Abandon All Fear

What nobody else seems to be saying…

24 Weeks

Posted by Lex Fear on October 16, 2007

In an unofficial follow-up to my previous post on the subject 9×4 there is one more point I want to make about the subject.

I notice scientists in the UK are currently debating the 24 week period that allows killing termination of the unborn child organism.

Obviously those scientists for lowering the 24 week limit are just barmy creationists, peddling bunk science and conspiring to lower the intelligence of the UK on the whole.

I make no effort to hide the fact that I am in favour of abortion. However, I argue that the abortion lobby, a lobby of cowards do not go far enough! Isn’t it a mothers right to decide at any time what happens to the creature she is to or indeed has already begotten?

That’s why I argue for full-term abortion. I believe mothers should be given up to at least the age of 5 years to decide if they want to terminate the fetus or not.

But aside from all the blown-up social and human rights contextualising, the debate rests on the survivability, that is, the viability of the non-baby organism.

Those advocating 24 weeks and higher quite rightly point out that the odds of the non-baby organism is not likely to survive outside the womb without assistance.

After all, do you know of, or have you ever seen a 9 month old external fetus that is able to survive outside of the womb by itself? What about a 2 year old? a 5 year old? Would any of these external fetus’s manage to survive for long without the assistance of adults?

The fact is that the odds of any fetus surviving outside the womb up to the age of 5 years has absolutely no chance of surviving without assistance from adults!

Apparently, in the UK our chances of living to age 65 are somewhere around 80% presumably this represents the percentage of the population who have never needed the assistance of a doctor, nurse or third-party for survival.

Rather than diagnose our problems then subscribe a cure (e.g. medication) or solution (e.g. wheelchair) perhaps doctors should instead focus on determining our viability on a Bayesian scale and determine if we will be able to continue to survive without assistance?

Think about all the costs that would be saved for the NHS and public services!

Start with the disabled’s – let’s get rid of them if they can’t survive without machinery, services and other people to provide those services- total drain on our time and resource.

Next, the elderly, if they can’t feed themselves or move without assistance, then that certainly reduces their viability. Unburden the children and terminate them- they have no use in modern society and interfere with our busy lives.

Viability tests should not just be limited to physical ability- it should also extend to mental ability. The mentally ill obviously can’t survive without assistance and the care and attention of others. Terminate them all.

Then we should also focus on criminals. Why bother with prisons? If someone cannot function in society and break a law lets do away with them. There is obviously a gene or something that causes them to be that way and there’s no arguing with genes. (While we’re at it, why not just analyse genes at birth for criminal potential and eliminate the problem at it’s source).

But we are still not done solving societies ills: Religion. The religious are dangerous extremists, every day they are plotting a new wars or devious ways to kill us all. Those that aren’t plotting- the moderates- they are simply aiding the extremists by not plotting. The government should of course interview all religious people and if they renounce their faith then they are entitled to live, but if they don’t then immediate termination.

Finally, we should aid the human race by getting rid of all human weakness. Successfully purging potential children that would threaten our independence, the infirm, the elderly, the mentally ill, the criminal mind and the religious monsters is not enough. We should focus on emotions as well as physical and mental abilities. Those who display weak emotions, those who have emotional needs and depend on others are also, to some degree, incapable of survival without others. If they don’t commit suicide (Which we should offer to assist), then termination is the answer.

Perhaps this post should be entitled 1984.
Perhaps I have digressed, or my ‘final solution’ sounds like a tinfoil hat wearing conspiraloon. However I haven’t just made these up. I have seen people echo these ideas when debating- seemingly rational people who have no idea what they are suggesting!

They do not use words like ‘extermination’ and ‘purge’ but they come very, very close. For example, when was the last time you heard someone utter about a group of people they should ‘get rid of the lot of them’ or ‘ban them’? Does anyone stop to question how you would ‘get rid’ or ‘ban’ such things?

