Sunday, December 26, 2004

illogic? 9=240,000,000; the supreme court thinks so.

The question that reverberates through my mind is how does anyone hope to establish any government, that is not anarchy in every sense of the word, based on laws set by a relativist's perspective? Even if a person believes in moral relativism he could not hope to establish laws without hoping that who he governed do not share the same views, or eventually his government would be obliterated by broad interpretations of his law.
Yet America, through its judicial system (namely the Supreme Court) is slowly rising to the occasion with such men as Chief Justice Fred Vinson sitting amongst them.
"To those who would paralyze our Government in the face of impending threat by encasing it in a semantic straitjacket we must reply that all concepts are relative."
All concepts are relative? Relative to what? Popular opinion? yes, that could be a valid argument considering America is a majority rules society. But if it is an opinion to what the individual justice's personal convictions? I must oppose.
The left hold to a "living, breathing constitution," which means they can change it according to what they think, feel, or hold as morality (or immorality). Why, or should I say how, did the Supreme Court feel they could steal from our lips the right to interpret the law according to what the feel instead of the consensus of the majority.

A few court cases which prove this point is; the court making it illegal for students to participate in short student led prayer at sporting events? (Santa fe indep. sch. dist. v. doe) (2000). There is Lee v. Weisman clergy may not lead prayers at public school events. stone v graham 10 commandments taken down from public school classrooms. engel v vitale prayer and bible reading were "stripped" from public schools. Abington v. schlep the court said no to Lord’s Prayer at beginning of school day.
"Once again, in order not to offend a contentious minority, the Court decided to trample the rights of the majority."
-P. Robertson
Here are the statistics opposing every court case listed above
80 percent of Americans favor prayer in school,
85 percent oppose partial birth abortions,
65 percent oppose same sex marriage,
'huge majority' want the phrase "under God" to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance,
94 percent say they believe in (a)God.

Even if you don’t agree with religion of any type being in the school system, you cannot disagree that we as a united America were founded on the democratic theory of majority rules. This majority rule’s principle has since then clearly been replaced by 9 people appointed into office. A few speaking for all is called Dictatorship, why then do we allow these judges to put words into our mouths. hence, 9 speaking for the 240,000,000 of us.

Saturday, December 25, 2004

my top 5 books in 2004

these are the top 5 books that i thought were the most inspirational or educational this year for me personally. none were written in 2004, i just happen to get around to reading them this year, thats all.
1. The Good Earth- Pearl S. Buck; One reason I adored this book was not even the content of well written literature, but the life behind the book. She helped break down racial barriers well before the civil rights movement had taken flight. Her life is a novel of devotion and courage. The book itself is a wide open look at the Chinese culture around the turn of the century. Touching, lifelike, a coming-of-life book.
2. Da Vinci Code- Dan Brown; not for the weak of faith. intriguing to say the least, the last fiction book that kept me up at night in anticipation. Not as factual as just a really good novel.
3. Treason- Anne Coulter; An non-fiction conservative book about the McCarthy era communist scare in the 50's & 60's. Eye opening for all Republicans, convicting for all liberals. Well written, very educational, causes even the bravest New York Times editor to shake in his book. (also see Slander)
4. The Great Gatsby- F. Scott Fitzgerald; A Classic, if 'Catcher and the Rye' is the mother of all coming of age books, this is the father. Tragedy, Interpersonal Communication, Inner Dialog, this book completes the series in the genre.
5. A heartbreaking work of staggering genius- Dave Eggers; This book inspired me, not so much to read more of his works, but to write my own book. i may not be able to do a work of literature as good as his but at least to try: and thus it is on my top 5.

Notable Mention: How soon as never (marc spitz)- only read if you love the band "the Smiths."

excuse moi'?

