Clowns & Jokers

Stuck in the middle.... Left, right, centre. It's a mess out there.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Losing my Religion

Mr S has got a post up about Love, christianity and women at ATW. I imagine this as a more thoughtful approach to the challenges posited off the back of a string of grossly titled, uselessly heated debates on abortion.

The romantic notions of women and faith are ideals. Romance wasnt all about chivalry, the idea of some woman being whisked off into the sunset by a knight back then reflect the lucky ones i expect! Marriage was very much a trade with women as commodities. The realities are always a bit different.

The thing about being 'westernised' is that I can challenge my faiths absurdities. I havent had a view of an obstinate unmovable God since I realised that much like Islamic texts are stuck in the socio political context of the time but remain unchallenged, christian texts were also. I cant imagine Jesus building his church via St Peter, the first Pope, and being disingenius to think faith would not evolve with time. Thats just stupid. The rules of Islam apply and can be distorted by murdering nutjobs precisely because noone en masse thinks they can change much and the ones in charge dont want to. Critical masse has had effect in the West for christianity but at the top its still a bit murky. I'd wager from the number of christian couples with standard size families at mass when i get a chance to go along, they dont follow the rules. They dip in and out of what suits their lives in 2007.

I admire the devout but i dont feel bound in by them until they start ranting. However lets not kid ourselves about the timeline in all this.
The general secularizing trend gradually dissolved many of the barriers and made it easier for the faithful but it is still pretty vague. Catholics are divorced, use contraception, and have abortions at about the same rate as non-Catholics. (Recruitment of priests and nuns has ebbed to a very low level, while the average age of priests and nuns is very high). As recently as in 1968 Pope Paul VI, against the counsel of his own advisers, issued his infamous encyclical, Humanae Vitae, condemning contraception. The encyclical triggered a massive revolt among Catholics--lay and clerical--and was viewed widely as an attempt to turn back the clock, to restore medieval authoritarianism. Ive chucked abortion into that. Pretty obvious to me if someone wants to tell me my life is worth less than an unformed group of cells then I should. It is a constant challenge and in comparison to Islam and women, largely a question of degree and context. Insisting on no contraception (supported better because it affects guys too) or a pregnancy is a huge deal for anyone. The faithful in Islam truly believe they are doing women and the world a favour protecting them under that veil and keeping them inside. They truly believe it is in their best interests.

As i was growing up in the fall out of feminism i quickly recognised the crap applied to women in the form of fundamentalism - to which i added and still include the decrees on contraception and abortion. I argued about them when i was 16 and at a catholic school. Not a lot has changed. Looking further afield at Islam when i was in my early 20s before the jets hit the twin towers, fundamentalists of all religious sorts seemed pretty similar in what they were saying. Some of it made me very angry. Not Without My Daughter a film i watched in the early 90s about an American woman stuck with her nutjob husband in Iran - gentle and loving in America it didnt take long for the Ayatollah via his own family to work the loony magic and turn him into a fundi. He saw what he was doing as righteous - insisting she wore the veil for her own good and that his daughter stay in Iran. Saudi Princess the book followed, stories about the 'dirty women' who bleed and the rituals of Judaism...and then the following bit of advice from the pope - all made me question just how tenable a position you can have as a female in any of the great faiths without looking utterly foolish. The twenty-year papacy of John Paul II has confirmed this perception, while his selection of conservative bishops and cardinals may surely continue this trend well into the future in spite of Ratzinger. These events highlighted to me the disconnect between the Vatican's power structure on the one hand and most ordinary Catholic and non-Catholic opinion on the other, myself included.


Pope John Paul the II. A man I greatly admired for his devout ways in a fierce consumerist environment made some dreadful and probably predictable errors. The following didnt take place two centuries ago. It took place a few decades ago in Kosovo. The Pope forbade raped women in Kosovo to use the "morning after pill". He condemned them to bear the children -of another faith- and caused many of them, born into a country where religious and social tolerance were non existent to be shunned by their communities for the sin of being raped. Without meaning to undermine Mr Smiths post of good intentions re reverence to women - so 'revered' were catholic women that inspite of the hideousness of their situations they were to make the ultimate sacrifice. Apparently though in contrast the Vatican's distribution of contraceptives to nuns in the Congo in the 1960s, was what senior Vatican official Monsignor Ello Sgreccia called "a legitimate defense" against the possibility of rape. Catholics for a Free Choice even launched an effort to get Useless Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to review the special Non-Member State Permanent Observer status that the Holy See (the headquarters of the Roman Catholic church) enjoys at the U.N. I understand, though i need to look into this properly, that The Holy See is the only religious body so privileged and has used that status to exert pressure on the U.N. to down-play efforts to deal with the problem of overpopulation and the reproductive health and rights of women. Somehow though it really doesnt surprise me. On the one hand i support women kicking out of the socio political chains of Islam. Id be an enormous hypocrite if i didnt recognise the issues the Holy See's direction compounded not so very long ago and continues to compound today in the third world.

No one knows how many Kosovan Albanian women were raped. There were unconfirmed Nato reports of 'rape camps' operated by Serb soldiers. Groups working with refugee women shipped forbidden morning after pills to camps in Kukes, Vlora, Lezja and Tirana in Albania. The Popes removed dispassionate advice amounted to turning their rape into an act of love by accepting the enemy within and carrying their pregnancies to term. How thoughtful. This blatant misinformation was in some understandable views 'intended to further a political agenda to prevent access to contraceptives in general and specifically to emergency contraceptives, which enables the prevention of unwanted or enforced pregnancy, clearly an urgent need of some women in a war situation such as Kosovo.'

UNFPA executive director Nafis Sadik said: 'It shows an insensitivity to the suffering of the women of Kosovo. The women of Kukes need our support and care, not condemnation.' Why would anyone argue with that?

A spokeswoman for Marie Stopes International said women in the camps were suicidal at the prospect of bearing their Serb rapists' babies and would opt for this rather than giving birth. I bet they bloody well were!

