quoting you - to express that the same sentiment you used also applies to children given up for adoption ( rather than being aborted ).

"If you fail to feed him someone else can."

And the woman's choice you speak of is not *just* the choice about a temporary condition of her physical body, but the omnipotent power to play God - choosing the life or death of another human with it's own body & soul.

It's own right to choice - being silenced forever by his own mother.

 

[Ren]

Hmm! While I may be very cautious about quoting religious texts because sadly so many people have had bad experiences with bad religion, I may very well rely on them myself precisely because they are fundamentally about human beings . The trouble is that by excluding a religious perspective a humanist viewpoint can polarise public opinion into non-communicating opposing camps - just as the opposite is also true.

I think I meant not so much allowing oneself to rely upon religious texts in one's appreciation of a given issue – I think this is perfectly legitimate and thoroughly coherent for a believer – but rather directly quoting from religious texts as evidence to support a claim with regard to said issue. Fundamentally this is a logical fallacy, i.e. an argument from authority; doubled with a suspicious association of religious texts with anything like "authority" in the first place. Surely the authority that religious texts have is not of such a nature as to extend into the domain of secular discourse and institutions. This is not to say that they may not exert some form of authority for the believer, which (again) I respect.

The trouble is that by excluding a religious perspective a humanist viewpoint can polarise public opinion into non-communicating opposing camps - just as the opposite is also true.

I agree that the religious perspective deserves to be heard insofar as many believers hold this perspective. I'm perfectly willing to have a philosophical debate with a believer on this (or really any) topic, but I won't accept dogmatic statements directly taken from a religious text. In my personal opinon, few things are as dangerous to human society as religious dogmatism.

In a sense perhaps a national referendum is suitable, as it allows all voices to express themselves by a vote. Ireland did it last year; 66 percent of voters opted for pro-choice — a landslide. This is democracy and personally I believe this to be a good thing. At least in this way, pro-life voters got to express their position concretely and with just the same force as pro-choice voters.

 

[acd]

I'm not conflating a single thing. I'm an intelligent woman & can quite easily differentiate the difference.

Clearly you confuse my tongue-in-cheek turn about of your own words for literalism. My point was clear when quoting you - to express that the same sentiment you used also applies to children given up for adoption ( rather than being aborted ).

"If you fail to feed him someone else can."

And the woman's choice you speak of is not *just* the choice about a temporary condition of her physical body, but the omnipotent power to play God - choosing the life or death of another human with it's own body & soul.

It's own right to choice - being silenced forever by his own mother.

Maybe some day a woman can decide at 12 weeks pregnant that she wants to adopt her fetus out to a loving family who will care for it and run all of the incubator equipment necessary (or tend to the fetus field) to keep it forming and alive until they can pop open the door and lift out that fully formed full term baby out of the oven. Right now, we can't adopt out fetuses. And again, I don't think a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term should be made to do so and put her child up for adoption on account of other people's beliefs. You bring God into it again. That's wonderful that you have strong faith and convictions. But you must understand that there are people who do not share them. I don't think it's a matter that is anyone's business but the mother, the father and the doctor involved.

 

[Misty]

Maybe some day a woman can decide at 12 weeks pregnant that she wants to adopt her fetus out to a loving family who will care for it and run all of the incubator equipment necessary (or tend to the fetus field) to keep it forming and alive until they can pop open the door and lift out that fully formed full term baby out of the oven. Right now, we can't adopt out fetuses. And again, I don't think a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term should be made to do so and put her child up for adoption on account of other people's beliefs. You bring God into it again. That's wonderful that you have strong faith and convictions. But you must understand that there are people who do not share them. I don't think it's a matter that is anyone's business but the mother, the father and the doctor involved.

I'm not involving God, lol.. Re-read.. "Playing God" is a figure of speech. But indeed it is murder, 12 weeks or not, the child has a heartbeat and is a human life - like it or not - killing a human, no matter the size, is still killing. Again, I understand not all people will believe in God. I'm not daft. But I am *also* speaking simply to the act by definition - Killing.

