gadgetlady

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

Hitler practiced mysticism. He was not a Christian.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the info, luluc. I do NOT have any serious issues, just heavy cramping, clotting, and increasingly shorter periods (24-26 days between each) with long durations (7 days). I am now bleeding about 1/4 of the time. Along with the cramping and clotting, I'm just ready to be done. My dh and I have been married for 15 years this August and are still on our honeymoon :cursing:. Would love to not have to deal with birth control anymore as well!

My girls are 7 and 10 and very sensitive (like their mother). They did NOT see Passion of Christ, nor did I. I was brought to sobbing and shaking just from the promos. My dh would not allow me to see it even if I had wanted to (knowing what it would do to me). At Easter, our church has us write our sins on a piece of paper and symbolically nail them to one of the crosses set around the room. The sound of the hammering, imagining them nailing my Jesus to a cross, brings me to my knees in grief. I am tearing up now just remembering it. I do know the holocaust happened and think it ridiculous that people claim it didn't. I've been to Germany many times (I was born there) and have visited the memorials. The photos also drive me to my knees in grief. How the human race can get to the point where human beings are wantonly killed and discarded like garbage is incomprehensible to me. It is also why I am so vehemently pro-life.

OK, now I'm really glad I started this thread! Other than Lana, who indicates occasional trouble with orgasms (but not impossible), and green who knows women who have had sexual problems afterwards, does anyone here have any personal experience with sexual problems after a hysterectomy (that they're willing to talk about)? This might be a deal-breaker for me LOL!

Not only is there hostility, but there is also misinformation (and disinformation). I believe it is deliberate (not made up by the people posting here, but made up by others who are anti-Christian), not researched, and then repeated over and over so many times that "everyone" believes it to be true. See my post above about Christianity and the "flat earth" theory -- which is a blatant falsehood made up by those attempting to discredit Christianity. And yet if you ask the "average Joe" whether the Christian church adamantly opposed the idea of a spherical earth, he will likely say yes because he's heard the lie so often.

:cursing: As to my daughters, if they came home and asked to see SAW, I don't GUESS I'd say no. I'd say a flat-out no and we'd be having some serious discussions about why they would want to. And if they wanted to watch Schindler's List I would as well say no at this point in their lives. It's too much for them to handle right now. Later, yes. But now, not on your life. They know about the holocaust but a dramatic presentation of it would be devastating to them. Both of those examples are more than I, as an adult, can handle.

You are wrong. I strongly recommend reading this webpage on the subject: Myth of the Flat Earth, excepts from which include: It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat. A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere. Although there were a few dissenters--Leukippos and Demokritos for example--by the time of Eratosthenes (3 c. BC), followed by Crates(2 c. BC), Strabo (3 c. BC), and Ptolemy (first c. AD), the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans. Nor did this situation change with the advent of Christianity. A few--at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericity of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise. Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge? In my research, I looked to see how old the idea was that medieval Christians believed the earth was flat. I obviously did not find it among medieval Christians. Nor among anti-Catholic Protestant reformers. Nor in Copernicus or Galileo or their followers, who had to demonstrate the superiority of a heliocentric system, but not of a spherical earth. I was sure I would find it among the eighteenth-century philosophes, among all their vitriolic sneers at Christianity, but not a word. I am still amazed at where it first appears. No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat. The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman and an American, between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time. One was Antoine-Jean Letronne (1787-1848), an academic of strong antireligious prejudices who had studied both geography and patristics and who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers (1834). The American was no other than our beloved storyteller Washington Irving (1783-1859), who loved to write historical fiction under the guise of history. His misrepresentations of the history of early New York City and of the life of Washington were topped by his history of Christopher Columbus (1828). It was he who invented the indelible picture of the young Columbus, a "simple mariner," appearing before a dark crowd of benighted inquisitors and hooded theologians at a council of Salamanca, all of whom believed, according to Irving, that the earth was flat like a plate. Well, yes, there was a meeting at Salamanca in 1491, but Irving's version of it, to quote a distinguished modern historian of Columbus, was "pure moonshine. Washington Irving, scenting his opportunity for a picturesque and moving scene," created a fictitious account of this "nonexistent university council" and "let his imagination go completely...the whole story is misleading and mischievous nonsense." But now, why did the false accounts of Letronne and Irving become melded and then, as early as the 1860s, begin to be served up in schools and in schoolbooks as the solemn truth? The answer is that the falsehood about the spherical earth became a colorful and unforgettable part of a larger falsehood: the falsehood of the eternal war between science (good) and religion (bad) throughout Western history. This vast web of falsehood was invented and propagated by the influential historian John Draper (1811-1882) and many prestigious followers, such as Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), the president of Cornell University, who made sure that the false account was perpetrated in texts, encyclopedias, and even allegedly serious scholarship, down to the present day. A lively current version of the lie can be found in Daniel Boorstin's The Discoverers, found in any bookshop or library. The reason for promoting both the specific lie about the sphericity of the earth and the general lie that religion and science are in natural and eternal conflict in Western society, is to defend Darwinism. The answer is really only slightly more complicated than that bald statement. The flat-earth lie was ammunition against the creationists. The argument was simple and powerful, if not elegant: "Look how stupid these Christians are. They are always getting in the way of science and progress. These people who deny evolution today are exactly the same sort of people as those idiots who for at least a thousand years denied that the earth was round. How stupid can you get?" It's also interesting that in Luke 17:34-36, there is a depiction of Christ returning while some are asleep and some are working in the fields -- which I read as indication of a rotating earth.