If you are going to justify abortion in terms of viability and personal choice, then why stop there, why not go the whole 9 yards?

End Note:
I’m aware of the argument for rape cases or danger to the health of the mother, as far as I’m concerned I’d never pressurise any woman to go through with birth. However any woman who does choose to go ahead in these circumstances is not only a brave woman, but worthy of honour and respect for her self-sacrifice.

Advertisements

27 Responses to “24 Weeks”

  1. cecilieaux said

    Like your new look, but don’t bore me with abortion. Puh-leeze, that’s so 20th century. I promise never to have an abortion. Now will you stop ranting about it?

  2. Heh,

    OK, that’s the last one for now.

  3. Still, “mothers should be given up to at least the age of 5 years to decide if they want to terminate the fetus or not” does give perspective!

    Rant on!
    Gayle

  4. Cecilieaux said

    Gayle, you closet fundie, you!

    Saturday I went to a talk by Garry Wills on his new book “Head and Heart,” which traces the evolution of U.S. evangelicals in the public square, so to speak. He noted that in the six post-Enlightenment “revival” or great enthusiasm phases, the evangelicals have tended toward ever greater reliance on government to achieve their religious goals. Also, their surges have become progressively shorter. Wills says the current social-political surge in the USA is on the wane after about 10 years.

    Abortion is a typical case in point. When I worked for the Catholic bishops I had the occasion to remark to them, in the form of a question to be polite: isn’t it an admission of the failure of your preaching and leadership to be asking for the government keep people from doing what you have not persuaded from refraining to do.

  5. Cec, regarding Catholic Bishops, you are right in the sense they have failed in their objective, but they also failed in the choice of their objective.

    God knows I go on and on about political issues and voice strong opinion, but I’ve always been against fusing the Church with the State.

    For starters, the church should be seperate to protect the church from secular influence (the original intent of the American forefathers) however, though just like anyone else there are Christians who can make excellent leaders of all people, and individual Christian leaders would obviously be influenced by their faith, I do not believe the church should have a say in how society is run.

    The simple reason is that rather than being the salt and light in a faithless world, the church has the tendency only to project it’s own self-analysis and fault finding on those who are ‘not church’. Eventually unchecked you have things like the inquisition.

    This is the fault of fallible human beings, not Christ or God, simply fallible human beings who easily forget the first commandments of the Jesus they worship “do unto others…”

    How much more effective would the Catholic church (and in some cases still is) when they concentrate on winning souls with patience, quietness, service and forgiveness?

    I know I am guilty of being an opinionated loudmouth at times, but there is certainly a line that can be drawn between stating your own individual opinion/discussing the issues and using your influence to change laws in favour of your own ideology.

    Mind you, this is what politicians are partly about so how can you win?

    Personally I will obey the laws of the land till they conflict with my faith. If they do, faith comes first. Many people might be upset by this statement, possibly because they have images in their head of suicide bombers motivated by their faith. But again, many suicide bombers are motivated less by faith and more by well-being of their family and a way out of their humble existence.

    I believe suicide bombers need Jesus as much as the Pope does.

    No, my faith comes before country in the sense that, if my country tells me to treat a certain minority in a less than respectful way, then I will disobey. If my country asks me to stop praying, then I will disobey. If my country asks me not to evangelise, spread the gospel (eg. give someone a bible), not to feed a homeless person, or to hate those it determines as my ‘enemy’, then I shall disobey.

  6. (Psssst, Alex, could you make that C, Cec, X, or another variety?? – otherwise it’s somehow disconcerting and a bit distracting 🙂
    Outed fundie

    Done (AF). 🙂

  7. cecilieaux said

    I often sign “Cec & desist.” My problem is that my very non-English name gets mangled by anglophones and I prefer that they mangle English (or faux French) nicknames instead. This is an extension of the biblical idea of not “taking a name in vain,” minus the godhead.

    With respect to what Alex was saying, the entire question of church and state in Christianity has always fascinated me.

