Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Facebook. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Mary in the Book of Revelation (y mas)
I borrowed a status update from a friend (who is much more learned than I). It sparked a comment from "Hanna" and we were off and running.
I learned (and remembered) . . . and decided to re-read Revelation! :-)
Here is the status update followed by the commentary:
December 27 is the feast of the apostle John, author of the fourth gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelation. His writings strongly emphasized the divinity of Christ, the Eucharist, and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mother. Tradition holds that John was the youngest apostle and probably never married, that he was the only apostle who stood at the foot of the cross. There, Jesus entrusted John with the care of Mary. Tradition says that he brought her to Turkey and built her a small home outside the city of Ephesus. John is believed to have been the last living apostle and a major advocate of doctrinal and theological orthodoxy against the heresies that were rising amongst 2nd generation Christians.
~~> Divinity of Christ- John ch. 1
~~> Mission of Christ, need for baptism- John ch. 3
~~> Eucharist- John chapters 5 and 6
~~> Mary as mother of the Church- Revelation ch. 12
Hanna:
Mel:Revelation 12 is a dual reference, in part to Mary and in part to Ecclesia, the Church as Bride of Christ. In verse 5, we see the woman giving "birth to a male child destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne." Since the male child is obviously Jesus, the woman who gave birth to him is obviously Mary.
But in the next lines, we see that she is the mother of many children who bear witness to Jesus. That doesn't much sound like Israel, but like the persecuted Church, especially if we see the dragon as both Satan and Rome. Elsewhere, the New Testament refers to the Church as the bride of Christ. Notice that John's gospel begins with Christ and his mother at a wedding. The Church is founded by Christ through the 12 apostles, represented by the 12 stars.
Mel:
But in the next lines, we see that she is the mother of many children who bear witness to Jesus. That doesn't much sound like Israel, but like the persecuted Church, especially if we see the dragon as both Satan and Rome. Elsewhere, the New Testament refers to the Church as the bride of Christ. Notice that John's gospel begins with Christ and his mother at a wedding. The Church is founded by Christ through the 12 apostles, represented by the 12 stars.
Caub:
Hanna, where do you get this view/belief from?
Mel:Far from endorsing pro-Israel dispensationalism, John's Book of Revelation begins by referring to the Jews as frauds and Satanists. We are people of the New Covenant, and the New Israel of that Covenant is the Church. John hints at this back in his gospel's 5th chapter, when the 12 apostles feed the followers of Christ and collect 12 baskets of leftovers. And again when Revelation tells us that those saved are 144,000. That number = 12 apostles x 12 tribes of the New Israel x 1000 (fullness, forever).
Caub:
Mel, may I ask you a question? What is your faith persuasion? Hanna, same question to you, if you don't mind? Thanks.
Mel:
Remember that in the OT, Israel is not a place but a man and his 12 sons, a man through whom the Covenant comes. The new and everlasting covenant comes through Jesus through his 12 apostles. And remember that when Joshua led the Israelites into the kingdom of the covenant, he was eventually replaced by judges. Jesus, which is Greek for "Joshua" told the 12 apostles that they would sit on thrones as judges in his kingdom.
Mel:
Remember that in the OT, Israel is not a place but a man and his 12 sons, a man through whom the Covenant comes. The new and everlasting covenant comes through Jesus through his 12 apostles. And remember that when Joshua led the Israelites into the kingdom of the covenant, he was eventually replaced by judges. Jesus, which is Greek for "Joshua" told the 12 apostles that they would sit on thrones as judges in his kingdom.
Mel:I'm a Cat'lic Cajun from N'awlins. Small world, isn't it? LOL
Caub:
Indeed. Who DAT?
Caub:
Mel, Revelation is actually a four part reference: Mary as Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
Mel
Yes, we see all of salvation history played out in this one vision- Eve and Israel (past), Mary(the New Eve) and the Church (the New Israel)- present and future.
Hanna, I was hoping to hear from you to explain your views above, but, no such luck. In short, you are a little off base. The blessed Virgin is depicted with 12 stars over her head because in Revelation 12:1-2, a pregnant woman who is about to give birth is clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and with a crown of twelve stars on her head. The woman is believed to symbolize the Blessed Mother, among other things, because the child she delivers is "a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron ... [and] her child was caught up to God and to his throne" (Rev. 12:5). The stars in the crown may represent either Christ's 12 apostles or the 12 tribes of Israel. I have much more to say on this, if you'd care to explain your, uh, somewhat unusual take on the chapter. Thanks, and God bless you.