As I said, there are a lot of competing theories about this verse. Since no one had posited a theory about the earth's being round until roughly 200 years later, I find it quite interesting that any shape resembling a sphere was recorded here. I imagine Isaiah couldn't even fathom a spherical earth. Have you ever read (or heard of) the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott? It's a fascinating study in dimensions, detailing a society of shapes that lives in two dimensions (hence "Flatland"). The main character is taken out of his two-dimensional space and views his old world from a third dimension. When he goes back into his two-dimensional world and tries to describe the third dimension (trying and failing to explain "UP" to a society that has absolutely no comprehension), he is seen as insane. It's a brilliant book which I first read in high school (when I was working at a local university tutoring college students in math); I read it again with my dh when we were young marrieds, because I found it in my bookshelf and couldn't contain my enthusiasm :cursing: I highly recommend it.

You know, it's interesting that when the whole world said the earth was flat, God said differently. 200 years before Pythagoras (generally accepted as the first person to posit the earth was round) came Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". This was an unheard of concept at the time. I know there are a lot of competing theories about this verse, but I'm just throwing this out there because I read it for what it says: before man knew the earth was round, God knew the earth was round.

Gosh, I thought I said that with An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation. In the absence of a better explanation, I believe God is infinite, has always been, and transcends time. He calls Himself "I Am." There are mysteries I believe the human brain will never fully understand, and I'm fine with that. Without a God, we're still left with "where did the STUFF that evolved into the STUFF that we are now come from?" No matter which direction you go, you still have a question mark at the beginning. I've seen Dawkins posit that we might have been seeded by another entity, which of course begs the question where did the other entity come from, or who seeded them (or it)? I find it rather funny that Dawkins, when asked where they came from, falls back on the same flimsy "lightening in goo" theory. Where the heck did the lightening and the goo come from? I can ask you endlessly where the first cell came from, and you can ask me endlessly where God came from. It get us nowhere. Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

I have a lot of friends who are old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. I don't doubt their allegiance to Christ at all. The reason I brought this up with you is because I believe people need to see the face of those who believe with intellectual integrity that Creation Science is a legitimate theory of origin. Of course I know atheists (and others) will ridicule me and make every attempt to denigrate the theory; it's not like it hasn't happened before. It happens within my own (extended) family, so I don't expect any different from people on a posting board.

I haven't seen any birth certificate for the earth, have you? There are certain assumptions you have to make to get to the "million years" number. Without those assumptions (e.g. the constancy of the earth's atmosphere), it's not "pretty easy" at all. The reason it's "pretty easy" to disprove the theory that the earth is flat is because we can see it (from space) and we can experience it (taking a boat or plane all the way around the earth). You can do neither of those things with an attempt to date the earth or determine how long its inception took.

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time: First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time: I will quote from one of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl: Ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labeling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself.

My mom kept her ovaries but thought due to the surgery that she would escape the hot flashes. Along they came, years later . . .

WasABubbleButt, you keep bringing up the "but who created God?" argument. Greg Koukl puts it so well I dare not paraphrase (found at www.str.org): But who made God? Richard Dawkins thinks theism has “utterly failed” because apparently there is no answer to this question. Sam Harris shares this conviction. The utter failure, however, is with the objection, not with theism. First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation. Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning. Moreover, God Himself is not “complex” in the way the universe is. Philosopher William Lane Craig notes: As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts….In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas – it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus – but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. The “Who designed the designer?” objection misses the mark widely. It creates no logical, rational limitation to the argument for God based on the existence of the cosmos, design, or morality.

I understand science and scientific theory. Ummm, any experimentation you can point to that demonstrates macro-evolution? Not changes WITHIN a species, but changes FROM one species to another? In other words, the theory keeps changing as the evidence contradicts or constrains the theory. Many scientists (who used to believe the theory but now do not) have abandoned the theory because of the gaping holes. Ain't that the truth. I don't know what you call "a lot", but that's a belief that's pretty easy to disprove. You shouldn't lump idiocy with a legitimate belief system and then proclaim the whole lump to be idiotic because of your lumping methods. I will quote from one of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl: Ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labeling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself.

Anyone ever heard of Anthony Flew? He was a famous atheist . . . until 2004, when he renounced atheism in favor of theism. Here's a good synopsis of what he says, from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? - Antony Flew Renounces Atheism (A)theists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for. However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution: atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist." "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism." In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads." Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife. According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before." For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God. You can also find interviews: Catholic World News : Famed atheist concedes: evidence points to God Biola > Page 1 : Biola News & Communications Belief

I've been looking for a while for that study that I had read about the Founding Fathers, Bible quotes, and Christianity. I didn't find the exact study (still looking for a copy of it online) but I did find a synopsis of it here: Restoring Our Heritage - Recapturing the American Spirit This conclusion was proven in an exhaustive ten-year study conducted by Dr. Donald Lutz of the University of Houston. Lutz's study focused on the writings of the Founding Fathers, so as to ascertain those political writers and theories that guided them in establishing our unique form of representative government. The researchers looked at over 15,000 documents from the Founders, written between the years 1760 -1805. The results were published in 1983, Volume #78, of the American Political Science Review. The study concluded that the most often quoted source of the Founding Fathers, over a third of the time, was the Bible, especially the Pauline writings. However, the study didn't stop there. They discovered that another 60% of the time, they were quoting others who were quoting Scripture or Scriptural principles. So, the most often quoted source in the Founding Fathers' writings was the Bible. In fact, 94% of their writings were references to Scripture or quoting someone making references to the Bible. So, who influenced the Founding Fathers most? The writers of the Old and New Testaments: the Bible. I'm not going to reproduce the ton of quotes to document this, whose authors include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and John Adams, but anyone is free to read it here: Restoring Our Heritage - Recapturing the American Spirit. Just a tidbit, though, from James Madison: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."