Let's talk about abortion ....

But it is only a new idea in Christianity where a Man has one wife.

That my friend is only about 1200 years old as prior to that men where allowed as many wives as they could support and the priests where married as well as the pope.

Do you really base your entire Christian Belief on what is written in the edited Bible and forget history all together?

Even as recently as 1890 it was an executable offense for a lay person to have a copy of the Bible as only the priest was capable of reading that book and imparting knowledge in the way it was supposed to be understood.

Col

I've been following this discussion with interest as it's quite an emotive issue that polarizes viewpoints. I would characterise my religion as an "Evangelizing Atheist" but - despite that - I think I'm quite a nice guy. I'm kind to my mother and get on really well with most people. I don't think I've broken may of the 10 commandments except for maybe a bit of covetousness. My viewpoint on abortion is that I don't like it but see why a woman would take it as the last resort. I reserve my right to think it through, weigh up any circumstances and approach each case independently.

My real problem is with the people who wheel out the writings of the followers of one god or another out to make their point.

Faith is belief without evidence. THINK FOR YOURSELF! I don't care if we disagree - just that they are your own views!

A person believes that the Bible is God's inspired word for because it is something that he was taught to believe and that he grew up believing without ever bothering to examine the belief to see if it has any basis in fact. The Book of Mormon claims to be a "latter day" revelation from God; the Avesta claims that it was divinely inspired (but there aren't that many Zoroastrians left); a Moslem believes that the Koran is Allah's inspired word delivered by the Angel Gabriel and so on.

There are errors and inconsistencies in the bible. The most obvious were brought about by mistranslations but others - I suppose - from sloppy proofreadings when the *selected* texts were included Holy Roman Empire's version in the 4th Century or when Old Testament texts disagreed with the Torah.

Logically, if the Holy Spirit is omniscient and omnipotent, then any document that he verbally inspired would have to be inerrant, because an omniscient, omnipotent deity would be incapable of error. Hmmmm, bit of a paradox, here.

In this century, if I hear voices that tell me to murder someone then I'm quite rightly medicated and locked up. That is - if it's anyone else's voice but God...

Have a nice afterlife...

It is beginning to look as if we might agree on something!

Now we can not have that happening can we?

Col

If Christ was to come into the world today as an adult, just how long do you believe he would be allowed to roam around before being locked up with the mentally insane?

Neil I actually agree with you but the above poses an interesting question doesn't it?

Col

It *is* interesting how many societal problems arise when a god's standards are followed.

If you choose to run your life according to a set of beliefs set down in a book cobbled together in the 4th Century by a collection of vested interests of the time viz. the Holy Roman Empire then that's OK by me.

BUT - if you put forward your behaviour and beliefs as some set of overriding unique moral values in the faces of the billions of people who DON'T believe, then you are guilty of the most fascist thinking. If you try to push them in MY face and try to affect MY life then I will fight.

Neither the proof I have just given, or the reference you have provided are the correct ways of doing things.

The old saying, two wrong don't make a right...

Actually when I read your post I burst out laughing as I can remember Mae list quite well.

Actually I fully agree with you on this point as there are extreme views on both sides and being the mad sod that I am I can not help myself from stirring the pot a bit every so often particularly when I see something so way out of place as what has been posted here.

Anyway have a good one Scott it's now 3.30AM and I have to be at work in a little over an hour so I think I'll call it quits for the night and just finish off the rest of my incoming e-mails and maybe then it will be time to go back to work.

Cheers Col

Christ was a direct descendant of the House of David the rightful ruler of the Jews. Back in those days the Jewish Kings where actually Priest Kings or God Kings depending on how you want to translate the original texts. Now at the time of Christ the Jewish nation was under the control of Rome and subjugated again just like they where while in Egypt.

So it is quite possible that Jesus was starting a Political Movement which would have had two groups of followers the ones with a political agenda and those who just worshiped their God King.

Now as stated in the Bible on his crucification he was called "King of the Jews" which by birth right he was he may very well have been attempting to over throw the Romans who where at the time invaders of his country. The Jewish elders how had suffered greatly under this regime may have supported him and some may not have supported him either way if he was leading a uprising to throw out the Romans he failed and the group with the political agenda where destroyed by the Romans leaving the "True Believers" who where the founders of what you know of today as the Christian Faith.

Did you ever think of that alternative?

Col

No. I don't accept your argument.

I am a scientist and believe in Occams Razor - "If you don't have to invent something to prove a hypothesis - then don't!" If - as I believe - Christ didn't exist, was a composite of a number of people or was a very charismatic Rabbi then I don't have to invent this wonderful panoply of God, Jesus as Man, Jesus as God, Holy Spirit, Saints, Angels, Satan, Witches - we live and we're all just going to die.

Think of the size of the Universe.
Think of the age of the Universe.
Think of the unknown and - as yet - unknowable end of the Universe - if there is to be one.
How significant are we?

The refusing of a copy of the Bible - WRONG!
Multiple wives - WRONG!

History does not make right, only obvious.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.

Proverbs 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

I Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

I Corinthians 1:18 For the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I have argued from a logical perspective that since the pre-born child manifests all the same characteristics as another human being who has been born then they should both be considered living and that to end that life should be considered as murder and therefore illegal.
I have had many responses to this argument; none of which are logical or reasonable. It appears as though the pro-choice crowd bases their proclivity for abortion on emotion and ideology. I have been maligned throughout this argument as being ignorant, chauvinistic, uncaring, immature, and too young to understand the real factors involved. I have had it suggested that since I do not volunteer my time to affect the lives of others that I am insensitive or uncaring.
I read others posts who agree with me and they are lambasted as well as I am. I would say that the uncaring, crass individuals are those who feel that it is a right for a woman to murder the life that dwells within her. No future consideration should be made when determining whether or not a child should be born or put to death. There are all kinds of people in the world from all walks of life and it is that very spark of life that makes it all the more worth living. Who are you that you would sit in judgment and say who should live and who should die? Abortion takes the responsibility away from a promiscuous life style and contributes to the devaluation of the human life.

I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic.

"King of the Jews" was a mockery the Romans placed upon his cross. It was not a legitimate assignment of title.

Yes, Jesus was of the House of David. But you immediately error. Jewish kings had priests in there administration. They were not priests themselves. David was confronted by Nathan for the wrongs he had committed. The kings were not priests.