Outside of hideous scenarios such as these. The church still says that marriage is ordained for the procreation of children. Therefore it is a woman's duty to have children with her husband. Thwarting God's intention must be just as heinous as abortion. The first bit it is obvious - but we arent bound by duty to this. We are bound by hormones. Imposing a duty makes it banal.

Thanks to living in the UK, where a more liberal western set of values came about through mounting enormous challenge and criticism of the Church, I can actually ignore all of it. Im very lucky to live here. But their chipping away at issues is a reminder that where sometimes I feel they are hard done by and the government needs to work on some basis of give and take... they ARE there- and given half a chance would insist every bit as much as the next religion. Problem is the way government gets all muddled and tackles it. In Islams case, frightened of it. This flopping around on Islam, after keeping christianity at arms length quite fiercely, makes the whole approach so antagonising.

There is a clear difference in degree between religions and attitudes towards women. The clear difference in socio political dogma where the religion is meshed into the fabric of society. There is something rather creepy sounding, though, in the similarities between parotting the reverence for women in christianity which sets specific female gender based roles and the worship of Perfection ...and the men in Islam who do the same (and the women who go along with it in both). There are plenty of references within Islam that gave women a much better social status than women ever found in christianity. And the burqa is not advocated in the Koran but seen as protcetion. Of course how it all then becomes interpreted is at the crux of the issue really. And just how much it gets applied in the West is down to the society that keeps it at arms length and mounts a critical challenge rather than imposing. Third world backward ratholes having, of course, a much much harder time. But really - did anyone give a shit about womens rights under Islam before 9/11?

The catholic view on contraception and abortion is a clear parallel to all this given it operates in the third world but little reminders come about when in the west people parrot the Old Testament to justify no abortion rulings with religious zeal. That is religion dictating to me how to make a decision and then condemning me for it without compassion and without the first clue what leads to such a decision. Zygotes trump a fully formed human. Bollocks.


What it boils down to is something you cannot shirk. Religious dogma, controlling sexuality and ultimately controlling men and women. Its just the latter are easier to control for some.

It is pretty accurate to recognize that toward one side are gathered conservative, even reactionary, Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews, while toward the opposite side are diverse groupings of moderate and progressive Catholics, Protestants, Jews, humanists, and others. I prefer the gentle aspects and voices of my faith wherever I can find them and opt for the latter - but i do not discount the former. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist, a literalist by degree. It hasnt altered for me personally because 9/11 changed the goalposts. Islam has adopted a far fiercer dogmatic vicious and violent method overall and therefore becomes the number one priority. Wound more tightly into communities untouched by reason and progress, the attempt is to keep a much tighter grip on the faithful using the progress in the West as an example of how not to proceed. Of course here in the UK governments compound what might have been better progress by making a religion an ethnicity. Im not ethnically catholic.

I respect and hugely admire the women who are fighting off the bigotted mysoginist assholes in Islam whilst maintaining their own degree of faith as only they can - given the limitations and laws applied to women. You cannot as a christian 'use' Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a brave example when she wants women to reject their faith altogether and at the same time then raise an eyebrow at gobby women who challenge christian rules. If you want to be a really verbose 'God botherer' then take up the flack.

Interestingly
Ratzinger has a new approach to the role of women. Whilst facsinating and seemingly progressive it falls back upon the virtues eschewed around Mary the mother of God. Who remains the paragon of womanhood as the Perfect Virgin, that ideal not so very different from the other faiths. Beautiful but flawed, odd and extra unatainable concept into the bargain. Tough eh. Bear in mind the year this Pope came to extol his progressive ideas and reexamine these texts though: 2004.

Faiths have huge values. What weve gained and lost as a society makes a tremendous impact socially and extracting all of it has left a massive vacuum filled by worship of rubbish.

Long post. Yeah,
Im thinking it all through and constantly having to work it all out as I go along in the current climate. But Ill take the contraception, the option to divorce, abortion, commit all these sins if i face them and seek my peace with God, thanks. Whatever judgement falls upon me is through God and not the lectures judgments and views of others.

Some briefer thoughts on the Harley Street abortion decision later.


Labels:

77 Comments:

At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Long but interesting post. May I ask where is there a sign of the centre of all this debate etc., - i.e. God, has anyone heard lately, other than the odd earthquake or somesuch. Do we really know his views?

Women will always be at the mercy of men, because we are the physically weaker. Women in the West have progressed somewhat but never will entirely. Yes religion is to some extent the protector of women..via burga or whatever but religion was invented by men to control the population of both men & women, to instill some sort of civiliased behaviour and to be frightened by an Almighty presence. We are lucky in the Western world, we can chose which rules we like and which we dislike but those stuck in a past timewarp have to obey. In the meantime show me a sign......

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

me too alison

me too....

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

It was going to be split into two but i thought to hell with it...!

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

and I was going to just give up, or in.
To hell with that too!

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

to what?

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Very inoffensive question here, I hope. At least, I don't want it to be offensive, I'm just trying to understand a few things.

Under what possible definition are you a Catholic?

 
At Thursday, 15 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Because i was born one raised one and choose to remain one. I just dont buy everything from the Vatican. Like most Mr Smith. Else mass would be empty.

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Well-spoken and assertive words, certainly, but they tell me little more than 'my parents gave me this label, I grew up with this label, and I'm keeping this label'.

I was really hoping for something more substantive, such as which creeds and doctrines you hold to which are specifically Catholic. You know, creeds? Things you believe in? Contrary to what you've been saying lately, there are actually Catholics who obey the Magisterium, believe in the Church, and go to Mass because they believe. An amazing thought, certainly, but far less amazing than the central faith of the Church. I trust you remember what those are?

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger jonz said...

Alison is culturally catholic she was brought up with those values and doesn't wish to cast them asunder.

