Thursday, March 06, 2008
What IS the 'overall message of Scripture'?
First, Romans 14 got me the other day. So, once again, I endeavor to perservere not to judge fellow Christians, even if they insist on judging me -- even when they judge me all the way out of fellowship.
Doesn't mean I won't challenge them, or disagree with them, or call them on BS when arguing for public policy.
Public policy ain't the fellowship: It's the arena -- the irony being that while the world still wants to feed Christians to the lions, Christians bring their own dang lions to the arena to sic on one another.
Now. Focus on the Family Action has held Barack Obama up to ridicule -- yes, they did -- by trumpeting his mention of the Sermon on the Mount as a general guide for his faith in explaining why he believes in civil unions for homosexuals.
The story is rife with incredulity. Of course, I find it incredible that FOTF Action, or anyone else, can't see, or chooses to ignore, what Obama was saying.
FOTF Action's John Barner said: "We are always saddened as evangelical Christians when others who identify themselves as Christians do not have the high view of Scripture that we believe is so important."
High view of Scripture? Are you kidding me? Holding to the literalness of the Bible keeps it in the mud.
Words are poor attempts to explain ideas; words are wholly poor vessels for expressing holy things. But, words are what we have, so we use them. We take them seriously, but not always literally, or we never get out of the mud.
Barner said: "We believe isolated portions of Scripture should not be used to justify a personal preference or a social position that goes in a different direction than the overall message of Scripture."
I agree. But he's pointing to the Sermon on the Mount as an "isolated portion of Scripture," when it actually is a summary OF the overall message of Scripture.
And FOTF is the one actually using isolated portions of Scripture to justify a personal preference: the social position that homosexuals should not have the right to freely associate in the same way as heterosexuals do simply because they are homosexuals.
Barner said: "We believe Scripture is pretty clear in proscribing and affirming that marriage is to be an exclusive, lifetime relationship between a man and a woman."
Maybe. So what? Scripture is pretty clear in its explanation that God in heaven is "up there," the devil and hell are "down there," and we are "right here" in the middle. And it's wrong.
EL posted on this, and, of course, we disagree. In the spirit of Romans 14, I tried not to make it personal. I'm working on that.
So, what do you think IS the overall message of Scripture? It sure isn't "homosexuality bad."
--ER
(BTW, the guy in the picture is Van Dale Hudson, evangelist, and I'm sure he and I disagree on this, too., But I'd still call him "Brother." ... Google is amazing! Search Images for overalls and preacher, and voila!)
Comments:
<< Home
The overall message? God loves us all completely and equally, but He roots for the underdog.
Given that what should be our response? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. How has he told us to live out that love? By preaching Good News to the poor, by proclaiming release to the captives, and the recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Jubilee.
Given that what should be our response? To love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. How has he told us to live out that love? By preaching Good News to the poor, by proclaiming release to the captives, and the recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Jubilee.
PS. Oh, and to totally hate the gays and screw with their lives whenever possible. Don't forget that part. ;)
oops...sorry... not "the gays" the "pro-sodomy" crowd.
ROFL. Yes, Neil actually used that phrase. ROFL.
ROFL. Yes, Neil actually used that phrase. ROFL.
The overall message of Scripture is not homosexuality is bad. No
Alan got it in the first comment.
But can't we take the Bible seriously and literally? By using figures of speech does not diminish the literalness of it.
We read Shakespeare literally. And we know how to read his use of figures.
Why is the Bible the exception. Why is it written in some code language of allegory? Just because some use the Bible (and we all do) for their own agenda does not mean it can't be interpreted literally.
The problem is not whether to interpret the Bible literally or necessarily seriously. The problem is we read it without taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic and theological shells of the text. We read as if it were written yesterday by John Grisham. And we think he heard a dictation from God Himself. Therefore we assume the Bible is our culture is written in our understanding of the language, and is written to support our theologies.
Alan got it in the first comment.
But can't we take the Bible seriously and literally? By using figures of speech does not diminish the literalness of it.
We read Shakespeare literally. And we know how to read his use of figures.
Why is the Bible the exception. Why is it written in some code language of allegory? Just because some use the Bible (and we all do) for their own agenda does not mean it can't be interpreted literally.
