WordWolf

That was stated to be a miracle. If God wants a brick wall to start talking, I'm confident it will, and expect it NOT to do so for anything short of that. The narration calls John the Baptist a babe, 6 months "old" in development, and said he responded to the imminent Messiah's approach, kinda. (His response was definite, what he responded to is complicated.) God called him a baby. A baby's a child. If he were thus killed, it's child-murder. I explained it in detail more than once in this thread. Please review my posts. If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. I made it as simple as I am able. Interesting. T-Bone. I expect we'll be examining some verses from there soon.

[Actually, YOU just proved that's possible by completely tuning out my citation of some of the thousands of POSITIVE uses of the internet. You selectively skipped it since you're dedicated to painting it as an unredeemable evil that's sucking society down. That it's superior to television is due to the abilities to gather information, and to interact as opposed to sitting and just accepting the tv show contents.] [if that's the defining element WTH is determined to make of it, then my online relationships are MORE genuine than my offline ones!] [Ah, the dangers of another new technology. The printing press can be used to spread lies or print pornography. The telephone can waste the day, and be used for adult chat-lines and "phone sex." The automobile can more efficiently carry a man to brothels and houses of ill repute, increasing his access to them. The radio spreads evil rock and roll music with its pelvic gyrations, like Elvis. The television lowers standards with its poor bill of fare. And the computer is worse than all of those. So, the Amish are the last REAL people left. WTH, since he's been corrupting himself posting here and being online, is no doubt preparing to join them and go offline, demonstrating the courage of his convictions.]

Perhaps it applies to some people, but it didn't apply to me. I was looking for answers. For my first few meetings, I sat closest to the door, waiting for a sign to run. To a degree, I bought into what we all bought into, but I also had points where I saw mistakes and errors, and saw fit to address problems with leadership. When lcm fired all the local leadership, I went to ROA 89 and observed for several days, and was thus able to make an INFORMED decision, having heard from both sides about themselves. The leadership among those who left learned I still addressed problems with them when I saw them. Ultimately, after I faded out, I doubt few of them missed me. So, I don't fit the pattern described, which may only mean I'm an exception to a rule. Which is normal for me. :)

Well, before people post ALL my favourite episodes, I'll go. It IS my turn, after all. (I wonder if they told Brooks to pronounce that name "Peee-CARD" or if it was his idea.) Ok, next quote. "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say the Enterprise should be hauling garbage. I meant to say the Enterprise should be hauled off as garbage." Let's see who can chime in first. :)

So then, for those of us who are trying to determine what information the Bible would impart to those of us who consider it authoritative, We are still left with the original question, or-reworded slightly- "What information is stated in the Bible itself that would instruct us on the topic of abortion?" Now, this is a subject that has many hard feelings, strong opinions, hurts, misconceptions, and other complications. I won't pretend that we'll reach a definitive, brief answer that should be considered self-evident. At least, if we DO, I'll be VERY surprised. With some work, and a little teamwork, I believe we will come A LOT CLOSER to an answer than we had when we started. When addressing the subject of "when is an abortion acceptable?", the primary relevant question, I think, becomes "when does a fetus go from a 'collection of cells' to a 'baby' or person?" The general opinions as to when an abortion is acceptable seem to all be divided based on the answers to that specific question. For those people who say "a fetus is not a person until it takes its first breath", then abortion would be acceptable reasonably any time BEFORE "first breath". (For the sake of discussion, I'll call that one at "anytime before the mother goes into labour." Although that's technically before "first breath", I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on labour being the stage when the soon-to-be-person will emerge normally and become a person.) For those people who say "a fetus is a person at the moment of conception", then abortion would be acceptable reasonably only before the moment of conception, which would mean that an abortion would not be possible, since before conception, there is nothing TO abort. (It would be a separate discussion as to whether a "morning-after pill" is acceptable under that definition.) For everyone else, the answers do not come so easy, and the answers span a gamut of responses, and a gamut of reasons. Going back to our OWN discussion, based on Luke 1, it seems that the Bible would call a fetus a "baby" by 6 months IF NO LATER, which would indicate the third trimester addresses a baby, a person, which would mean that an abortion at that time would unquestionably be a premeditated murder. So, we've eliminated 3 months off the potential target-time, just off a handful of verses in Luke. We've trimmed the later end of the timeframe. On the other hand, the old "call a fetus a thing" business was based on a poor mistranslation of a verse in the King James Version which was introduced between the Stephens Text and the English version. So, we don't have the luxury of saying that a fetus starts as a "thing" and becomes a baby. We also have not proven a fetus does NOT start as a "thing", either. Perhaps another verse will clear that up one way or another. Will we find a short, clear, clever answer? Doubtful. Will the search be instructive and add to our knowledge? I think many of us, if not most of us, believe it will. Me, I didn't realize the 6-month thing before this discussion started, so I for one think I will, and I trust others may see the same.