    Seen in one way, caesaropapism seems a historical mistake: the church enslaved to and corrupted by political power. I might argue that in accepting tax exemption, U.S. churches are as “established” as the Church of England.

    However, Augustine of Hippo argued in his City of God that the work of Christianity is not to reject its temporal environment but to enliven it — enlivening understood theologically, as breathing in the new life of faith. Thus, he argued against those who sought to revert the Roman State to paganism that Christianity was not the cause of Rome’s debacle (as was later patently the case with the Iroqois Indians), but the possible source of a new society.

    Engagement in society and withdrawal have cut a variety of ways with Christians historically.

    I do not disagree that, from the perspective of consistency with Christian foundational teachings (with which I fundamentally disagree), the essential task and reason for being of a Christian church is to “go tell the world,” to evangelize. I would question whether that means “winning souls” at least in the dualistic sense that Christians have understood it for the last, oh, 1,700 years or so.

    In the Christian story (whose facticity I highly doubt), Jesus is not presented as a minister seeking people to undergo some ritual expression of an ethereal (read “spiritual”) change that ultimately results in a warm pew on Sundays and little else. Rather, Jesus seems preoccupied with the health and the pangs of physical hunger of those around him. Yes, he points to what lies beyond their satisfaction. Yes, he up-ends the human order. But he is not much of an explicitly religious leader in our conventional sense. He doesn’t much worry whether his followers go to church or pray; he is concerned that if they do so, they do it sincerely.

    The Jesus character (I doubt there ever was an actual Galilean woodworker by that name) is a first century Palestinian Jew who has no conception of religious abstractions, such as “the soul” and is not concerned with winning them.

    I’ll stop here. Your ball, Alex.

  8. Interesting points.

    Finances are always a touchy subject. Although tax exemption is very nice and it’s hard to say no to, I would argue that the church shouldn’t be tax exempt. Firstly for the fact it does institutionalise the church somewhat and cause it to have to conform to state laws (ie. bureaucracy and regulations). The second reason is that atheist societies sometimes lament the tax-exempt status of the church and I absolutely do not believe that atheist societies should be tax exempt since you know what would happen then- no-one in America or the UK would end up paying tax. They’d simply join the atheist society- despite the fact that the only reason the society exists is to oppose the beliefs of another group of people (the church was not set up for atheists after all- it was set up as a gathering of believers). There are many atheists who are quite happy being atheists and feel no need to join a counter-attack society.

    Of course the church is in a sense also a charity- it’s supposed to do good works in society (and there are a lot that do) unfortunately, there are those that don’t and they kind of muddy the waters- therefore the church should set example and give up its status. God can still use the church with or without tax.

    “winning souls”… you are good at picking up on my colloquialisms aren’t you! OK so that’s my own terminology for winning people over to Christ- convincing them of the gospel and seeing them give their lives to Jesus.

    It’s true that Jesus did not appear to have the fervor or persistence that some of his (then and now) disciples display but it’s certainly his reason for coming to Earth- to reconcile man to God, and to use his followers to do it (some would argue with God’s wisdom and his choice of vehicle but he is reported to choose the weak things to shame the strong).

    Funnily enough, I agree with you on your take of the Christ story. It’s true I don’t think Jesus ever wanted people to simply become pew-warmers. He did preach an ethereal change, but it was to move away from religious law to a law of the heart. I’d even go so far as to say he actually came across disinterested in all types of people – rich, poor, unbelievers and even those that wanted to follow him. His answers to their questions at times could have been interpreted as offensive, rude and certainly not desperate for followers:
    Matthew 8:21-22
    Mathew 10:38
    Matthew 12:38-39
    Matthew 15:25-26
    Matthew 19:16-22
    Mark 8:31-33

    I know I’ve used most of the references from Matthew but it’s late and I’m just going to be lazy they are the first on the list.

    Jesus was not afraid to turn people away, to offend them or to rebuke them- but many still followed.