The problem is not whether to interpret the Bible literally or necessarily seriously. The problem is we read it without taking into consideration the cultural and linguistic and theological shells of the text. We read as if it were written yesterday by John Grisham. And we think he heard a dictation from God Himself. Therefore we assume the Bible is our culture is written in our understanding of the language, and is written to support our theologies.
The overall message of scripture, for me, is this - God's love for this creation is so great that the radical disobedience of the pinnacle of that creation is no barrier for God doing what needs to be done to keep it in communion with God.
Of course, this requires certain sacrifices on our part. God calls us to give up our desire for self-preservation, for the false security we use to blanket our lives. We are to live free of the trappings of safety to which we cling - even our families and our sense of ourselves. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, when Christ calls a man, he bid him come and die.
Not a big price to pay, all things considered.
Incidentally, I really don't get the whole homo-hating thing. Sorry, but it's just not that big a deal in the Bible I read. In fact, I don't really read "hate" at all - except for all that which keeps us from realizing God's radical, unconditional, and transcendent love for us.
Whatever else people say Christianity or the Bible or theology or doctrine or whatever their particular hobby horse might be, in the end it all comes down to that.
Before completing Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas quit and retired to a monastery in northern Italy. Before he died, he was asked why. The author of the most intricate and thorough and beautifully written piece of Christian theology (regardless of its other demerits) said, "It's all dross". I take my cue from the great doctor of the Church, and live life in light of that transcendent love that is beyond anyone's understanding.
Of course, this requires certain sacrifices on our part. God calls us to give up our desire for self-preservation, for the false security we use to blanket our lives. We are to live free of the trappings of safety to which we cling - even our families and our sense of ourselves. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, when Christ calls a man, he bid him come and die.
Not a big price to pay, all things considered.
Incidentally, I really don't get the whole homo-hating thing. Sorry, but it's just not that big a deal in the Bible I read. In fact, I don't really read "hate" at all - except for all that which keeps us from realizing God's radical, unconditional, and transcendent love for us.
Whatever else people say Christianity or the Bible or theology or doctrine or whatever their particular hobby horse might be, in the end it all comes down to that.
Before completing Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas quit and retired to a monastery in northern Italy. Before he died, he was asked why. The author of the most intricate and thorough and beautifully written piece of Christian theology (regardless of its other demerits) said, "It's all dross". I take my cue from the great doctor of the Church, and live life in light of that transcendent love that is beyond anyone's understanding.
Romans 14:14 "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
"Nothing Is Unclean"
Pauls says quite plainly nothing is unclean, nothing is wrong in and of itself.
But if you think it is, then for you it is.
For Neil sodomy is wrong.
For others, nope.
But because something is wrong for you, does not give you any authority to condemn it in others.
Let God handle it. And yes anyone can contradict Paul or my interpretation of Paul.
Thus, What is the overall message of scripture? What ever the hell you want it to be and can convince others that it is true.
"Nothing Is Unclean"
Pauls says quite plainly nothing is unclean, nothing is wrong in and of itself.
But if you think it is, then for you it is.
For Neil sodomy is wrong.
For others, nope.
But because something is wrong for you, does not give you any authority to condemn it in others.
Let God handle it. And yes anyone can contradict Paul or my interpretation of Paul.
Thus, What is the overall message of scripture? What ever the hell you want it to be and can convince others that it is true.
Re, "using figures of speech does not diminish the literalness of it."
Well, actually it does, Pech. Maybe you mean "using figures of speech does not diminish the truth of it" -- and I agree with that.
But: Today, when an athlete scores and points up, to God, most of us take that figuratively. It's clear, to me, that the Scripture writers believed God really WAS up there and OUT there.
Well, actually it does, Pech. Maybe you mean "using figures of speech does not diminish the truth of it" -- and I agree with that.
But: Today, when an athlete scores and points up, to God, most of us take that figuratively. It's clear, to me, that the Scripture writers believed God really WAS up there and OUT there.