Interesting too that in most states when a pregnant woman is murdered - TWO charges are filed & it is deemed a "double homicide". This means that in a strictly legal ( God-free context ) the law deems the killing of the mother *and* her unborn "fetus"" as two *Murders*.

The inconvenience of one person for 9.5 months does not justify murder / killing.

We disagree. That's Ok.

 

[Infjente]

like it or not - killing a human, no matter the size, is still killing.

Why does it matter what it's called?

 

[John K]

I think I meant not so much allowing oneself to rely upon religious texts in one's appreciation of a given issue – I think this is perfectly legitimate and thoroughly coherent for a believer – but rather directly quoting from religious texts as evidence to support a claim with regard to said issue. Fundamentally this is a logical fallacy, i.e. an argument from authority; doubled with a suspicious association of religious texts with anything like "authority" in the first place. Surely the authority that religious texts have is not of such a nature as to extend into the domain of secular discourse and institutions. This is not to say that they may not exert some form of authority for the believer, which (again) I respect.

Are you saying that someone who appeals to any authority to make a case is doing so invalidly? Surely in law courts for example a lot of argument is based on the authority of precedent for complex cases. Would it be wrong to quote the written constitution of the USA as an authority in making an argument?

There is plenty in the Christian texts that is highly relevant in the secular world - the moral teaching and 'love your neighbour as yourself' for example. I do agree with you that religious texts should not be forced on people who are not believers - that's just crass. It's actually quite hard to escape the Bible in Western states because a lot of our constitutions have inherited from the symbiosis between the late Roman Empires and Christianity.

I agree that the religious perspective deserves to be heard insofar as many believers hold this perspective. I'm perfectly willing to have a philosophical debate with a believer on this (or really any) topic, but I won't accept dogmatic statements directly taken from a religious text. In my personal opinon, few things are as dangerous to human society as religious dogmatism.

In a sense perhaps a national referendum is suitable, as it allows all voices to express themselves by a vote. Ireland did it last year; 66 percent of voters opted for pro-choice — a landslide. This is democracy and personally I believe this to be a good thing. At least in this way, pro-life voters got to express their position concretely and with just the same force as pro-choice voters.

I think the only thing I'd really disagree with here is your restriction to religious dogmatism. The very worst threats to mankind in the last 100 years, and perhaps at any time, were caused by secular dogmatism - in the foul regimes of Stalin's Soviet union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China.

But are you saying that a quote from the Bible in order to support an idea is something you would not accept? You use quotes from philosophers yourself for example in illustrating a point. I can agree that a straight unsupported quote hurled as a weapon is not good - except in a good meme of course . I suppose the equivalent is if I said that I couldn't possibly accept any position based on a quote from Neitzsche because his ideas lie at the roots of National Socialism. But I definitely agree that an isolated quote from any source in response to a reasoned argument is unlikely to be helpful because it signals an unwillingness to appreciate and respond to others' viewpoints properly.

I agree with the idea of using a referendum on these difficult issues, as in Ireland - it seems to discharge the energy of the situation where every answer has big problems for some of the population.

 

[Misty]

Why does it matter what it's called?

Because it's the basis of the opposing stance, semantic definitions which aren't even close in terms- choice vs killing.

 

[Ren]

Sorry John, I didn't want to appear intolerant of religious points of view. Let me try to clarify.

I think the only thing I'd really disagree with here is your restriction to religious dogmatism. The very worst threats to mankind in the last 100 years, and perhaps at any time, were caused by secular dogmatism - in the foul regimes of Stalin's Soviet union, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China.

You're right, I should have said dogmatism in general, rather than religious dogmatism per se.

But are you saying that a quote from the Bible in order to support an idea is something you would not accept? You use quotes from philosophers yourself for example in illustrating a point. I can agree that a straight unsupported quote hurled as a weapon is not good - except in a good meme of course . I suppose the equivalent is if I said that I couldn't possibly accept any position based on a quote from Neitzsche because his ideas lie at the roots of National Socialism. But I definitely agree that an isolated quote from any source in response to a reasoned argument is unlikely to be helpful because it signals an unwillingness to appreciate and respond to others' viewpoints properly.