Hannahttp://www.thepropheticyears.com/The%20book%20of%20Revelation/Revelation%20Chapter%2012.htm
Go to this link for the Biblical explanation of Revelation 12.
Revelation chapter 12 commentary
www.thepropheticyears.com
Futurist commentary on Revelation chapter 12, by Don Koenig - John sees a woman ...with a Man Child and a red dragon who seeks to devour the Child as soon as He is born
Caub:
Well, Hanna, I have a few thoughts about this. First, it is most significant to note that Adam and Eve were revealed merely as "the man" and "the woman," before the woman’s name was changed after the fall to "Eve." (In Hebrew, Eve means “mother of the living.")
When you then look at the New Covenant, Jesus is explicitly referred to as the "last Adam," or the "New Adam" in 1 Cor. 15:45. Jesus himself then indicates that Mary is the prophetic "woman" or "New Eve" of Genesis 3:15 when he refers to her as "woman" in John 2:4 and 19:26.
St. John also refers to Mary as "woman" EIGHT times in Revelation 12. As the first Eve brought death to all her children through disobedience of God and heeding the call of the serpent, the devil, the "New Eve" of Revelation 12 brings life and salvation to all her children through her obedience.
The same "serpent" that deceived the original “woman” of Genesis is revealed, in Revelation 12, to fail in his attempt to overcome this NEW woman. The New Eve, of course, overcomes the serpent, and as a result, "The serpent is angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God, and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 12:17).
Caub:
Second, since your link references "symbolic scripture," let’s take a deeper look at this. Revelation says, "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. . . . [S]he brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne. . . . Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus" (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17).
There is some debate about what the symbol of this Woman represents, and there are several different possible meanings, depending on how one reads it.
Unfortunately, most of the debate over what the “Woman” represents is misdirected because it does not take into account the way that Revelation uses symbolism.
You see, the vision contains "fusion imagery." In “fusion imagery,” one symbol is composed of elements from several different things. For example, the four living creatures John sees around God’s throne (4:6–8) are a fusion of elements from the cherubim seen in Ezekiel10:1–14 and the seraphim seen in Isaiah 6:1–5.
Similarly, the priest-elders John sees around the throne (4:4) are numbered 24 because they are a fusion of the 12 patriarchs of Israel and the 12 apostles of Jesus, a symbolism that occurs at the end of the book (21:12–14), where New Jerusalem is seen to have 12 foundations with the names of the 12 apostles and 12 gates with the names of the 12 patriarchs.
The beast from the sea in chapter 13 is a fusion of elements from the all four of the beasts the prophet Daniel saw emerge from the sea in chapter 7 of his book.
Similarly, Polyvalent symbolism - in which symbols have more than one meaning – is also part of Revelation’s imagery. For example, the seven heads of the beast are said to be both seven mountains (Rev. 17:9) and seven kings (17:10).
The “Woman” in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.
She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and 12 stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and 12 stars symbolize the people of Israel.
The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, "the rest of her offspring" are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.
The Woman is Eve because she is part of the 3-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 among Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed. In turn, this is a symbol of the conflict among Mary, Satan, and Jesus.
Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).
Because the Woman is a four-way symbol, different aspects of the narrative apply to different referents. Like Mary, she is pictured as being in heaven and she flies (mirroring Mary’s Assumption). Like the Church, she is persecuted by the Devil after the Ascension of Christ. Like Israel, she experiences great trauma as the Messiah is brought forth (figuratively) from the nation. And like Eve, it is her (distant) seed with which the serpent has his primary conflict.
Conversely, portions of the narrative do not apply to each referent. Mary did not experience literal pain when bringing forth the Messiah, but she suffered figuratively (the prophecy that a sword would pierce her heart at the Crucifixion). Eve did not ascend to heaven. And the Church did not bring forth the Messiah (rather, the Messiah brought forth his Church).
Caub:
Third, and finally, I mined the "prophetic years" website and find it, well, intellectually immature, particularly the "Statement of Faith."
Two questions I'd have for the guy who wrote the website (Don Koenig) and you, as his follower, are: (1) How do you know the book you are holding in your hand is the Bible? Seriously, it doesn't have an inspired table of contents, so how and when - precisely - did we get it, and in what form?
(2) For a Christian, truth is important (it will set us free), and Jesus Christ IS the truth. So, for a Christian, what is the pillar and foundation of all truth? Don and you, I assume, would say that the pillar and foundation of all truth is the Bible. Would my assumption be correct? Thanks, and God bless....
Caub:
One more thing... Here are some, um, interesting observations from Don Koenig’s website (linked at the bottom):
“The whole world monetary system will have to be scrapped, the most advanced nations will be technically bankrupted because of debt. A new world monetary system will be set up.”