In re drlobojo's comment following my initial comment, referencing Romans 14:4, I would like to say that my own struggle - and it is a real struggle, not some kind of figurative thing, but a wrestling match between me and whatever Spirit demands more and more of me - is how much of my own "stuff" is really relevant to share, and how much I need to curb my own enthusiasm and feelings, precisely because of what Paul says here, and elsewhere. I wish I could recall the specific verse, but in another letter, Paul speaks of the different "spiritual food" people need at different stages - he likens some needing baby food, others solid, etc. (I think I have the analogy correct). None of this is to trumpet how far I have come in my own journey; rather, I have been reminded by ER on more than one occasion that my place and space is far different from that of some others (I have concluded these comments to be both loving and remonstrative, and in line with Paul's saying).
In this vein, I sometimes weary of being told I "should" or (worse) "must" offer peace to those who (in my view) are clearly not only wrong but misleading the faithful. Perhaps my own sense of faith is such that I just have no desire to share communion in the faith with those who wish other human beings ill in the name of the God whose love I have found so transcendent. This is a lie, indeed as close to blasphemy as I could imagine coming - to think that God would deny grace to someone because of whom and how they love. I find that terrible, disgusting.
Yet, is there room for such? Obviously, God's grace extends to such as these as well. The old "hate the sin but love the sinner" thing still rings awfully hollow, but it might contain a grain of truth nevertheless in situations such as these. Again, without refusing my own right to call them on their nonsense, I guess I would have to say that they are children of God, and loved as much as I.
It is a dilemma, indeed.
In this vein, I sometimes weary of being told I "should" or (worse) "must" offer peace to those who (in my view) are clearly not only wrong but misleading the faithful. Perhaps my own sense of faith is such that I just have no desire to share communion in the faith with those who wish other human beings ill in the name of the God whose love I have found so transcendent. This is a lie, indeed as close to blasphemy as I could imagine coming - to think that God would deny grace to someone because of whom and how they love. I find that terrible, disgusting.
Yet, is there room for such? Obviously, God's grace extends to such as these as well. The old "hate the sin but love the sinner" thing still rings awfully hollow, but it might contain a grain of truth nevertheless in situations such as these. Again, without refusing my own right to call them on their nonsense, I guess I would have to say that they are children of God, and loved as much as I.
It is a dilemma, indeed.
When a major Christian organization announces that the Sermon on the Mount is isolated scripture, that shows how far we have come from the source. I suspect it is our wealthy American culture, and Christianity becoming an official government faith and one that is cited by the most powerful of people, that is blinding us all.
The persecuted Church Fathers who came right after the Apostles had absolutely no doubt that the Sermon on the Mount was the bedrock in Scripture in which the whole Christian faith was built on.
The persecuted Church Fathers who came right after the Apostles had absolutely no doubt that the Sermon on the Mount was the bedrock in Scripture in which the whole Christian faith was built on.
# posted by 
: 10:49 AM
: 10:49 AM
The early Christians struggled with how to deal with the Sermon on the Mount, whether literally -- but they could not just toss it aside as too difficult to deal with, as many do today. It was the core of the message of Jesus. Oddly, today, for many Christians, John of Patmos' dream is the primary message of Scripture. (And you have previously mentioned on your blog all the problems there ..."
# posted by : 10:51 AM
: 10:51 AM
I may have to concede later, but for argument sake's I am going to hold to what I said. That figures of speech do not diminish the literalness of it. The figure is the symbol, just like "words" are symbols. I am not convinced that words are a poor way of expressing thought. yes, it is all we have, so we do not know what's better. Of course there is sound and that may be slightly better, but I digress.
Whatever the figure is, the reality behind it is still just as real.
When Jesus said pluck out your eye if it offends you, did he mean what Origen did and tear out his eye? Origen was too hung up on the linguistic nature and would not discern what was behind Jesus' figures.
And yes, the ancients, as well as some of us, believed literally that God was located directionally up. Who knows He may be? This has not been proven untrue. But regardless, they also understood him everywhere at once but described his closeness with man in anthropomorphic terms. These terms did not diminish the reality of where God is. A literal interpretation of the Bible takes seriously the figures of speech. The problem is we as interpreters of Scripture want to pick and choose what is figurative and what's not according to our political/theological agenda.
For me I take Jesus command to wah feet as a literal command. 99% of Christians do not. They see it as a figure of speech for service and obedience. Why do I take it as a literal command and others as figurative? Each has his need to interpret Scripture to preserve his ideas of how things should be. Any antithesis that comes along is quickly assimilated or dismissed.