Also the only kingdom being overthrown by Christ was none. He already had authority over all. He paid the debt sin required that we might be rescued to holiness.

I hope you get this straightened out before it's to late.

Every knee shall bow. Your choice, now or later.

A point-by-point comment on my original posting, and your responses, from a Jewess who is also a scholar of Hebrew.

With this "resource" at hand, perhaps you will think twice before challenging me on the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

JULIAN: We have created the greenhouse gas effect, which if not halted shortly, may in time render the planet uninhabitable for humans.

GRET: For which I would just love to knock Howard's and Bush's heads together VERY HARD for not signing the Kyoto Agreement. I know they can't see beyond their own noses, at the long-term effects their stupidity will have, because opting for jobs is only short-term, which, when it comes down to it I suppose just means "politics" after all. Sorry, but my blood boils when I see such idiocy -- anywhere, but especially in politics. And now, when we've been told that Sydney's going to run out of (drinking) water by the end of 2006, and the other capitals soon after, is the bloody government doing anything about it? No. Because it just might put someone out of work. Well, that's bad luck, and they'll have to think of solutions for that kind of thing as well, but it's much worse luck if there's suddenly no drinking water! Do they understand that? No. Damn, I've done it again. My blood's still on the boil!

JULIAN: We have made extinct (that means GONE FOREVER) innumerable species of flora and fauna. When will the "pro-life" people learn to see the whole spectrum? The last thing the earth needs now is an increase in the numbers of humans to further despoil our beautiful planet. Contraception is of course much preferred to abortion. But surely the future of the planet and the future of our grandchildren and great grandchildren must carry a higher value than moralistic attitudes towards abortion.

GRET: We wish! See above for a description of pigheadedness. The answer's basically the same. P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S.

JULIAN: While in more recent times, some poorer countries (especially India and Brazil) have depleted the natural forests for the more immediate needs of fuel and space for growing crops, I consider that the greatest villain in the destruction of the environment is the Judeo/Christian religion.

GRET: Yes.

JULIAN: Note: Genesis 9:2 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

GRET: I'm very familiar with the above passage as it was part of what I had to read for my bat mitzvah. And if read within its proper context, it does indeed caution humanity to have respect for all living things, especially that with the "life-blood" in it (see also Leviticus 17, and the punishments for breaking this law).

JULIAN: I would be most pleased if someone could point me to some passage in the Bible which asks humans to respect and revere the lower kingdoms (animal and vegetable).

GRET: After the Flood, God was sorry he'd done what he did, hence the physical symbol of the rainbow. However, in blessing Noah and his family as they leave the ark, there is what amounts to a little give and take on both sides of this new covenant (for that's what it is).

God first tells them to be fertile and fill the earth. So far so good. Then continues the verse as you quoted above, Julian, which basically means (in Hebrew and English) that humanity is to have dominion over the earth and all it contains, exactly as promised to Adam many generations earlier.

However, while Adam's downfall was somewhat different to Noah's, conditions had not really changed. Adam was a vegetarian, not eating flesh (yet) because the beasts were basically his friends -- he'd named them all at God's command -- so he was disinclined to kill them for food.

Noah, while still being the only righteous and blameless person alive before the Flood (in God's view), was also living at the same time as the rest of the world which was not. (We've talked about why the world had sunk to this new low before I think, Julian; the so-called "fallen angels" episode [Gen.6] when God was forced to concede that humanity was "evil from its youth" [Gen.8:21]). Thus the decision to destroy the world, and humanity along with it.

However, although Noah and his family were the only survivors, God was resigned now to his creation being "evil from its youth" and sadly allowed Noah to eat flesh for the first time. Therefore, the new covenant is just as binding upon the animals as well -- they shall not commit acts of violence against their masters, and must be made responsible for it if they do. "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned" (Exod. 21:28).

So while "every creature that lives" shall now become permissable for food, along with the "grasses" (plants and trees) as before, God still exacts a stern demand on Noah that even while allowing this, no "flesh with its life-blood in it" is allowable. It's this verse which gave rise to the kashering (purification) of meat; in other words, an animal had to be slaughtered in the most humane possible way -- a quick (and with luck, mostly painless) cut across the throat and the immediate draining of the "life-blood", so as not to break the law God had given them. Only when the animal was completely drained could its meat be used for food.

It's also this verse which makes some religious groups refuse blood transfusions, although the Hebrew does not have that meaning, of course. The "life-blood" of someone/thing is only drained when it's to be permitted for food; I've never heard that the giving of blood, as in a transfusion, was for any other purpose than to save a life, not use the donor for food! What a lot of cannibals we'd be otherwise! (Although I don't suppose you could convince those who believe in this blood transfusion ban in anything else; telling them they're cannibals wouldn't rate with the brainwashed!)

Back to Genesis! God, having laid down the law over the behaviour (and responsibility) of man and beast towards one another, again warns Noah that breaking this law will have dire repercussions, because humanity was moulded in God's own image, which meant humanity had to show a little self-restraint in certain areas and be a proper example to the rest of the world. Then he concludes by repeating "be fertile . . . and increase (in it)". But adds, as he places the rainbow in the sky, that "This . . . covenant between me and you, AND every living creature with you (is) for all ages to come". In other words, while the covenant with Adam was only with humanity, this new covenant after the Flood was not only with Noah and his family but with "every living creature" on the earth. In addition, it was to last forever; no other covenants in the future could displace it.

JULIAN: Long live Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and any other religion which encourages a respect for the lower kingdoms.

GRET: I agree these religions (ways of life) have a much healthier respect for the weaker and smaller members of the planet than humanity ever had. Of course, their veneration comes from a different source -- the belief in reincarnation. But let's not get into that right now, or it will only detract and distract from the topic under discussion!

JULIAN: To the detriment of the planet and its myriad species of flora a fauna, the Judeo/Christian religion is human-centred at the expense of all the other wondrous creatures and plants which God has given us.

GRET: Yes.

JULIAN: The human race has been a blight upon the earth.

GRET: True. Since the fall of man and his native base ways, man has not followed God nor respected His creation. We have done much that has been detrimental.
Well, maybe not entirely. While the ills of our planet are indeed mostly a direct result of Judeo/Christian morals/ethics, there is perhaps one small ray of hope coming out of this mess. I cannot speak for what Christians do, so will leave it to those whose expertise lies there, but I can speak for what the Jews do about this.

