micro

Well, thanks for calling me reasonable, at least ordinarily so, although I fear now you have many other people calling you a fool! And sorry for calling you a fool, but it just doesn't make sense to me how this doesn't make sense to more "enlightened" people! I mean, not to insult the intelligence of farmers, but even they get this! This is not rocket science! Look at your statement here... "And denying a child to two parents (sic) who want him very much, just because they are the wrong sex..." You are saying, in effect that people have a RIGHT to a CHILD! NO ONE has a right to another human being, no matter HOW BADLY they may want one! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

You have something to back this up, other than the bible or "cause I said so"? there are tons of things that back this up. however, I am not at a library where I can reference studies and sources. i'm in my home office, trying in vain to get some reports done for work. however, you don't have to look to far to reach the conclusions that I have. all too often in debates like these, the party on the other side, like the post you just made, throws down the gauntlet and says "show me your hand," meaning show me your sources... well, what should I do? cite all the books in my library? i hardly find that beneficial, since two of them cited already, which are chaulked full of valuable info that is germaine (sp?) to this topic was poo-poo'ed in a most scholarly (sarcasm alert!) fashion by our beloved professor kallend. wouldn't it be better for someone to actually go out with the question in mind and do the research themselves? I certainly have. I haven't always been so staunchly catholic. I haven't always been pro-life and pro-traditional family. I don't just blindly swallow what comes flowing from the Tiber River, contrary to the myths propogated from the secular non-believing public. I critically question and read and read some more. And I read dissenting opinions. But I also am not such a cynic who is unwilling to suspend my disbelief about things regarding belief and faith like so much of the secular public who, on the other hand, who suspends their disbelief at the drop of a ten dollar bill at hollywoods latest inane blockbuster. So there it is... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I agree and not once have I stated that I agree that we should have gov't "coercion" regarding this situation. However, when "special interest groups" try to "reinvent" the family and redifine it as any abbaration they see fit -by using rogue judges who legislate from the bench! THAT is when the govt. should step in and put a stop to such sillinness. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Heaven, no! Perhaps it's contagious Coming back to a point of your post: Of course, I'd loved to turn back times 10 yrs ago and have him back - normal. So what? We suddenly were no family any longer? THAT was my question, Micro Rest assured, we were a family. And still are. Even the constellation of *man/wife/child* broke down. We found other, nonetheless same fine ways to live on. As a family I'm sorry if I implied you were no longer a family after his death. You still were, albeit then an incomplete one. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I would think that being successful and good parents has to do with attitude and effort, not with whether you are a man or a woman. it's both/and, not either/or. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up. This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint. John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them. Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing... Camel crap. There's showing nothing. Kallend just was replying to a very clear and open minded post and comparing a bit with history. Reading your posts from a certain "distance", it strongly sounds like you're on something like a "holy cruisade"... Question: What for??? As per your out-dated opinion, after my husband died and left his wife and his boy behind: We no more were any kind of family??? Ha. Believe me, my entire family never was larger than at this time. In my eyes, family does include my parents, siblings plus their own pride - everybody who's still alive and belongs to me, loves me, which I love and care for. That's family, at least for me C'mon now. We clearly weren't talking about the tragic and unfortunate death of a spouse. Are you saying your family was ideal after his death? No, of course not. I'm sure you'd rather him back if possible. Fortunately, thankfully, you had family around you to love you and care for you in that time. Yes, that also is family. But remember we're talking about what makes a family on a fundamental level. You said that looking at my outdated opinions for a certain "distance"... perhaps you should get a little closer... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