Seems she is a progressive catholic living in the modern world. Certainly she's no religious zombie. If the Pope told you to jump off a cliff Mr Smith?!

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Yes i do Mr Smith and i value many of them and much of it. This isnt a competition of doctrine though is it? I dont really view it as a label else id shrug it off and forget it. Who needs a label like that? You have a hard enough time from the secularists. It extends beyond merely creeds, attending mass and applying the stricter more questionable tenets of your faith because someone said so. Any fool can follow rules and say prayers. I know many far more devout than you claim to be. And far more in tune with their faith Id say. What does your faith mean to you? Outside of parotting the Rules does your faith stop at the church door on the way out? And why support women who rebel against the doctrines of Islam yet want to retain their faith? Why support such people?

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

--Jonz--

What's a 'progressive Catholic', then? Progressing towards what? And what does that leave behind in the process?

--Alison--

With any respect due, telling me that you value 'many and much' and asking me if it's a competition (which, of course, is silly as it couldn't be) doesn't answer the question. How do you define Catholic if not by X Y or Z creeds?

See, the thing is that it's very important to go beyond creeds. You're quite right in that. But that can't be at the expense of creeds, can it? Algebra goes beyond simple addition, but 2+2 will always result in 4.

I'm sure there are many more devout than I, who pray the rosary every day, attend Tridentine Mass every week, and constantly strive for a better, more Catholic understanding of the Faith. May they be blessed and rewarded in their endeavours.

But this isn't about them. Nor is it about me. Nor necessarily about you. What I'm trying to understand isn't 'your faith to you' but what you mean by 'Catholic'. If you can consider yourself Catholic and be pro-abortion, your definition differs greatly from the definition I thought was generally applied. If your definition includes contraception, your definition differs from the orthodox one I know of. And so on and so on.

As to the women rebelling against mohammedanism, I'm amazed you've not yet figured out that my support is for their rebelling against it, as opposed to for anything else. But if this isn't about you, me, or the really pious and devout Catholics, it's certainly not about the moslems, so let's leave them out of this, shall we?

I repeat, then, under what definition of Catholic are you, in pro-abortion, pro-contraception, etc, Catholic? By what doctrines etc?

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger DV said...

Jonz,

I understand what you are saying about people being "culturally" a given religion. Here in Northern Ireland, thats a BIG thing. I take a stand-off approach to it - I see the surveys showing 60% of people being Protestan/Catholic, I observe the empty pews, the teeming shopping centres on a Sunday, and I realise that people do relate back to the faith they may have born into - and who knows, maybe it is a step ladder back to God?

Complicated subject.

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

If you are going to define it purely by creeds then do you accept what the catholic church did throughout history as right? Do you actually think that the papal demands were always just and therefore righteous? You question none of it? Fraid i dont as ive explained in this post, though only touching on one such fiasco. Moreover many have battled with these issues besides me but stayed within the church and Popes will change and alter the doctrine. Which therefore naturally makes it progressive - so dont discount it.

I think that it is quite understandable to question those, most especially as a woman, whilst taking the sacraments, as I have and do, seeking my peace with God, believing in the value of the church itself and the attempts we all make to battle with life and try to do our best by our beliefs as far as we can. Isnt that the purpose of it all?

Ill be honest. Im not sure i get your faith. You seem to think that by taking on doctrine you are somehow catholic by definition. You seem to be embracing the easy bits for a guy (lets be honest - they are so easy its a joke) at the expense of the tougher bits, your algebra example. Which is why i asked you if you leave those at the church door on the way out?

I dont attempt to enforce my views on others but I accept that life is hard so the church will have to, as Christ taught, be forgiving and non judgmental, condemn sin as David put it once, not sinners. You can strive for 'perfection' through the catholic sacraments, what the church gives you - but being catholic doesnt land you with the trump card by its doctrines.

Im more curious to hear where you last attended mass and someone preached at you to judge others as 'murderers whores and drunks'(there is no question mark on your own blog post) and feel what appears to be no concern in that (or see no connection to the mad mullahs quite frankly).

Ive never heard that style at mass or at any time throughout my schooling (a catholic one i attended from age 4 til i left).

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Firstly, thanks for the noticing of my headline. I'll correct it now and add the question mark to it. Wouldn't want to be inconsistent.

Secondly, I'm asking about creeds, which are statements of belief. You're, in response, asking me if I agree with actions. This makes no sense and is useless for our purposes, though it might come in handy for a textbook on explanations of 'talking at cross-purposes'.

Thirdly, the use of the word 'progressive' as related to theology worries me. Progressing from what? And to what?

Fourthly, What do you mean by 'question' and 'taking sacraments'? If you mean ingesting the Blessed Sacrament whilst disagreeing with Church doctrine on abortion, then I think there may well be a problem, (but that one's between you and God, of course). If you mean being unsure of things, then that's a different matter altogether. (Perhaps you begin to see from this why I keep coming back to definition?)

Fifthly, Why 'most especially as a woman'? This is something you keep coming back to, but I've yet to see a full explanation of how and why. But perhaps I missed an earlier post?

Sixthly, "seeking my peace with God, believing in the value of the church itself and the attempts we all make to battle with life and try to do our best by our beliefs as far as we can. Isnt that the purpose of it all?" What part of 'just doing our best by our own beliefs' is enshrined in Gospel, please? In the teachings of Christ? In any of the Creeds of any real Church?

Re your honesty about my faith. Thanks, it's good to meet real honesty these days. Rare, too. I appreciate it. But I'm also not getting something. What I'm not getting is when this became about my faith? I don't recall talking about it, and I think I've just been asking you for your definition of Catholic which somehow includes a pro-abortion stance. Which bits are 'easy for a guy' and why, please? What tougher ones should I be taking in but aren't as far as you see? If I'm missing something here, please tell me, I'd hate to be wrong/ill-informed on this of all things.

I really do wonder how you come to an image of Christ as 'non-judgemental' when He's shown throughout all Scripture and teachings as the ultimate Judge.