Once a year, as part of the festival of Shavuot (lit. "weeks", meaning seven weeks after the passover festival; the Christian name is called Pentecost) Jews look to the condition of the world = tikkun leil olam (lit. "repairing the world"). Shavuot is one of the three major "pilgrim" festivals, so-called because these were the times all Jews would make pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to make the correct sacrifices at the Temple. The other two are Pesach (or Passover) and Sukkot (or "booths" [tabernacles]).

What else happens at Shavuot? It's supposed to come at the end of the first seven weeks of wanderings, after the Hebrews left Egypt, hence its name. Originally a harvest festival, dairy foods are celebrated and eaten (blintzes, cheesecakes, etc.). It's associated with the story of Ruth, who "converted" to Judaism when she followed her mother-in-law, Naomi, back to Bethlehem and married a Jew, Boaz, so converts to Judaism are accepted at this time. But most important of all, it's the time of the giving of the Ten Commandments, and, by implication, the rest of the law, at Mt Sinai.

The law upheld the covenant between God and Noah after the Flood. Therefore, any sin committed as a result of breaking this law, i.e. any sin against man or beast, or any other "living thing" (Jewish responsa interpret this to mean all living creatures, all plants and trees, anything included in the covenant between God and Noah) which basically meant everything on the planet.

Since the original covenant also incorporated (implied) the seven Noahide laws, about which we spoke the other day, this actually meant anything created by God, so even inorganic substances were included, such as rocks and stones. Therefore, at the time when Jews celebrate the giving of the law, they are also driven to look to their laurels over the management of the planet God gave into their care. Thus tikkun leil olam arose as part of the rituals of this festival. "Repairing the world" was, therefore, significant (and still is) in case the covenant with Noah had been inadvertantly, or worse, deliberately, broken. Ways to repair the damage were (are) discussed and then (where appropriate, and of course, where practical) put into action.

JULIAN: We have exploited its resources, created massive destruction to the environment, developed nuclear materials which take thousands of years to degrade to a safe level, and we still haven't found a foolproof place to store this nuclear waste.

DWDINO: This must be viewed in a pro/con method. Yes many trees have been removed, radioactive stockpiles created, and resources wasted. But much of this has provided for improvements in our well-being. Man often figures out how to make something work before understanding its full spectrum of effects.

GRET: I hate it when people use this argument. To me, it reeks of a cop-out. We can still have "better" lives and all the so-called mod-cons along with it, provided we replace the word "greed" with "need". In other words, look at and understand what a particular invention will do (effects on the environment, etc.) before figuring out how to make it work for the benefit of humanity.

JULIAN: We have created the greenhouse gas effect, which if not halted shortly, may in time render the planet uninhabitable for humans.

DWDINO: Debatable. But none the less, yes, mankind has used a technology to make easy production, transportation, and power without continuing to improve its waste products.

GRET: Debatable!! How dare he! Another instance when we leapt before we looked. Did we ever give any thought to what our "technology" was doing to the environment while at the same time making our standards of living better? Of course not! All we thought about was our comfort, and bugger everything else! "I'm all right Jack, bother you!" And he calls this DEBATABLE???? Sydney's about to run out of drinking water with the other capitals not far behind and he dares to call the greenhouse issue debatable! I want to kill that guy!JULIAN: We have made extinct (that means GONE FOREVER) innumerable species of flora and fauna.

DWDINO: Again man has been careless...

GRET: Oh really? Just careless, is it? Is that how we treat God's covenant with us? Just carelessness? Julian, I've just been rendered speechless on this one. I'm about to blow up, I think.

JULIAN: When will the "pro-life" people learn to see the whole spectrum? The last thing the earth needs now is an increase in the numbers of humans to further despoil our beautiful planet.

DWDINO: Pro-life...whole spectrum? Before I get into this one, how about the man being fined $5000 for accidentally killing an eagle that had landed in the road in front of him. Brings back the old saying, "Be a hero, save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail."

GRET: Oh, grow up, you imbecile! It's nice to know that a dead eagle is worth $5000. I wonder had the killing been deliberate rather than accidental if the fine would have been higher. Now, to put everything in perspective, whales, babies and eagles all rate exactly the same treatment in my (humble) opinion. All are God's creations. All, then, should be treated equally, no matter what. Maybe the circumstances are different -- the eagle landed too close to the approaching car and was accidentally killed; the whale beached itself through no fault of its own; the foetus died in situ and gave the mother septecaemia and had to be aborted in a hurry (my own case; yes, I speak from experience) -- but the outcomes are the same. All three die through no fault of their own. An abortion, therefore, is not the wanton killing of a new life, but rather, the saving of a life -- the mother's -- whether it be from a physical, emotional, mental or physiological reason matters not.

JULIAN: Contraception is of course much preferred to abortion. But surely the future of the planet and the future of our grandchildren and great grandchildren must carry a higher value than moralistic attitudes towards abortion.

DWDINO: "moralistic attitudes towards abortion." All decisions, right or wrong, are wrought from ones "morality". Laws are executions of morality. What separates this issue so much is the disregard for human life simply because that life is a dependant. The moment you cross the placenta, you are dealing with someone else's body, NOT YOUR OWN!

GRET: I just love it the way men think they know all there is to know about the rights and wrongs (so-called) of abortion and are usually the ones to pass laws about it too. Abortion implies a pregnancy which implies a woman, the mother. SHE is the only one who really knows what she wants -- no law, no other person can dictate to her how she feels, so nothing but her own mind should tell her what is right in her case. Period.

JULIAN: While in more recent times, some poorer countries (especially India and Brazil) have depleted the natural forests for the more immediate needs of fuel and space for growing crops, I consider that the greatest villain in the destruction of the environment is the Judeo/Christian religion.

DWDINO: That's an appetizer, "where's the beef?"

GRET: Why doesn't this person grow up? Not all land is the same. Some land produces in great abundance, other areas can barely have a living scratched out of them. That is no-one's fault. Nature (God perhaps) simply made it that way. The fault, if it can really be called that, lies in the populations which abound in these countries.

Incorrect applications in using the land were often applied in the past before we knew any better (if that can even be used as a lame excuse!) but it is still not necessarily the fault of the inhabitants. Experiment alone leads to the use of better methods, but it must be experiment controlled, not experiment run-amok. Once people are shown the correct way/s to use the land, life can become easier, for all concerned.

