Amos

Sorry I see your objection now. In my post above I called it "the forerunner of modern abortions" and should have been "modern C-sections."

NOGO

When you talk like this Amos I can also believe that you are normal.
Just joking, no offense intented

Actually Amos you are wrong on this. C-sections were practised in Africa in the 18th century and perhaps even before. Some european visitors at the time have written descriptions of such operations. And the women often survived.

If you are interested I can give you a reference.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Amos

Hello BLoggins, it will be my pleasure but there
is lots of problems with that because even as a cradle Catholic I do not really know what Catholics believe and do not really know what protestants believe. I have an idea because I did go to protestant churches and bible studies for a couple years.

The first thing I want you to know is that I don't hate anybody. Violence troubles me and will never watch violent movies for that reason.

I am a Determinists (capital D) and hold that things are the they are because they are meant to be the way they are. This includes the Protestant church and if I argue against them it is not to condemn them but to argue my point and show why they are wrong (the're all wrong!). By wrong here I mean the sola scriptura salvation method after the popular "born again" thing. Besides that, to be a 'soft' protestant is just as good (or just as bad) as being an ordinary Catholic and better in many ways because they seem to function better as social organizations (even if Catholic bingos and parties are better).

The big difference between Catholic and protestant is the method of salvation which in Catholicism is a mystery and not part of the religion itself. Catholicism prepares the believer for salvation and when this happens religion will have served its purpose. I can add a bunch to this because there are some underlying doctrine that contradict this but they will always require faith and in my view faith becomes sin (liability) if liberation is the aim of religion (faith seeking nderstanding).

Do I believe in God? Yes and no. If I say that we have the ability to become God when we know "who we really are" I must add that I am not sure if we can ever really know who we are. I say this because if we are "one with God" we go by our intuition (walk on water) and if we go by intuition we don't really know what we are doing--or it would be rational to us. In other words, if we have to trust our intuition we don't really know what we are doing, yet we go by it because we know that it is best for us.

I am more inclined to be a traditional Catholic because I defend the philosophy behind Catholicism and the modern Church has become much too protestant from my point of view. The best way to say this is that the Catholic Church teaches mystical truths that can be realized in faith seeking understanding, while the protestant churches teach half truths that can never be realized and will always leave the believer stranded and searching for his own destiny because of it.

I like the image of the Infallible Church herding the sheep hither and thither and while doing so actually IS the stream of consciousness against which the upright sinner is made known to the God within only. From here the mystery of salvation can begin to unfold and has nothing to do with our likes or dislikes. From John 21:18 "I tell you solemly: as a young man you fastened your belt and went about as you pleased [become a courageous sinner]; but when you are older you will stretch out your hands, and another will tie you fast and carry you of against your will" [salvation doing its thing].

Amos

Amos

No, I believe it. I read some criticism on this and that is just what some lady thought it meant. She actually concluded that Shakespeare must have had more education than was commonly believed because she had studied him for fourty years and still admired him (she did not really understand a word he wrote, was my conclusion).

The whole play points towards spiritual fornication (premature rebirth) starting with the spell of the three witches . . . who were Valeria, Volumnia, and Virgilia in Coriolanus.

BLoggins02

Thank you Amos, I really do appreciate your clear(er) reply

The Greek Gnostics had many of the same ideas that you do, and the notion that one might someday "become a God" or "become as God" is alive in well in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (but most definitely not the same way you see it).

Amos, you spout some of the most incomprehensible nonsense I've ever heard (read?), but I'll give you this: at least you're unique and aren't towing the party line. I respect you for that.

Corwin

No Amos.... C sections are actually about 2000 years old.... care to guess who the first was? He ended up being quite famous for other reasons.

I'll give you a hint: The term is Ceasarian Section birth.

Amos

Thanks BLoggin but what may come across as nonsense to you is very clear to me.

Amos

Right, I forgot all about that. Still no C-section in MacBeth.

Corwin

*sighs*

Amos, the first recorded C-Section birth was supposedly Julius Caesar. In medieval times it was usually performed when the mother had died in childbirth, which happened fairly regularly. (So the fact people frequently didn't survive chiurgury wasn't an issue. She was already dead, so they could at least TRY to deliver...)

Macbeth was also supposed to have been a C-section.

Amos

Sure, but "untimely ripped" does not sound like a good idea to me.