And BTW... I think Virginia has a right to make the changes to the contract of marriage for new marriages. But I think the idea that you are presenting about only the agreived party being able to make the divorce decision is dangerous and unworkable. Plus, I tell you that IMHO, it will make affairs that much more difficult to detect and to fix. Imagine how a BS's position changes when they realize the WS ahs NO ability to leave! The POJA would fly right out the window!

As I, you.


What I am saying is why does the Federal government get to decide what its boundaries are? Why dont the entities that created it, get to decide (the states)?


Thye couldnt envision this stuff. But they KNEW that changes would happen. They built into this system the ability change it as needed! So, in a way, they did envision airplanes, etc.


Yes! The people of that state, thru their representatives in their legislature and passed by their chief executive, have the right to pass that law. And as long as it doesnt infringe on another persons basic, inalienable rights...then, sure! I wouldnt want it in Virginia. But if another state wanted it (the people of that state), who am I to argue?? It aint my business!


Okay..using this silly example I started, lets deal with this. The Federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, it can say that on flights leaving one state and heading to another or another country, that certain attire is permissable. Now, let's say California has the pink Tuesday law (which would probably be the state to do something this stupid!). And I am flying to California from Virginia. The Federal government could say "while in flight and landing in California, I am free to wear any attire." But once, I leave the airport, California is free to enforce their laws and I would have to change into my pink shirt (okay...I dont REALLY own a pink shirt guys! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).

Another analogy. Some states may have laws that state you must have your headlights on, day or night. So, let's say Maryland is one of them. And it is a bright, sunny day and I am leaving Virginia into Maryland. While in Virginia, I wasnt required to run my headlights. So, can I cross into Maryland and say "I am not turning them on?" No. Once I cross into Maryland, I am subject to their laws and regulations.

But, does the federal government have the right to say "Virginia, we like the law in Maryland. And so your drivers can easily cross into Maryland, we are instructing you to enact a similar law in your state."? No it does not!!


We have the death penalty in Virginia. If someone commits a murder outside my office, they will get the death penalty. just a mile away from my office is Washington DC. If someone committed a murder there...there is not a death penalty. As it should be. The people of Virginia want a death penalty.

Look. If Mexico was taken over by a Muslim government and enacted Sharia...would those living in El Paso have to wear veils? After all, just a few feet away, the people of Juarez would be!

Yes, we are the United States. Look at that name. United States. We could have been called by our name. Our nation could have been called "America" and inhabited by Americans. just like Germany is inhabited by Germans. But, our name is the United States. Not United Americans.

We are united on many, specific issues, as outlined in our Constitution. And in many of our ethics and norms. we share a common language. And many other things. But we are not united in everything.

The States created the Federal government, as well as the people. It used to be that the people elected the representatives in the House, and the States appointed the US Senators. Why? Because the states wanted their control over the entity they created. Of course, we screwed up and changed that to direct election of senators (if I couldchange one law, it would be this one...that way Richmond could again help control Washington).

The states knew they needed to give up some of their power for the greater good. They did so thru a Consstitution, which is a written document of SPECIFIC powers and limitations on a Federal government. That is how we are united.

So, we only POJA because of the threat that our spouse could leave?

Not quite...
Here are some quotes from the Founders on the topic of Christianity...

Quotes from Jefferson:
“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Quote from James Madison(from "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"):
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Quotes from John Adams:
Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

another quote:
“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed?"

Quotes from Thomas Paine:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

"The dogma of the redemption is the fable of priestcraft invented since the time the New Testament was compiled, and the agreeable delusion of it suited with the depravity of immoral livers. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores.

It is a doctrine not only dangerous to morals in this world, but to our happiness in the next world, because it holds out such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven, as has a tendency to induce men to hug the delusion of it to their own injury."

In many marriages yes, (I am sure that PORH and POJA is driven to improve the marriage in a lot of cases) imagine the shift in power once a BS discovers an infidelity. No reason for a Plan A at that point....it would allow for emotional blackmail on the part of the BS. Emotional blackmail already runs rampant in marriages in crisis... imagine what would happen when one spouse is afforded all the power.... it would, IMHO, make our current system which is very flawed, seem like Eden.

Heartpain, I do not have time to respond to these right now. But I will. Suffice it to say, takign a few sentences out of his entire writings does not convey what he was talking about. But, I will get to these quotes as soon as I can. But, let me just take a few more words of Thomas Jefferson (all of these quotes are written in the Jefferson Memorial, which I can see outside my window right now):





And a few more...