In addition, we have often ignored methods which helped to nurture the land and introduced those which did more to kill it instead. I'm speaking here of our own aborigines, who, over forty thousand and more years of experimentation, knew very well how to nurture the land around them. But did we take any notice of forty-thousand years? Of course not, and now we're in a right mess because of it.
Note: Genesis 9:2 "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."
Well, we talked about this before. Nuff said, I think!

JULIAN: I would be most pleased if someone could point me to some passage in the Bible which asks humans to respect and revere the lower kingdoms (animal and vegetable).

GRET: Yes, the covenant between Noah and God. The Noahide laws. The later Levitical laws and the Ten Commandments if read properly. Jewish law, as a whole, serves to respect other people, other creatures, other living things, other's property -- everything God commanded through his covenants with humanity in the past, especially that with Noah (probably the most important). Then, of course, there's the Talmud . . .

DWDINO: There is no such passage as God teaches only to "respect" those things with a spirit (mankind).

GRET: Wrong! He ought to read his Bible again, I think. Even the English, in this case, is quite clear. You don't have to know Hebrew for Gen. 9:2 and following. I am looking up the references but the topics to which you are referring are well known: 1) Take dominion (understand/make use of) the earth. Certainly. And note understanding comes before "make use of". This is mostly where we've messed up. We've failed to understand (the implications of) something before we've made use of it. "Taking dominion" implies a certain amount of responsibility which humanity has shown that it sadly lacks.
2) Adam - Plow the field and bring forth food. Plant food only. Adam was a vegetarian.
3) Jews - Divide the land into 7 pieces and let the land in each segment rest every 7th year. I think this is an attempt to describe the sabbatical year and the jubilee, which was seven sabbaticals. Every seventh year, the Jews were supposed to leave the land fallow. No plowing, no pruning, no nothing. Like Joseph in Egypt, they were supposed to have collected more in the six years previously to cover this "sabbatical" year. It was a representation of the six days of creation and the seventh, on which God rested. The trouble is, Jews only see this law as applicable in Israel. I don't know why.
But all these are at our disposal; land, animal, resource.
Again, responsibility is the word which comes to mind.

JULIAN: Long live Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and any other religion which encourages a respect for the lower kingdoms.

DWDINO: err. Worship, not respect. When you allow children to starve in the streets while the "sacred" cow walks by ...

GRET: Once again, all are created equal. If the Hindus "respect" (no, not worship, either cows or children!) their cows more than feeding their children, then it's a helluva lot more than we do!

JULIAN: To the detriment of the planet and its myriad species of flora a fauna, the Judeo/Christian religion is human-centred at the expense of all the other wondrous creatures and plants which God has given us.

DWDINO: Wrong again. The "Judeo/Christian religion" is Christ focused and places value in what God values, the creation "made in the image of God". This description has only been used for mankind and the Bible firmly establishes man as being above all other created entities. For instance, given the following scenario: Man driving down two lane road, rounds the corner. In lane one is a human, lane two a cow.

GRET: The Buddhist would veer off the road into tree killing himself. Buddhist? Doesn't he mean Hindu?? (Never mind)

DWDINO: The Christian would hit the pig, for his life and the other humans are of much greater value than the pig.

GRET: What pig? I thought it was a cow. Does this guy know what he's talking about??

DWDINO: Lastly, we as "Judeo/Christians" have had the destruction of the planet as an underlying object and have carelessly and frivolously brought the ecosystem to its knees. Meanwhile bringing all you duped victims with us.... please.....
What this really sounds like is a personal distaste for "Judeo/Christians" and a self pleasing vent lavishing all things viewed as detrimental in your eyes upon some facet of this group.
If you are going to drop the weight of the world's issues on our shoulders, please bring some documentation.

GRET: Yes, it's called the Bible.

JULIAN: No, I am not anti Judeo/Christian. As you will have picked up from earlier discussions, while I do not call myself a "Christian" because I find some of the dogmas of Christianity implausible, I use the teachings of Jesus and St Paul as the basis of my ethics. I appreciate your point about the sacred cow and the pig.

However as Hinduism is pantheistic, a core belief is that the spirit of God is in everything in the universe. Good point. Naturally all religions become corrupted over time, but that does not alter the core beliefs.

GRET: It does in "dwdino's" world!

JULIAN: Another example is the caste system, which is a man-made distortion drawn from the concept of reincarnation.

I doubt very much that a Buddhist would behave in the manner which you suggest. I will ask a friend of mine who is a Buddhist nun.

JULIAN: "There is no such passage as God teaches only to "respect" those things with a spirit."

Genesis 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered How can you interpret this verse from Genesis as ?respect?? Fear and dread equals respect? I think not. This is precisely my point -- mankind has NOT respected the lower kingdoms.

Think about this: The vegetable kingdom DOES NOT DEPEND on humans for its existence and survival.
The vegetable kingdom depends on animals in certain ways: pollination; dispersal of seed (through poops) and fertilizer from the same source.
The animal kingdom depends entirely on the vegetable kingdom, both as a primary and secondary source of food.
Humans depend on both kingdoms for their very survival, and I happen to believe that the animal and vegetable kingdoms, whilst not being above the human race, should indeed be respected and revered as we could NOT survive without them.
But may I add that I believe we were all created equal -- animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms. We are all God's creation. Maybe we should agree to disagree on this one point, Julian.
No, I do not hate the Judeo/Christian religion. Sure you can say that Judaism is God-centred and Christianity is Christ-centred. But the very fact that God created all living species surely suggests that all mankind should respect all these created species. God created everything, all species, all things.

Once again I will put the question to my Jewish friend who has a thorough knowledge of Old Testament Hebrew.

English translations rarely capture the essential meaning of the original Hebrew.

Once again, thank you for your detailed and balanced response. Naturally I realised that my posting was extremely controversial, and I was I suppose challenging people to debunk my ideas, if they were able.

However I will stand by the essential meaning of my posting, which is that we should all seriously consider how our actions today may affect the earth and all its inhabitants in the future, however far distant that may be.

GRET: YES!

GRET: Well, I hope I have done so to your satisfaction, Julian. I have to admit, this is the first time I've ever been asked to condense twenty plus volumes into such a short precis! Nevertheless, I hope what I've said helps both you and "dwdino"
(although I wish I could kill him sometimes -- how very un-Jewish of me!)