"Gbagbo’s government claims 62 of its supporters were killed," a recent article sited. Not another attack, not more innocent dead, not more Iraqies dead. But wait, where is Gbagbo? Actually its not in Iraq at all! Its in ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast. This is a colony of none other than the spineless French! Apperantly the French were not happy with the incoming government and decided to take it out on some of the leaders of the Gbagbo’s and their followers. France said they would not stand for "a system to develop that would lead only to anarchy or a regime of a fascist nature."
The thing that i find odd is that we are trying to oust a government who we know for a fact had a system that was in a dictatorship of a facist nature, and yet we had to ask the U.N. for help, and after much world filabustering they denounced us and our efforts.
To put down this goverment(in Abidjan, Ivory Coast) the U.N. pre-emptively sent in "4,000 French peacekeepers (that) would remain, alongside a more than 6,000-man U.N. peace force". If this is not a double standard i dont know what is!
Alot of people believe that we went into Iraq for oil, well where is the New York Times headlining an article that screams "France attacks Ivory Coast for Hot Cocoa." (see article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6404613)

Friday, December 24, 2004

the season for, well... a bastard.

What makes this the season of giving, who elected it thus, and how do I contest the bastard. Why have we narrowed down giving to just one season? Why are we suddenly more willing to donate time, money, and energy just in the prelude of the day that commercial retailers revere.
I believe that this should be an everyday occurrence, or a least an every day attitude. Others before myself. That is one of the only reasons that brought me to my faith in the first place, others.
I left a church, the last one I have regularly attended, about 4 years ago. Not that I don’t want a home church, but my job does not permit me to do anything on regular basis. ‘New Life,’ as it was called, was a small place of worship just on the outskirts of our small city, here in winter haven. Throughout the tenure of my stay, which was on the upwards of 6 years, I sat through many messages about giving and receiving. The problem was not that they were asking me to give, but where they were putting the money that made my stomach churn. The long list of giving opportunities included, but are not limited to, a sign that lights up both time and temperature, the buying of an orange grove next store, the purchase of the lot behind the church so we can maintain the lake view, asphalt for the driveway, new pews, and equipment for the stage that compared to that of a Universal Studios sound stage.
That was it for me, NOT ONCE was the congregation given an opportunity to help others. The mission field was described as something out of the four walls but not something we as a congregation should be to concerned about. Foreign missions were black-listed, and the poor in our country were only given a chance to marvel at how beautiful the exterior and interior our church had become. My father even started feeding the homeless downtown, and the church would not reimburse him for the food that he bought for them. The sad thing was that my dad was reaching out to this world more in one morning of nourishing these impoverished people than our church was doing in 7 days a week. The church did however allow my dad to store the food in their refrigerators, which is to be said in their favor. But after a few months they said that he could no longer use their refrigerator as it “took up to much room.” I am reminded why I abhor the aesthetic church like the one I attended when listening to the ratings of Robert Schuler defending his multi-million dollar “crystal cathedral.”
“We are trying to make a big, beautiful impression upon the affluent non-religious Americans who are riding by on this busy freeway. Its obvious that we are not trying to impress Christians!{…} Nor are we trying to impress the social workers in the County Welfare Department. They would tell us that we ought to be content to remain in the Orange Drive-In Theatre and give the money to feed the poor. But suppose we had given this money to feed the poor? What would we have today? We would still have hungry, poor people and God would not have this tremendous base of operations which He is using to inspire people to become more successful, more affluent, more generous, more genuinely unselfish in their giving of themselves.”
What is that supposed to mean? I have never read in the teachings of Jesus (or any prophet from any other religion) that the way to entice followers and “inspire people” is to accumulate wealth and material goods as a way of persuading one to join their religion!
The Church would say that a homosexual community appears to mirror Sodom, but on the contrary it is the Church that looks more like Sodom in recent times. Read for yourself, in Ezekiel 16:49-50 (also Isaiah 1:10-17) it says, “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me, therefore I removed them, when I saw it.”
Wake up you sleeping Church, for you are slowly becoming the new Sodom. Return to pure religion, ‘helping the widows and orphans.’
-stephen christian

For more information please read “Rich Christians, in an age of hunger.”
Get involved: go to worldvision.org

Thursday, December 16, 2004

ABOVE ALL I DERSIRE PEACE.

many people have questioned my stance on war.
I am not pro-war. i would wish that no one died in this war with Iraq, especially innocent victims. i am in fact pro-American with a Christian conscience.
i wish their was never another terrorist attack nor war in this world but i believe that is unavoidable. i want to be at peace with all men.
i agree with Mr. Arthur Holmes when he writes, "To call war anything less than evil would be self-deception. The Christian conscience has throughout history recognized the tragic character of war. The issue that tears the Christian conscience is not whether war is good, but whether it is in all cases avoidable."(1)
but please note when Paul wrote in Romans
"If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18).
but sometimes it does not depend on you and that is when war comes into play.