And here you cloud the issue by trying to juxtapose your rose colored examples w/ a man-woman who "just let nature take it's course" and had an unwanted pregnancy when, as I'm sure you know, I would find that just as deplorable. No child should be "unwanted." You are full of rhetoric. And THEN, you stoop to kallend's level and ascribe emotions to my posts in a vain effort to discredit my position. I never thought you'd go there bill, but well, there it is. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Let's clear the air bill. I have not called your friends substandard. I have said that a non-traditional family (male-male-child, woman-child) is substandard. Shall I use a different word? Will you be less offended? Not that I care about your offense, really, since I'm just as offended that bed-wetting liberals want to try and redefine just what in the hell a family is anyway, as if it's something that even CAN be redefined! But, just for arguments sake, lets call it "less-than-ideal." Where does a child thrive most? Where will a child truly reach it's full human potential? Is it in a home w/ just a mother? Just a father? Or when there are both in the home, married, getting along, fully committed to each other and living harmoniously? I'm not even going to begin to give the homosexual question any validity by arguing that point. As IF a man and a man can successfully raise a child as well as a husband and a wife can. For you to say that it IS possible tells me that you are a fool. You've swallowed it all, hook line and sinker. (Ha! I said sinker! I knew him once. ) I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

That doesn't answer my question. Religous people are worse than politicians when it comes to dancing around a question. here's the answer to your question and your other silly comment: HOW THE HELL SHOULD I KNOW WHY GOD CHOSE THE METHOD HE DID TO WRITE THE BIBLE? I'M NOT GOD AND I DON'T CLAIM TO BE! There. Happy? Probably not... but then again, not much would make you happy in a discussion like this, as contentious as you are about things religious. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I'm not misrepresenting a think you said John. Your excuses are as old as you are. Same shit, different day. And you post here belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what "dogma" (versus doctrine or belief) actually is. Oh how fun it is to play w/ you. Try answering the questions instead of trying to divert attention. Explain how a most unlikely number of mistranslations were made by the KJ translators, all contradicting your doctrine. How come they got it wrong SO MANY times, whereas your version of events requires curious (and unsupported by many independent scholars) interpretations of Aramaic words. It's not like the KJ scholars had an axe to grind. KJ scholars didn't have an axe to grind? Where the hell did you learn history? Holy cow John! Just b/c I don't answer your questions as you WANT me to doesn't mean I can't... rather, I get tired of arguing w/ someone whose ears are closed. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Hey, you're lucky. A few hundred years ago you'd have been burned as a heretic by the conservatives of the era. The Roman church was particularly fond of dealing with liberals that way. Leave it to the Catholic-hater to keep bringing that up. This isn't about Catholics vs. the world. This is about political ideologies and politics in the US. I'm not arguing my points from a religious standpoint. John is bringing them up as a way to discredit them. Careful john, your fallacies and predjudices are showing... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

It really isn't that hard. Time consuming and tedious sometimes, but most important things often are. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Wow. The complete LACK of logic in your argument is simply astounding, esp. since in so many other areas you're such an erudite man. It's very clear to me that there's no arguing the point w/ you. And they say my mind is closed. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I'm not misrepresenting a think you said John. Your excuses are as old as you are. Same shit, different day. And you post here belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what "dogma" (versus doctrine or belief) actually is. Oh how fun it is to play w/ you. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there. I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on. Wendy W. By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries. I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end. If you aren't away of any liberals who don't advocate divorce, then you must be an osterich. Actually, in a sense you answered your own question by your second sentence. Your "verbal engineering" is humorous... ""their particular brand of behavior" and "forcing families that are already broken" Give me a break john... it's largely b/c of liberals that no-fault divorce exists in this country. Here's a few books for your night-time reading... It Takes a Family by Rick Santorum Do Gooders by Mona Charen These might help John. Stop playing semantic games. Advocating divorce is not the same as permitting it. No liberal I know wishes to encourage divorce. YOU are just pissed that the rest of us don't wish to be legally bound to your mythology. Mona Charen, Bwahaaha. Santorum!!! Me? Pissed? Hardly. I'd like it if you would stop ascribing emotions to me that aren't true. And oh, how old and stale it gets (like the author) that anytime anyone argues with you, pretty much the only comeback you can come up w/ is "semantics." If you don't know liberals who don't ADVOCATE for divorce, then you are a poor member of the party. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Leave it to you to bring race into this. This isn't about race bill and you know it. This is about what makes a family. Man, woman, child. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

No you don't always get the ideal... but you said it... the ideal... and it should be strived for. AND, it's attainable. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