I don't see, in all honesty, how you can see a connection between a Christian concern for the unborn life (and especially that Catholic tradition which has such reverence for women) and the oppression of women which shuts them away and treats them as inferior in mohammedanism.

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

mrsmith,
this is'nt directed as an insult, but I get sad when people of the same faith argue personal beliefs.
Starts to look self rightous and more about being right. To have a firm belief in God is one thing, but to feel you have come to a place where you know all and are above others in knowledge and perfection... to stop questioning and searching?
A reference to water is used alot in scripture, it is running, flowing, poured over, refreshed. it comes in and goes out. without that its stagnet. complex annalogy.
A thing I can never understand is why are christians always the first to stand up and judge? We are commanded to submit ourselves as sevants to one another not masters. And we are called peace makers of the world .... where as a whole is that happening?
Everything is crazy, everyone claims to know and speak for God, but they all say diffrent things. No wonder there is so many athiest now.
I'll stop....

I am sorry if it seems I attack you, but sometimes you make no sense? The part you copied about just doing your best... HOW? do you find anything in that to argue?

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

(Not directly related to this but something I thought you might find interesting reading. Fjordman's latest has to do with Feminism and its possible end. Click here to see.)

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Tu,

Thanks for the tone, it's nice to not be insulted or sniped at.

Your reference to water and stagnation is interesting. May I invite you to enjoy a novel that I read a while back and has stayed with me since? It's called The Great Divorce by the Anglican (Anglo-Catholic?) C.S. Lewis and has at least one memorable character talking about the need for and importance of the free play of the mind. You might enjoy it.

You see, the thing is, I'm not certain at all that Alison and I are in the same faith. Hence my many questions.

As to peace, I can understand how this discussion would look like its opposite, but I believe it was a Christian saint who said that 'the object of all war is peace'.

OH! And mustn't forget about doing one's best. Well, yes, I do find a lot in that to argue. It's not a definite enough goal.

- 'I will be better.'
- 'How will you be better?'
- 'I just will be better.'
- 'Yes, fine, but in what way?'
- 'I WILL BE BETTER!'

You see the problem?

 
At Friday, 16 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

and thank you too. I will look into the book.
I just don't see what the arguing is about. I call jesus savior - you call jesus savior - so does she.
What do the words catholic, protostent mean? and they just seperate more from there. We are to be the church and work together as body, no wonder everythings all messed up. We even judge each other.
I thought jesus said worry about yourself.
I guess it depends on how you translate... do your best.
You assume they don't try and grow.
I assume they do.
But I see religion as a boot camp or training in personal growth that should never end.
Other people seem to see it as a prison they condem theirselves to and everyone else. I think thats what the whole set free means.
freedom is a very hard thing, cause now it's no longer forced, it's your choice to serve.
About the fighting for peace.
I do not disagree. Its only how you fight. Everyone is fighting already. I have asked before who is standing in the middle of it all? don't you think thats the place peacemakers stand and make their fight? and they demand it! Enough!
please don't take that as you walk away after either peace is a constant battle, and it can only be achived by finding ways to solve the issues they arise from.

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Anonymous Andrew said...

You seem to be embracing the easy bits for a guy (lets be honest - they are so easy its a joke) at the expense of the tougher bits

Right - so what do you call a Catholic guy who is faced with the temptation to have sex with his girlfriend but doesn't?

What about the same guy that wants to use a condom with his girfriend but doesn't?

What about a Catholic guy that wants to retaliate for an offense caused to him but doesn't?

What about a Catholic guy that has homosexual tendencies but doesn't act on them and leads a mortified life?

Even better - what about a Catholic guy that feels called to the priesthood but is discouraged by the prejudices of secular society towards priests - often labelling them as "gay" or "paedophiles"?

Men don't have it easier anymore than women have it in this life. The difference is that faithful Catholic men and women are not swept up by the relativism that pervades so much of our post modern "enlightened" society. I'm sorry but it's us Catholics that are counter-cultural but culture inevitably changes and offers no stability. The Catholic religion doesn't change - it is a rock of stability. Mr Smith has asked some poigent questions - a person who grows out of listening to Slipknot doesn't call themselves a Slipknot fan. So why do you call yourself a Catholic when you don't really believe in some of the core teachings of the church? It's cafeteria Catholicism

I would like to invite you to a conference that would answer your objections and queries to the Catholic teaching on pro-life issues on the 24th Feb:

http://www.xt3.com/Magazine/Article.asp?ID=1281

Do consider it...

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Andrew

Fair points. i was just trying to get Mr Smith to see the shit he talks.

Noone pays ANY attention to the Vatican's ridiculous points on contraception. If you want catholcism to survive may i suggest you consider that? Even Poland the most devout catholic country in the world has a few issues on that matter. Consider that recent polls indicate most are in favour of relaxing the abortion laws. Cafeteria catholicism in Poland? I dont think so! If i dont use contraception i end up with a few more problems. But please see in the post for the specific things i was refering to for the women i do think this shit sticks to - a point lost on Mr Smith and his 'poignancy'. As indeed for his poignancy - that was partly my point. Poignantly calling a bunch of women whores? Poignantly mocking back street abortions - which are a reality whether you agree with abortion or not, i fail to see the joke. Or suggesting those women above should carry through pregancies when theyve been raped. I hope he managed to squeeze that one out in the confessional and feel better about it. I dont think Christ was ever quite so 'poignant', thankfully. Yours is true catholicism when you cant even stick to the basics?!

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

This is becoming an increasingly strange discussion. You've dodged every last one of Andrew's points above and gone straight back to the direct attack on me. What on earth is wrong with carrying out a proper discussion? What do you hate so much about an open and sensible discussion?

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Oh, also, I doubt Andrew's read the many ATW posts in question. Best to just stick to the points raised here, perhaps.

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Anonymous maggie said...