Argument that was made about 400 years after the event by Romans who then accepted the Christian Faith. They would hardly admit to the fact that they where the bad guys would they? They also after accepting Pauline Christianity then proceeded to wipe off the face of the earth all other forms that then existed.

About David you are badly misinformed but I'll leave it there as you would prefer to believe what you do and not have to face the truth!

Col

Actually I am a male and my name is Julian.

At this website I am usually referred to as "Jul"
or "jules" (derived from my alias -- which is
also my email address).

But thanks for your sensible, impartial
overview of the discussion.

As I said in an earlier post, I'm a scientist and have been taught to apply Occams Razor.The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. Applying Occams Razor, I find that I do not need a god or God to accept my viewpoint of the universe. I'd *like* to believe in something and have that smug certainty in the righteousness of my beliefs but thinking gets in the way.

I find that the typical "in your face" Christian's faith in God is rather like mine in, say, Canada. I've never actually seen the place but I believe it exists. They believe in what they believe and they believe that they are right to believe it. They also take it as read that the contrary view is the one that needs the burden of proof.

I do not need to disprove the existence of anything - God, fairies, alien vistors, UFOs. I dont't have time to be bothered with things I don't believe in. If you care about my immortal soul then YOU convince ME. I don't care about yours because I don't believe either of us have one.

Defending any idea with faith alone is like to cheating in a playground game. You can never win the game fairly, but you can never lose it according to your own rules.

By the way, Darwinism is provable fact. It's happening NOW and can be seen. Some of the finches used by Darwin to model the Theory of Evolution have changed since his day to further fit their specific ecological niche. But - what the hell - the bible says it took six days so it took six days. Why doesn't the bible mention viruses, bacteria or prions?

Errors in the bible? Nope, I don't care to discuss this. I read the bible from cover to cover when I was a student and had very mixed feelings about what I'd read. I believed then - much as I do now - that it's an interesting mix of myth, history (written by the victors), social comment and dietary rules. Live my life by it? No thanks, not when I've seen whats been done on the basis of interpretaions of passages in it!

Back to abortion.

There is a theory that was belived some years ago that "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" i.e. that the development of the organism - Ontogeny - mirrors the evolutionary path of the species - Phylogeny. Although this thory is no longer accepted it is generally still observed that if a structure is evolutionary older than another, then it also appears earlier than the other in the embryo. Species which are evolutionary related typically share the early stages of embryonal development and differ in later stages.

The backbone, the common structure among all vertebrates such as fish, reptiles and mammals, is one of the earliest structures laid out in all vertebrate embryos. If a structure was lost in an evolutionary sequence, then it is often observed that said structure is first created in the embryo, only to be discarded or modified in a later embryonal stage. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys had a tail, and human embryos also have a tail at one point; it later recedes to form the coccyx.

The cerebrum in humans, the most sophisticated part of the brain, is also the one to develop last.

What I believe from the evidence that I have read is that, although the fetus is formed from human DNA, it does not have the characteristics that make us all individual human beings until very much further on from the point of conception. It is not a BABY or an UNBORN CHILD at 14 weeks! Abortion should be the right of all women and the woman alone as they have to suffer any physical and psychological consequences of the procedure. I would hope that any woman would not enter into this lightly and would consult with the other partner and be given any pre- and post- procedural help from the medical profession and social services.

The mucous cells lining my nasal passage are formed from human DNA - should I not blow my nose lest I murder some of them?

Good Morning,

On Gibran - I had given my da a copy of the prophet for Christmas umpteen years ago - and that was the poem he liked best. That is my only exposure to this poet.

On Buddhism, I'm am glaringly ignorant. I have some understanding of the underlying philosophy, and am claiming no expertise! As part of an adult religious education program, my husband and a few other people from church (Unitarian-Universalist) are going in to a Buddhist temple in NYC for a special celebration - Buddha's birthday, which is later in that week. I can't go because it conflicts with another church scheduled event for the kids.

I wish I could go.

Maureen

The next time that the Dali Lama is visiting the US and is in your area go to one of his talks these are not devoted to the Buddhist beliefs all that much but more along the lines of what is right and would be considered by many as nothing more than "Common Sense" you will find him a delightful speaker and a wonderful person.

Col

He is using that example to suit his own ends as sees nothing wrong with it as in his mind it is a perfect example of just how right he is {Or thinks he is!}

But in actual fact his ramblings are nothing more than those of a deranged person who in all honesty should have been a good candidate for a Surgical Termination prior to birth because those responsible for his upbring have distorted his beliefs to the point where to him at least they are real.

Maybe a nice long holiday away from society where he gets the treatment that he so desperately requires would be a good idea in his case but either way he needs treatment desperately and we all should pity him for his misguided and nonsensical thought patterns.

Incidental did you like the way that Julian has been changed into a female I wonder when he had the operation? We learn something new every day don't we?

Col

Just which parts of the Bible did Jesus Christ actually write?

If you have a general look at the Bible you will see the obvious things like the four Gospels all differ from each other and in some aspects contradict each other.

Also if Jesus wrote the Bible just why where his formative years left out? At the beginning of the New Testament his mother is going with her husband for a Roman Census and after his birth there is little to no mention of him again until about his 30 th year of life when he purposely began his ministry which lasted for about 3 years before his death in the Christian Bible but if you refer to the Muslim Holy book you will see a very strong reference and description of the Nazarene who went about disposing of the differences between the then Jewish and Muslim faiths for well over 30 years.

Also I would like to point out one simple fact "TRUTH IS RELATIVE!" Do not believe me for a single second but go into any court in the place and just listen to the witnesses describe what exactly they saw at a certain time on a certain day you will find that no two are identical. So you statement that TRUTH is ongoing, everlasting is flawed from the very beginning as these very same people are not distorting the TRUTH but using their personal prospective to tell what they personally believe what they saw on the occasion that they are giving evidence about.

Col

Hal, Col, whomever,

Your viewpoints are so skewed as to make lines look like circles.

If you choose to remain deceived, I am sorry.

I am not sure of the source of this statement.

Anyway...

First off, Truth is not relative; perception is. When in court, you rarely get truth. There is plenty of perception, but little truth.