Reading literally means interpreting figures of speech. Reading allegorically allows each to interpret the whole as he/she wishes. The difference is I can make the Bible say whatever if I am in charge of its interpretation. What is dangerous is that I can also take the figures of speech and interpret them however I want also.
Whatever the figure is, the reality behind it is still just as real.
When Jesus said pluck out your eye if it offends you, did he mean what Origen did and tear out his eye? Origen was too hung up on the linguistic nature and would not discern what was behind Jesus' figures.
And yes, the ancients, as well as some of us, believed literally that God was located directionally up. Who knows He may be? This has not been proven untrue. But regardless, they also understood him everywhere at once but described his closeness with man in anthropomorphic terms. These terms did not diminish the reality of where God is. A literal interpretation of the Bible takes seriously the figures of speech. The problem is we as interpreters of Scripture want to pick and choose what is figurative and what's not according to our political/theological agenda.
For me I take Jesus command to wah feet as a literal command. 99% of Christians do not. They see it as a figure of speech for service and obedience. Why do I take it as a literal command and others as figurative? Each has his need to interpret Scripture to preserve his ideas of how things should be. Any antithesis that comes along is quickly assimilated or dismissed.
Reading literally means interpreting figures of speech. Reading allegorically allows each to interpret the whole as he/she wishes. The difference is I can make the Bible say whatever if I am in charge of its interpretation. What is dangerous is that I can also take the figures of speech and interpret them however I want also.
That reminds me, Tuesday Gary Gygax died at the age 69. Who the heck is Gary Gygax you say? He was the savior of all geeks, nerds, four eyes, and fantasy freaks in the world. Gygax was the creator of Dungeons and Dragons.
All hail Gary Gygax!
All hail Gary Gygax!
Dang it, I got real busy today and didn't have time to chekc in here. I will catch up -- but right now, Dr. ER is in the house! and I'm fixin' to fix supper.
Can we separate the message of the OT and NT and the individually experienced walk with God?
I think not, and so, d'après moi, the overall message is:
Get to know Me, really know Me as far as you can, you beloved creature made from dust (always of little faith and with no imagination), and I'll make sure that I take you to the limits of of you're sanity, I'll take you out of your comfort zone about every five years, I'll change all the belief systems you've acquired from others, I'll constantly surprise you with My compassion, My creativity and My love for all whom I have made, (and just because they were created through Me).
I'll show you love as no one can, especially when you allow yourself to be what you truly are: weak, ignorant, poor, naked and hungry, and I will turn you into that which only I can turn you into: my idea of a real human being.
I think not, and so, d'après moi, the overall message is:
Get to know Me, really know Me as far as you can, you beloved creature made from dust (always of little faith and with no imagination), and I'll make sure that I take you to the limits of of you're sanity, I'll take you out of your comfort zone about every five years, I'll change all the belief systems you've acquired from others, I'll constantly surprise you with My compassion, My creativity and My love for all whom I have made, (and just because they were created through Me).
I'll show you love as no one can, especially when you allow yourself to be what you truly are: weak, ignorant, poor, naked and hungry, and I will turn you into that which only I can turn you into: my idea of a real human being.
# posted by : 10:28 PM
: 10:28 PM
ER, you said, "It's the arena -- the irony being that while the world still wants to feed Christians to the lions, Christians bring their own dang lions to the arena to sic on one another."
So you buy into the great procescution of the whore of Babalyon against those poor minority of true believers?
If your talking about Islam and Christianity, say so, but Christians are not the small guys in the world today. As for the Islamic radicals, they want to feed everybody including their own to the lions.
Ah, Christian paranoia and the desire for martyrdom, how sad.
The actual distribution today:
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
And this doesn't count the Church of Elvis and the Ralphians.
So you buy into the great procescution of the whore of Babalyon against those poor minority of true believers?
If your talking about Islam and Christianity, say so, but Christians are not the small guys in the world today. As for the Islamic radicals, they want to feed everybody including their own to the lions.
Ah, Christian paranoia and the desire for martyrdom, how sad.
The actual distribution today:
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand
And this doesn't count the Church of Elvis and the Ralphians.
Re, "If your talking about Islam and Christianity, say so ..."
I wasn't.