“By the end of the decade (this was written in 2009, so it was obviously wrong) religious teaching on the air waves and Internet will be controlled. You will have to subscribe to receive any religious teachings. Proselytizing will not be allowed in most of the world.”
“The true Church of Jesus Christ will have to go underground in most areas of the world and she will be at great risk.” (Interesting how this conflicts with Matthew 16)
“Due to the growing differences between liberals and conservatives certain states in the United States will secede and there might even be a civil war. There certainly will be conflicts in areas where police attempt to take away peoples guns. I think the nation will break up into several separate nation states based on ideology but that the separate nations will continue to have open borders and reciprocal agreements.”
“By the end of the decade all nation states in North America will join a new North American Union or face total isolation.”
“There will be total surveillance of all electronic communications. The Internet will be policed, monitored and filtered. Talk radio and websites will have to be politically correct or they will be shut down.”
“There will be food and gas rationing for most of the decade. Fuel will be very expensive and travel will be restricted.”
“Government will tax 90 percent of income over a certain level.”
And my favorite: “In spite of what some are now teaching, the Lord will not physically return to earth during this decade BUT THE RAPTURE COULD OCCUR (OR IT MAY NOT).” Good one, Don, way to go out on a limb!
Yup, Don Koenig is surely a guy I’d hitch my spiritual wagon to!! Sheesh, what a loon!
http://www.thepropheticyears.com/wordpress/don-koenigs-2010-2020-world-trends-forecast.html
Don Koenig's world trends forecast for 2010-2020 AD
www.thepropheticyears.com
Don Koenig's world trends forecast for 2010-2020 AD
Mel
To refer to "THE Biblical explanation" implies that there is only ONE Biblical explanation. It also implies that my explanation is UNbiblical. That is presumptuous, along with a few other adjectives I'll avoid.
Caub
Yeah, Mel, perhaps I should have been a little less presumptuous. But, if you read the guy's website, well, it's really funny/sad/odd/immature/silly - pick a few more...
Mel
Don't worry Caub- I wasn't talking to you! LOL
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Chastity is a Man and Satan is Crazy Like a Fox
Isn't it crazy that everyone calls Chaz Bono a man and if you don't, you are a narrow minded bigot?
And how about the woman who calls him/herself a pregnant man? If you speak against the faulty logic, you may be accused of hate speech.
. . . . . . . yet, today's popular culture refuses to call the fetus in the womb a baby???
I read this on a friend's Facebook status. The first comment was:
"Yeah, it's crazy."
My comment:
Yes, it's crazy . . . . and Satan is crazy like a fox. The warped morality is frightening.
You know that feeling you get when you are watching a scary movie plot line unfold . . . you want to yell at the screen and say, "Get out of there!!" You hear the frightening music swell and you know something bad is going to happen?
Yep. That's the feeling here.
Thank God we know the ultimate end of the "story." I just hope I am doing my best to live my life the way that God wants.
And this brings me to this Sunday's Readings:
Ezekiel 33:7-9
Psalm 95:1-2, 6-9
Romans 13:8-10
Matthew 18:15-20
Notice that both the Gospel and the First Reading presume that believers have a duty to correct sinners in our midst. Ezekiel is even told that he will be held accountable for their souls if he fails to speak out and try to correct them.
This is the love that Paul in Sunday’s Epistle says we owe to our neighbors. To love our neighbors as ourselves is to be vitally concerned for their salvation. We must make every effort, as Jesus says, to win our brothers and sisters back, to turn them from the false paths.
We should never correct out of anger, or a desire to punish. Instead our message must be that of Sunday’s Psalm - urging sinners to hear God’s voice, not to harden their hearts, and to remember that He is the one who made us, and is the rock of our salvation.
Sources:
Facebook friends
Scott Hahn
Preparing for the Mass
And how about the woman who calls him/herself a pregnant man? If you speak against the faulty logic, you may be accused of hate speech.
. . . . . . . yet, today's popular culture refuses to call the fetus in the womb a baby???
"Yeah, it's crazy."
My comment:
Yes, it's crazy . . . . and Satan is crazy like a fox. The warped morality is frightening.
You know that feeling you get when you are watching a scary movie plot line unfold . . . you want to yell at the screen and say, "Get out of there!!" You hear the frightening music swell and you know something bad is going to happen?
Yep. That's the feeling here.
Thank God we know the ultimate end of the "story." I just hope I am doing my best to live my life the way that God wants.