Fifthly, Why 'most especially as a woman'? This is something you keep coming back to, but I've yet to see a full explanation of how and why. But perhaps I missed an earlier post?

Because as women they bear the brunt of the 'Catholic Roulette' system of birth control...they bear, give birth etc. That's not too difficult for you to understand is it Mr Smith? God I didn't realise we had to deal with Catholic Fundamentalism now as well as the other lot. Why the hell do you think women in the Western World which includes Catholics have an average of 2.5 children?

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

It's called 'NFP', do look it up. Contrary to popular opinion, traditional Catholics don't see women as axlotl tanks. Or if they do, they've kept it very well hidden from me.

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

I always try to remain an observer in arguments. Maybe thats the purpose of debates, to listen to both sides.
I find something mrsmith keeps saying interesting and not the first time I have heard it from a person who calls themself "catholic".
"I wonder if we are from the same faith?"
What faith are you? "catholic?" or "christian?" I looked up the definition of faith.
I think maybe you chose the wrong word to use for comparison. Maggie calls mrsmith a fundamentalist ... thats a word I have already thought out. I like how alison brings the history of the catholic church into her opinion. I don't understand how the word "progressive" is also now being filed under bad. Again I guess its dependant on what you assume it means personally. I would hope to progress to a place of balance and equality, and to not progress would mean stagnant or you would rather go backwards?
My question to mrsmith is - why does it bother you so much alison thinks diffrently and still attaches catholic to herself. I have seen her say she loves the church. Would you like her cast out ? Why? And why stop with her?

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Tu,

Why does it bother me? Well, it's just a little thing I've got about accuracy. I'm sure someone trying to be a decent moslem or observant Jew wouldn't be too happy about someone saying that eating pork is great and that there might be other gods equally valid.

On progression, it's only a good thing if you're going in the right direction. If you're going in the wrong direction, then going backwards would be the best thing to do, no?

 
At Saturday, 17 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

well I think it would depend on where you headed back too and whether it was really better there at all. If the truth is in the begining are we going all the way back to adam and eve? actually I would love to go there! God created man and woman for each other and gave them the world as a gift to share with him. How beautiful. As a catholic have you read any athourized (by the church)yet excluded (from the bible) text? The book of adam and eve is one of my favorites. I would give a link if you like.

well now I have got to study the word accuracy.... and on what target do you focus or aim for? I wouldnt say there are other gods equally valid but I do wonder what God some are worshiping with the things they do and say. I'm glad you now included jews and brought the three together, there is a divison of beliefs in all ... fundamentalist groups in each, they seem to be the ones causing alllll the problems in the world.
I made a post not long ago on that word.... would you like to see?

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Tu,

Yes, please, as many links as you can muster. I'm always looking to learn more.

Proper answer to all this later.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tom Tyler said...

MrSmith, do you really have to keep hounding and antagonising Alison in this way? Give her a break for heaven's sake.
Catholicism is much more than a matter of strict adherance to doctrine; everyone has to make their own journey of faith. And nobody is a perfect Catholic, you neither, nor me for that matter. Alison has just as much right to call herself a Catholic as you or I do. Let's remember St Paul's words: we can have all manner of knowledge, spiritual gifts, prophecies, and understandings, but unless we treat each other with love, all these things are worth nothing. Rather than make a great song and dance about Catholicism's rules and doctrines (and I'm not saying that we should not try our utmost to understand and obey these teachings), let's remember that each person is in a different stage in their understanding, and Christ welcomes us all into a relationship with Him.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Tom,

You can't be serious? What you just said basically boils down to 'Catholicism is much more than a matter of strict adherance to doctrine, so let's stop making a song and dance about doctrine.'

Right, that works....

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tom Tyler said...

St Paul speaks about what really matters in Christianity: (1 Corinthians, Chapter 13):

"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, then I am a nothing but a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith so that I can move mountains, but I do not have love, then I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.

Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never ends. But where there are prophecies, they will be set aside; where there are tongues, they will cease; where there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For now we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then (in the future) we will see (God) face to face. Now I know only in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. In the meantime, these three things remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love".
*****************************
I just thought, there's a nice quote from the Bible, the words of the first influential Christian who had not known Jesus while he was alive, and he really "gets" what Christianity is all about.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tom Tyler said...

Sorry, MrS, you posted your last comment while I was busy writing the above, therefore I didn't see it before I posted the above. Hold on...

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tom Tyler said...

No, MrS, I am not saying "let us forget all about Church doctrine", not at all.
As I hope I have illustrated by quoting Paul, I am merely saying that in these debates, our emphasis and tone must be rooted first in love and charity. That is our first and foremost duty as Christians. In my opinion, your incessant hounding of Alison on a point of doctrine has so far fallen a little short of that ideal, that is all I am suggesting.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Anonymous Andrew said...

As indeed for his poignancy - that was partly my point. Poignantly calling a bunch of women whores? Poignantly mocking back street abortions - which are a reality whether you agree with abortion or not, i fail to see the joke. Or suggesting those women above should carry through pregancies when theyve been raped. I hope he managed to squeeze that one out in the confessional and feel better about it.

Alison

If you could substantiate this accusation, then I could see that your apparent anger is justified. But no where do I see in Mr. Smith's posts as to how he has called a bunch of women "whores" or even mocked backstreet abortions in his 'poigency'.

Secondly, how does the abortion of a foetus in a rape case solve the problems of the woman? Studies done by the BMJ have shown that a victim of rape who goes in for an abortion are 60% more likely to have a misacrriage when they do have a child and 70% more likely to suffer from depression. Yeah - that such a better alternative isn't it? And why exactly should a living foetus pay for the crimes a rappist? If you truly believed in God, you would also believe that God is just and will recompense such victims - be it in this life or the next? I hope you manage to pat yourself on the back, if you ever advised a woman in the aforesaid circumstance to do such a thing - knowing the only persons that are getting hurt are the woman and the baby (literally).

