Abigail

Perhaps part of the problem here is we are trying to define that which cannot be completely defined. It is what it is and we recognize it to some degree some of the time, but we can't define it. Another thing which may be problematic is that we want others to define it for us, perhaps to validate what we recognize but can't define. But holy spirit would be and individual and unique thing and how it manifests and works for one individual is not the same for another. For example, the preacher JF spoke of. He wanted her husband to have the same response he had, but perhaps this is simply not how holy spirit works in her husband. Additionally, we want it to be scientific. We want to have the same cause and effect pattern repeat over and over again and when it doesn't we get upset or discouraged or doubtful. But what one needs in one instance will not be the same in the next. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

What if we viewed much of the Old Testament as a history book, with some wise saying thrown in. :)--> Not as god breathed, but as a history of the lenghts humanity will go to to worship their God, with the Hebrews as the star example. Could we then find some great examples of mistakes not to repeat? Some wisdom to guide us in the here and now, not just as individuals, but as a society? Jewish people, especially those who are reformed and not orthodox, do not see their religion so much as being about worshipping god but about community and society. How to function together and take care of not just oneself but their community. Is that not also, to a large degree, what Jesus tried to teach also? How to love one another? If taken literally, the Bible doesn't work. But I think, if we look at it somewhat as a history book and also somewhat figuratively, it begins to work a little better. But we get so caught up in concrete thinking, that it must be perfect and fit like a hand in a glove, etc., that we (hehehehe) can't see the forest for the trees. The result is, as individuals and as a society, we just keep repeating the same mistakes. You must worship as I worship and when you don't, war results. Is that God's will or is that simply what humanity does? Did God literally tell Israel to kill the people of other nations or is that simply what Israel THOUGHT God wanted them to do? Were they overly supersticious? Did God really punish them by allowing them to become enslaved or is that just what they believed? Did God really free them when they humbled themselves or did they just finally reach a point where they beleived the could fight for freedom and win? Just thoughts as I drink my morning coffee. To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 16, 2004 at 6:32.]

Where what definitely happened? Where leadership abused their kids or where leadership was aware of abuse and did nothing? The latter I can guarantee occured and not just child abuse but spousal abuse as well. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

SirG, Your posts weren't lost on me. Many Jewish people believe similarly. They see completeness in Father, Mother, Child, not just here on earth, but spiritually as well. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Funny, they say the selection process was thorough, but that is not what MSNBC says. They also forgot to mention the $29K they spent to make the commercial (your abs at work) and even more importantly, that MSNBC pulled the commercial off the air! To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Yes, Linda, courts do have the right to interpret existing law, it is one of their main functions. Two attorneys on opposing sides go before the judge with a legal issue. They each present their interpretation of how the law is supposed to be applied, they present research which documents what the legislators wrote, why they wrote it, what the various arguments for and against the law were, etc. They also explain how other courts have interpreted those laws in the past. If the previous cases are from other jurisdictions, the court currently hearing the case has the right to follow the precedent or ignore it. The judge then decides how the law was meant to be interpreted and/or applied in each given case/situation. They may also decide the law is unconstitutional and throw it out completely (such as was the case in abortion laws). At times, they will throw out one part of a law and keep another, or make a decision which basically states the law is too vague and needs to be rewritten, etc. This is a part of the function of the courts. In fact, appellate and supreme courts do not try cases. Their functions are to 1) make sure the trial court and attorneys followed proper procedures and 2)make sure the laws are constitutional. To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 20:16.]