    I would disagree with your analysis with the Jesus ‘character’. I assume by describing him as a character, you don’t believe that the actual person existed?

    I don’t have sources just now to link to but it’s well established that Jesus was a popular name at the time (and still is some parts of the world). Even the Pharisees confronted with the man in the flesh said “isn’t this Josephs boy?” as if to insinuate, isn’t this just the carpenters son- you know his wife was pregnant before they got married?

    Again without dragging out my books or mining the web for references, it’s established that Jesus existed (just argued in what capacity- a rebel, a normal rabbi or divine origin).

    After all if the Pharisees wanted to destroy the Christian faith, they just had to deny he existed, the faith would never have survived past the 1st Century AD.

    In fact I would argue that if Jesus is a fictional character- the concept of the Jesus character is even more concerned with converting unbelievers since, being an invention of someones mind or whatever, then he is a contrivance for just this purpose.

    The real Jesus, yes he wanted people to believe in him- to be ‘born again’, no he was not so desperate that he would say anything to gain followers.

    One last thing- first Century Jews were divided on the ethereal into two warring camps– Pharisees (who believed in the ethereal aspect of faith) and Sadducees (who did not believe in angels or resurrection ie eternal life). I’m not sure if the Sadducees ruled out the soul but it was a common practice for Jews to leave a dead body for 3 days before burying it just in case the soul returned (scientifically this may have simply been someone recovering from near death).

    A first Century Jew would certainly have an understanding of these things- after all how do you suppose the Talmud got written in the first place?

  9. lwtc247 said

    “…don’t bore me with abortion…that’s so 20th century.” – Good grief, either that’s over subtle satire of modernity or we have a trivial idiot on the loose. I hope the former.

    “but I’ve always been against fusing the Church with the State.” But why Alex? The separation of powers (and the church did have/still does have some power) is probably a good thing for the distorted religion they currently have. “probably good” as it as a way to put the breaks on society dropping into a dark-age. But, if that religion was the shining light originally propagated by the blessed son of Mary, as the kingdom of Solomon and David before that, then I cannot think of any better way for a state to operate other than by religious decree / devotion to God.

    Some don’t like that idea because they have been brainwashed into thinking that they will be stoned to death or whatever because they don’t believe in God, but that is an utterly false image undoubtedly designed to ward people off wanting a theocratic state. Of course all the negative things about their own secular society are instantly are forgotten about, as the mindset of fear once again takes over while envisaging a state based on Gods formula for worldly and exo-worldly success. Why not stick to “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? i.e. the domain of God is supreme.

    Is it any surprise that in countries which are heavily anti theocratic are the ones that boast such appalling records of wars and oppression? I think not.

    I have come to the conclusoin that secularism is the evil crack through which issues like abortion and so on have come to flourish and become near sacred elephants within their society. Of course theocratic societies have social problems, but what could be called secular reasons.

  10. I think it comes down to this. If there was to be a persecution, I would rather it be a secular persecution of religion than the other way round. Simply because I’m tired of people talking about religion being the cause of all war and violence (when it’s clear that human beings are the cause).

    It’s also observed that the church does best under persecution and spreads more rapidly (look at the illegal China house church movement) whereas in societies where religion is tolerated and given room to breathe and develop, we tend to get fat and lazy.

    Of course as I hinted above, I am not against a person of religion running for office, just as I am not against an atheist running for office. There are good and bad leaders in both camps.

    I join you in agreeing that a state functions best under religious principles (after all look at how much the West has benefited from Christianity spread by the Roman empire). Our laws are practically based on Judeo-Christian biblical laws (though the state they are in now are far removed, the basics are there).

    If a Christian leader, influenced by his faith, makes policies and laws based upon that faith then excellent. If an atheist leader, influenced by Judeo-Christian-Western values, makes policies and laws based on that then it will probably be OK, (as long as they are not an anti-theist that sets about trying to undermine the faithful and make it difficult for them to practice).