Re, "but Christians are not the small guys in the world today ..."
Irrelevant to what I meant. I meant "world" in the sense definition, like, 12: "Secular life and its concerns: a man of the world." I wadn't talking about competing religions.
Karen: I like.
I wasn't.
Re, "but Christians are not the small guys in the world today ..."
Irrelevant to what I meant. I meant "world" in the sense definition, like, 12: "Secular life and its concerns: a man of the world." I wadn't talking about competing religions.
Karen: I like.
"...the world still wants to feed Christians to the lions..."
Ah,So you mean:
"...the world (the 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist) still wants to feed (the 2.1 billon)Christians to the lions..."
Ah,So you mean:
"...the world (the 1.1 billion Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist) still wants to feed (the 2.1 billon)Christians to the lions..."
Yes. And sometimes, with some of my more extreme brethren, at my worst moments, I'm ready to back a trailer load up to the Coliseum my own self.
Look. I was alluding the a Pauline verse(s), I think, that I don't have time to look up.
Look. I was alluding the a Pauline verse(s), I think, that I don't have time to look up.
The overall, worldwide numbers you're using don't really tell the whole story do they? Perhaps we can find some Christians in China who can explain how, even though Christians are in the majority in the world, some people seem not to take those numbers all that seriously. ;)
Please be cautious with those numbers! Of the 2.1 billion Christians listed, EL Ashley and Neal have only been able to personally verify 10 or 20 of those so far. (But, in the spirit of brotherhood, they are willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that they could be Christians (even if they probably are fakers) -- as long as they can verify with accepted documentation that they purchased the right translation of the Bible, voted for the correct political candidates, of course took communion with only other ELA- and Neal-verified believers, and exhibited the proper doctrinal purity by no longer ignoring certain important verses in the Bible like the dietary restrictions of Leviticus, which "still stand."
# posted by : 8:30 PM
: 8:30 PM
Alan makes a good point about the numbers.
I'll give Germany as an example (pop. 80 million):
it has two state churches, the Catholic and the Lutheran (called Evangelical - Evangelisch).
You are born into either one, are baptized as an infant and it goes on your permanent record under "religion", so that when you begin to work and pay taxes, your tithing is automatically taken off your paycheck and goes to the church you're a member of.
The pastors of the Evangelical church have civil servant status and cannot lose their jobs unless by some serious criminal offence. It is a guaranteed and a lifelong position. It is also the only secure job for those who decide to study Hebrew and Greek.
I used to manage a pub in northern Germany, and theology students came in all the time. If I wanted to discuss theology with them they made it clear that they didn't believe what they were studying, but loved the languages and wanted the stability of the job.
These churches are often empty except at Christmas, Weddings and Baptisms, but boast millions of members, most of whom gladly admit they don't believe. It was in Germany that I learned to differentiate between tradition/nominal christians and confessing christians.
Confessing christians most often leave the state church and go to the "free" evangelical churches, and then have to go through a long process to get their status changed to "religionless" on their records.
Here you have a completely skewed weighting of the numbers in a "christian" nation, and it won't be any different in how things operate in most other European countries.
Realistically I would set the percentage of confessing christians to non-christians and tradition/nominal christians at a lot fewer than 2 billion. Although the churches in Asia and Africa get me all happy, with their growing numbers.
I also think believing and confessing christians are not the majority in NA, although stats show a high percentage and everyone loves to talk about the US and Canada as always having been" christian nations" and the dangers they now face with too many liberals (compared to the "good old days". The good old "christian" days were really never that good or "christian" just basically human and faulty if you're brave enough to look back at them in depth.
(An example: why we have toilet seats open on one end in public washrooms: because many moons ago doctors were confronted with growing numbers of children brought to them with what they called "childhood gonorrhea". No one spoke of sexual abuse back then, so the physicians came to the conclusion that a little girl could get it from the public toilets, and so the toilet seats were changed to have the opening at the front, and generations of girls learned to pee without sitting on the seat. Now we know that the only way to get it is through sexual activity.)
I'll give Germany as an example (pop. 80 million):
it has two state churches, the Catholic and the Lutheran (called Evangelical - Evangelisch).
You are born into either one, are baptized as an infant and it goes on your permanent record under "religion", so that when you begin to work and pay taxes, your tithing is automatically taken off your paycheck and goes to the church you're a member of.