Tom:

The Bible is quite clear that anyone who claims to be a follower of God, must obey the teachings of His church in their entirety:

"And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all." (James 2: 10)

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tom Tyler said...

And that very quote makes you, and I, and every single Christian on the planet guilty of disobeying the whole of the law, Andrew.
Therefore there is not a single true follower of Christ on the whole planet, and we are all going to hell, right? Nonsense. If we were capable in ourselves of obeying the law, of fully meeting God's standard of holiness, then why did Christ have to die for us? That is the whole point.
We receive his unconditional forgiveness, we become aware of our own shortcomings as his Spirit convicts us, and with his help, through prayer and searching, we try and strive to become better images of Christ, as he gradually moulds us into his likeness. It doesn't all take place on day one, but is a lifetime's work. We are all at different stages in our journey. I am at some stage, you are at another, Alison is at another. None of us are anywhere near perfect yet, but each of us is loved, accepted and forgiven by God. And it is our job not to condemn or speak harshly to a fellow Christian whom God has loved and Christ has died for, but to bear with each other and help each other to grow and learn.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

mrsmith,
or anyone really...

here is the link to the book of adam and eve.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe006.htm

I hope you will read over it or at least take a look. Even if you don't execpt it as truth or what ever, it's a very sad yet beautiful story.

 
At Sunday, 18 February, 2007, Anonymous associatecontributor1 said...

Looks like you're not at sixes and sevens about blogging anymore Allie, top notch.

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Andrew you dont half talk nonsense

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous AMDG said...

"church will have to, as Christ taught, be forgiving and non judgmental, condemn sin as David put it once, not sinners."

Actually Christ taught the following

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

"applying the stricter more questionable tenets of your faith because someone said so."

The church has that authority - you can ignore the Word , but the problem won't go away

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous AMDG said...

"but each of us is loved, accepted and forgiven by God. "

Accepted ? God cannot accept sin - and you know it

Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Now , how many "cafeteria christians" do realise they are in need of repentance ?

Look at the whole ECUSA/anglican debate . Are the lukewarms repenting or not ?

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

you can ignore the Word , but the problem won't go away


Indeed. You have a lot more reading/listening to do

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous AMDG said...

"You have a lot more reading/listening to do"

No meaningful reply ? No biblical aruments to support your view ?

Well , I have one biblical reply ready then

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

However , I hope that you'll change you mind ....

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

I hate religion!
One thing all you christians seem to forget is who jesus is talking to at the time, and the scriptures you have given are being used entierly out of context.
Something else that always slips the minds of bible thumpers is, if you are going to start quoteing Jesus, please take the time to know him personally before you speak for him, any one can copy some words down, doesnt make you smart, it just makes you like everyone else. And try to remember jesus was also a rabi who spoke in the temple, and the things he said and did made him the enemy of "that" church.
.... they also used their text/laws against him and his teachings.
oh.... and then they killed him cause he just wouldnt shut up and go along, and others were starting to listen.

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Whats with the biblical reply - you can think for yourself surely. You are basing your replies in the social context of the time.

Besides - I like being a cafeteria catholic - its a large cafeteria and the coffee's good. I accept i may be way off but then again im not *pretending* to be spot on!

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous AMDG said...

"You are basing your replies in the social context of the time. "

The Word cannot expire , unlike earthly things .

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

"I accept i may be way off but then again im not *pretending* to be spot on!"

Well , Jesus warned your kind millenia ago - so we all know the consequences .

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

LOL!

'your kind'

speaks volumes louder than your biblical quotes.

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

I think on that one you are "spot on" allison.
Add another LOL!

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

I notice you've not managed to disprove him.

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

What is this - the biblical quote version of Top Trumps?

 
At Tuesday, 20 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

mrsmith,
maybe you can answer then.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
...........

tell me, what is the will of the father? If they call lord, he must be the master they serve right?
how do you be a servant to the lord?

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Tu,

Christ said:

"mrsmith,
maybe you can answer then.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

Tu says:
"If they call lord, he must be the master they serve right?
how do you be a servant to the lord?"

Hmmmn, your words, vs Christ's words.

I'm sorry, was there a question in there somewhere?

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous amdg said...

"LOL!"

That fits with this quote

Luke 12:19 And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous Andrew said...

Tom - you seem to have the habit of putting words into my mouth. I did not say that everyone who disobeys the laws set down by God is condemned to Hell. Someone that turns to Him in love and humility after a falling, will obviously gain His mercy and grace. But, yes we are all guilty of offending the law - you and me and Alison.

You are right - we shouldn't judge too harshly on those who find it hard to follow the path Christ has ordained for us. But that doesn't mean we can sit there all rosey and fail to do our duty to instruct those who have views contrary to those that the mystical body of Christ (the church) has asked us to hold.

I never said anywhere that people who try and obey the church on everything are to be regarded as perfect. No one is. But there is a difference between trying your hardest to live as a Christian as opposed to someone who has decided that they try and make God conform to their views.

I have invited Alison to a day conference to help her see why the church teaches what it does in the area of sexuality and pro-life issues. I have recieved no response from her but one sentenced shots at me and something on how the coffee tastes "good". So I can reasonably conclude that Alison does not want to consider the other side of the story because she is biast and enjoys the platform of being a "rebel" against a so-called tyrannical church.

Therefore I can only accord the same pity to her, that most people show to 13 year olds wearing Nirvana hoodies and thinking the world is against them

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Andrew

No I am not interested in your conference having attended many in the past, thanks. Curious last paragraph since you accord little interest to those you are discussing at the conference, those 'stats' you ploddingly suggest are open to 'depression' and all sorts of rubbish.

The coffee does taste good thanks Andrew. I dont like Nirvana. I do wear a hoody occasionally. Fortunately I dont have to sulk though because the law is with me on the matter!