I can perceive a man with a frown walking briskly toward another. I assume he is upset and will shortly exact revenge on the second man. But, what is truth, I do not know. He could be thinking on an issue; he could be off in lala land and not even know the second man.

Also, in your instance of the court room, what happens? Person 1, 2, 3, & 4 present their perceptions. None complete, none truth, all differing perspectives of the scenario in question. But, by combining all 4 perspectives (as long as lying is removed) we should be pretty close to the truth.

Truth is unchanging, immovable, solid. The problem is that we have only one source of truth which most reject, Christ.

Basing your "truth" on the law/judicial systems is very faulty. When criminals prosecute innocents, those defending themselves are jailed, and many more falicies, oh what a standard.

Please show me a contridiction of the four gospels so that we can delve into this further. The best way to describe them is to imagine four people on opposite corners of an intersection. A crash occurs. All four persons will tell essentially the same story with differing details and slightly different perspectives.

For instance the person on the North side will say car 1 turned right while the person on the South side will say it turned left; etc.

"...his formative years left out?" Honestly I don't know. I can ask why any author chooses to place into a work what is contained therein; their discretion (sp). Through a historical study of Christ you can come to see that many of His choices were made to draw us to faith in Him. So, not "knowing it all" brings us to say "I don't know, but I will follow Him." I would have loved it if every detail of the End Times were written out, but that is not the case.

A motor incident occurs in which one of the vehicles ends up on its roof and burst into flames. The Occupants ll die because they ware wearing seat belts which do not release while there is pressure upon them {this is supposedly a safety issue as the makers of these things do not want them releasing durring a collision}

Now in the Coroners Court there are 12 people who witnessed the collision none of whom where directly involved in the incident but all give their own version of the events that they witnessed. Now having been through this experience I can tell you that all of those wittinesses did tell the truth from their own prospective but what they told the Coroner was a different story every time.

Now take this incident to another plain. A person who latter becomes believed as the true Messiah is seen performing Miracles now to some he mas be seen as a Messiah to others he may be seen a a great medical worker or whatever. There are as many explanations for a single event as there are possibilities of that event actually occurring prior to it happening.

If as you say that man is incapable of forming truth than just how can those Human transcribers accurately relate the word of Jesus.

And more to the point just exactly what did Jesus write in the Bible? The Old Testament was all prior to the advent of Jesus and the new Testament was written about 400 years latter based on Pauline Christianity and interpreted by the Romans to suit their own ends.

While I do believe that the Old Testament is historically correct about historical events occurring but not necessarily the complete contents is factual it does not necessarily follow that the New Testament is.

I compare this to the Encyclopedia Britannica being placed on a shelf and then another book bound just like the rest of the set being added which is pure fiction. Because the rest are correct does that mean that the fictional one should be given the same status?

Or by using the name Jesus do you mean God? As it is my understanding that in traditional Christian belief systems that they are accorded different roles one being the son of the other and while supposedly having all the divinity of his father he was never considered as the one true God which is expounded by the Christian belief system.

Col

What I do find difficult about your postings is the way you chose to ignore the "Hard Questions" and just pick what you believe supports your own belief system.

I do not believe that at any stage I in any way implied that you where not welcome to post here or ask you to withdraw either and since you have agreed with at least one of my postings on another thread I really do not consider you as a bad person or for that matter a good person just one who strongly believes in what he is currently surrounded by.

But I do wonder that if you did not have some form of direct involvement in the other question would you be so open to the same conclusion that I came to there?

As far as you thinking that you where dealing with adults here well I could very well say the same as from my perspective all adults listen to the arguments then make up their mind on a subject. From what you have posted here that appears not to be the case on your part however as you came to this particular part of this forum with fixed ideas and have been systematically attempting to force others into your belief system and at the same time totally ignoring any other positions that are put forward. When asked a direct question you chose to ignore it as being too hard to answer and go off on a tangent or select one part {a few words only} of the posting twist them out of context and them proceed on with your own belief system attempting to make out that you have fully address the original question.

Are you a Politician? If not you would make a very good one!

Col

Several years ago I had been in a pub with my cousins in rural Ireland.

Well this one doubled up as a shop selling the tools and instruments used in maintainance and care of livestock. I grew up in NYC, as did my drinking partner (my ex). He espied some wicked looking tool which resembled pliers and asked my cousin, who had grown up on a dairy farm - what the heck were those nasty looking things, they look like pruning shears?

She about fell over laughing.

They were the "clippers" used on bulls.

Maureen

How much editing the bible was subject to over the millenia. How much made it in to the distilled version, and how much was left out, and how much was not even considered for publishing.

It was not written by Jesus during his lifetime.
Then who, and for what purpose?

Maureen

Hi there Julian

Just like to pick you up on one paragraph that caught my eye, about the DESTRUCTIVE things the Christians have done over the centuries.

Think about the Great Library of Alexandria. It stood for about a thousand years, the hub of all scholarship and learning for most of that time.

When Hypatia was senior librarian (yes, a woman!) she was assassinated on her way to work one morning by a Christian mob led by the Bishop of Alexandria. Lynched, actually.

Hypatia was a neo-Platonist, a scientist and scholar, her views almost diametrically opposed to those of Christianity. She was murdered because of her beliefs.

Then the Great Library was burned to the ground. Everything was destroyed. Some books were saved as teachers and students alike escaped the flames, carrying with them only what they could.

Had this terrible destruction not happened, we may have had cars before the turn of the first millennium, Leonardo's many inventions would have been tested in real time, no doubt leading quickly to air travel, jets and planes. Kepler and Newton could have been the first astronauts. And Einstein?

Well, perhaps he would have succeeded in discovering his "unified field" theory, because by then, galactic exploration would have been the norm. Humanity's colonies would dot the Orion Arm and still be moving forever outward.

Instead, we faced the long, black winter of the Dark Ages, when scholarship and learning were severely repressed by the church, by Christianity. So much that was destroyed in that great fire which followed Hypatia's murder had to wait to be rediscovered a thousand, fifteen hundred, eighteen hundred, two millennia later.

If I offend then I apologise, but the facts really speak for themselves. Had Christianity not suppressed the great urge to learn, the natural curiosity of humanity to explore the unknown, we would have already been living "out there".

Christianity has a lot to answer for. It is the sole cause of our present immaturity. Maybe it is even the major reason we are in the mess we are. I rest my case.