Honestly, whenever I have resorted to 'evidence' from the work of a philosopher without also developing a coherent argument on my own, which could subsist in itself independently of the reference to a given text, then this must mean that my argument was weak/inconclusive. I have no doubt that I have been guilty of this numerous times. Usually this tends to happen when one is emotional about a particular topic (including myself), from what I have seen. The argument from authority is a well-known fallacy, and extremely common — though it does not apply in cases where an argument has already been articulated, and an example is given as illustration. It is when the weight of the argument depends on the appeal to authority that the argument becomes fallacious.

Obviously there are cases where the authority is, well, authoritative — you mentioned law, and health is probably an even more striking example. But these kinds of 'authority' would be very different in substance from that of a religous text or even a philosophical argument, no matter how famous or ingenious. In the latter case, I do not think that the appeal to authority can constitute evidence strictly speaking (as opposed to, say, illustration).

 

[John K]

Obviously there are cases where the authority is, well, authoritative

I think this is where the crux of the issue lies, because to many of course their scripture is the most authoratitive source they have, while to others it has no force of credibility whatsoever. Of course all the religions rooted in the Judaic legacy are based on revelation, although they are developed extensively from the raw revelations in their different ways. That's why it's so difficult to appeal to them in order to make a case to someone who does not accept them on their own terms.

Thanks for your thoughts on this Ren - I think your views here really help to clarify an important aspect of how difficult it can be to form a common view in a social grouping when the things that people take as their given fundamental 'givens' are wide apart.

This is probably moving too far away from the main theme of the thread so as you suggested elsewhere, we can follow up in a PM

 

[mintoots]

What is interesting to me is that most people see the faithful as "religious" - in the essence that they only see 'rules' & 'dogma'. But this is why I quite dislike this word. Because in truth, as @Dado was trying to explain.. we undergo a metamorphosis that changes our heart & mind to 'desire' to do what is right.

It is easy to comprehend how in this metamorphosed state we undergo a great and powerful internal, spiritual shift in thinking which melts the gold commandments from constraints to liquid hearts desire. Through tribulation & leaning on God this liquifying process continues to purify our character, refine our strength, and bind our faith to the one who redeemed us from the fire..

And we will also all endure life's fires - whether we believe in God or not, no one is exempt, because of the free will we were all granted at birth - both evil and good intending humans - alike.

That is the very strength of faith, itself though.- The assurance that, with him, we can survive the pain we all endure because we no longer endure them alone. The comfort that comes from never having to suffer alone and unguided from the moment we accept his hand, his love, and let him help us - far better than we can on our own.

Like a perfect father, he is always there. We will still try to do things our way, stubborn & strong willed because we think' we always 'know' what's right. And sometimes we are right. But more often than not, we fail ( or people fail us ) big time.. and that is when our father is there to comfort, guide, and focus us in the right direction. He meets us in our mess.. That's the beauty of it.

In these moments we are once again liquifued, humbled, and ready to accept the path we stubbornly rejected the first time. ( or 10 times if you're like me )..

God doesn't want our half hearted 'obedience' of Dogma'. What he does want is to let us let him change us, from the inside out, so that we start to want to do what's right, from the heart, not because teacher is watching, waiting to smack our wrists with his ruler.

He wants us to finally feel that deep inner peace, love, and hope for the future - even as the flames of life rise around us - that abides in us once we let him in. And once we do so we learn that like any good father, his rules' were created to spare us pain and give us joy, not steal our joy and cause us pain. His comfort and love is unconditional.

In life we often spend years searching for the ideal mate. I too believe in soulmates, yes. But even if we are so lucky in this often dark world to find such a being and be happily married, this being can die.

This means we learn through pain and loss, that in life there is no one we can truly depend on forever, because nothing is promised. Trusted people die, and sometimes other people turn out to be bad, or disappear & disappoint. But God, never. He's the one solid thing in this world. He is steadfast & never lies. He is the one we can always trust. I find comfort in this, not dogma.