Simple question, simple answer... Because as the family goes, so goes society. Destroy the family, destroy society. There is NO better model or construct for the family than the traditional Mother/Father/child(ren) paradigm. You can't improve on that. Everything else is substandard at best. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there. I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on. Wendy W. By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries. I'm not aware of any liberals who advocate divorce or the breaking up of families. Maybe you can enlighten us. I am well aware of conservatives who want to force their particular brand of behavior on everyone else, and who try to force families that are already broken to stay together and fight to the bitter end. If you aren't away of any liberals who don't advocate divorce, then you must be an osterich. Actually, in a sense you answered your own question by your second sentence. Your "verbal engineering" is humorous... ""their particular brand of behavior" and "forcing families that are already broken" Give me a break john... it's largely b/c of liberals that no-fault divorce exists in this country. Here's a few books for your night-time reading... It Takes a Family by Rick Santorum Do Gooders by Mona Charen These might help John. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

well, whip 'em out prof, i'd like to see 'em. There are hundreds to choose from - here is one: www.bible.ca/cath-mary-had-many-children.htm Of course, Roman apologists can always find a way of mistranslating for themselves, but the fact remains that Roman Catholics are almost alone among the Christian churches in claiming their particular mistranslation. i'll review it... but for starters, you're already starting w/ an assumption that roman catholics are going to mistranslate. also, the fact that we're "almost alone" really doesn't lend much, as if this is somehow a popularity contest. it's quite possible for many people to get something wrong, esp. something that doesn't fit what they don't want it to fit... Since no-one alive, including Pope Benedict, speaks Aramaic or ancient Greek as a first language, I'd suggest that when it comes to translation, your church cannot claim any more authority than the others. speaking either of them as a first language is not a pre-requisite for validly or "authoritatively" interpreting (as this website you referenced claims to do) the text in question. If that WAS the case, why should anyone really bother, since it would open up the possibility of various MIS-interpretations. Onthe other hand, I firmly believe that the texts of the Bible ARE possible to be read and interpreted properly, taking into consideration the original language, as well as the context and literation of the text in question. I find it interesting that you are calling this particular site one in which my roman catholic beliefs don't stand up to "scholarly scrutiny." you're citing a fundamentalist-protestant biblical website one as "scholarly? John, are telling us you've been.... SAVED??? I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

well, whip 'em out prof, i'd like to see 'em. There are hundreds to choose from - here is one: www.bible.ca/cath-mary-had-many-children.htm Of course, Roman apologists can always find a way of mistranslating for themselves, but the fact remains that Roman Catholics are almost alone among the Christian churches in claiming their particular mistranslation. i'll review it... but for starters, you're already starting w/ an assumption that roman catholics are going to mistranslate. also, the fact that we're "almost alone" really doesn't lend much, as if this is somehow a popularity contest. it's quite possible for many people to get something wrong, esp. something that doesn't fit what they don't want it to fit... I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

so very sad. I too have flown into Lexington on CRJs and ERJs. Poor souls didn't have a chance on that short runway. Prayers and vibes to the lost and their families. Hope the FO pulls through. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

well, whip 'em out prof, i'd like to see 'em. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

How? By allowing divorce? That's really only against the Catholic faith; there are an awful lot of divorced fundamentalists and conservatives out there. I cannot for the life of me see how liberal ideology, particularly in this case, where it simply puts homosexuality in the same soup with race, gender etc. as things that teachers, while teaching, cannot make moral judgments on. Wendy W. By allowing divorce and MANY other things that are an assault on the family. Yes, divorce is not indiginous to liberals. However, in what political camp do you hear any calls for strengthing the family? I'll give you one guess... it ain't the liberal camp, that's for sure... And this isn't a discussion of religion Wendy. There are many Protestants who are against divorce as well. But what we're talking about is the family vis a vis the two main political factions in this country. One would have the family as defined as whatever people want to define it -which leaves a wake of devestated people- versus the other which would have the family as it's been defined for centuries. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...

I find that statement quite puzzling. Can you elaborate on this? I think it is quite the opposite... The liberal ideology tears families apart, period. So much of what the liberal ideology encompasses has been an afront to the family. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And...