'War and Sin
Whenever there is war, there are four elements that come together to determine the course of the conflict: government, military, the public, and technology. Behind these four elements of war there are many influences of which religious values (and in our case, Christianity) are only one factor. Yet religion in general, and Christianity specifically, has been a major factor in the history of warfare. There has not, however, been unanimity in the Christian response. While, as we will see, there has been a prevailing Christian perspective or Christian doctrine of war, there have been several Christian positions articulated on war. Each of these positions has a history and each of these positions has claimed biblical authority and support. War, just like any other biblical topic, has been subject to various interpretations. Just as there are various interpretations on war in the future (Armageddon), so also, are there various interpretations on war in the present.

The apostle Paul wrote, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom. 12:18). Yet, history and headlines provide ample proof that "peace" cannot always be the Christian response to the evil that people and nations perpetrate. Before we can think theologically about the conduct of war and in war, we must think theologically about the cause of war. In short, we must consider war and the problem of evil. At the foundation of the Christian understanding of war is a belief in the fallen and broken nature of humanity--a belief that all of humanity and every aspect of personal and corporate life are marred by sin and original sin. Our sin nature corrupts international relations as well as interpersonal relations. War is ultimately a reflection of and consequence of sin. The Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was both a soldier and a political prisoner under the Stalin regime, said of the widespread effects of sin that "gradually it was discerned to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either--but right through every human heart." -see bottom for complete article

Wars are fought on the battlefields of the globe, but they are waged first in human heart. It is in this light that Christian philosopher Arthur Holmes writes, "To call war anything less than evil would be self-deception. The Christian conscience has throughout history recognized the tragic character of war. The issue that tears the Christian conscience is not whether war is good, but whether it is in all cases avoidable."(1)

Christians throughout history have recognized that the formulation of a doctrine of war or approach to war is a theological and biblical deduction based upon the interpretation of numerous passages in the Bible (cf. Eccles. 3:1, 8; Matt. 5:44; 24:6-7; Acts 10:1-23; Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). How those passages are interpreted determines the position that one holds. There is no "red letter" biblical doctrine of war. Thus the issue is not "what is the Bible's view of war" but, "what view best interprets and reflects the biblical passages regarding war?"

Critics of pacifism note that the principal problem with pacifism is that it misidentifies the morality of the individual as justification for (or morality of) the behavior of the state. At the other end, the principal problem with the crusade is that the church incorrectly identifies itself with the function of the state, and a theocratic one at that...

There is a Christian response to this tragedy but it must be understood and applied by all who seriously believe that the Bible speaks with authority today. What you believe is very important for it affects how you live. The apostle Paul encouraged us to pray "for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a quiet life in all godliness and dignity" (1 Tim. 2:2). His words speak directly to the issues of warfare, spirituality, and evangelism. As you read the headlines, watch the news, and consider war, do so from a biblical perspective. Christian responsibility is not an option for the disciple of Jesus Christ.'
-By Timothy J. Demy, Th.D.

I know that sometimes war is inevitable, war smears the bible. i dont believe we should go pick a fight, but i do believe we must defend our family and freedom.
-stephen




complete article http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/demy.html

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

miscommuncation transmogrufy's arguments

Problems of Communication:
is the number one problem in opposing sex communication emotion?
we as males are always trying to grasp how the female mind communictes, i even took a 'psychology of women' course in college and came out being even more confused then when i went in. here are basic truths in the communication expierence.
As soon as emotion is entered into the communication formula it seems to be flawed.

