gadgetlady

When I was spanked, I absolutely, unequivocally deserved it. I also knew and know that my parents absolutely, unequivocally love me unconditionally. As an aside, my father (who was the one who did the spanking in my family) was whipped with a belt when he was a child, among other things that I would call physical and mental abuse. He never carried any of that into our family.

I've heard tell from people in the industry that Dr. Phil is one of the ugliest, nastiest, angriest people (off-camera) around. "Physician", heal thyself!

There are often no easy solutions when an unplanned pregnancy happens, but it always amazes me when people say it is easier and better for a mother to brutally kill her child rather than undertake the difficult but wholly unselfish act of giving her child life and placing that child for adoption. It is equally amazing to me that people believe it acceptable to surgically dismember a child at any time prior to natural birth, but it is not acceptable to discipline that child through spanking. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse.

Human beings don't have two separate sets of DNA and they don't have two brains. There's no other way to interpret it. The place of residence is inconsequential to the baby's humanness. No, it has a separate circulatory system -- which is why there are sometimes medical issues when a mother has a different blood type from the baby. It's your choice to keep answering.

I never said we agree. You said: I said: In other words, you ascribed to me the sentiment that women should not have the right to choose what happens to them or their babies. I said you are partly correct about what beliefs you ascribe to me: I believe women should have the absolute right to choose what happens to themselves, except for when that right interferes with the life of another human being. The baby is not your body. Unless, when pregnant, a mother has two brains, two hearts, four arms, for legs, and two sets of reproductive organs (one of which, approximately 50% of the time, is male).

Interesting -- you won't debate because BandedMom is a Christian, or you perceive her to be one? And yet she posted a link to a pro-life, feminist, athiest webpage. Hmmmm.

You are almost correct. I do believe women have the right to choose what happens to themselves, so long as that "choice" does not involve another human life. I do not believe a mother has a right to kill her child, regardless of physical location of that child.

Why is the accuate description of a medical procedure propaganda? Do you consider the factual discussion of what happens in a lap band surgery propaganda? Probably not -- because it doesn't involve the dismemberment of another human being and therefore doesn't offend your sensibilities or lead people to a better understanding of exactly what this "choice" is.

Nothing BandedMomX6 said was biased or could be considered propaganda. It was all factual. You may consider it inconsequential -- or you may not WANT to see it at all -- but it's the truth.

What about it is scary? Have you read Ezzo or Dobson, or just read what critics say about Ezzo or Dobson?

No, it isn't "taken" to be disrespect; you stated that you had disrespect. Specifically, you said There is a big difference in the fact that roughly 1/3 of the world's population consider themselves Christian. I understand that you still believe their beliefs are "utterly ridiculous", but certainly you must concede that all 2.2 billion of these don't all have "a fault in their logical reasoning ability". If you truly believe they do, I doubt you have sincerely studied Christianity. (Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying if you study it you will of course become a believer. I'm simply saying it's a legitimate discipline that has survived over thousands of years despite critics who have posed the same questions as have you.)

I think this is precisely the anti-Christian sentiment that Gloucester was trying to pinpoint earlier. I don't disrespect you because you don't believe in God or a god or gods. I don't agree with you, but I certainly don't tell you you're an idiot or have no logical reasoning ability . . . Interestingly, I actually see this debate as having cooled down of late, rather than being heated. However, accusing people of having "a fault in their logical reasoning ability" isn't an altogether terrific way of proving -- or even stating -- your point.

Thank you, willbefine. I appreciate it. I knew what I was getting myself into by posting (some in this group are fairly predictable) it but I needed to say it because I believe there might be someone out there on whom it will have a profound impact -- either now or in the future.

I never said Anthony Flew became a Christian. I know he did not. He went from atheist to theist, becoming convinced that the world around us had to have a designer. I did discuss this in a previous post as well. Specifically, what I said tonight was (emphasis added): Anthony Flew did indeed change his opinion about the existence of a deity. He is not a Christian, and I never claimed he was.

I wasn't a Christian . . . until I grew up.:thumbup:

As I said, . Nevertheless, I'm sorry you felt my statement an insult, worthy of loss of credibility, worthy of my being blocked, etc. Those are the decisions you choose to make and are wholly up to you. I stand behind my statement and will continue to do so. And if you wrote that you would welcome me into atheism with open arms, I certainly wouldn't denigrate you or block you. I would accept them as the feelings of a person who truly believes what she believes. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't condemn you for your beliefs, challenge your credibility, or deem you not worthy of respect.

