I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

I can only speak for myself here, but I agree that God should be the only one judging and giving forgiveness. I'm not Catholic, so I don't go to confession and get penance. I ask forgiveness directly to God, through the name of Jesus Christ, and have the Lord decide on my forgiveness (which I believe I do have through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for my sins). I personally (in my own very humble opinion) don't believe in confessing my sins to a priest and having him judge my actions and give me penance. I go straight to God.

I didn't mean anything bad if you weren't catholic, I was just making a general statement because I was raised strict catholic and that's kinda what was implied about the confession/penance thing. It's sad that there are better catholics out there that don't run to confession and mass all the time than the ones that do...

Maybe I'm having a slow day. I don't understand what you are saying:phanvan

The Bible did not drop down from heaven, bound in leather and printed in the King James version, with Christ's words in red ink. The Bible was a work in progress for hundreds of years - a work of scholarly monks and priests, all of whom were "Christians", which in their time meant Catholic or Orthodox, depending on where they lived.

In 1611 the King James Bible was first published, in response to the Protestant movement, which sought to make it more appealing to the masses by translating it into local vernacular. In the process, a number of books from the "old" (Catholic) Bible were discarded.

My good, staunch, and otherwise intelligent Southern Baptist friends prefer to believe that the King James version of the Bible carries God's personal seal of approval. Even though there is no discernible or historical reason for them to believe so, other than the notion that the men who translated it were "inspired by God" - something that not even those involved in the process dared to claim.

There are many, many ancient texts and scrolls that were never formally included in any version of the Bible. That does not make them less valuable. From a historical standpoint alone, they are invaluable. From a religious perspective they are both inspirational and fascinating.

No, thank God....

Sorry if I gave anyone the wrong impression. I am not a Baptist. I am Catholic.

My only reference to Baptists was that I live in an area where Southern Baptists outnumber just about everyone else and I have a lot of Baptist friends.

What is that supposed to mean? Someone's forgotten the Golden Rule. I know you are a Catholic and I already stated I am a Baptist, but you were quoting stuff to me like you were. :rolleyes

I didn't mean anything bad if you weren't catholic, I was just making a general statement because I was raised strict catholic and that's kinda what was implied about the confession/penance thing. It's sad that there are better catholics out there that don't run to confession and mass all the time than the ones that do...

Oh I know! No worries!

You forgot to include a reference to the Scripture which supports your statement. Matthew and Luke both define the unpardonable sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and specifically say that blasphemy against the Son of Man (Jesus) is pardonable.

Billy Graham is NOT a Biblical source, much as I hate to be the one to tell you.

I'm referring to the Scripture references above. I just happen to agree with Billy Graham's interpretation of them, that's all!

But I should expand on it a bit since blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is also a refusal to accept the witness of the Holy Spirit to who Jesus was and what He had come to do, and then submit their lives to Him. When Jesus came down to earth, he was rejected by his people. Instead of accepting that his miracles were acts of the Holy Spirit, they claimed Jesus was demon possessed and attributed the power of the Holy Spirit to Satan! They committed the unpardonable sin.

A believer can't commit the unpardonable sin. Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT referring to Christians or Messianic Jews who simply have doubts. A believer can have doubts and still be saved. It's a very deliberate act to CHOOSE to ignore the witness of the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus Christ. If you have heard about Jesus (which all of us here have) and CHOOSE to reject him, then there is a definite concern (to say the least!). It's a deliberate and ongoing choice to reject Jesus, and even God Himself, and attribute his power (i.e. miracles) to someone or something else. It's a definite hardening of the heart towards God and just can't be done by "accident".

Also I will share with everyone what my study Bible says about Matthew 31-32 (an interpretation that I also agree with):

The Pharisees had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by attributing power by which Christ did miracles to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin is the deliberate refusal to acknowledge God's power in Christ. It indicates a deliberate and irreversible hardness of the heart. Sometimes believers worry that they have accidentally committed this unforgivable sin. But only those who have turned their backs on God and rejected all faith have any need to worry. Jesus said that they can't be forgiven--not because their sin is worse than any other, but because they will never ask for forgiveness. Whoever rejects the prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself or herself from the only force that can lead him or her to repentance and restoration by God.

So, Pam, that definition of who cannot be pardoned would cover most of the world's population, right?

A few of you have said that there are either no exceptions when it comes to abortion or that it should only be allowed in cases of rape and incest.

To the folks who say that it should be allowed only in rape and incest cases: Who decides what is rape or what is incest? Are all types of rape covered, or is it just in cases where there was a conviction? Should the women who claim they were raped have the same access to an abortion as the women who were raped and the rapist is in prison? Not all rapes are reported. What happens if a woman who didn't report her rape got pregnant and wanted an abortion. How would you validify her claim? What about the women who agreed to have sex and then said no, or the women who were unable to say no because they were too drunk? The same holds for incest cases. Do you allow abortions only when incest has been proven or also when it is claimed? You see, allowing only some exceptions can become a slippery slope. You wind up either forcing some rape victims to bear their rapists' children or aborting the children of women who say they were raped or victims of incest just to get access to an abortion. A law that does this would never hold up in court, because it forces an undue hardship on the victim to prove that they were raped or a victim of incest.