I BELIEVE THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT EMOTION, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM TWO DIFFERENT ANGLES IN A PATICULAR EQUATION. IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH ONE VIEWS EMOTION AS A BLANKET STATEMENT FOR BOTH MALE AND FEMALE. WE ARE TWO DIFFERENT ANIMALS. REALIZE THIS IS FURTHER MADE DIFFICULT WHEN YOU SEPERATE US INTO GENDERS.
UNDERSTAND THAT THIS (MEANING COMMUNICATION) IS ALREADY FLAWED BETWEEN MALES AND FEMALES. WE BASICALLY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF LOOKING AT LIFE, COMMUNICATION, GOALS, DREAMS, AND PURPOSE. MEN DESIRE SOLITUDE MORE THAN WOMEN. MEN SEE THEMSELFS AS A LONE WARRIOR WHERE AS WOMEN SEE THEMSELFS AS PART OF THE GROUP, TRIBE, FRIENDSHIP CIRCLE AS NOTED IN THE FOLLOWING.

noted on http://www.afirstlook.com/archive/diffvoice.cfm?source=archther
BY Carol Gilligan
Contrary to the descriptive words of attachment chosen by women, men select a vocabulary of self-reference that is clearly individualistic. The male "I" is defined by separation. Men distinguish themselves from others by their accomplishments, and their individual climb to the top is a solitary pursuit.Gilligan notes that these masculine and feminine self-portraits are consistent with childhood fairy tales. The common male fantasy is going forth alone into the world to slay dragons. The typical female dream is an intimate relationship. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty wake up not to be world beaters but to marry a prince.

Gilligan says the male image of going forth alone is consistent with masculine relationship patterns. The average adult male has a wide circle of friendly relations, but no intimate friends. Women picture themselves as part of a closely knit network of intimates; they are in the center of a web of connectedness. The difference between the self-descriptions of men and of women is consistent with a distinction long recognized in the field of group dynamics, Groups need a mix of task-oriented and relationship-oriented members. Males tend to be more concerned with getting the job done; females tend to be concerned with holding the group together.

WE EVEN VIEW COMMUNICATION DIFFERENT AS FAR AS FUNCTION AND PURPOSE. AS MEN WE USE OUR WORDS IN THE SEARCH OF INFORMATION; WOMEN USE COMMUNICATION AS A WAY TO DRAW INTIAMATE. ONE OF THE FEW COMMONPLACE FOR THE MALE AND FEMALE IN A RELATIONSHIP IS IN SETTING GOALS DUELLY NOTED HERE.

Women often use communication to get closer to others, while Men tend to use communication to get across information and gain control. When this occurs it can be difficult for men and women to communicate effectively... try to learn from each other so you both can broaden your communication skills.
Setting goals together and achieving them will bring you closer as a couple... They say that the only thing that can let you down are your own expectations. So set reachable goals together and put what you both know together as a couple and reach for the top.

http://www.fundiscoveries.com/relationship-advice-articles/for-men-women-or-couples/communication/men-and-women-and-the-way-we-communicate.htm

IN SUMMATION NO ONE IS GOING TO CLAIM THAT WE ARE NOT DIFFERENT, (EXCEPT MAYBE FOR EXTREME FEMINISTS) BUT THE CHALLENGE IS TO FIND A MEDIUM BETWEEN KNOWLEGE FOR THE MALE IN CONVERSATIONS AND DRAWING CLOSER WITH THEIR PARTNER FOR THE FEMALE. COMMUNICATION IS NOT WITH WORDS ALONE, BODY LANGUAGE IS SPOKEN MORE THAN WORDS, (SEE LINK BELOW), COMMONPLACE IS THE GOAL, AND THE LESS MISCOMMUNICATIONS, THE EASIER IT IS TO BUILD A LASTING RELATIONSHIP.
(ANOTHER ARTICLE OF NOTE IS http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5280.html

Monday, December 13, 2004

gross blanketed statements on political stance's

i understand these are broad, and not 100% correct all the time; thus stereotypes. i would love to do a psycological examination of behaviors and morals between conservatives and liberals. these are a few that i have observed but can not prove.
THIS IS NOT (I REPEAT NOT) MEANT TO BE MEAN OR MALICIOUS, I AM SIMPLY COLLECTING A STEREOTYPE OF PEOPLE I HAVE MET THROUGH THE YEARS AND LUMPING THEM TOGETHER. if you think of any 'more likely to's' please make your own list.
EMAIL: boywiththorn@aol.com

CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO:
HAVE FLAG ON VEHICLE
READ MORE BOOKS
MARRY INSIDE ONES OWN RACE
MAKE MORE MONEY TOTAL IN LIFETIME
READ WALL STREET JOURNAL
WATCH FOX NEWS
MINIMAL-NO DRUG USE
STAY FAITHFUL TO SPOUSE/RELATIONSHIP
ATTEND CHURCH MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH
BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM
LESS SEXUAL PARTNERS LIFETIME
KNOWLEDGE OF STOCK MARKET
BELIEVE MCCARTHY WAS CORRECT IN HIS ASSUMPTIONS

LIBERALS ARE MORE LIKELY TO:
HAVE SEEM MORE MUSICALS
VISITED MORE COUNTRIES IN LIFETIME
HAVE TATTOO'S/PIERCINGS
WATCH CNN, MSNBC
EXPERIMENT WITH DRUGS MORE THAN ONCE
RATHER SPEND THE NIGHT 'ON THE TOWN' THEN IN THE WOODS
BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION
ENVIROMENTALLY AWARE
READ NEW YORK TIMES
VISITED MORE ART GALLERIES IN LIFETIME
WEAR NAME ON SHIRT
A WIDE VARIETY OF GOOD MUSIC
KNOWLEDGE OF ROE VS. WADE
BELIEVE CHOMSKY HAS VALID POINTS
+

the wrong of passage; death

'im just glad she acknowledged God. its a step. if an unfortunate occurance proves God exsists if only to blame him, then reconciliation is at least a possibility down the road. its a step.'
-s

a good book on this subject recomended by my friend kyle is "the problem with pain," by C.S. Lewis in which he explained the book and this topic thus, "it’s a classic clase of “the problem of pain” that c.s.lewis so eloquently delves into in the book of that name. It really does shed a lot of light on this “problem” in that the more unintelligent / lazy thinkers that surround us, fail miserably at acknowledging God in the day to day goings on in their lives, especially taking credit for all blessings or anything good….and then when something like a crisis or tragedy befalls them (which I need not point out these things are not surprises or cruel jokes, we all know the cycle of life and we know we are born and we die – I digress) they blame God…..blaming, I think, is a natural part of the process, dare I call it a rite of passage, during this time."

Sunday, December 12, 2004

political test.

this is really interesting, and i would like to see everyones scores

www.politicalcompass.org/

i was

Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.92

the closest people to me were nelson mandella and the dalai lama, the closest party to me was liberal republicans and the green.
interesting to say the least

Saturday, December 11, 2004

in death we find hate? or what we knew all along...

i have been presented with an opportunity in these last couple days to contemplate life, but more than that death, and its effects.
in the final moments of life, it breaks down what matters most.
IT IS IN LIFE AND DEATH but for a second can see life with the utmost clarity.
IN LIFE: when a child was born you feel what is important, or what mattered. everything else becomes simple details. IN DEATH everything is viewed in finality. everything suddenly means more. stories from the past become askewed as brave acomplishments. failures once held over the other persons head in comparisons are now forgotten. one suddenly is remembered as having more friends than foes, and idle chatter now is every last will and testament. in life, or when things are going rather well on may never really speak to God, or even acknowledge his existance. and for what reason, life is good, there is really no need to search what one doesnt have expect to find. it seems that they are not intrested in pursuing anything with the words religion or an afterlife attatched. but all of a sudden they confide that they are in a moment of desperation, due to a rather negative situation, "mad at God."
WHAT? did they retort that they were mad at God?, but anger at Him would presupose that they believed in the existance in God. to quickly obtain a faith in a previously non-existant entity seems to be popular in American culture even if its to believe in Him simply to hate him, or turn ones back on HIM. people would ask me where God was september 11th and i always wanted to ask them where he was in their lives before september 11th. to invent the invisible to spite seems oddly peculiar to me, almost oxymoronic. those who never call upon Him when life is in normality suddenly scream at Him for help or hatred when things go wrong. The prisoner who blasphemes Gods name when he prayers for a life sentence but then gets the death penalty. but was it God who commited the crime or was it the prisoner? the boyfriend who cries oh God why do you hate me when he finds out that his girlfriend is pregnant, but was it Gods choice to have sex with her or his? the mother who has never spoken to this ficticious "God of the weak minded" in her life, but now cries "i hate you" acknowledging what she knew all along, that there was a God but now she hates him. God never wanted car accidents, he never wanted tragedy, he never wanted hurting children in ethiopia to starve to death, he never wanted AIDS. we did it, we are the culprits, we all would have turned this world into what it has become. the question to ask now is not why but what, what can we learn from this situation, or circumstance. im mumbling now, just questioning.

Friday, December 10, 2004

case 2: abortion

"I believe abortion is not a practice which many, if any, believe to be
"good". At best it is a necessary evil. There are all kinds of legitimate
reasons for the procedure that I would not feel comfortable confronting an
aborting mother over. Such reasons include rape, faulty "protection", or
even terminal diseases which are bound to be passed on to the child. But
then there are reasons which I struggle to accept, not that my opinion on
the matter is of any real significance to anyone but myself. Thank god.
These are excuses such as not wanting a child, or because one's boyfriend/
husband does not want one, or because the father left and the mother does
not want something to remind her of him. There is also the outstanding
return rate to a clinic, over 50 percent of aborters return within a year
for a second abortion. Now personally I hate the thought of a life being
stripped away by a glorified coat hanger, only to have another brother or
sister join them in whatever after life they may go to within a year in most
cases. And then I really start to get confused when you examine the legal
loop holes created solely for this practice. Loop holes like clinical life
beginning with a heart beat, which does not occur until just months before
birth, yet the definition for clinical death is the cessation of brain
activity, which oddly enough starts within a few weeks of conception. All
of these reasons point me towards the pro life side of things, until I mix
my religious beliefs with things. You see I am trying hard to be a
christian and i know this is where my logical argument is throw out the
window. Most christians use the biblical verse, I created you in your
mothers womb blah blah blah. But I am surprised that none quote the most
glorious gift given to man, choice. We all have the choice between that
which is good and that which is evil, now whether you consider abortion evil
or not is no one's business, but what is important is the choice. After all
if it was not for choice Cain would not have killed Abel, Jesus would have
been nothing special, and the devil would still be God's best friend. "I
may not agree with what you say but i will defend to the death your right to
say it." That pretty much sums up my feelings on abortion, I would never
advise anyone to do it if I were sought for council. But I would never tell
anyone they don't have the choice, or that they are wrong for doing it.
After all I believe it is not me that everyone has to answer to when the
time comes, and I don't have time to worry about others mistakes, whatever
they may be, I have more than I can handle on my own."
-PHIL

favorite point "There is also the outstanding
return rate to a clinic, over 50 percent of aborters return within a year
for a second abortion."
to me it doesnt sound like pro-choice anymore but pro-convienence.
my question is this, if there are so many "pro-choice" people out there how come most of the same people are anti-gun, or pro-gun banning. i think hard lined pro-choice people should be a little more honest and call out what they really are pro-abortion, because they dont seem to care about choice on other topics.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

In Defense of Naivete

In Defense of Naivete

"I got an e-mail from my friend David today."
"Oh yeah. What did he have to say?" Shane turned on the blinker and
glanced back to make sure it was okay to change lanes.
"Not much," I replied. "Just that he loves me and that he's praying for
me."
"WHAT?!" Jealousy raged in his voice. I was surprised the car didn't come
to a screeching halt. "Can I beat this guy up?" He obviously wasn't happy
about some other guy telling his girlfriend that he loved her.
"No. Don't worry about it," I assured him, "He's just one of my good guy
friends that I've been working with." He was still somewhat skeptical, but
I continued on, "You know . . . it's kind of crazy that he can write and
tell me that . . . but you can't."

There had been several nights that he had held me in his arms and I had
pondered when the words "I love you" would be spoken between us. I was
ready to say them, but I knew that I couldn't until he did first.

"But Marie, that's different" he defended himself, "And I've told you
before, I promised myself that the next time I told a girl that I loved her,
it would be different. I care a lot about you and I don't want to say or do
anything that might hurt you."

The dialogue continued as we discussed the 3 words for love found in the
Greek language - agape, eros, and philao. And we talked about the passage
in Scripture that begins with the statement, "Love is Patient." We both
agreed, love is far more than feelings that come with eros romantic love;
true love is one of commitment.

A Month Later

After a carefully thought-out evening that started with a sunset picnic in
the Arboretum, we strolled through the city until we found ourselves in
front of Hill Auditorium. The steps leading up to the entrance invited us
to join them. So we walked them together and Shane led me to the base of a
grand pillar - the perfect place for him to sit and hold me in his arms.
And it was perfect . . . except for the passing of time.

The bell tower across the street reminded us that it was approaching
midnight and that we couldn't stay there forever.
"It's getting late. Maybe we should go." I hated to bring it up, but I
knew Shane needed to get back.
"Not yet." He wrapped his around me a little tighter. I didn't argue. I
didn't want to leave either.

"Marie?"
"Yes Shane?"
"I had a really good time tonight."
"Me too."
"Marie?"
"Yes Shane?"
"I'm going to miss you."
"I will miss you too."
"Marie?"
"Yes Shane?"

"I love you."
"Are you sure?" I gently questioned him and internally questioned myself
if I was ready to return the words.
"Yeah I'm sure." So was I.
"I love you too."

And then words were sealed with a kiss and the bell tower joined in the
pronouncement of our love. It was midnight, and the first day of a new
month, and the first day our deepened commitment together.

~Marie

Saturday, December 04, 2004

THOUGHTS ON ABORTION: case 1

"In all honesty, it doesn't matter to me whether or not someone has an abortion. Most women do not have abortions as birth control, but because they simply cannot care for the child for whatever reason. Sometimes a woman becomes pregnant through rape and sometimes through incest. Most of these women do not have the mental capabilities to care for a child under these conditions. There's also circumstances where the mother is in bad health and will die if she haves the child. Abortion cannot be called murder if it's not of malicious reason. BUT THERE'S ADOPTION,which is always an option, and the decision is up to the mother. Most babies that are adopted are white males in perfect health, yes, in today's society! How many parents honestly want to adopt a child with a handicap or of another race, not many. the rest are left to be salvaged through and protected by the state and no child should grow up parentless. A fetus cannot feel pain until the 8th week, therefore if an abortion is performed before then, the fetus will not feel it. if KILLING IS MURDER NO MATTER WHAT: then why is war so justifiable? Our constitution protects the woman's right to choose because a citizen of the US is someone who is born or naturalized and a fetus has not been born, therefore this will never change.
Forget your religious beliefs for a second: now, you're married and you're in medical school, you're wife is working on her masters. already you're tight for money and time and it's just the 2 of you. you're wife is on the pill so that she will not get pregnant until you two are ready. birth control pills are only 99% accurate, which means that 1 out of 100 times conception takes place. So say you're wife becomes pregnant while on the pill but she doesn't know it, so she continues to take the pill. Over the course of a couple weeks, the daily pill tears away at the fertilized egg until the fetus is no more. You're wife just performed an abortion without knowing it - - she used medication to terminate her pregnancy. BUT SHE DIDN'T KNOW IT, yet it still happened, a potential child was terminated by a medical procedure, and in the end, it's an abortion. If abortion were illegal, is it fair this women gets away with it simply because she didn't know...the fetus was still killed? What constitues a "person" making this "person" capable of rights: consiousness, ability to feel pain, ability to reason, to communicate, if it has DNA, what? (hair, blood and fingernails have DNA,does that make them people, or give them rights?) BUT YOU COULD BE KILLING A FUTURE PRESIDENT OR THE PERSON WHO CURES CANCER: true, but you can't determine the potential of an unborn fetus, for all we know, it could be the next Hitler or Manson. Despite all my pro-choice views, I do not, and will never, support post-birth abortion, which is illegal and for very good reasons. Oh, by the way, you need to set up a purevolume or something for your independent stuff because we miss it"
-Ash

great points ash, very convincing. does anyone else have a reply before i give my oppinion? email me at boywiththorn@aol.com
-estaban