That was Q (complete with cheezy moustache) in a 19th century boxing ring, bareknuckle-fighting against Ben Sisko in "Q-LESS." It also had the only in-episode criticism of the DS9 crew not having all answers at their fingertips all the time. (Well, they were not all the Federation's best and brightest, as the Enterprise-D supposedly had, nor were they using up-to-date machinery- 1/2 their systems were jury-rigged between 2 different technologies (Federation and Cardassian). The not-aired series pilot, "the Cage" (with even cheezier special effects than the rest of the show, and a cruder opening sequence) doesn't count, since that didn't air until, I think, the 1990s. Segments were later used in both parts of "the Menagerie." For some reason, I sometimes mistakenly think "the Menagerie" was the series official opening. But it wasn't. Matching the opening monologue, it was "Where No Man Has Gone Before." CORRECTION: "Charlie-X" aired before "WNMHGB." They weren't filmed in that order, but that was the airing order. Frankly, I don't see much difference between the plots- both have humans with Q-like powers, only one's just some citizen and the other's an Enterprise crew-member. Must be why I keep confusing THOSE 2 episodes. FURTHER CORRECTION: Hiway29's right, "THE MAN-TRAP" aired before both, and was THE first episode AIRED. Good thing I don't do this for a living....

As to whether or not there is a specific verse saying "And God said, behold, abortion is acceptable up to the moment labour begins" or "And God said, behold, a fetus is a child from the beginning of the first month" or anything in between, there is no specific verse. I believe almost all of us can respond to that factlet by saying "DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH." That having been said, those who actually believe the Bible has value in a more-than-interesting-cultural-guidebook manner, that is, who believe it was designed to communicate information from God to man, those people believe that its utility is more than the sum total of the verses, that its guidelines are usable for concepts not extant at the time the books were written. For those who believe that the "all life and godliness" referred to as having been given us also refers to the Bible ( 2 Peter 1:3 "According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue") as was taught in twi, and is held by ex-twi'ers, the idea of just shrugging one's shoulders and saying "no verse addresses it explicitly, therefore we have no idea" should be considered both lazy and cowardly. This brand of inconsistency (one might even say "hypocrisy", for this is an inconsistently-applied standard) is compounded when one declares that the godly position is one thing, while hiding behind a shrug when discussion of the verses comes up. The concept that a fetus is NOT a baby-and thus not a PERSON and thus not truly ALIVE- before the instant they take "their first breath" has several problems. A) There is no verse that says this is the case. B) John the Baptist, when in his 6th month as a fetus, was called-by God in the Bible (for those who believe the Bible IS from God) a baby, and he responded to really esoteric stimuli- he responded to joy at the approach of the coming Messiah, in a very indirect fashion. It's a strange and unusual concept to approach, but-if GOD ALMIGHTY SAID IT- it behooves me and all those who believe the Bible IS from God to accept that this is correct as stated. That means that the concept that a person is not alive until one's first breath at the 9th month has been successfully refuted in Luke, and that the LATEST one could be considered to be alive and a person (albeit a baby, but babies ARE people) would be the 6th month- 3 months BEFORE vpw's doctrine. When faced with this combination, it's rather sad that some, when asked specifically how they reconcile their "first breath" doctrine, thus a "9th month" doctrine, with the "6th month" verse, would respond with repeated attempts to talk around it. I'd have a LOT more respect for someone who said "Being unable to refute the clear, overt meaning of the verses, I have changed my opinion and claim that the New Testament says the LATEST point to consider a baby as being developed into a living person, although I once held that it was in the 9th month at the "first breath." So, it seems we are in 3 groups. A) those indifferent to the Bible, since they hold it as not authoritative B) those who can study the verses and come to new insights and conclusions C) those who will maintain the twi/vpw doctrines and filter all insight through those doctrines I was hoping all three would have insights to offer in this discussion at different points, but it seems the third category has limited what they can bring to the table.

We were typing at the same time. I took a few minutes to finish looking it up.

And refused to answer Luke 1:41 and Luke 1:44, which appear to contradict that position. KJV: "Luke 1:41 "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" Luke 1:44 "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Greek word 'brephos', which is also rendered "infant" or "young child" elsewhere.) John was not born yet, but he was considered a babe/baby. (I'm skipping any " 'babe does not mean baby thing' because I try not to get involved in discussions that are EXCEPTIONALLY stupid.) What month was he at? Well, according to Gabriel, 6 months. Luke 1:36. "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren." So, John the Baptist, at 6 months if not sooner, was considered a baby, which is some 3 months before "first breath" on the average. That's "sometime before nine months", so that darn well IS what we know. Further, at 6 months, there was some specificity in that he responded to Mary, and his response somehow indicated a distinction between normal fetal movement and this SPECIFIC reaction. That was in Luke 1:41, as description, and NOT simply a report of Elizabeth's opinion. (Someone might try to dismiss 1:44 for that reason, but that excuse is denied in the case of 1:41. So, in short, I'm scratching it as "non-responsive."

From the way this was written, one might think that there was such thing as the internet when EW wrote her book. WTH is extrapolating from her at one place, and citing her in an attempt to support his point in another. The result appears as if WTH is saying EW wrote ABOUT the internet when she wrote this book. Man, twi really hated Travolta. "Saturday Night Live" was evil, and "Staying Alive" was plagiarized INTENTIONALLY to make AOS (off the "Satan's Alley" sequence.) I can only imagine what lcm said once Travolta became a Scientologist... [Ok, all of that was what EW said, and as far as it goes, it's correct- but it doesn't address that this is also just plain what he does for FUN. I find saying Manero discoed for "validation" is reading too much into the movie. That Manero was passionate about "dance" as opposed to doing it for the "pat on the back" becomes more obvious when seeing the sequel. He's dedicated hundreds of hours of rehearsal a week, and many hours going to auditions, only to be sent home and face rejection EVERY TIME. That was thus the opposite of "validation" EACH TIME.] [At its heart, the Internet is a method of communication and information-exchange between people. Some of us find the communication and information-exchange all by itself is a laudable goal all by itself. Then again, I suspect that those who don't GET "recognition", "praise", "admiration" or "validation" for just going about their business might well claim that this is the ONLY goal, and further that it is to be despised. Meanwhile, a few seconds' search gave me the information I was looking for, which illustrates my point. It predates the internet by nearly 2000 years. "One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour." Aesop had a point to make there...] [it is her opinion that there has to be an answer to that.People doing things for the love of doing them has been an element for society as long as there has BEEN society. I assert that Jubal wouldn't have been the de facto inventor of music if he didn't like music, and Tubal-Cain wouldn't have invented smithing if he didn't find a joy in building things that last. Then again, the recognition inherent in the tasks might cause one to say that the reason they did either was "for validation." On the other hand, people hotdogging and doing things just to get the credit for doing them has a long history in society as well, probably as long as there has BEEN society. So, this really is unsupported. Further, she said nothing about the Internet, which didn't exist back then. Connecting her unsupported supposition and its supposed correctness to this discussion is the supposition of WTH.] [some people value the information they can receive at their fingertips at a moment's notice. With a few seconds' work, you can download Aesop's Fables, the most classical of literature, tools for use with a Bible, valuable medical knowledge or knowledge of ANY area of study, or just communication and friendship. It can be used for entertainment, for news, for knowledge, for friendship. Ignoring one of those uses entirely does it-and yourself-a disservice.] [Or they can add immeasurably to one's life.The printing press can be used to produce trash magazines of negligible quality, and it can produce medical journals and Bibles. To ignore the latter uses is to does it-and yourself-a disservice. Perhaps it is the PERSON and not the TOOL that determines its utility-or its uselessness.] [You proved my point. Television can be used for education as well as entertainment. (Or both at the same time, as GOOD education is INTERESTING, often, especially on TV.) The great ADVANTAGE in utility of the internet over the television is that the user CONTROLS THE EXPERIENCE. He posts and interacts with others, and he determines which of the billions and billions of websites he is going to spend time on.]

Her link was of LINDA RONSTADT singing "Long Long Time Part", which a quick websearch clarifies is "LONG LONG TIME." We're still waiting for the next song.

Even one of the syllabi I have from something admitted it was a portmanteau (not that they said that name, not knowing WHAT a portmanteau WAS) combining the words "retain" and "memorize". What it WAS, was a memorizing, but someone felt the need to make up a new word, as if it was a new idea or a new concept. As others have pointed out, adding new organization-specific names and terms help to thicken the wall between "us" and "them" for those IN the organization. Hm. Depends on the specific direction you're going. You MIGHT apply Matthew 23:13-15 "13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. 15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves." or possibly Matthew 23:23-24 "23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." or possibly Matthew 23: 3-5 "3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments," Or maybe something else. Seems like Matthew 23 might be a useful chapter to review for that. "

A few of those are true, but I don't have time to sit and unravel the spaghetti right now. Maybe later.

Galen, should I actually type out the verses I asked for a relevant comment on, and retype the questions I (re)posted about them, or just scratch the effort as "non-responsive"? So far, It seems to me that all attempts to justify vpw's position (except one) have been departures from actually addressing the verses that make them problematic to be true. (I.e. 'DISTRACTIONS FROM' rather than 'attempts to answer.') Given intelligent adults, I find this rather disappointing. It's not like I'm asking one of the age-old imponderables, or for you to even resolve the entire discussion into one sentence. I just want to see one of you either resolve your seemingly-contradictory doctrine, or simply label it as "dismissed", so we can proceed to one clear, non-contradictory concept (or more than one non-contradictory concept, as the case may be.)

If I can be indulged... Before I snatch this one, I'll give one more shot for someone else, someone for whom this is not a defining episode of the shows.... :) "Intelligent converse is impossible. You do not discuss, you gibber." "Between intelligent species of good will --" The previous clues... "You enjoyed that." "You're damn right!" "He wants the impossible." "That's the short definition for Captain."

It would have been mine or Raf's depending on which was the correct episode. Hiway29's answer repeated Raf's.

*snicker*

That's got to be when Spock "used the Vulcan Death Grip" on Kirk. It's when they stole a Romulan cloaking device, and Kirk is revived from death with pointy ears and sharp eyebrows.

What do you remember from this timeframe?

I'm waiting to see if there's any basis for it, myself, but so far, a case for it is still pending... Perhaps. Sounds like someone missed the relevance of it-possibly due to cutting this post in half, but it goes to the heart of the FOUNDATION of this subject. I'm open to hearing support for various positions, but that means the support must be OFFERED first.

"Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who." "Who is that?" "Must be a king." "How do you know?" "He hasn't got sh* all over him." According to the actors, that was an improvised line.... "...She's rich, she's got huge....tracts of land!"

I thought we were going to hear how you view those Scriptures, Galen. That IS what you volunteered for, when I asked and you responded, right?

No, but nice try. For a moment, I thought someone had just zoomed in and got it immediately. (No, that's not a clue or anything.)