To those of you who say there should be no exceptions at all: You become a rapist yourself. I would imagine that if you asked a woman that was brutally raped how she would feel if she had to bear her rapist's child and feel it moving inside her, she would probably say that she would feel like she was being raped all over again. I know I would. You would turn women into nothing more than brood mares. If a husband wanted children but his wife didn't, all he would have to do is rape her or sabotage their birth control. She would have no other option than to have his child. Saying, "Well, she should have been sterilized if she didn't want children," doesn't cut it. There are very few reputable doctors out there that willingly sterilize a young woman who has never had children. Taking this stance makes you complicit in rape and incest, IMO. Whether or not you believe you are preventing murder, you would be forcing a woman to bear a child, literally transforming her into a brood mare. Do you really think Christ would approve?

Laurend's comments are important, I think, and this is why I have reproduced her quote in full above. I, too, believe that to force a woman to have children that she does not want is to reduce her to second class status. She is only one step above wearing the niqab for the message is the same: you must abstain (unlike a man) from enjoying the sexual side of your nature.

As for the Bible, I went to my favourite site and found the following information. As I have commented before, this collection of documents that we call the Bible is a complicated and often contradictory land in which to roam.

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays that the people of Ephraim will be barren. God hears his prayer and causes these women to miscarry.

Numbers 5:11-21 contains a brutal description of an induced abortion technique to be performed on a wife suspected of adultery.

Numbers 31:17 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him." (One might assume that some of these women were pregnant, eh.)

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to death the infants of Samaria and "their women with child shall be ripped up."

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be "ripped open."

As for Jesus, He criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament Law: see Mark 7:9 and Matthew 15: 4-7.

What is that supposed to mean? Someone's forgotten the Golden Rule. I know you are a Catholic and I already stated I am a Baptist, but you were quoting stuff to me like you were. :rolleyes

Please refer me to the post where I "quot[ed] stuff" to you that indicated I was a Baptist?

And in addition, just to clarify the record, I wrote a separate post that said I apologize for any confusion; I am not a Baptist.

How much clearer can I possibly get?

Is there anyone on this board who thinks I am a Baptist? Or that I have misrepresented myself as a Baptist? Or who believes I might be masquerading as a Baptist for some evil and subversive reason?

Please refer me to the post where I "quot[ed] stuff" to you that indicated I was a Baptist?

And in addition, just to clarify the record, I wrote a separate post that said I apologize for any confusion; I am not a Baptist.

How much clearer can I possibly get?

Carlene grew up eating tuna sanwiches leaking from the wax paper wrapper in her lunch pail...NOT a Baptist. Oh, wait...that was me.

I read here somewhere that she has Baptist friends! Maybe that's where the confusinon lies.

Whoever rejects the prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself or herself from the only force that can lead him or her to repentance and restoration by God.

Sorry, but I take exception to that. I have attended church regularly my entire life. I have given my time, my talent, and my money. I have read the Bible many times over, taught CCD (religious ed for Catholic children), lectured, served communion, visited shut-ins and prayed my little heart out - on my knees, I might add.

I was instrumental in starting a grassroots, multi-denominational ministry in Tarrant County, a ministry which is still in operation after 23 years.

But I have never felt "prompted" by the Holy Spirit. I have never been "saved". But according to Billy Graham I'm not going to heaven! Amazing! I did not realize Rev. Graham had such lofty connections.

So, Pam, that definition of who cannot be pardoned would cover most of the world's population, right?

That's not up to me to determine, Sue. Only God can determine salvation. One thing I can answer though, is the question that many people have about all the people across the world that have never heard of Jesus...for example, people who grew up in countries with different religious beliefs and were never taught about Jesus, people in countries where all religious practices are banned, bushmen in the remote jungles of Africa, etc. Anyone reading this thread, for example, has definitely heard about Jesus but many people across the world have never even heard of of him. Their level of accountability will be much different than ours.

In Romans 2:14-16, it says:

"For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

What this means is that everyone has been given a conscience by God, and a sense of right and wrong has been "written in their heart". If the people who have never heard of Jesus follows their conscience and does not reject the law that God has given them in their hearts, they will be saved as well. It is the people who HAVE heard about Jesus, but still reject him that have something to worry about...certainly NOT those who have never heard of Jesus.

I hope that makes sense...

Sorry, but I take exception to that. I have attended church regularly my entire life. I have given my time, my talent, and my money. I have read the Bible many times over, taught CCD (religious ed for Catholic children), lectured, served communion, visited shut-ins and prayed my little heart out - on my knees, I might add.

I was instrumental in starting a grassroots, multi-denominational ministry in Tarrant County, a ministry which is still in operation after 23 years.

But I have never felt "prompted" by the Holy Spirit. I have never been "saved". But according to Billy Graham I'm not going to heaven! Amazing! I did not realize Rev. Graham had such lofty connections.