And this brings me to this Sunday's Readings:
Ezekiel 33:7-9
Psalm 95:1-2, 6-9
Romans 13:8-10
Matthew 18:15-20
Notice that both the Gospel and the First Reading presume that believers have a duty to correct sinners in our midst. Ezekiel is even told that he will be held accountable for their souls if he fails to speak out and try to correct them.
This is the love that Paul in Sunday’s Epistle says we owe to our neighbors. To love our neighbors as ourselves is to be vitally concerned for their salvation. We must make every effort, as Jesus says, to win our brothers and sisters back, to turn them from the false paths.
We should never correct out of anger, or a desire to punish. Instead our message must be that of Sunday’s Psalm - urging sinners to hear God’s voice, not to harden their hearts, and to remember that He is the one who made us, and is the rock of our salvation.
Sources:
Facebook friends
Scott Hahn
Preparing for the Mass
Friday, August 21, 2009
A Recent Abortion Discussion
I posted this link to my FB page.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/obama_health-care_session_leaves_abortion_question_unsettled/
A big debate ensued. Thought you might be interested. My FB world is very diverse. I only hope and pray that such exchanges can bring about some real soul searching and ultimately a clear understanding of the serious sin of abortion.
As you can see, the participants had very different opinions, levels of passion and sensitivity. Sometimes it seemed they got off track, there were hurt feelings and even a bit of anger. It was actually painful to read as these are all my friends. I prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide my thoughts and my words. There is so much more I could have said but I did not . . . .
E's comment:
what do we do in the situation of rape, incest, or illness? I know this is a touchy subject that I rarely speak about but it is a valid question. If it is a question that the mother will die due to illness if she carries the baby full term, or the pain in carrying a child that was conceived through rape, every time the baby kicks the woman is reminded of her rapist, where do we draw the line? I know this is opening me up for a beating but I do believe in god and all of his miracles but still it is a woman's right to have choice for the above reasons... anyone who wants to take me off of their friends list now I understand.
D's comment:
I think that is a good question, E. Statistically, there are very few women whose lives are in danger from being pregnant. As to rape and incest, how does creating another victim make the situation better? In most cases, women who abort later have tremendous guilt and pain, some experience traumatic response known as post abortion syndrome. So their experience in being raped and abused will be compounded. I don't think that is a good "choice" for a victim. It is a scientific fact that pregnancy is a life that is growing. While some may feel that life is not valuable because the child cannot speak for itself, does some one's "feelings" trump another creature's right to exist? If the child goes to term and is born, can the mother have the child terminated because it is a product of rape/incest? Are only children who are wanted really children? Are children only children once they breathe air?
I don't want to beat you up, E. I have seen too many women who have been victimized by abortion. They live with guilt, regret, pain...How many children have been literally ripped apart because a court decided that it was a "moral" option? Years ago it was a moral option to own slaves in this country, backed by the same court. An owner could do whatever he wanted with his property. Abolitionist was a dirty word, much like pro-life is today. Yet brave people fought to give every human being their God-given right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think Horton said it best, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Shouldn't we protect the innocent and vulnerable among us? Aren't we better than animals who eat their young?
There are many, many infertile couples who would love to adopt children, but there are few to adopt because many are aborted. I know, I have been there. We have two lovely children, young adults, whose birth mothers cared more about them having a good life than the nine months they "endured" pregnancy.Isn't the better answer for those of us who say we believe in God to help women in crisis pregnancy? Wouldn't it be better if more people were vocal about adoption being a better option? Anyway, that's my "ten cents." And for what its worth, I wouldn't take you off of my friends list! I appreciate you voicing your opinion.
E's comment:
I am also not saying "everyone go out and have an abortion" but saying NO you can't is taking a voice from our women.. are we also going to take back our rights to vote? wear pants, uncover our faces? that's not how we do it it America. I know a woman who had a baby due to rape and even though she loves her daughter she sees her rapist every time she looks at her daughter... I never told her to have an abortion. I stand by her CHOICE to make up her mind for herself and every woman to stand by their moral compass and religious views. I know a baby is "alive" from conception but I will never wish girls to be born without a voice and the right to make their own choices.
R's comment:
I have to preface this by saying that I am not female so my 2 cents may ultimately be moot but here goes: God gave us free will and along with that comes free choice. Why would one agree to legislate away that which God has given us? Especially when one will stand alone to be judged by their Maker and neither you nor congress will be there to explain the situation either way. It is obvious that a product of rape or incest was had from a situation that was not of the woman's free will, so should she not have free will as to the result of that situation? In essence, the woman gets taken advantage of twice. Also, science has not identified the point at which life begins for a fetus.