As far as our 'behaviour' / sense of "dogma" goes you can compare our 'obedience' ( which by the way even the best 'Christians' fail at every single day ) by using also marriage as another example.

When you marry a good man or woman you want to keep your promises to them. You want to make them proud, happy..so even when you are tempted to yell at them, get back at them, whatever it may be.. your love for them - that liquid, pure place in your heart you call love prevents the follow through ( most of the time ). It makes you want to do what is right, even when tempted by anger and pride to hurt or spite them. To rebel against the 'commandments/ constraints' of your vows..

You are no longer keeping to the vows' or rules' of your marriage simply because of 'dogma'. You are trying to do so from the heart. From love. This.. is what being faithful' is supposed to be about. Religious' and faithful' are two seperapte planes of existence in this deeper context.

This concept is so easily seen in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisees. The pharisees out in the streets screaming of God and asking for money, pretending to be holy and pure of heart, but behind closed doors being full of greed and a closed heart to God.. condemning others. Whereas the tax collector was loathed, yet loved God and had a close relationship with him. Below is an excerpt from a cool site that explains:

What Did the Pharisees Believe and Teach?
Among the Pharisees' beliefs were life after death, resurrection of the body, importance of keeping rituals, and the need to convert Gentiles.

Because they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law, the Pharisees gradually changed Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of keeping the commandments (legalism). Animal sacrifices still continued in the Jerusalem temple until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., but Pharisees promoted works over sacrifice.

The Gospels often portray Pharisees as arrogant, but they were generally respected by the masses because of their piety. However, Jesus saw through them. He scolded them for the unreasonable burden they placed on the peasants.

In a scathing rebuke of the Pharisees found in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus called them hypocrites and exposed their sins. He compared the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, which are beautiful on the outside but on the inside are filled with dead men's bones and uncleanness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:13, 27-28, Most of the time the Pharisees were at odds with the Sadducees, another Jewish sect, but the two parties joined forces to conspire against Jesus.

They voted together in the Sanhedrin to demand his death, then saw that the Romans carried it out. Neither group could believe in a Messiah who would sacrifice himself for the sins of the world.

I know this is an abortion thread - but since a few of you seemed to want to better understand what @Dado meant.. I think, all that? ^^

LOL I read all these. Thank you for the taking the time to write it. Anything that adds detail to perspective is welcome to me. I think I also understand this faithfullness deeply and I do still believe i'm faithful. This wellspring of liquid love, however, can be a little tricky because when there are different forms of love at play within a situation, like love of an unborn offspring alongside love of life, which love should prevail? All these and sometimes I wonder, (i know this very off-topic) but what if God is just a way of thinking?

 

[mintoots]

I don't think you're getting what I'm saying. A fetus does not have the same rights as your son, or anyone else who is born and capable of eating, breathing, etc. etc. without relying on another person's body to eat, breathe, etc. etc.

You are arguing that abortion is murder. I get that. I don't think it's murder as a fetus is biologically dependant on the biological functions of it's mother's to form and survive. It is a part of her body. As it is a part of her body, it should be her choice to carry or not. You seem to conflate abortion with infanticide. They are clearly not the same.

In this vein, pregnancy, thus, is an act of selflessness.

 

[Misty]

LOL I read all these. Thank you for the taking the time to write it. Anything that adds detail to perspective is welcome to me. I think I also understand this faithfullness deeply and I do still believe i'm faithful. This wellspring of liquid love, however, can be a little tricky because when there are different forms of love at play within a situation, like love of an unborn offspring alongside love of life, which love should prevail? All these and sometimes I wonder, (i know this very off-topic) but what if God is just a way of thinking?

I appreciate your remarks.. truly, I do. It makes me happy that you too have experienced this sort of depth of faith. For me, my faith was present since childhood - but not in the way that I wrote about. I had a hard childhood, hard life, and was too busy feeling jaded to let my walls down to God. I let him in in metered doses. I think @Milktoastbandit has also had a similar metamorphosis via tribulation and even a mystical experience which brought him to this sort of faith.