In that one...notice he stated that "coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion" and thus then goes on to say that Jesus was removed from the text, in order to afford protection of the others (Jews, Muslims, etc). He clearly was stating "our religion."


Notice, he states that the states have the right to establish religious exercises.

Okay. Enough for now. I do know Jefferson qrgued for the separation and was very motivated NOT to have the federal government involved in religion (just as he got Virginia out of it also). But he did recognize on many occasions that the rights and laws and norms were based in this Judeo-Christian ethic. Not specifically Christian. but based in the norms and ethics and morality of that ethic.

While I see your point...I also understand that the WS gave the BS that power!! The WS didnt just wander out and accidentally fall into a sexual position with the OP. They committed adultery. And maybe, in this case, they gave the BS this power.

I really have no problem with that...just as I have no problem with a murderer willingly has given the State the power to execute them because of their actions. By committing murder, they have asked the State to execute them.

I am not sure what emotional blackmail a BS could do. If a WS wants out of the marriage, they would have to get the BS to agree. That would have to happen even if there was no affair! But, the WS would not be able to unilaterally end the marriage.

You entered the marriage together...then you must leave it together.

I am going to gracefully bow out of my portion of this debate. Not because I want to, not because I have no counterpoints, but merely because the whole argument is pointless and counterproductive.

It seems to me, from my observations, that most Christians are so convinced that their faith is 'right' that they will refuse to even consider that it may not be. This has always bothered me, because to me, that means that they have given up everything human just to believe in something that is being passed to them by another human, who is just as imperfect as they are. As for me, I regularly question everything I know. Only by questioning ourselves and our world can we ever find the truth. Perhaps this is why Christianity constantly refers to its followers as 'sheep' and 'the flock.' It's because they seem to have no mind of their own, they just follow the leader.

To close... ForeverHers, I am not angry about my marriage. What angers me in this is the simple fact that people with faith like yours exist. You absolutely refuse to even consider arguments presented to you. You present everything in absolutes; it's either right or it's wrong... you're right, I'm wrong. To you, there is no possibility that you are wrong. There is not possibility that we are BOTH wrong. I, on the other hand, present by beliefs, but regularly enter statements showing that I don't KNOW if I'm right. My question on the definition of conciousness is one of those statemtents: if science (though multiple, repeatable studies) proved tomorrow that an embryo was aware and sentient from the moment of conception, then I would accept that and be anti-abortion from then on. If science proved (again through multiple, repeatable studies) that God existed exactly as the Christians believed, I would change my viewpoints accordingly.

Therein lies the difference. I am willing to accept that, as a human being with a finite capacity to learn and perceive, my knowledge of the universe and everything in it is incomplete and flawed, and likely always will be. I am willing to accept that I will likely never know the real 'truth' in my lifetime, but that it is my duty as an intelligent being to never give up my search for that 'truth.' Because of my imperfect understanding, I am willing to admit that, at times, my beliefs may be incorrect, and therefore I am willing to change my beliefs when new evidence proves me wrong.

I refuse to give up that freedom by giving in and blindly believing one book's interpretation of 'truth,' as spouted by a biased, imperfect man in a church.

Such is my right, and such is my path. Did you ever stop to think that maybe God put me on this path for a reason?

You've been hanging around the wrong Christians, and I am so very sorry this is the opinion you have walked away with. As you have probably not noticed, there are many Christians on this board who are extremely intelligent, well read, well versed, and very humble. They epitomize what I believe Jesus' message was to us.

There are also athiest's so spiritual, so intelligent, so well read, and humble that they put many who belong to organized religions to shame, in their christlike behavior.

I grew up with a love for Jesus, and for God so strong that it was this love and belief that got me through times so bad, and so ugly that I am surprised I even survived.

There was a time after reading here that I almost stopped calling myself a Christian because of what you speak, and someday I still may.

But please don't form your opinions of Christians from the few who do not seem to manifest Christian like qualities.

What ever path you are on, I hope it brings you home to your God. That is all one can ever hope to achieve in this life time, and a quest that makes life worthwhile. IMHO

The Rogue...you have me wrong. As I suspect, FH will say the same.

I do not check my brain at the door of the church. I do not look at things blindly. I suspect that FH does not either.

What I do know, due to a lot of information, digging for the truth AND having a personal relationship with Jesus...do know that my faith has a basis in fact.

Sure, I am open minded. Unlike you, I am not angered by someone that believes that their beliefs are correct. I may have the answer...so they may. They doesnt anger me.

As a Christian and having that personal relationship, I know something that those that do not have that relationship dont. You see, I can talk to and receive the answers to my questions directly from the source. Now, those that dont have that relationship...it isnt because they cant. It is because they wont!