E's comment:
And the true "dirty word" is pro choice... If I start to talk about women's rights and pro choice then all of a sudden my "faith" is questioned. I "endured" (and loved every min of it) pregnancy but was told by my doctor "if you want your child to have a mother, you won't get pregnant again" So I never got pregnant again not by choice but by risk of life threatening illness. My body rejects everything and I thank GOD everyday for my wonderful healthy daughter.
D's comment:
Hmmm, "free will..." yes, we do have the freedom to chose what we will do/not do. However, there are consequences for our choices. We are governed by law regarding many choices, ie, it is illegal to murder another human being. Right now that is only the case if that human is outside the womb. It may be the case in the future that only those who are perceived as being "viable" will be allowed to live after birth and others "mercifully put out of their misery." It's a slippery slope. I don't understand how it is logical to think a child is alive from conception, but it is OK to kill that child so that someone else's right to "choose" is left intact. Is it OK for someone to kill me because God has given them free will? Over 40 million babies aborted in the US in the last 29 years has been the "choice" of many. I doubt they were all victims of rape or incest.
As far as science identifying when life begins. There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life? A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.
From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).
Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
I am not sure how your not having more children corresponds to abortion? If you have a life threatening condition and have your tubes tied or your husband takes care of the necessary surgery, how does that correlate? That makes you wise to not put yourself in the position of a dangerous pregnancy, but that is not on par with abortion.
I am glad you have been blessed with a child and I am sorry you could not safely have more, but not having children is not abortion. It seems you are very passionate being "pro-choice." Where is the choice for all of the children whose lives have been cut off? How can any society be civilized if it condones killing the most vulnerable among us? I do not think that the right to have a baby pulled apart by a vacuum in the womb is on par with voting, wearing pants or make up. That is ridiculous.What if we Americans let everyone decide where their moral compass leads them? There are Americans who want to have sex with children. There are Americans who want to rape, murder, steal...there are (sick) people who honestly see nothing wrong with doing those things. If I follow your argument, we have no right to tell them they can't. We cannot deny them their freedom to choose...
E's comment:
the only one who is arguing is you! you have turned this personal and I have nothing else to say to you. I mentioned my situation about only having one child because you said it was "rare" for pregnancy to form a life threatening illness, read your statements, you are a very angry person, this again is why I don't talk about my choices as a woman...... BTW I didn't say anything about wearing make-up I said covering up your face like in some cultures don't allow women to show their faces... you are talking out of both sides of your mouth... my point was less about abortion and more about my right to have a voice in this world... I have the right to bear arms... that doesn't mean I will shoot my neighbor and if I did it would be Gods job to sort it out... I answer to him....BTW I thought you said you were getting off of your "soapbox" hours ago... no need to respond.
B's comment:
E, You're a strong woman to take a personal stand and I support you - and the opportunity for choice. Even like the slant of the proposed health care bill, medical care of any kind is between me and my doctor. I don't want anyone to dictate my choices or my decisions for me.
D's comment:
You know, I read over my comments, and I never said I was getting off my soap box. I said that was my ten cents. You added comments to which I responded. At no time did I make a personal attack against you as a person. I don't know how putting out biological facts is "angry," or defending the unborn's rights is a personal attack against you. My comments about your situation were only to make the point that you can prevent pregnancy if it is dangerous. I don't know how you feel you were personally attacked. I am sorry you feel offended. My intent is to show that there is another side to the notion of choice. I am not an angry woman at all. I am passionate that every child be given the right to exist regardless of their sex, their health status, the color of their eyes, etc. Over a million children aborted in this country alone every year is something every moral human being should feel passionately disgusted by.
MY comment:
Wow! I just got to computer access. Great comments going here. It is good that there is lively and heartfelt expression.
Something I find interesting is that our government will allow prosecution for double homicide when a pregnant woman and her baby are killed . . . yet condone abortion. Is the fact that the woman "wants to carry her baby to term" the validation of the life within her?
I am of the strong opinion that women have the right to choose.
They, like men, have the right to choose whether to engage in activities that will lead to pregnancy. Once another human life comes into the equation I believe THAT life has the same rights as Mom and Dad. In the cases of rape and incest - creating another victim makes no sense.
But then, I guess my original posting this article kinda gave away my opinion :-)
E's comment:
Thank you B for understanding that my only fight in this war was to protect woman's rights. I am painted as a baby killer because I want to protect a woman's voice. I would pray and rejoice if with that gift of choice there would never be another abortion in the world, as it is a very sad affair for both mother and baby, the baby loses their life and the woman has to live with that guilt for the rest of her life lose lose situation.