I too have experienced things all my life, and especially as an adult which are unexplained by anything but faith. Things I prayed over, signs & symbols ( miraculous ) occurences.. physical answers to prayer that couldn't be explained.. timing, mystical experiences.

Faith is like love, you can't see it or quantify it scientifically, but it is tangible, palpable. And you know it's there, because as clearly as you feel love, for your loved ones, you'll feel your faith increase. You will feel the love that follows and know it is from him. That's been my experience, anyway. ❤

Here is the biblical definition of faith, if you're interested.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" Hebrews 11: 1. Faith is the connecting power into the spiritual realm, which links us with God and makes Him become a tangible reality to the sense perceptions of a person. Faith is the basic ingredient to begin a relationship with God."

I hope this was of some help. And thanks for reading my words. ❤

 

[Misty]

In this vein, pregnancy, thus, is an act of selflessness.

Well if the mother wishes to give the child away after birth, especially in cases of molestation and or rape, then definitely yes. But I love what @John K said a few posts back where he said that rarely ever is it actually a case of life or death / a choice between the mother's life and the child's.

Billions of women get pregnant and pop out babies just fine every day.

The choice is in 99.9% of cases down to the temporary discomfort of the mother. Selfless seems a bit too 'complimentary' in this context.. In example, imagine walking past a man lying on the ground choking on something whist late for a very important appointment. You are a nurse and teach CPR and the Heimlich Maneuver at the local hospital. Would you feel selfless for doing what is natural to keep him alive?

I think it's just the humane thing to do, to save a life, even if you want nothing to do with the person ever again after that. And this isn't even saving a stranger.. it's saving your own biological child. Sometimes saving a life takes 10 minutes, sometimes it takes 10 months..

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

What is interesting to me is that most people see the faithful as "religious" - in the essence that they only see 'rules' & 'dogma'. But this is why I quite dislike this word. Because in truth, as @Dado was trying to explain.. we undergo a metamorphosis that changes our heart & mind to 'desire' to do what is right.

It is easy to comprehend how in this metamorphosed state we undergo a great and powerful internal, spiritual shift in thinking which melts the gold commandments from constraints to liquid hearts desire. Through tribulation & leaning on God this liquifying process continues to purify our character, refine our strength, and bind our faith to the one who redeemed us from the fire..

And we will also all endure life's fires - whether we believe in God or not, no one is exempt, because of the free will we were all granted at birth - both evil and good intending humans - alike.

That is the very strength of faith, itself though.- The assurance that, with him, we can survive the pain we all endure because we no longer endure them alone. The comfort that comes from never having to suffer alone and unguided from the moment we accept his hand, his love, and let him help us - far better than we can on our own.

Like a perfect father, he is always there. We will still try to do things our way, stubborn & strong willed because we think' we always 'know' what's right. And sometimes we are right. But more often than not, we fail ( or people fail us ) big time.. and that is when our father is there to comfort, guide, and focus us in the right direction. He meets us in our mess.. That's the beauty of it.

In these moments we are once again liquifued, humbled, and ready to accept the path we stubbornly rejected the first time. ( or 10 times if you're like me )..

God doesn't want our half hearted 'obedience' of Dogma'. What he does want is to let us let him change us, from the inside out, so that we start to want to do what's right, from the heart, not because teacher is watching, waiting to smack our wrists with his ruler.

He wants us to finally feel that deep inner peace, love, and hope for the future - even as the flames of life rise around us - that abides in us once we let him in. And once we do so we learn that like any good father, his rules' were created to spare us pain and give us joy, not steal our joy and cause us pain. His comfort and love is unconditional.

In life we often spend years searching for the ideal mate. I too believe in soulmates, yes. But even if we are so lucky in this often dark world to find such a being and be happily married, this being can die.

This means we learn through pain and loss, that in life there is no one we can truly depend on forever, because nothing is promised. Trusted people die, and sometimes other people turn out to be bad, or disappear & disappoint. But God, never. He's the one solid thing in this world. He is steadfast & never lies. He is the one we can always trust. I find comfort in this, not dogma.