"There is not a single privilege or power of a spouse that I can think of that cannot be conferred upon anyone a person chooses through other means than marriage." Joint tax returns. Health Insurance - 1000Names and I live together but are not married. He cannot put me on his health insurance. However, in our situation we can choose to be married or not, this is not the case for a homosexual couple. Social Security Benefits - same deal. Mark, Case law creates laws where none existed. They also overrule laws that violate constitutions. Case law did not create abortion rights, case law said the abortion laws were unconstitutional, there is a difference. There are still laws about abortion in effect today, but these laws have been upheld as fitting within the framework of constitutions on a state or federal level. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

The courts have been "making laws" since before there ever was a constitution. In fact our Constitution and our court system was built largely upon the concepts of what was onced called common law and today is usually referred to as case law. One of the "jobs" of the court for as long as there have been courts has been to try and make sure the laws are equally and justly applied to all and prevent laws and court rulings from favoring one class or individual over another. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

"I reject both of these arguments, mainly because any homosexual couple is entering into a relationship that, at least biologically, is already equal, and does not need the force of law to make it so, unlike a heterosexual union. Marriage, historically, benefits the female, and whatever children she may bring into this world. In fact, I think that marriage at its essence is a haven for female sexuality and female procreation. It offers protection for women to freely and safely express their sexuality. Marriage, more than abortion, and even more than the pill, has empowered women, because she can choose who will father her children, and with whom she will enter into a sexual union. There is an inherent inequality between men and women, which marriage (not feminism, not contraception) helps to remedy. I think that making a fundamental change in the definition of marriage will do nothing more than put women (and their children) at a further disadvantage. " That sounded so reasonable and logical, Laleo. But it really isn't. Because traditionally, a married woman was the property of her husband, who had the right to force sex upon her if she refused, and who and the final say in how many children were to be had. About the only thing a marriage offered a woman, traditionally, was some degree of financial security. Then came the sixties, abortion, birth control, and equal rights. New laws to protect married women were created and old laws done away with or changed. A woman could use birth control, a woman could legally tell her husband no to sex and expect that decision to be respected, a woman could go out and get a job and demand something closer to equal pay. NOW there is empowerment and protection for a woman. With those changes, divorce rates doubled, tripled, skyrocketed to a rate of 50+%. The concept of the traditional marriage has been changing ever since. People resist change, change is often scary to them. But not all change is bad. Today, marriage really doesn't offer any special protection to a woman and she doesn't even need it anyway. There are still many flaws to be worked out and some of these changes have brought up issues which we still haven't resolved. But I for one am very glad we no longer have those traditional protections offered by marriage which basically made a woman the property of her husband. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Zix, you've been reading too many of Mike's threads. Dodge, distract, etc. "It's not quite the same thing, because at the time, there was nothing illegal about slavery, and the slaves themselves were chattel property. They could not exercise freedom by making a personal choice." Exactly, it was ILLEGAL for them to exercise freedom by making a personal choice and attempting to make it LEGAL was an attempt at changing a long established tradition. "It isn't. Only homosexual marriage is, since the sodomy laws were overturned on dubious reasoning by one Supreme Court after they had been upheld by another. " I misspoke and you know that. You still didn't answer the question, though. So I'll try again and word it correctly for you........... ""It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense. Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women. Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents." And homosexual MARRIAGES are illegal because????????????????? Why????????? To every man his own truth and his own God within. [This message was edited by Abigail on February 07, 2004 at 7:55.]

Sorry Zix, but I just couldn't resist. "Attempting to change a long-established institution is very much seeking special privilege" I bet there were a lot of plantation owners who thought the abolition movement was an attempt at changing a long-established institution. Do you think the slaves were seeking special privledge when they wanted freedom? " Just as the priest-wannabe must choose to repudiate his sexual preferences in order to become a priest" Naw, the priest-wannabe just has to LOOK like he is repudiating his sexual preference. Don't you read the papers? "It is illegal to marry a first cousin or closer relative because of the real danger of genetically damaged inbred children, which have a high probability of winding up wards of the state, taken care of at society's expense. Polygyny is illegal because such families can quickly overexpand past the ability of the adults to provide for basic needs of the children, let alone how it subjugates women. Pedophilia is illegal because minors are not deemed able to understand the ramifications of their actions, no matter if the child consents." and homosexuality is illegal because???????? why????????? To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Exie, I am so very very proud to know you at this moment. :)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Personally, I can't think of a single reason, beyond religious ones, why polygamy can't be legal. Sure tax forms and social security rules would have to be changed. Big deal. It isn't like there aren't already guys out there making babies with five and six different women and women making babies with five or six different men. The government has already found ways to deal with the paternity and maternity issues in such cases, at least to some degree. There could even be some value in it, if all the people could figure out how to get along and not be jealous. (I'm woman enough to admit I couldn't do that.) Think about it, more people to help pitch in and raise the kids, keep house, share expenses. Hell, I have no romantic or sexual interest in a woman, but I sure would love to have a wife. :D--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

"That is FUNNY! If it's true though, it would mean many amazing things happened." JustThinking, It is true. There is a town in Michigan named Hell. Every winter they have a "Hell Froze Over in Michigan Festival". To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Damn BF! That sign is just a stretch up the highway from me and I just realized I missed the Hell Froze over in Michigan festival!!!!!! To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Barney. Don't you know he's possessed. Teletubbies - Tinky Winky is gay, ya know. :)--> Seriously though, I like a lot of the children's shows on PBS, but the kids shows on the networks!!!! Already teaching the kids a female should have a waist the size of a shoe string with breasts the size of watermelons. Every dispute solved with violence and the good guys always win. What a way to set them up for disappointment! To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Don't feel bad Exie, I am too. For the life of me I cannot figure out what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage, beyond terminology. Perhaps this has been explained somewhere in this thread already and I just haven't seen it. I started reading on the last page and am working my way back. But given that something like 50+% of all marriages end in divorce anyway, what makes marriage such a sacred thing? See QQ, you made some statements about modifying or modernizing marriage, and I'm not certain but I think you said it tongue in cheek, but the thing is, I agree. Maybe it is time to take a new look at this contract we call marriage and what it means. Seems to me at this point, the people who benefit the most from marriage contracts are divorce attorneys. In fact, one of the attorneys I work for is a conservative from the east coast and I asked him what he things about all of this. He laughed and said, "well I guess it means I can expect business to boom." ;)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Wow, Mandii. Those have got to be some of the best posts I've ever read at the ol' cafe. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

ha ha ha, Exie! Now I don't know weather (misspelling intentional) to laugh or vomit! Seems we have more letter writing to do. :)--> To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Sorry Mike. What I posted in the other thread was done because I felt like being a smart ***. I should have thought it through more before I posted. It was not my intent to anger or upset you. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Mike, See my response on the other thread. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Mike, Answer if you like, I already have a few possible answers. You don't have to "leave me alone", either. Truth is, having gotten to know you a bit off the board, I think you're an alright person. I don't always agree with you and I don't always like the way you come across here, but that's ok. Written messages leave a lot out. However, I have no desire to play a role in attempting to dismantel a belief system which is so important to you. I am not saying I have the power to do that or to destroy you, but I don't even wish to play a role in such a possibility. So, answer if you wish, but I'm not likely to respond to it. As I said earlier, it is not a debate I wish to participate in. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

Thanks, I think you're pretty "Cool" too. :)--> Mike, After reading one of your posts on Brady's thread I have decided to withdraw from the discussion regarding PFAL. I want no part in it. If you don't understand why, read my post in the other thread. Peace. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

"I told someone on the phone the other day that if PFAL is wrong I WANT to die. Maybe I'd drop acid and go sky diving without a parachute if I knew for sure it was wrong, just to go out with a bang." Mike, do you realize what a dangerous place you are living in? When I read that my heart about stopped (figuratively, I mean). When I lived in California, I was witnessed to by Jehova Witnesses. At the time, I was very very young, pre TWI even. I was also very lonely and far from home. I got to know this couple pretty well, I really liked them. Much of what they taught didn't make sense to me. But I was always afraid to ask too many questions. It seemed to me, they DESPERATELY NEEDED to believe the things they did and that if I asked too many questions, caused them to THINK about what they believed in, caused them to question their own beliefs, it would destroy them. That is how you strike me Mike and is pretty much what you have said. If your belief system is removed it would destroy you. I have no desire to destroy you Mike. To every man his own truth and his own God within.

deleted by Abigail [This message was edited by Abigail on February 05, 2004 at 7:24.]