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Re so called tyrannical church and rebels. Im not one of the latter. I dont on a day to day basis shove my opinion down someones throat on the issue. In fact i think it is very much down to the individual to decide. The State the Church and myself should keep out. We can be there and offer support but not enforce. The people rebelling are those who are really facing down the mysoginy of an enforcing church - in the the third world and in Europe still...Poland for example. Its not so much the church 'teaching' why it is wrong there, is it.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Curious speed of dismissal of the conference there. I wonder how you're so sure of what it'll be like. Hey, while we're at it, could you tell me the next lot of winning lottery numbers, please? Thanks ever so.

Re Poland and rebellion. I think, looking at it as logically as I'm able, that in claiming to be Catholic but overtly, publically, and happily going against the Catholic Church's teachings, you are rebelling. Even if you're not 'facing down the mysoginy [sic] of an enforcing church' (by which I presume you mean the Church hierarchy?) you're here online 'facing up to' the perceived misogyny of the Church Militant as composed of laypeople and any other Catholics with the temerity to openly disapprove of your abortions-for-all ideas.

(You know, you could do a lot worse than look into the full context and passage around the quotation AMDG provided from Luke 12:19. Just a glance, even.)

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous Andrew said...

Whats the matter Alison? Can't take it that even statistics disprove your warped theory that abortion is a better alternative for women? Would you like some hard evidence then?

Abortion and mental health - "The suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth.... the rate for women following a live birth was 5.9 per 100,000; following miscarriage 18.1; following abortion 34.7." M. Gissler, Abortion/Suicide Link,Br. Med. J., Dec. 6, 1996

Abortion and risk of premature babies - "After one legal abortion, premature births increase by 14%; after two abortions, it is 18%, after three, it increases to 24%." Klinger, "Demographic Consequences of the Legalization of 162 Abortion in Eastern Europe," Internat’l Jour. GYN & OB, vol. 8, Sept. 1971, p. 691

Abortion and risk of infection - Patients with Chlamydia Trachomatous infection of the cervix (13% in this series) who get induced abortion "run a 23% risk of developing PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease)." E. Quigstad et al., British Jour. of Venereal Disease, June 1982, p. 182

What are you going to do now? Dismiss this as "rubbish" as well in another of your emotional outbursts?

Incidentally I've tried finding out your specious accusation that "recent polls" in Poland suggest the majority "favour" the relaxing of abortion laws and I can't find it anywhere. What a suprise! I also find your portrayal of the third world church supposedly "rebelling" against the "mysoginy of an enforcing church" a complete straw man. The problems that unfortunately afflict Africa and other third world areas, are not because there is a lack of access to abortion, contraception and sex education. It is because these cultures are traditionally backward in their approach to combating their problems e.g) sexual promiscuity.

And another thing: just because the law is on your side, is nothing to be proud off. I can't think of a self respecting woman that thinks the state is on their side because they support legalised prostitution.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Nothing Andrew. You?

Useful of you to accuse me of being emotional of course. A veritable mysoginists toolbag you have there. It was Mr Smith who wrote the hysterical posts to which i responded after all. And Im responding to your little jibes pretty reasonably given ive got two fundi nutjobs who think they know it all snapping away at my heels. LOL.

You do seem to have a knack for missing the flaming obvious though as you fall over yourself with your handy 'facts'. Tell me. Would you make it illegal given half the chance?

I dont go preaching at people Mr Smith - thats your bag. You know what they say theres no zealot like the convert.

Oh and youve sidestepped Poland neatly though (thanks for the info on Africa).

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

oh and p.s Andrew

the whole depression and suicide thang. Care to comment on a well known problem called post natal depression and its problems which include suicide? Just giving you a hint that hormones are generally involved in a lot of depression based illnesses. Added to which your report fails to ask whether or not those who continue their pregnancies would suffer further from depression having to face looking after an unwanted child for the rest of their lives. It also doesnt take their circumstances into account. In other words it fails to make any noteworthy factual links.

The authors of the British Medical Journal work who looked at 1,247 women say pre-existing mental health might be a better predictor of depression risk and suicide. It has also shown that women who opted for a termination reported less depression than those who chose to continue and unwanted pregnancy.

Premature babies have been put down to any number of factors.

Anywhere and for any reason the cervix is dilated there exists such risks. I fail to see how this adds to your argument.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Im having to respond to you in seperate emails as im at work and cant spend as long as i would like to.

Going back to Poland Mr Smith.

Would you care to comment on WHY the life of an unborn baby is seen as more valuable than that of the woman in the eyes of the church?

Then explain how this is in some way more civilised than, say, Africa's third world backwards cultures?

'Polish Vice Prime Minister and president of the hard right League of Polish Families (LPR) political party, Roman Giertych, is pushing an extreme constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances including to save a woman’s life. Giertych claims that the introduction of the constitutional protection of unborn life will be a milestone in realizing Pope John Paul II Testament'.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous amdg said...

" But that doesn't mean we can sit there all rosey and fail to do our duty to instruct those who have views contrary to those that the mystical body of Christ (the church) has asked us to hold."

Indeed

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

"It was Mr Smith who wrote the hysterical posts to which i responded after all."

Please prove that I was writing in a hysterical fashion? Especially given the frenzy of bile that you brought into play thereafter.

"I dont go preaching at people Mr Smith - thats your bag."

Oh? How so?

"You know what they say theres no zealot like the convert."

Then we need many more converts. Ever thought about becoming a Christian?

"Oh and youve sidestepped Poland neatly though (thanks for the info on Africa)."

Wtf? Africa? I know I commented on Poland.

"Added to which your report fails to ask whether or not those who continue their pregnancies would suffer further from depression having to face looking after an unwanted child for the rest of their lives."

Bearing in mind that we're talking about lifestyle abortions here primarily, 1 - it's a bit silly to ask 'what would-have-been' in any instance, let alone here; and 2 - 'unwanted' children just means that the would-have-been mothers have bad attitudes. Let's not get into running things off irresponsible attitudes, shall we?