As far as our 'behaviour' / sense of "dogma" goes you can compare our 'obedience' ( which by the way even the best 'Christians' fail at every single day ) by using also marriage as another example.

When you marry a good man or woman you want to keep your promises to them. You want to make them proud, happy..so even when you are tempted to yell at them, get back at them, whatever it may be.. your love for them - that liquid, pure place in your heart you call love prevents the follow through ( most of the time ). It makes you want to do what is right, even when tempted by anger and pride to hurt or spite them. To rebel against the 'commandments/ constraints' of your vows..

You are no longer keeping to the vows' or rules' of your marriage simply because of 'dogma'. You are trying to do so from the heart. From love. This.. is what being faithful' is supposed to be about. Religious' and faithful' are two seperapte planes of existence in this deeper context.

This concept is so easily seen in the parable of the tax collector and the pharisees. The pharisees out in the streets screaming of God and asking for money, pretending to be holy and pure of heart, but behind closed doors being full of greed and a closed heart to God.. condemning others. Whereas the tax collector was loathed, yet loved God and had a close relationship with him. Below is an excerpt from a cool site that explains:

What Did the Pharisees Believe and Teach?
Among the Pharisees' beliefs were life after death, resurrection of the body, importance of keeping rituals, and the need to convert Gentiles.

Because they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law, the Pharisees gradually changed Judaism from a religion of sacrifice to one of keeping the commandments (legalism). Animal sacrifices still continued in the Jerusalem temple until it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., but Pharisees promoted works over sacrifice.

The Gospels often portray Pharisees as arrogant, but they were generally respected by the masses because of their piety. However, Jesus saw through them. He scolded them for the unreasonable burden they placed on the peasants.

In a scathing rebuke of the Pharisees found in Matthew 23 and Luke 11, Jesus called them hypocrites and exposed their sins. He compared the Pharisees to whitewashed tombs, which are beautiful on the outside but on the inside are filled with dead men's bones and uncleanness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." (Matthew 23:13, 27-28, Most of the time the Pharisees were at odds with the Sadducees, another Jewish sect, but the two parties joined forces to conspire against Jesus.

They voted together in the Sanhedrin to demand his death, then saw that the Romans carried it out. Neither group could believe in a Messiah who would sacrifice himself for the sins of the world.

I know this is an abortion thread - but since a few of you seemed to want to better understand what @Dado meant.. I think, all that? ^^

This is great. <3*. I wonder if we would've argued less about God if you had explained your perspective in terms of transformation and "being" like this? Lolo Oh well...

You are no longer keeping to the vows' or rules' of your marriage simply because of 'dogma'. You are trying to do so from the heart. From love. This.. is what being faithful' is supposed to be about

Yes. A husband goes home to his wife, not be he has to, but because he wants to. Well, if he loves her...

I think @Milktoastbandit has also had a similar metamorphosis via tribulation and even a mystical experience which brought him to this sort of faith

True story.

but it is tangible, palpable

Because it is a 'way of be-ing.'

 

[Misty]

This is great. <3*. I wonder if we would've argued less about God if you had explained your perspective in terms of transformation and "being" like this? Lolo Oh well...

Yes. A husband goes home to his wife, not be he has to, but because he wants to. Well, if he loves her...


True story.


Because it is a 'way of be-ing.'

Oh well? .. o.o *squints* <3*.

Yes, sometimes I suck at explaining. But so do you, sucka..

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

Oh well? .. o.o *squints* <3*.

Yes, sometimes I suck at explaining. But so do you, sucka..

Lolo

 

[Pin]

In my experience, few men and women seem willing to wait before marriage or even knowing one another for at least a year to start having sex.

Life happens so fast dude.
Sorry for the ISFP moment there.

 

[mintoots]

In my experience, few men and women seem willing to wait before marriage or even knowing one another for at least a year to start having sex.

Life happens so fast dude.
Sorry for the ISFP moment there.

Lol this is what happens when the attraction meter goes bonkers. It never ceases to amaze me. People can be so direct with attraction it's perplexing.