  11. lwtc247 said

    But I don’t think a God based state would go on a persecution bender, that’t my point – as such wicked acts are not the creed of God. How could a state go wrong it if stuck to the Creed of the Lord?

    “where religion is tolerated and given room to breathe and develop, we tend to get fat and lazy.” Yes this probably happens, but people being persecuted isn’t a proce worth paying for the religion to spread. It is a faulure of the churches/states imagination which sees some getting fat and lazy, and not all countries are like that and where this has happened is again, I put it to you, is where God has been shelved.

    As for the West benefiting from a similie of Divine law goes, I would argue that because of the wavering/hazing of Godly instruction, that the West has been involved with far more detriment than benefit, but I guess some is better than nowt.

    Oh well..

    P.S. Havent forgotten about the CD’s. Just please be patient.
    cheers.

  12. Cecilieaux said

    Lots o’ stuff here …

    Alex —

    In the USA churches are tax-exempt, but so are a whole rafter of “nonprofit” organizations (including atheist societies). I would take away all their exemptions — let them avoid taxes like every other corporation (US corps don’t pay very much).

    As to “fervor,” the Christian story has Jesus going to his execution with relatively little complaint. I don’t know that too many of his (alleged) followers could match that.

    I’m far too lazy to dissect every verse cited, but on the whole I disagree that they represent behavior that is “rude,” “offensive” or even “disinterested.” These are instances of a rhetorical style common to rabbis of the time, who tended to let their debating opponents undo themselves, in a manner of disputation similar to judo. Moreover, you lose track of the whole redaction issue — tell me you’re not a literalist, please! These are writings intended to portray instances of conflict and to contrast the protagonist’s teaching role with that of his supposedly befuddled adversaries and sundry camp followers. Even if Jesus had existed, these cannot be taken as verbatim quotations.

    In contrast, there are startling acts of mercy for those most reviled by the religious people in the narrative. Jesus’ forgiveness of the adulterous woman, for example; indeed, all the interactions with women are remarkable for the context.

    As to the existence of a historical Yeshua bar Josif, woodworker, itinerant preacher, executed for obscure reasons, there is not a shred of evidence unrelated to the writings of a society devoted to promoting the story — none written less than 20 years after the putative events. The so-called pagan attestations are merely confirmations that a Nazarene movement existed. I won’t dispute that. Again, we could have a ball, but we would only be rehearsing arguments that have been made elsewhere.

    Note: I’m not saying that I can prove Yeshua didn’t exist. I’m saying no one can prove that he did. Given the record of the Nazarene movement (and its successors) over the last two millenia, I’d say the character of the witnesses stands impeached many times over.

    Lastly, you misunderstood me concerning Palestinian 1st century Jews. My point was not concerning disputations about the afterlife, but about the difficulty of any kind of metaphysical — or dualistic — discourse in ancient Hebrew, which was notably lacking in abstract terms.

    lwtc — Loose cannon that I am, if I read you right, you’ve outdone me: you’re an establishmentarian?

  13. lwtc247 said

    establishmentarian, yeah that’s me.

  14. I think those who have had the revelation of Christ, not just blindly following the hollowed out shell of a religion would absolutely be prepared to go to their deaths for the advancement of the gospel. Many do today. At one stage I was prepared to go on a bible-smuggling trip to China when I was in my teens however I could never afford the trip so I stuck to missions in the UK and Europe (maybe one day the timing will be right).

    I agree with you on rabbinical debating technique, but disagree on your analysis of the situations and context of which Jesus was coming across in that manner. It is unfortunate that you didn’t click on the links as you would have found what Jesus was doing was not merely verbal judo- the sick samaritan woman begging for his help- a debating opponent? Not likely- nor the messengers sent to trick him into answering incorrectly so they could drag him before the Sandhedrin and… well you know already what happens next.