But...on a purely physical, worldly realm...I have a basis for my faith. Historical, scientific, archeological, etc. I have facts that back up my faith.

Prove Jesus Christ did not live, was not the Son of God and did not die for my sisn...and I will no longer believe. I, on the otherhand, can prove he was all those things. And I have the additional advantage of having a personal relationship with him. I know him.

It isnt that I want things to be black and white. It is Jesus made it that way, not me. No one gets to the Father except thru Him. If you or anyone else has a problem with that...then take it up with Him! I cant be God thus I cant make the rules!

As I said, if I know that 2+2=4....I am not going to stand by as someone else says it equals 5 and say "well, that's nice. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong. You are entitled to your belief."

While entitled to your belief...or mine...we also are entitled to be wrong! I certainly could be. but I believe I am not due to much introspection and research. And a personal relationship.

That is not blind faith to some human being's writings.

TheRogueX - I have to admit that's a pretty "graceful" way to exit a discussion

Since I'm sitting here having just returned from my dentist and minus one tooth that he pulled, so part of me no longer exists and might lessen your anger a bit. I'm a bit too distracted by pain to post more at this time.

Perhaps later.

I know you said you bowed out of this discussion, but I couldn't resist answering these couple of points in particular.

First of all, the point about changing your opinion if science proved tomorrow that an embryo was aware and sentient from the moment of conception. The thing that amuses me about this is that over the past 10 years or so (I'm guessing on the time range on this, this is just from memory), I've noticed that "science" has changed drastically in its opinion on when a fetus is aware, when it becomes conscious, when the various indicators that, to us, show intelligent life occur. Scientists have gone from saying that a fetus under a certain age feels no pain (what age? I don't remember) to now acknowledging that a fetus can feel pain. There really is no consensus on when "science" feels that an embryo becomes aware, becomes sentient, becomes human.

Given that the point in the fetus development when "science" says these things occur has changed over time, does that mean that humans have been developing at earlier stages over the past few years? No. It means that science has developed better ways of observing the development process. So do you think science has perfected the ways of observing the process yet? I don't. I'm guessing there's still a lot scientists don't know.

And later on, when they figure out that those embryos were really sentient all along, it will be kind of too late to go back and do anything about all the ones that were killed when people thought they were just lumps of cells, huh?

The same thing with God. I don't require science to prove to me that He exists exactly as I believe. I have other sources of proof. And frankly, science has proved time and time again that it is flawed. Don't get me wrong - it's great! I'm a techie, a scientist, and a researcher. I love it! But we're human, and we do get things wrong. My God is bigger than that, and just because science can't explain Him doesn't mean He isn't exactly what He told us He is.

The funny thing is, your reasoning and mine are the same. I know my knowledge of the universe is flawed, finite, and will never be complete. That doesn't mean I won't keep searching for the truth. I do. But I always keep an eye out to the bigger Truth as well. No matter how much we as humans learn, our knowledge will always be incomplete. I look at what some of the truly brilliant scientific minds have achieved in the past - great, wonderful things - and then see that those great minds also were convinced, through thorough scientific study, of other scientific "facts" that have since been proven wrong. Realizing that helps me keep it all in perspective. I can be a scientist, learn as much as possible, and still realize that "facts" we know today may be things future generations laugh at us about tomorrow.

But God's truth is unchanging. And the more I research and study, the more I find that science DOES back up what I know from the Bible.

One last thing - I am open minded. I do try to look at all sides of an issue. Unfortunately, doing so has made me realize that almost everything is politicized. Research money is given mostly by those who want to see certain outcomes. Keeping a grant frequently means telling people what they want to hear, which may mean slanting the data. Reporters slant the news. Poll questions are asked in such a way as to get a certain answer. It's depressing. What it comes down to is - who knows what to trust of the studies and research that is put out there these days. Anymore, I'm about to the point where it's not something I can touch, feel, and see, I don't know if I believe anyone. I guess that's one of the reasons I do have a strong faith in God - organized religion might try and change things up, but if you just stick with the Bible, and go back to original writings, the basics on God haven't changed.

It's also important to keep in mind that everyone has a bias and MOST people have a vested interest in what they choose to believe.

Our beliefs serve us, not the other way around.

We WANT to believe that our beliefs [which serve us] are correct.

Having those beliefs challenged will generally result in a LOT of resistance.

For example...rogue said that until it is proven that a fetus is alive or sentient by some standard he will accept he will *choose* to believe it is NOT...although neither position has ever been concretely proven and likely never will be.