I really feel God has laid it on my heart to let the atheists posting here know that He loves you very much and will welcome you with open arms at any point in your lives. I know by saying this right now, it is likely that none of you is interested, and you even think me foolish, but I need to put it out there in case at any time in your lives you have a change of heart. There is nothing God wants more than to have a relationship with you and have you in His family and there is nothing you have done or could do that He won't forgive. Again, I say this knowing I am opening myself up to ridicule, but also knowing that there are many famous (and not-so-famous) former atheists (like Anthony Flew mentioned above) who have changed their opinions about the existence of a deity or of God Himself. So I know change is possible, even if not right now, at this point in your lives or at this point in this thread :tongue2:. You are loved more than you could possibly know.

You're not wrong, but it isn't well enforced, especially in R&R. The response I have heard in the past from moderators is "well, you're in R&R, what do you expect?"

For that matter, some animals eat their young. What about that cries "survival of the group"? Embryonic sand tiger sharks eat their siblings in utero. Not so "survival of the group" there either.

Hitler practiced mysticism. He was not a Christian.

The question was answered . . . But not by you . . .

:thumbup: Thanks for the belly laugh. That's what I've generally been hearing from most women -- that it was one of the best things they ever did. Keep the comments coming, ladies! I want to hear the good, bad, and the ugly too!

That's what I want to hear :thumbup: Anyone else want to chime in on an "anonymous" board about this personal issue?

It's really not as complicated as you make it out to be. The Hebrew word for circle and sphere were interchangeable; the word for "circle" can also mean "sphere". Here's a great article on the question of whether the Bible should be taken literally: Stand to Reason: Do You Take the Bible Literally? I hope you read it all. It's extremely well written and answers a lot of your questions as posed above. Here's an excerpt: When someone asks, Do you take the Bible literally?, I respond by saying that I try to take the Bible with the precision I think the writer intended. If we back up one step first, here’s how you can lay the groundwork for this answer. If they ask me if I take the Bible literally, I would say that I think that’s the wrong question. The question itself creates some confusion. For example, what if I asked you if you read the sports page literally? You would pause, wouldn’t you, because there is a sense in which you read the sports page in a straightforward way. You read it with the understanding that the writer is trying to communicate something to you in a clear fashion, and the means he uses to express himself is meant to give you a solid grasp on the details about which he speaks - say which team was victorious in a game. You get an idea of what took place. You don’t think when you open the sports page, Gee, should I read this literally or not? You just read it and it’s the language itself that the writer uses and the conventions that are presumed by all readers that allow the process of communication to take place. You’re not scratching your head and thinking, Gee when he said “the Angels devoured the St. Louis Cardinals,” was this cannibalism? Am I supposed to take that literally or not? The point is that language works a certain way and in everyday communication we understand that and never think twice about this process - until we come to the Bible. Then topics comes up that some may be disinclined to believe for whatever reason. Maybe it’s for philosophical reasons, such as a presuppositional bias against miracles. The objection may be theological or personal. In other words, there may be reasons people have that incline them to dismiss the plain sense of the Bible, the sense that we would use to read any other kind of document. But people don’t want to dismiss Jesus entirely so they find ways to understand the passages they don’t like that treats the words differently than they do in everyday use. . . . It’s the wrong question. It’s like asking if you take the sports page literally. Well, you take it in a straightforward way in the literal sense the writer meant them, but you don’t take each of the words literally in a wooden kind of way that ignores all the conventions of language we constantly use to understand each other. Think about the language sportswriters use to describe victory, for example: devoured, crushed, mangled, mutilated, stomped, pounded. You don’t take those literally. You realize that those words are figures of speech meant to communicate something that literally happened in reality. We don’t dismiss the accuracy of the writer because we think he literally means these figures of speech. Every day, we take the writing with the kind of precision it seems that the author intended and we get an accurate sense of what the writer meant to communicate. That’s not a problem when it comes to the sports page, but it does raise problems for some people when it comes to the Bible because they don’t want to accept what the author seems to be telling them.

I should clarify -- regardless of their age, I would say no to SAW. And Schindler's List and Passion of Christ would depend on their sensitivity level. They're a no for me and I'm 41.