MY comment:
You know I love you E, but I do disagree. I feel like you made my point for me in your last comment. See, I read, "the baby loses their life" and I think that no one has the right to intentionally take that baby's life. I have an analogy that creates an unlikely scenario but I think it works to explain my opinion. Imagine if a person was given a baby, say a week old, or so. There is no possibility of giving the baby to someone else for at least 9 months. Maybe they are stranded on an island or snowed in or in an isolated situation of some kind. Would it be right under those circumstances to kill the baby? I know the scenario is unlikely but I also believe that under those circumstances most people would care for that human life. It would probably bring with it sacrifice, discomfort and hard work. To me, that decision is the same in utero.It is sadly funny that given that situation I think some people would do that much for even a dog.
B's comment:
Ah, but you have fast forwarded to a baby. That is different to me. Not all cases (perhaps a state level decision) of murdering a pregnant woman are considered 2 victims (in the legal charges perspective) I still believe that it is a health decision to be made privately. What I don't understand is an unwillingness to endorse birth control and be against all abortion. As we help developing nations, I feel we should be helping them manage their reproduction, not just care for them.
Interesting discussion...
E's comment:
imagine if first they take your right to abort... then vote.... then what you wear... that is my point I am not encouraging people killing their children like I keep pressing but their voice.pro life or pro woman's voice you can only pick one... you can't say i want women to have a voice yet take away their rights...
MY comment:
B, that is the only belief that makes sense to me when people support abortion.
That is not my belief but I "get it" when people are pro-choice because they do not see the unborn as human beings yet.
A GREAT point! I would have to suggest a read of JPII's Theology of the Body. That would explain it best, in my opinion. I believe it comes down to a just a few key questions or issues:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/obama_health-care_session_leaves_abortion_question_unsettled/
A big debate ensued. Thought you might be interested. My FB world is very diverse. I only hope and pray that such exchanges can bring about some real soul searching and ultimately a clear understanding of the serious sin of abortion.
As you can see, the participants had very different opinions, levels of passion and sensitivity. Sometimes it seemed they got off track, there were hurt feelings and even a bit of anger. It was actually painful to read as these are all my friends. I prayed that the Holy Spirit would guide my thoughts and my words. There is so much more I could have said but I did not . . . .
E's comment:
what do we do in the situation of rape, incest, or illness? I know this is a touchy subject that I rarely speak about but it is a valid question. If it is a question that the mother will die due to illness if she carries the baby full term, or the pain in carrying a child that was conceived through rape, every time the baby kicks the woman is reminded of her rapist, where do we draw the line? I know this is opening me up for a beating but I do believe in god and all of his miracles but still it is a woman's right to have choice for the above reasons... anyone who wants to take me off of their friends list now I understand.
D's comment:
I think that is a good question, E. Statistically, there are very few women whose lives are in danger from being pregnant. As to rape and incest, how does creating another victim make the situation better? In most cases, women who abort later have tremendous guilt and pain, some experience traumatic response known as post abortion syndrome. So their experience in being raped and abused will be compounded. I don't think that is a good "choice" for a victim. It is a scientific fact that pregnancy is a life that is growing. While some may feel that life is not valuable because the child cannot speak for itself, does some one's "feelings" trump another creature's right to exist? If the child goes to term and is born, can the mother have the child terminated because it is a product of rape/incest? Are only children who are wanted really children? Are children only children once they breathe air?
I don't want to beat you up, E. I have seen too many women who have been victimized by abortion. They live with guilt, regret, pain...How many children have been literally ripped apart because a court decided that it was a "moral" option? Years ago it was a moral option to own slaves in this country, backed by the same court. An owner could do whatever he wanted with his property. Abolitionist was a dirty word, much like pro-life is today. Yet brave people fought to give every human being their God-given right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think Horton said it best, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Shouldn't we protect the innocent and vulnerable among us? Aren't we better than animals who eat their young?
There are many, many infertile couples who would love to adopt children, but there are few to adopt because many are aborted. I know, I have been there. We have two lovely children, young adults, whose birth mothers cared more about them having a good life than the nine months they "endured" pregnancy.Isn't the better answer for those of us who say we believe in God to help women in crisis pregnancy? Wouldn't it be better if more people were vocal about adoption being a better option? Anyway, that's my "ten cents." And for what its worth, I wouldn't take you off of my friends list! I appreciate you voicing your opinion.
E's comment:
I am also not saying "everyone go out and have an abortion" but saying NO you can't is taking a voice from our women.. are we also going to take back our rights to vote? wear pants, uncover our faces? that's not how we do it it America. I know a woman who had a baby due to rape and even though she loves her daughter she sees her rapist every time she looks at her daughter... I never told her to have an abortion. I stand by her CHOICE to make up her mind for herself and every woman to stand by their moral compass and religious views. I know a baby is "alive" from conception but I will never wish girls to be born without a voice and the right to make their own choices.
