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.

My local paper this AM announced the indictment of a man who had beat and kicked his pregnant girlfriend so viciously, the placenta was torn loose and the baby died. She was 5 months pregnant. The grand jury has charged the man with child abuse with bodily harm. Originally he was charged with homicide, but the grand jury agreed to the lesser charge because they did not believe he intended to kill the child, which was his biological daughter.

This is an interesting case for several reasons. First, it legally defines a 20 week fetus as a "child", with standing and rights under the law. Secondly, it raises the question: did the grand jury do the right thing? Should this man have walked free, or been charged only with the misdemeanor offense of assault, simply because his victim was, as yet, unborn?

This is quite different from abortion, as the mother did not choose to have her pregnancy terminated. What's your opinion?

I think that the foetus is the mother's property while still in utero, that is until the child can survive outside the womb: this seems to happen when the foetus is around 6.5 or 7 months old thanks to medical technology.

As it was the intent of this woman to have the child her abusive mate did in fact kill her infant by his brutal actions. I would have charged him with manslaughter for this reason. I think that the dude deserves to have the book thrown at him.

Re my spelling of foetus, I am Canadian and have been raised on the British way of spelling things. This is been ground into me and is kinda outa my control. Apologies in advance from Green.

"The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras".

Pam, try to look at things from a wider angle. I am trying to explain that basic themes, ideas, and stories were borrowed from earlier religions, not that point-by-point every detail was identical.

So Mithra may have been born out of rock indeed, but that does not negate the fact that at some point, an Immaculate Virgin Mother was connected to his birth. Seleucid was a Goddess and she was eternally immaculate whether or not she had sexual encounters, but it's the theme and the terminology that I'm interested in. Religions during that time grew and changed over time and regions. As stories were handed down orally, they spread from one locale to another and morphed as time went by. The fact remains that Mithra was tied to his Immaculate Virgin Mother by 200 BC.

When you compare the themes and ideas in both of the stories, there is just no way you can deny the extreme similarities between them.

Don't you think that early church founders could have borrowed heavily from alot of Mithraism (and other religions)? I just don't understand how learned people like yourself do not question the story of Jesus when you know the extreme similarities between Jesus and other, much earlier Gods. You also know that Christmas is based on a Pagan festival. Do you think other things, like Jesus' characteristics could also be based on the Pagan gods? Or just Christmas. You think that's the only thing that was copied from Paganism? Really?

You also know that Christmas is based on a Pagan festival. Do you think other things, like Jesus' characteristics could also be based on the Pagan gods? Or just Christmas. You think that's the only thing that was copied from Paganism? Really?

Christmas is not "based on" a Pagan festival. The early Church, in a PR move designed to lure the masses away from Pagan festivals taking place around the same time, simply said, "We are going to celebrate Christ's Mass (Christmas) on Dec 25th to commemorate the birth of Jesus. Come join us instead of going to that Pagan winter solstice festival."

Queen Elizabeth II was born on April 21st. The weather in Great Britain is notoriously nasty in April, so the queen's "official" birthday is celebrated on the third Saturday of June. It's pretty much the same thing.

"The largest temple with a Mithraic connection is the Seleucid temple at Kangavar in western Iran (c. 200 BC), which is dedicated to "Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras".

Pam, try to look at things from a wider angle. I am trying to explain that basic themes, ideas, and stories were borrowed from earlier religions, not that point-by-point every detail was identical.

So Mithra may have been born out of rock indeed, but that does not negate the fact that at some point, an Immaculate Virgin Mother was connected to his birth. Seleucid was a Goddess and she was eternally immaculate whether or not she had sexual encounters, but it's the theme and the terminology that I'm interested in. Religions during that time grew and changed over time and regions. As stories were handed down orally, they spread from one locale to another and morphed as time went by. The fact remains that Mithra was tied to his Immaculate Virgin Mother by 200 BC.

When you compare the themes and ideas in both of the stories, there is just no way you can deny the extreme similarities between them.

Don't you think that early church founders could have borrowed heavily from alot of Mithraism (and other religions)? I just don't understand how learned people like yourself do not question the story of Jesus when you know the extreme similarities between Jesus and other, much earlier Gods. You also know that Christmas is based on a Pagan festival. Do you think other things, like Jesus' characteristics could also be based on the Pagan gods? Or just Christmas. You think that's the only thing that was copied from Paganism? Really?

Oh I hate when that happens! I had my reply half done and my computer froze! :girl_hug:

Okay...short version...just to give you some background information: We are now talking about another Mithra cult, than we've previously been discussing. All along, we've been talking about the Roman Mithra followers that had their height of popularity around Jesus' time. The Mirtha myth we are speaking about now comes from the Iranian beliefs. Their beliefs are extremely different from each other. That's not actually important to know necessarily, I'm just letting you know since it's so easy to mix them up. Aside from the name of the "god" they worshiped (well technically the Roman god is Mithras and the Iranian god is Mithra), they had almost nothing in common.

Okay, so now to the Iranian Mithra beliefs. Well you said it yourself, she wasn't a Virgin. She was considered eternally immaculte but wasn't an actual virgin in the sense that Mary, Jesus' mother, was. But I do understand what you are saying about similar "themes" though, and I understand you being confused as to why I accept Jesus' story as fact but dismiss any similar Pagan beliefs as simply a myth.

What I'll do then, is tell you MY story. It's a long one though, so I will tell you after Christmas when I have more time since I still have Christmas presents to wrap and it's almost Christmas Eve! Perhaps after reading it, you will understand why I chose to believe.

I hate it when my computer freezes too. Have a happy holiday everyone.

Christmas is not "based on" a Pagan festival.

Then why are the festivals very similar? (Festival of lights, gift giving, the evergreen trees, etc.)

Okay...short version...just to give you some background information: We are now talking about another Mithra cult, than we've previously been discussing. All along, we've been talking about the Roman Mithra followers that had their height of popularity around Jesus' time. The Mirtha myth we are speaking about now comes from the Iranian beliefs. Their beliefs are extremely different from each other. That's not actually important to know necessarily, I'm just letting you know since it's so easy to mix them up. Aside from the name of the "god" they worshiped (well technically the Roman god is Mithras and the Iranian god is Mithra), they had almost nothing in common.

Yes, I'm aware that in different regions and at different time periods the name and the stories morphed and changed over time. The origin of the Roman Mithra is the Persian God Mithras. The very point I am trying to make is that religions throughout history have borrowed, copied, downright stolen, themes, ideas, stories, even names, from other religions. It is very clear to see is it not?

One can review history and see the extreme similarities in certain aspects of religions. Surely you don't think the names "Mithra" and "Mithras" were a concidence, independently named by totally different peoples who never heard anything about other religions?

Sorry again to go back to this simplistic example, but it holds alot of signifigance in this argument. Whisper down the lane. Ever played it? I'm not trying to be flippant, but before the age of television and newspapers, people relied on oral storytelling. Surely you can see how stories and Gods, God's names, etc., could logically be brought over from other regions, passed down generations, and morph and change over time. One just cannot argue that the themes and ideas are identical in some cases, as well as names, dates, details of stories, and phraseology.

Let's review the things we agree on:

Mithras was born of an "Immaculate Virgin Mother"

Mithras and Mithra's names are almost identical

Mithra was a mediator between God and Man

Now, here are some things you might not agree with, but in the interpretation of most experts there are many similarities between the beliefs of Mithraists and the beliefs of Christians including:

The use of baptism

The partaking of bread and wine in rememberance of the final days of Mithra

Mithra had 12 companions

The believe in the soul, and heaven and hell

The belief in a last judgement

The belief in the resurrection of the dead

Mithra's resurrection was celebrated every year

Mithra was known as the lamb, the shepard, and the Messiah

I'm sure there are more but my memory is foggy. I'll have to read up on him again.

Now, is it possible to explain away all of these "coincidences"?

Well according to the International Congress of Mithraic Studies (as well as by many other Mithraism scholars), there are still several inaccuracies in what you just typed out there...but I guess it doesn't really matter. What I understand your point to be is how can I believe in Jesus but dismiss similar Pagan gods as being myths, since I am well aware of the similarities.

That is something that I would be happy to share with you. But again, that will have to be in a few days from now as it is a long story to type out and Christmas and family visits, etc. are taking up most of my time right now. But Hopefully, my story will shed some light on why I believe what I do.

In the meantime, a very Happy Holidays to you and your family! :girl_hug:

Did anyone watch "The Cider House Rules" on cable over the weekend? Interresting perspective on abortion....

Did anyone watch "The Cider House Rules" on cable over the weekend? Interresting perspective on abortion....

I saw the movie when it first came out, but I don't recall the abortion perspective being unique. Can you enlighten us, please?

I was reading an article recently and I thought of this thread and the claims of the inaccuracy of the Bible. Because I can't say it any better than the author did, here's a link for those of you interested:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

I also recommend this website in general for those who see Christians as anti-intellectual, blinded by their faith, or otherwise mindless.

I was reading an article recently and I thought of this thread and the claims of the inaccuracy of the Bible. Because I can't say it any better than the author did, here's a link for those of you interested:

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6068

I also recommend this website in general for those who see Christians as anti-intellectual, blinded by their faith, or otherwise mindless.

I don't think anyone here said christians are mindless. We are trying to make the point that it is up to each and EVERY ONE of us how we live our life. But once again that point goes mute in an issue.

I don't think anyone here said christians are mindless. We are trying to make the point that it is up to each and EVERY ONE of us how we live our life. But once again that point goes mute in an issue.

I haven't gone back specifically to look at what you've said, but very clearly in this and other threads there are some who have either stated or implied that Christians are people who haven't examined their beliefs and/or adhere to a document which is outdated, inconsistent, and inaccurate. With my link I was addressing the latter claim.

I have no quarrel with the notion that each person has a right to choose how to live his life.