Carlene, you believe in Christ, right? Then you ARE saved. You don't have to FEEL the Holy Spirit at work in your life, for the Holy Spirit to be with you. Perhaps you didn't need to be "prompted" because you searched for the Truth on your own or you grew up in that environment and it never dawned on you to fall away from it. Plus prompting to me just means that little feeling that you probably should learn more about Christ (but that's just my own opinion, who knows!). Prompting, to me, also means when we witness to others about the Gospel because the Holy Spirit works through us when we do that to reach others. From what you just said, it sure sounds like you've been saved to me! Plus it's rare when you FEEL the moment of salvation anyway. You just ARE saved once you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and try to follow his teachings.

Oh and that comment you quoted was NOT made by Billy Graham. Those were the footnotes in my study Bible regarding that Scripture. See, this is what I wrote:

Also I will share with everyone what my study Bible says about Matthew 31-32 (an interpretation that I also agree with):

The Pharisees had blasphemed against the Holy Spirit by attributing power by which Christ did miracles to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit. The unpardonable sin is the deliberate refusal to acknowledge God's power in Christ. It indicates a deliberate and irreversible hardness of the heart. Sometimes believers worry that they have accidentally committed this unforgivable sin. But only those who have turned their backs on God and rejected all faith have any need to worry. Jesus said that they can't be forgiven--not because their sin is worse than any other, but because they will never ask for forgiveness. Whoever rejects the prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself or herself from the only force that can lead him or her to repentance and restoration by God.

You are just fine...and saved (well, okay...only God can determine that, but it sure sounds that way to me!).

Please refer me to the post where I "quot[ed] stuff" to you that indicated I was a Baptist?

And in addition, just to clarify the record, I wrote a separate post that said I apologize for any confusion; I am not a Baptist.

How much clearer can I possibly get?

Is there anyone on this board who thinks I am a Baptist? Or that I have misrepresented myself as a Baptist? Or who believes I might be masquerading as a Baptist for some evil and subversive reason?

First off, I never said that you said you were a Baptist. To break it down, I basically saying that you were bringing back some 2nd hand information. I know your not a Baptist, never said you were!! You are trying to tell me what we believe from what you hear from your Southern Baptist friends. I was trying to figure out the last time why you said you weren't a Baptist.

And it is coming across like you are picking on us. When you come from a religion that gets soo much grief, why would you then turnaround and take trash about someone else's religion. I have never understood this. I have had to call my friend on that who's a Jehovah Witness more than a few times. I haven't said one negative thing about your being a Catholic.

What's the point?

Oh, and lastly in the last post I guess I wasn't clear there either. If you go back and see my "what do you mean?" was directly towards the way you phrased your words. It sounds really mean. Like you were going for hurt or something.

I can't think of many places Christian missionaries haven't ventured forth...and yet, five out every six people on this planet are NOT Christians. (Give or take a million or so in either direction.)

If we assume that a billion people have not yet received the word, that still leaves four billion people who are NOT going to make the team. It amazes me that a billion people (give or take) are so self-righteous in their belief that FOUR billion others have simply got it all wrong.

If they are right...it's probably a party I'd rather not attend anyway. If they are wrong because their interpretation was wrong, I wonder how severely they'll be judged...relative to how they judge others. If they're wrong because all there REALLY is, is a guy behind a curtain, then it will all have been much ado about nothing.

I wonder how so many people--especially the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, because to me, there IS no major difference--can so truly believe in things for which there is not now (nor has there ever been) a shred of proof to be had...but if that's what gets them through the cold winter nights.

I can't think of many places Christian missionaries haven't ventured forth...and yet, five out every six people on this planet are NOT Christians. (Give or take a million or so in either direction.)

Well Sue, that actually DOES go along with what the Bible says...

In Matthew 7:13-14, it says:

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

If they are right...it's probably a party I'd rather not attend anyway. If they are wrong because their interpretation was wrong, I wonder how severely they'll be judged...relative to how they judge others. If they're wrong because all there REALLY is, is a guy behind a curtain, then it will all have been much ado about nothing.

If I am wrong, then at least I lived a good, moral life (not saying you haven't!). I haven't judged anyone, I've simply given Scripture references on questions that were asked of us. It sure does seem that you are judging me and other Christians though, but that's between you and God I suppose. The worst that can happen is that I'm wrong and there is no God and we simply cease to exist after we die.

But what if YOU are wrong Sue? What's the worst that can happen to you? (I say that out of great concern only :cry ).

I wonder how so many people--especially the fundamentalist Christians and Muslims, because to me, there IS no major difference--can so truly believe in things for which there is not now (nor has there ever been) a shred of proof to be had...but if that's what gets them through the cold winter nights.

There are so many things inaccurate with that statement that I don't even know where to start....

I guess the bottom line is, we both have the right to make whatever decision we want to regading our personal religious beliefs. I have made my choice, and you have made yours. Not much else to say... *shrug*