R's comment:
I have to preface this by saying that I am not female so my 2 cents may ultimately be moot but here goes: God gave us free will and along with that comes free choice. Why would one agree to legislate away that which God has given us? Especially when one will stand alone to be judged by their Maker and neither you nor congress will be there to explain the situation either way. It is obvious that a product of rape or incest was had from a situation that was not of the woman's free will, so should she not have free will as to the result of that situation? In essence, the woman gets taken advantage of twice. Also, science has not identified the point at which life begins for a fetus.
E's comment:
And the true "dirty word" is pro choice... If I start to talk about women's rights and pro choice then all of a sudden my "faith" is questioned. I "endured" (and loved every min of it) pregnancy but was told by my doctor "if you want your child to have a mother, you won't get pregnant again" So I never got pregnant again not by choice but by risk of life threatening illness. My body rejects everything and I thank GOD everyday for my wonderful healthy daughter.
D's comment:
Hmmm, "free will..." yes, we do have the freedom to chose what we will do/not do. However, there are consequences for our choices. We are governed by law regarding many choices, ie, it is illegal to murder another human being. Right now that is only the case if that human is outside the womb. It may be the case in the future that only those who are perceived as being "viable" will be allowed to live after birth and others "mercifully put out of their misery." It's a slippery slope. I don't understand how it is logical to think a child is alive from conception, but it is OK to kill that child so that someone else's right to "choose" is left intact. Is it OK for someone to kill me because God has given them free will? Over 40 million babies aborted in the US in the last 29 years has been the "choice" of many. I doubt they were all victims of rape or incest.
As far as science identifying when life begins. There is a tremendous consensus in the scientific community about when life begins. This is hardly controversial. If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life? A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:
1. Living things are highly organized.
2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.
According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte.
From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species).
Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.
I am not sure how your not having more children corresponds to abortion? If you have a life threatening condition and have your tubes tied or your husband takes care of the necessary surgery, how does that correlate? That makes you wise to not put yourself in the position of a dangerous pregnancy, but that is not on par with abortion.
I am glad you have been blessed with a child and I am sorry you could not safely have more, but not having children is not abortion. It seems you are very passionate being "pro-choice." Where is the choice for all of the children whose lives have been cut off? How can any society be civilized if it condones killing the most vulnerable among us? I do not think that the right to have a baby pulled apart by a vacuum in the womb is on par with voting, wearing pants or make up. That is ridiculous.What if we Americans let everyone decide where their moral compass leads them? There are Americans who want to have sex with children. There are Americans who want to rape, murder, steal...there are (sick) people who honestly see nothing wrong with doing those things. If I follow your argument, we have no right to tell them they can't. We cannot deny them their freedom to choose...
E's comment:
the only one who is arguing is you! you have turned this personal and I have nothing else to say to you. I mentioned my situation about only having one child because you said it was "rare" for pregnancy to form a life threatening illness, read your statements, you are a very angry person, this again is why I don't talk about my choices as a woman...... BTW I didn't say anything about wearing make-up I said covering up your face like in some cultures don't allow women to show their faces... you are talking out of both sides of your mouth... my point was less about abortion and more about my right to have a voice in this world... I have the right to bear arms... that doesn't mean I will shoot my neighbor and if I did it would be Gods job to sort it out... I answer to him....BTW I thought you said you were getting off of your "soapbox" hours ago... no need to respond.
B's comment:
E, You're a strong woman to take a personal stand and I support you - and the opportunity for choice. Even like the slant of the proposed health care bill, medical care of any kind is between me and my doctor. I don't want anyone to dictate my choices or my decisions for me.
D's comment:
You know, I read over my comments, and I never said I was getting off my soap box. I said that was my ten cents. You added comments to which I responded. At no time did I make a personal attack against you as a person. I don't know how putting out biological facts is "angry," or defending the unborn's rights is a personal attack against you. My comments about your situation were only to make the point that you can prevent pregnancy if it is dangerous. I don't know how you feel you were personally attacked. I am sorry you feel offended. My intent is to show that there is another side to the notion of choice. I am not an angry woman at all. I am passionate that every child be given the right to exist regardless of their sex, their health status, the color of their eyes, etc. Over a million children aborted in this country alone every year is something every moral human being should feel passionately disgusted by.
MY comment:
Wow! I just got to computer access. Great comments going here. It is good that there is lively and heartfelt expression.
Something I find interesting is that our government will allow prosecution for double homicide when a pregnant woman and her baby are killed . . . yet condone abortion. Is the fact that the woman "wants to carry her baby to term" the validation of the life within her?
I am of the strong opinion that women have the right to choose.
They, like men, have the right to choose whether to engage in activities that will lead to pregnancy. Once another human life comes into the equation I believe THAT life has the same rights as Mom and Dad. In the cases of rape and incest - creating another victim makes no sense.
But then, I guess my original posting this article kinda gave away my opinion :-)
E's comment:
Thank you B for understanding that my only fight in this war was to protect woman's rights. I am painted as a baby killer because I want to protect a woman's voice. I would pray and rejoice if with that gift of choice there would never be another abortion in the world, as it is a very sad affair for both mother and baby, the baby loses their life and the woman has to live with that guilt for the rest of her life lose lose situation.
MY comment:
You know I love you E, but I do disagree. I feel like you made my point for me in your last comment. See, I read, "the baby loses their life" and I think that no one has the right to intentionally take that baby's life. I have an analogy that creates an unlikely scenario but I think it works to explain my opinion. Imagine if a person was given a baby, say a week old, or so. There is no possibility of giving the baby to someone else for at least 9 months. Maybe they are stranded on an island or snowed in or in an isolated situation of some kind. Would it be right under those circumstances to kill the baby? I know the scenario is unlikely but I also believe that under those circumstances most people would care for that human life. It would probably bring with it sacrifice, discomfort and hard work. To me, that decision is the same in utero.It is sadly funny that given that situation I think some people would do that much for even a dog.
B's comment:
Ah, but you have fast forwarded to a baby. That is different to me. Not all cases (perhaps a state level decision) of murdering a pregnant woman are considered 2 victims (in the legal charges perspective) I still believe that it is a health decision to be made privately. What I don't understand is an unwillingness to endorse birth control and be against all abortion. As we help developing nations, I feel we should be helping them manage their reproduction, not just care for them.
Interesting discussion...
E's comment:
imagine if first they take your right to abort... then vote.... then what you wear... that is my point I am not encouraging people killing their children like I keep pressing but their voice.pro life or pro woman's voice you can only pick one... you can't say i want women to have a voice yet take away their rights...
MY comment:
B, that is the only belief that makes sense to me when people support abortion.
" . . . but you have fast forwarded to a baby. That is different to me"
That is not my belief but I "get it" when people are pro-choice because they do not see the unborn as human beings yet.
As to, " . . . unwillingness to endorse birth control and be against all
abortion"
A GREAT point! I would have to suggest a read of JPII's Theology of the Body. That would explain it best, in my opinion. I believe it comes down to a just a few key questions or issues:
- When does life begin? (many forms of birth control abort fertilized eggs)
- What is the purpose of sexual union?
- Statistics that show that birth control is not a dependable way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. There are diseases that are not stopped by condoms - definitely not by other forms of birth control.
I have enjoyed the thought provoking discussion here especially w/i the context of agreeing we disagree.
__________________________________________________________
I did not include the following on FB - this is for my reference.
Helpful resources:
- WHY CONDOMS DON'T WORK: Various STD lesions such as syphilitic chancres, chondyloma (warts from HPV virus), and other types of growths can occur outside the coverage area of a condom, such as in the groin or pubic area. These lesions can come in contact
with the genitalia and other mucous membranes of partners, causing infection.
Rate of STD Prevention With Condom Use -
A study of inner city students revealed: - 54% of those who use condoms use them only intermittently. For this group, the failure rate is 50-60% within a year (infection will occur).
- Only 17% of those who use condoms use them all the time.
- Failure rate with 100% usage is 8-9% within a year.
- The risk of a married partner of an HIV positive spouse becoming HIV positive is 1 in 6, within 18 months, even with perfect condom use.
- Condom use was inversely proportional to the number of lifetime sexual partners, i.e., the greater the number of partners, the less likelihood of using condoms.
- HPV is not always prevented with condom use. HPV is transmitted through sexual, skin-to-skin contact with an infected person; no penetration is needed to contract the virus.
IS SCIENCE THE ANSWER? - Although syphilis is 100% susceptible to Penicillin, there is currently a 40-year high in the number of reported cases.
- There is still no vaccine for herpes after years of testing
- Zovirax, the drug to treat herpes, is very expensive at $2.50-$5.00/day, and will not prevent future outbreaks once the drug is stopped
- HIV - no cure
- Chlamydia and Gonorrhea are treated with antibiotics, yet scars remain, including infertility
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