    Do you think 20 years is such a long time that people would forget completely and be duped by an incident? Do you think that if all or most of the events had not happened that there would be people who would dispute the facts- like I said if Jesus never existed- we wouldn’t have heard about him. Plenty of people would have said at the time- who the hell are you talking about- I was there at the time and I never heard of him.

    I can no more prove to you the existence of Jesus Christ than I can prove to you the existence of Romulus Augustus.

    Just as you are aware of the fall of the Berlin wall 20 years ago via the medium of television, before TV, before radio, we have to rely on the medium of papyrus to tell us what happened in history. The bible was not written in a day, it was written of the hundreds of years. It was not some story someone pulled out of their ass, it is actually a series of documents written by a various number of authors and filtered from hundreds more texts at the time that didn’t make it.

    There are many things that Jesus did we never heard about- the reason why is because they only chose the texts that they thought were relevant or could be verified to package together to pass on in an easier format. There are hundreds if not thousands of texts about Jesus that are now sadly buried or destroyed.

    If you claim the existence of the historical person of Jesus cannot be proved, then what historical texts do you believe? If you can’t trust the bible as a source (even without the miracle aspect) then what can you trust as a source- how do you know the whole written history up to 400AD was not an entire work of fiction- based on your assertion all we have to go on is the text.

    With regards to the first century Jew, you’ll have to elaborate on what you mean by lacking in abstract terms. After all Jesus formed many abstracts when he discussed heaven and hell.

  15. cecilieaux said

    Alex —

    I find it difficult to believe that anyone has “had the revelation of Christ” and history teaches us that the majority of Christians have been to busy making sure others go to their deaths for the gospel, to have time to go to their deaths themselves. But I would be willing to see them all go to their deaths. Maybe then we could have some peace and justice in this world. (Oops, no, the Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists are no better. Let them all go to their deaths for their invaluable religions.)

    You ESP is not working. I did click on the links. What I said applied to the instance of the woman to which you refer. The problem with proof-texting with one or two verses is that the context is lost to the would-be interpreter. If you think the verse is about indifference, you have missed the whole pericope in which your couple of verses are embedded, to wit:

    22 And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil.
    23 Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us:
    24 And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
    25 But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me.
    26 Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs.
    27 But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters.
    28 Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt: and her daughter was cured from that hour.

    Even the most literal “bible study” reading of the above (Matt 15) would never draw the conclusion that Jesus being dismissive or “disinterested.” The passage is a whole exposition of the relationship between Gentiles and Jews that involves a duel of wits.

    The issue underlying the redaction of the passage, of course, is the struggle between the judaizing and gentilizing parties within the Nazarene movement at the time the narrative was written. That’s obviously why this story is told.

    As to the idea of people attempting to “trick” Jesus, one might read this differently: Jesus could be said to be baiting the alleged tricksters.

    Twenty years in an age in which there were no newspapers or television, concerning alleged events that were extremely obscure goes to two points.

    First the marginality and insignificance of the Jesus story to its contemporary world. For a sense of it, imagine that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon — the founder of the Moonies — had been executed in the 1950s, in Korea, well before ever coming to the West or having any kind of renown beyond those of his immediate acquaintances.

    The second is the oddity that supposedly this guy preaches, has a following, is executed yet there is total and absolute silence about this until, out of nowhere, 20 years later pops a whole worldview that is distinctive from any of the existing schools of Judaism, all based on this marginal, unknown figure of whom no one has taken notice.

    Regarding Romulus Augustus, there is contemporary coinage that can be carbon-dated and contemporaneous claims that he was a usurper. Moreover, as with much ancient history there is the frank admission that we know precious little about him and, of course, no one has attempted to deify him. There is nothing remotely similar to this evidence concerning Jesus. The historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth has to be taken on faith based on the accounts of those who wanted to deify him. That’s a much tougher sell.

    I am well aware of the composition of the biblical anthology, your point?