The pastors of the Evangelical church have civil servant status and cannot lose their jobs unless by some serious criminal offence. It is a guaranteed and a lifelong position. It is also the only secure job for those who decide to study Hebrew and Greek.
I used to manage a pub in northern Germany, and theology students came in all the time. If I wanted to discuss theology with them they made it clear that they didn't believe what they were studying, but loved the languages and wanted the stability of the job.
These churches are often empty except at Christmas, Weddings and Baptisms, but boast millions of members, most of whom gladly admit they don't believe. It was in Germany that I learned to differentiate between tradition/nominal christians and confessing christians.
Confessing christians most often leave the state church and go to the "free" evangelical churches, and then have to go through a long process to get their status changed to "religionless" on their records.
Here you have a completely skewed weighting of the numbers in a "christian" nation, and it won't be any different in how things operate in most other European countries.
Realistically I would set the percentage of confessing christians to non-christians and tradition/nominal christians at a lot fewer than 2 billion. Although the churches in Asia and Africa get me all happy, with their growing numbers.
I also think believing and confessing christians are not the majority in NA, although stats show a high percentage and everyone loves to talk about the US and Canada as always having been" christian nations" and the dangers they now face with too many liberals (compared to the "good old days". The good old "christian" days were really never that good or "christian" just basically human and faulty if you're brave enough to look back at them in depth.
(An example: why we have toilet seats open on one end in public washrooms: because many moons ago doctors were confronted with growing numbers of children brought to them with what they called "childhood gonorrhea". No one spoke of sexual abuse back then, so the physicians came to the conclusion that a little girl could get it from the public toilets, and so the toilet seats were changed to have the opening at the front, and generations of girls learned to pee without sitting on the seat. Now we know that the only way to get it is through sexual activity.)
# posted by : 11:23 PM
: 11:23 PM
Karne revealed: "No one spoke of sexual abuse back then, so the physicians came to the conclusion that a little girl could get it from the public toilets, and so the toilet seats were changed to have the opening at the front, and generations of girls learned to pee without sitting on the seat."
Now that is the kind of useful information you can not get anywhere else except of ER blog!
No, seriously, I will first verify it, even thought I bet it is quite accurate and then use it the rest of my life as an example of A-B or C. Neat I like data like that. We are such dorks sometimes.
Now that is the kind of useful information you can not get anywhere else except of ER blog!
No, seriously, I will first verify it, even thought I bet it is quite accurate and then use it the rest of my life as an example of A-B or C. Neat I like data like that. We are such dorks sometimes.
Actually got it from new book - can't remember author (female)- I think PhD then published for public last year (?)
Believe me I'm ashamed of the lackadaisical and irresponsible way I am referencing it for you!
There's also excellent research done on the "christian" method used back in the day in the US (I'm sure Can too) of allowing women with botched abortions (6th kid, starving family etc), who went to hospital for help, and as a "punishment" were allowed to die, and at the same time were psychologically tortured in their last hours to reveal the identity of the abortionist. Records exist from the police depts.
Makes you want to writhe.
Can find article for that one on Jstor.
Believe me I'm ashamed of the lackadaisical and irresponsible way I am referencing it for you!
There's also excellent research done on the "christian" method used back in the day in the US (I'm sure Can too) of allowing women with botched abortions (6th kid, starving family etc), who went to hospital for help, and as a "punishment" were allowed to die, and at the same time were psychologically tortured in their last hours to reveal the identity of the abortionist. Records exist from the police depts.
Makes you want to writhe.
Can find article for that one on Jstor.
# posted by : 6:29 PM
: 6:29 PM
Re: Upright female urination:
Oh my, oh my, oh my, well it seems Karen that the fear and practice are far from history. Check out this site for a handy dandy device to make such activity easier.
http://www.sanicone.com/index.html
Life is so amazing some days.
I think I may order some for my sister-in-law for next Christmas.
Post a Comment
Oh my, oh my, oh my, well it seems Karen that the fear and practice are far from history. Check out this site for a handy dandy device to make such activity easier.
http://www.sanicone.com/index.html
Life is so amazing some days.
I think I may order some for my sister-in-law for next Christmas.
<< Home