"Levannah"

Maureen,

I'm in the wrong timezone for a discussion but, here we go:

It's a fair cop, Maureen - I had to check out what Process Theology was this morning! Probably because the UK is much more secular than the US, going from nominally "Church of England" to atheism was the only route avilable for me. "Non-invasive" aspects of religion such as Theism might be something to look into - I'll maybe get back to you on that.

Occam's Razor is the underlying principle of scientific method and is nothing special *except* in what is says - "Don't get complicated if you don't have to!".

KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID

My formal training is in Human Biochemistry and my interests are anything in Science but especially Biology, Chemistry, Cosmology and Sub Atomic Physics. As you can see I'm a tailor-made sceptic with some knowledge to back it up.

I agree with you that the Universe is *amazing* and every time something new is discovered it gets a wow! from me and occasionally a WOW! I can't get to grips with people who can't look outside their own heads and, unfortunately, most of the religious hardliners I've met fall into that category.

Nice to know I'm not alone in that!

Neil

The destruction of the Library of Alexandra was only one of the horrors that where visited upon the world by so called Christians.

There was also the total destruction of all the written word of the Mayans and almost all of South America which at that time was a highly advanced civilization. We are only now beginning to discover just how much has been lost in the name of Christianity.

But even in the Christian Kingdom there where massive cases of restrictions on learning as the Papal Bull which disbanded the Knights Templar in part accused them of Demonic Practices because they used the mold of oranges to stop infection in battle wounds. It only took another 800 or so years to again discover what had been destroyed by the Christian Church.

Those are but a few examples history is dotted with similar experiences.

Col

I only have degrees in Mechanical Engineering, Electronic Engineering and Applied Physics.

So I've led a sheltered life away from most people and with a bit of luck I'll avoid any of the "Hard Questions."

Instead of Occam's Razor I prefer the KISS Principal "Keep It Simple Stupid" its always worked for me in any of the work I've ever done.

Col

ProtiusX wrote: "Christians sow the seeds and God chooses who will grow and who won?t."
....
I agree that Christians sow the seeds, but I believe in the Doctrine of Free Will, where the hearer of the Word chooses whether or not to accept the Word and be saved by Christ's grace. Your statement sounds like the Doctrine of Predestination, which is held by many sincere Christians. Just a minor disagreement between us, nothing that should separate Christians.

I had posted a discussion and got no bites. I had called it "Fun Project." It will give you an idea of what I am about, and the kinds of questions you'll be seeing.

I friend of mine works for a company that builds satellites, so he helped me get to a few of the simpler sites and I had done a lesson with my son's third grade class:

demonstrating why all of our tv satellite dishes point in the same direction;

introducing solar wind and solar flares;

showing how the magnetosphere is our first protection from the sun, and how solar flares/magnetic storms interrupt satellite transmissions!

We had a blast, and the teachers want me back. I haven't figured out what I'll tackle next.

Maureen

I'll be away for a few days, and wanted to wish all of us a Happy Thanksgiving.

I'm not ignoring anyone - I'm just not around.

Take care

Maureen

insulted your country.....Maybe I should just stop posting today.....
I do know that Canadians say Eh!.......
Lets see who else can I misspell????
You guys have a day to celebrate burning catholics? Wow....that is a new one to me! You guys will use any excuse to throw down a pint!...
But seriously nEIl (got it right that time eh!) thanks and have a nice weekend....
Scott

Again, each person who spoke to the coroner gave their perspective.

To "tell the truth" and to "speak truth" refer to two different things. Telling the truth is the action of communicating without lies. Speaking truth is the action of communicating inerrant timeless facts that transcend time and humanity.

Your statement asking "how can men transcribe truth" (loose translation) is a valid question. To answer this I would point you to the doctrine of Divine Inspiration. This is a simple yet complex doctrine stating that these men were inspired and impowered by God to write what He disired. The uniformity and coherent whole of the Bible substantiate that this could not have been written without supernatural influence.

Also, to anyone reading this, I finally found the resource I needed:

ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments
by Randy Alcorn

Give it a read and lets talk again. :)

"The uniformity and coherent whole of the
Bible substantiate that this could not have
been written without supernatural influence."

Apart from the fact that the Bible LACKS
uniformity, you are not talking about "a Truth"
or "the Truth," but about a BELIEF which some
people choose to adhere to because they lack
the grey matter to think for themselves.

It is my view that if God gave us an intellect He
presumably intended us to use it. And I am not
referring to the choice between God's Way and
the human way, but actually appreciating the
wonders of creation and attempting to learn
and understand as much about it as possible.

It is an insult to your Creator to deliberately
AVOID using the intelligence He gave you.

It is a COP OUT. It is actually possible to study
and question the Scriptures, as many great
men have done (like St Augustine for example,
or Thomas Aquinas, or Albert Schweitzer)
WITHOUT losing or denying their faith, but in
fact strengthening it.

The dichotomy used to be: "Salvation by faith,
or salvation by works."

There has been a very insidious and
dangerous trend in recent times, and that is
"Salvation by belief."

Think about this. Can you actually distinguish
between what you BELIEVE and what you
KNOW?

Alas it is all too common these days for
Christians (or those of other faiths I guess) to
mistakenly think that their personal beliefs are
facts.

Please think about this. Belief and faith are
two entirely different things. You may well have
faith in your beliefs, but does this necessarily
mean that you have real faith in Christ and
God?

Read the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon
on the Mount. I have practised and LIVED
these precepts and KNOW from personal
experience that there is a tangible spiritual
power that one can tap into by following
literally these precepts.

I KNOW that the Holy Spirit is a tangible
power. I have EXPERIENCED it. And in fact I
live moment by moment in the knowledge that
my life is guided by a higher source.

However this DOES NOT mean I have to
swallow all the c*ck and bull of orthodox
Christian doctrine. I follow the ESSENCE of
Christianity. I have no need to BELIEVE all the
dogmas that are largely man-made.

Well at least as far as sharks {the swimming type} go anyway but there is a big problem with skin cancer this side of the pond.

Both of the movies that I listed where released internationally but I believe that they got rubbished by the critics and never went too far but you might find them in a video store on VHS.

As far as TR goes I've been having the same problem since Thursday your time and I know that it bas been brought to TR's attention. Every Thursday they release some form of update last week it was renaming the Technical Q & A section to Ask for Help so I presume that this week something has been released that had an unintended side effect or maybe with Thanks Giving being on over there it was an attempt to stop OZ's Friday Yuk. At this point in time I do not really know what is happening but hopefully it will be fixed soon.

Col

And here is my considered response.

Firstly when it comes to the Christian faith they are a very intolerant bunch really but I suspose this stems from the constant repression and destruction of alternative belief systems since the inception of what is currently know as the Christian Church which really in its current form only started about 400 years after the event {read that as the time of Jesus.}

Secondly it is always the devout who lead the way in any horrific instances as they can twist the words of their Holy Scripture to suit their own ends and justify their actions. The majority are drawn along by fear and nothing more as they feel threatened in their lifestyle {do not believe me but look at the average US citizen post 9-11!}

Thirdly in the Middle East there has been a rapid increase in the population over there but without the corresponding increase in the sharing of wealth. So now days you have the Ultra Rich few and the majority who live on the same income as they did 20 years ago but with far more to feed so the standard of living in this part of the world has actually dropped. Currently the population in the Middle East is doubling every 10 years or so but the revenue of the oil sales is not being spread around to the masses. The average person in the Middle East feels somewhat mislead by all the HYPE that surrounded the finding of the oil fields and just how much better off they would be. This just has not happened!

Now when you sow the seeds of anticipation and do not deliver the masses feel somewhat let down if not directly mislead so they vent their anger on who they see as reaping the greatest rewards from their resources and while there are the few in the Middle East who fall into this category they where the Monarchical Rulers who where previously considered as rich and not to be questioned so the natural reaction is to feel badly toward the country/s who are perceived as reaping the greatest rewards from these resources. I do not think you need too many guesses on who that is considered to be. So fanatical zealots arise who preach doom and gloom if the enemy is not wiped off the face of the earth. Again no prises for guessing who that is perceived to be.

But as things go further down the road the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer in most of the Muslim world and with the removal of the Strong Leaders who are literally Dictators the Religious Fanatics spreed like wild fire. Currently we are seeing this in Indonesia where the recent attacks have been aimed at the perceived wealthy visitors who come steal the benefits and leave without contributing any real advantage to the country hence the Bali Bombing and those since. There also have been religious "Mini Wars" between the Christian and Muslims who previously lived peacefully together and had a common enemy namely their countries leader. With this fear of retaliation removed they are free to do as they please without fear of retaliation that they once would have been exposed to.

Actually I really do not want Chris to answer as I genuinely feel sorry for him and his closed mind as he is not open to growth but firmly believes in stagnation and is attempting to hold onto a belief that things should be as they where depicted in things like "The Walton's," which may or may not have been correct at the time but shows like that do paint an unreal picture of just how the society was prior to involving women in upper management in the work force. Now I'm a firm believer in the better the education the more literate the population is and it is less likely to blindly follow a leader either Religious or Political who is just running off the deep end. Also there is a place for adverse comment against at the very least Government Policy as if that was not possible the Anti War movement of the 60's and early 70's could never have proliferated to the point where Governments had to change their ways to stay in power. The same can be said about the Civil Rights Movement that started prior to the Anti War Movement in America.

Now without either of these movements where exactly would we be today?

The belief of the time was that the dark skinned people of the world where some how less human than the white population and there where many Scientists who where only to willing to come out with studies that proved their belief. Since that time all these studies have been shown to be at the very best misunderstood and in a worst case nothing more than an attempt to keep the Black people in their perceived place where they where little better than slaves.

Even Hollywood depicted the Black people as being good for nothing better than house maids shoe shine boys or other low skilled workers. Your own movie industry while following the times was actually only reinforcing the myth which as we can now see as plainly incorrect. Well most of us anyway as I believe that there is still a strong resentment of the American imported workers and our natives as somehow being less than the whites who where there to protect them from themselves. Even today here in AU we have a Prime Minister who refuses to apologize for previous wrongs done to these people and seems to want to forget about these events.

I'm open to your thoughts on the above.

Col

I don't think it is so much a holiday as a night of celebration.

I only mentioned Thanks Giving as it is something that I have had no direct contact with as it is not celebrated by the Christians this side of the pond and while I do understand its origins I was just wondering why it had become incorporated in the US Christian culture. Nothing more and nothing less.

In the dim deep past we had Guy Fawkes Night or as it was commonly called over here Cracker Night as we all used to let off crackers blow up letter boxes and the like. From memory it was in November but got moved back to the middle of June/July for safety reasons {reduce the amount of fires that got accidental lit} as in November here it's sought of dry and a real fire hazard.

In Queersland the whole thing was banned quite a few years ago now and I for one miss the fun and games but like all political knee jerk reactions it was for our own benefit! Not Bloody likely as they put the mockers on a lot of fun.

Now it is illegal to have fireworks in Queensland unless you are a licensed pyrotechnics person. A few years ago my son was restricted to his house because some idiot made a report to Police of gunshots being heard when all it was was some body letting off a few crackers.

Actually I wasn't trying to attack anyone culture but put the night in prospective. I'm a great "Yes Minister" fan and what a lot of people just do not realize is that while the politicians take the blame it is really the Bureaucrats who run the show. In the original episode the new minister comes into his office and asks why decisions have been made without his authorization. The reply from the senior bureaucrat was well the Queen like the business of Government to continue even though there is an election on and a change of government so we do all the work. Having spent quite a few years working with Bureaucrats it just struck a cord with me as it is so accurate.

Col

And have it set to the US Dictionary which is a bit confusing at times but as far as posting here it works quite well but the problems arise when I just forget that I might be replying to someone else and use the US Dictionary {I forget to change it over.}

One person took great offense and asked why I spelled a lot of the words incorrectly and did I dial 911 for Emergency Assistance rather than the Local 000.

The worst time that I ever had was getting off the ferry in France from the UK and I drove down the wrong side of the road for a few KMS until I realized that I was on the wrong side. Of course it can not happen at the ferry terminal but once away from there it is very easy to make a mistake like that. You just forget and return to old habits without thinking. After that I used to catch cabs everywhere until I went to Rome and it was there that I decided that it just wasn't a safe place to be at all I kept expecting a cab to drive in through the hotel window and I was only on the 10 th floor.

Col :D

I would pay good money to see you on the left - even if it is only on the road for a short distance.

Maureen

I understood this particular festival having arisen.

Col