    Finally, with respect to heaven, hell, the church and many spiritualizations in the gospels, canonical and not, I don’t see how they can be read as anything other than retrojections. For example, no Galilean preacher could have possibly spoken to assorted fellow Jews about a church that did not exist without raising some questions as to his sanity. If the texts are read with contemporary Jewish though in mind, rather than Western 21st century Sunday school, the disputations concerning heaven and hell are very, very vague and do not unequivocally propound anything remotely close to the fire and brimstone of Dante’s imagination.

    The simplest and clearest example I know of the concreteness of ancient Hebrew is the word for “spirit” (ruach), which means “wind.”

  16. cecilieaux said

    lwtc — are you sure you’re not an antidisestablishmentarian instead?

  17. “But I would be willing to see them all go to their deaths. Maybe then we could have some peace and justice in this world.”

    LOL surely Cec, you are now baiting me?

    Sorry to anyone I have duped into going to their deaths… seriously. Funny thing is Cec, those people going to their deaths, they were Christians too- no-one told them to do it- they were as taken in by the lies in the gospel as I am now. I’d go to my death gladly for Christ, not for my pastor (unless it was in the capacity of self-sacrifice for fellow man).

    With regards to your exegesis you are preaching to the choir. There is not much new you can tell me about the varied views of interpreting the bible- I am not some ignorant religious fellow that has not read up various translations and heard various interpretations of different passages, both in historical and spiritual context.

    The very fact the scriptures have survived and can be interpreted in these many ways is down to believers who have preserved the texts, not down to atheists or agnostics who seek to strip parts out they disagree with.

    I cannot lecture you on French history and culture since I have not studied it. I can however google information and argue from my own opinion, but I can’t dispute the source- those who have studied and recorded it.

    OK you reference Sunday school- good job I never attended one then.

    Dante’s inferno- I would link the passages of bible text that would have inspired Dante, however it’s clear you find some reason to dismiss them because you don’t believe- there’s no point in arguing if you’re not willing to be open to other interpretations.

    Spirit = Wind. Wow you know a bit of bible exegesis, good for you. Thought you said 1st Century Jews did not do abstracts?

  18. Wow! With “Let them all go to their deaths for their invaluable religions” and the suggestions listed in “24 Weeks” we can soon have the population control that solves the “too damn many people” issues.

  19. Gayle,

    Seems like we have the solution to wars and the environment all in one! 😉

  20. And think! – it started here on Abandon All Fear!!

    P.S. It must be or soon will be your anniversary? – Mine, too.

  21. Wow Gayle I’m impressed.

    Yes our first- next week 27th. We’re not sure yet what we’re going to do (Paris maybe?) Congrats btw, do you also have a blog and which one will it be for you?

  22. Paris for your 1st Anniversary! – Sounds lovely. And congratulations to you both. I wish you many more. I was married October 21, 1967 – it’s been a few years, I guess 🙂

    No blog – I’m just a reader.

  23. lwtc247 said

    @ cecilieaux.
    I can see from a quick read of your blog, the latter was inappropriate, and I nod my head towards you in respect.

    @Alex
    Hey Alex, Since you’ve ‘reddend’ your site, my eyes have continually been drawn to that blood and oil splatter pattern. It looked so familar. Then it finally strick me…
    http://dmweb.free.fr/files/DMCSB-Creature-RockPile.gif (P.s. wait a few seconds)

  24. @Gayle. Thanks!

    @LWTC, Heh I see what you mean. I like the tones and it’s organic look. It reminds me more of the red weed from Dreamcatcher or War of the Worlds.

  25. Cecilieaux said

    Alex — I hope the indignation was not all that serious. Please be assured I would regret having hurt your feelings. Seeing you march off to death for being such a bloody Christian, yes; hurting your feelings, never!

    Lwtc — do you have a blog?

    Gayle — what would we writers do without readers?

  26. @Cec 😉

  27. C, I hope I live long enough to read what you have to say in a book – a work of fiction, full of truth and beauty. Gayle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: