The Church's position on abortion...

[_subgenius]

You ask good and sound questions. The preservation of life fell under the domain of Social Services as soon as they had custody for the child and it started with the criminal charges against the birth father and before they could ascertain whether the mother was equally accountable (she wasn't). Since my wife and I submitted our names for fostering (and it did happen exactly as I stated, my wife definitely felt empty-nest syndrome) we were then responsible to do whatever the assignment called for.

You touch on an important issue, that of preservation or prolongation. When the child was about 8 years of age and following a very long stretch of emergencies and hospital stays the administrative doctor asked for and finally received a DNR (do not resuscitate order). That whole process took a very long time, mostly hinging upon how the issue would be played by the media should they find out that Social Services signed such an order for a child in their care. The DNR was finally signed by three attending physicians, the birth mother, myself and Social Services. The question truly was "to what benefit is a life prolonged when there are no cognitive abilities and only long suffering by the child:"

hmmm...thank you for the well stated response.
but
i am still not clear on your "part" (as mentioned before)...given the exclusions you have mentioned, exactly what was behind your commitment? (aside form the pending book deal).

[_bcuzbcuz]

hmmm...thank you for the well stated response.
but
i am still not clear on your "part" (as mentioned before)...given the exclusions you have mentioned, exactly what was behind your commitment? (aside form the pending book deal).

Sorry I didn't get back earlier. We've been (still are) on vacation on Crete. Fantastic food, lovely beaches, friendly people, Knossos and the archaeological museum and no Internet.

It is my opinion that society only works through mutual cooperation. This is not a rule of God, just a basic fact of life. I personally derive joy out of being kind to others, rather than nasty or rude. I cannot cure all the world's ills so my wife and I decided to fix just one problem at a time. Therefore we volunteered to foster and I just did my part.

[_Drifting]

hmmm...thank you for the well stated response.
but
i am still not clear on your "part" (as mentioned before)...given the exclusions you have mentioned, exactly what was behind your commitment? (aside form the pending book deal).

Sorry I didn't get back earlier. We've been (still are) on vacation on Crete. Fantastic food, lovely beaches, friendly people, Knossos and the archaeological museum and no Internet.

It is my opinion that society only works through mutual cooperation. This is not a rule of God, just a basic fact of life. I personally derive joy out of being kind to others, rather than nasty or rude. I cannot cure all the world's ills so my wife and I decided to fix just one problem at a time. Therefore we volunteered to foster and I just did my part.

Whilst you are in Greece see if you can find the evidence that in about 2,300 bc the entire civilisation was wiped out by a flood. There should be. A clear gap between when they were wiped out and when the area was re-populated by the offspring from the 8 or so people saved on Noah's ark...

Ancient Greece was a civilization belonging to a period of Greek history that lasted from the Archaic period of the 8th to 6th centuries BC to the end of antiquity (ca. 600 AD).

[_subgenius]

Sorry I didn't get back earlier. We've been (still are) on vacation on Crete. Fantastic food, lovely beaches, friendly people, Knossos and the archaeological museum and no Internet.

no apology necessary, surely everyone assumes we all have "other things to do" than this forum.

It is my opinion that society only works through mutual cooperation. This is not a rule of God, just a basic fact of life.

i am not sure about a basic fact of life...and i am not sure there is such a thing as society without mutual cooperation...kinda how a society comes into being, ain't it?

I personally derive joy out of being kind to others, rather than nasty or rude. I cannot cure all the world's ills so my wife and I decided to fix just one problem at a time. Therefore we volunteered to foster and I just did my part.

interesting, makes you wonder if other people derive joy from being rude, or if that is something else altogether different.
"cannot cure the world's ills" ? exactly how do you recognize a world's ill in order to cure it?

you spoke about mutual cooperation and ...how does that equate to "Rational, reasonable, logical and emotional plays no part" ?
and your admission of being "I was obviously unbalanced, emotionally wrought and illogical." seems to contradict any notion of you "doing [your] part"...unless the mutually cooperative part you were playing, in order to have society "work", was to be unbalanced, distraught, and illogical.

[_subgenius]

Whilst you are in Greece see if you can find the evidence that in about 2,300 bc the entire civilisation was wiped out by a flood. There should be. A clear gap between when they were wiped out and when the area was re-populated by the offspring from the 8 or so people saved on Noah's ark...

Once again the spoon-fed pop historian rears his ugly head. Comments, like these express a gross misunderstanding, and a lack of knowledge, for how history is and has been compiled...
for example Sclaiger and Petavius established a chronology of the ancient world, as was all the fad in the Renaissance...but it was not without flaw and dispute.//Arcilla and Houdin for example establisjed that many ancient texts (which only dealt with one or two centuries) may have been fraudulent. This is an interesting comparison to make amongst those who claim that the "ancient text" of the Bible is surely a myth but other "ancient texts" surely are not....this notion of created and falsified ancient history was even supported by Sir Isaac Newton (read "The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended").
The fact remains that the chronology put forth by Scaliger and Petavius has never been independently verified, and yet is still assumed mostly correct.
We see this controversy and rather inaccurate chronology as never being really unified amongst the scholars...see Morozov, Formenko, Blair, and Kammeier
In fact when one looks at the comparison method of dynasty you see such similarites that one can not reasonably stick with the traditional view of chronolgy (well, one can if they suffer from the same myopia as Drift). This methods clearly confirms that ancient history consists of multiple recounts of the same events scattered in many locations at various times.
see the following example of this:

This has considerable implications on conventional archaeological dating because the dating procedure in archaeology is based on the comparison of the excavated objects with objects already dated. This position is further buttressed by even a cursory review of how astronomical dating has influence and conflict with the "conventional" method.
To be quite honest, anyone who claims that "chronological history" is the most accurate of sciences is rather naïve.
That being said, the "date" of anything has little bearing on whatever shadow(s) Drifting insists to cast upon the cave walls.

[_Drifting]

But the Church taught me, along with every single other seminary and institute student for the last fifty years, that the flood was a literal worldwide flood that covered the entire earth killing everything except for the things in Noah's Ark and it took place around 2,300 BC.

Are you saying the Church is wrong to teach that?

[_subgenius]

But the Church taught me, along with every single other seminary and institute student for the last fifty years, that the flood was a literal worldwide flood that covered the entire earth killing everything except for the things in Noah's Ark and it took place around 2,300 BC.

Are you saying the Church is wrong to teach that?

No

[_Drifting]

But the Church taught me, along with every single other seminary and institute student for the last fifty years, that the flood was a literal worldwide flood that covered the entire earth killing everything except for the things in Noah's Ark and it took place around 2,300 BC.

Are you saying the Church is wrong to teach that?

No

Are you saying that you believe the Church's teaching as I have outlined it? (assuming you don't disagree that this is what the Church teaches).

[_subgenius]

Are you saying that you believe the Church's teaching as I have outlined it? (assuming you don't disagree that this is what the Church teaches).

HERE

[_Drifting]

Are you saying that you believe the Church's teaching as I have outlined it? (assuming you don't disagree that this is what the Church teaches).

HERE

Why do you avoid expressing explicitly wether or not you believe the Church's version of events vis a vis the Flood?

I.e.
1. It was a literal happening
2. It was worldwide and covered the whole earth
3. Only Noah and the people on the ark were saved
4. It happened around 2,300 BC

(it's okay to disagree with what the Church teaches, we won't tell)