I on the other hand choose to err on the side of caution...the fact that it *might* be is good enough to stay my hand and sway my position.

I think it very revealing about just how stranded we are in our own persective.


Usually I just think of the logic of the thing in a detached way..yes..it might be a whole person already..might be sentient..and then out of nowehere I'm sticken.

I'm stricken by the reality of it would mean if it were...I have seen pics of what is aborted and I can tell you that if that IS a person...that person has been subjected to an unimaginably inhumane execution.

We treat known murderers...people actually guilty of LESS inhumane murders than this appears to be...with a great deal more sobriety and care. And at least due process...it has to be concluded that this person has personally done something to merit execution...I doubt merely existing qualifies.

Yet you don't hear this issue brought up...you only hear about the perspective of the person who does not want to deliver the child for whatever reason.

I think...what an unbelievably selfish, entitled, and ruthless bunch of people we have all become...no wonder people feel entitled to do..really just whatever they want without a glance at the body count and never ask...Do I have the choice to do that? Do I have the right? Really?

I believe that we are becoming conditioned to just dismiss what we do not want to recognize so that we can pursue the things that we want.

We have been conditioned to actually believe that getting what we want is the MOST important thing..it's practically sacred, definitely revered, viciously defended.


Me me me. I I I.

That is so scary.

I think again again of some of the rather nightmarish results of things like an abortion.

And I am amazed that the reality isn't enough to get most people at least considering, weighing, thinking...what if?

Then I remember...we don't SHOW it. People are not confronted with it. It is not in other words EXPOSED so that we have to look at our choices.

It is sanitized. Dressed in medical terms, NEVER something the person who has just made that choice has to LOOK at...that would be unthinkable.

Yet...if the results of our choices are so horrific it would be considered cruel to make us look at them...doesn't that make them pretty questionable?

I think so.

We spend an awfull lot of time here bending into some interesting geometric shapes trying to reality orient someone who has gone into denial and rationalization about what they are doing.

We are very invested in getting people to look at and be confronted with the realities of their choices.

I think that extends beyond adultery and I think it very interesting that you can find the same process of sanitization and blind eye social acceptance in play.

I notice that in these post affair years just the odor of those things heightens my examination of the core issue even if it had NOT gotten my attention beforehand.

I'll think..."hey, that is a similar dynamic" and I am instantly suspicious.

As always this provides more questions than answers...and reminds me that I am all too willing to NOT question unless it is shoved under my nose with a giant spotlight on it reeking of ammonia and bearing a neon sign just like everyone else.

Apparently it might interrupt my TV time or make me too uncomfortable to do something I previously enjoyed. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

back in the 70's I was a nursing student

I volunteered for Planned Parenthood as a "patient advocate" for "women" having abortions

some of the "women" were just girls but we were instructed to refer to the girls as women

this was in a very hippy-feminist area

I was present during several abortions

noodle:



you are sooooooooo right !!!!!!!!!!!!

I stopped doing this, it was just too much

then, a few years later, what was I doing? I was working 11PM to 7AM shift in a neonatal ICU taking care of babies weighing less than 2 pounds

some preemies just a mere 24-25 weeks .... can you imagine the God-smack this was to my stupid stupid brain ????

here I was working like a crazy woman doing everything to save these little lives ... when just a few years earlier I was assisting sucking slightly smaller fetuses down a drain

God forgive me

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Pep,

Do you see any similarities in the mentality and conditioning or am I imagining things?

when "people" are not convenient to our desires ...
we get rid of them

seems similar

Pep

PS Noodle

I did not change my position based on an intellectual discussion... that does not usually work, in my experience

I suffered a visceral kick in the guts and a God smack to my noggin & that got my attention

so, I usually don't waste my time writing on threads like this ... but if my EXPERIENCE helps anyone, I am grateful

Pep

I would even take that further.

When "people" are inconvenient...we decide they aren't.

That pretty much goes across the board, not only in regard to abortion.

I think it's the detachment pep.

Usually I didn't think much of it as I said. I thought of the logic issues and that's about it [that goes for adultery too until it got up close and personal].

Until I was actually confronted with pictures...there is no way I could react with anything but revulsion.

You are talking to a person who watches eyeball surgery for fun because it's interesting.

I have been on the business end of my share of bodily growths and oddities and procedures.

*This* was a massacre, it turned my stomach and a was filled with SHAME for my hard heart and callous indifference.

Really filled with shame for being ABLE to talk about it in an "intellectual discussion" at all.

All I could think was...if that was a person we are all monsters.

Don't you all see it? In a throw away society it has gotten to the point that we now have disposable spouses, or it sure seems that way....