"Going back to Poland Mr Smith."

When did we leave?

"Would you care to comment on WHY the life of an unborn baby is seen as more valuable than that of the woman in the eyes of the church?"

I think perhaps that's a textbook example of begging the question. Regardless, if we allow that to go unchallenged, an answer could possibly run along the lines: 'Because the mother-to-be wants to murder her child and thus is perhaps more guilty of sin than the innocent child?'

"Then explain how this is in some way more civilised than, say, Africa's third world backwards cultures?"

Please explain how the two are in the slightest comparable.

"'Polish Vice Prime Minister and president of the hard right League of Polish Families (LPR) political party, Roman Giertych, is pushing an extreme constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances including to save a woman’s life. Giertych claims that the introduction of the constitutional protection of unborn life will be a milestone in realizing Pope John Paul II Testament'."

Good to see some people actually believe things still.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

OH! I see now! You were responding to me about Andrew's comments about Africa.

I thought you liberal atheists were supposed to pride yourselves on your powers of logic and reason?

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

Your convoluted waffle above Mr Smith sort of got cancelled out by this bit* (regards the value of women in your not so humble opinion). It also undermines your point about 'lifestyle' abortions which we were 'apparently' talking about (convenient for you, i know)

'**Good to see some people actually believe things still'.

Mysoginist twaddle and a sound reason to question your judgment in these matters and that of the Church. Interesting you then question my logic and reason over something far simpler to forgive. (But sad though)

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

"Your convoluted waffle above Mr Smith sort of got cancelled out by this bit* (regards the value of women in your not so humble opinion). It also undermines your point about 'lifestyle' abortions which we were 'apparently' talking about (convenient for you, i know)

'**Good to see some people actually believe things still'.

Mysoginist twaddle and a sound reason to question your judgment in these matters and that of the Church."

You'll excuse me for pointing out that I didn't agree with them. I'm still mulling that one over. All I said was that it's good to see that they've the strength of their convictions. So many these days call themselves Christian but don't really have the strength of faith to back it up. That's all I said. Do remember to read what's actually on the screen.

"Interesting you then question my logic and reason over something far simpler to forgive. (But sad though)"

Did I? What was that, then? And at what point did we stray from talking about the whole point of this argument, which was the lifestyle abortions you favour so?

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

Added to which, 'misogynist' requires hatred or disapproval of women in general. You're just using it to hype up the emotional content here. Some might call that a hysterical tactic.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous amdg said...

"a sound reason to question your judgment in these matters and that of the Church."

Let's quote from God's Word ( again ) in order to know God's Will

Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

The church has the authority to evaluate you - you , on the other hand , are powerless in this regard .

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

No its not really Mr Smith its what i actually believe you are. You admire strength of conviction. And you believe in expressing it yourself. You set the tone Mr Smith.

'All I said was that it's good to see that they've the strength of their convictions. So many these days call themselves Christian but don't really have the strength of faith to back it up. That's all I said'.

OK. So but the bit i copied in was specifically about NOT saving the life of a woman through abortion in such cases that require this - i used that specific example because it is an extreme and requires absolute faith and conviction of such - so do you or dont you believe that this is right or wrong as they see it - and in accordance with the Pope and the catholic faith as they indeed point to?

Right or wrong? Please dont dress this up with bible or 'as God wishes' or anything else the church does to distinguish itself as kind. Simply - is that right or wrong? Because it is very much this sort of example i question in my faith.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

So anyone who admires strength of conviction is de facto a misogynist? I think you may want to work on that definition a little further.

Re your quote from that paper (or whatever uncited source you got it from), please do take a moment to acknowledge that I've never used Scripture or 'God's wishes' in an argument or discussion with you.

Once we've settled that, you can have your answer.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

No. I didnt say that. I said it is what i believe you are. Just as you believe some women to be whores etc. You may want to work on that a bit also?

& I didnt say you had re scripture...i said pls dont.

 
At Wednesday, 21 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

"& I didnt say you had re scripture...i said pls dont."

LOL. That point was well put by! Nice.

But please, really, I didn't say any women are whores. Come on, let's be sensible, I raised the question of if the people concerned are a pack of 'Drunkards, Whores, and Murderers?' and then used the word whorish, not 'whores' to describe certain behaviours. That's not semantics, that's a distinct difference in definition.

Something to work on?



Now, since you've answered me on my non-use of scripture, your answer (I do try to keep my deals).

I believe it may in some cases be a necessary evil to abort the unborn child to save the mother's life. However, I would remind you that I'm still in the process of converting to the Church, and should I learn that the Church teaches otherwise, I will have to re-evaluate my stance.

 
At Thursday, 22 February, 2007, Blogger Tu s. Tin said...

gheeesssh...

 
At Thursday, 22 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

'Something to work on?'. For you, yes. I dont think your mythical aborting whores were in there because you wanted to pose a thoughtful question.

'lets be sensible' eh? OK then. Include sense and Reason when considering the above question i put to you.

 
At Thursday, 22 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

"'Something to work on?'. For you, yes. I dont think your mythical aborting whores were in there because you wanted to pose a thoughtful question."

I wanted to provoke a thoughtful debate. Much the same thing. And you're still denying the plain fact that I didn't call anybody a whore.

"'lets be sensible' eh? OK then. Include sense and Reason when considering the above question i put to you."

In what way did I exclude sense and reason?

 
At Thursday, 22 February, 2007, Anonymous observer said...

alison - thoughtful heartfelt honest (interesting) post. really good.

 
At Sunday, 25 February, 2007, Anonymous alison said...

You still dont get it do you Mr Smith. Ive posted something new that might help. As a christian ive made it my duty to TRY to help you, lol.

 
At Sunday, 25 February, 2007, Blogger MrSmith said...

You've posted many new things, Alison. Of varying degrees of usefulness. Fancy being a little more specific?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home