Posted on 06/15/2014 12:52:19 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
1.) An infant is baptized, is raised by believing parents and later when older turns from the faith.
2.) An infant is baptized, has no believing parents to be raised by, and when older doesn't turn from the faith.
Given that the antithesis exists for 1 & 2, wouldn't it be prudent for the priest to baptize the fortunate infant as well as the unfortunate, as either could remain faithful when older, show perseverance against high odds, and no priest knows the future - only God Almighty?
Given that only God knows the future, perhaps withholding baptism isn't an option at all for the priest. If the priest is unsure about 1, 2 or the antithesis for both, should they let God do their baptizing for them if they lack faith?
If baptism was required ... why didn't Jesus baptize people? John 4:1-2? If baptism was required for salvation, Jesus would have baptized people all the time. Did He not specifically say He came to seek and save the lost? If He didn't baptize people all the time then He certainly didn't save anyone and His entire ministry made no sense at all.
What about Paul? Why did Paul claim that he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel? 1 Cor. 1:16-17?
Paul would have preached baptism instead of repentance and faith. He didn't even know if he baptized anyone other than Stephanus. Does that sound like a person who believes that baptism is essential for salvation?
There are just way too many holes in the doctrine of Catholic baptism. Every day thousands of Catholics baptize their infants believing that this ritual produces regeneration.
Huh?
I just showed you from the scriptures that water doesn’t mean baptism...And baptism doesn’t mean water...
I never said it did...
Stop pretending that it is or was -- regardless of there being yet another headline which used that word "hoax", for that word focused singularly upon the headline associated with the story, as in "800 babies dumped in a septic tank". That wording was both inflammatory, and misleading, in going beyond that which has been firmly established (but is still otherwise reasonable possibility) along with an editor having added to all of that, the word "dumped".
Corless says she never used the word "dumped", and further denies that she herself had said that it had been firmly established (beyond possibility for doubt) that the underground concrete tank or structure which was opened up in 1975, seen to be full of bones at that time, had once been a septic tank, though presently still, that does remain as reasonable enough possibility (that it at one time been a septic tank) if not the supposition which best fits the actual evidence now available, rather than reliance upon conjecture that a purpose-built burial "shaft" had in actual fact been on the Tuam premises, though that too is indeed possible, as is BOTH alternatives are possible to be each of them true --- and even --- each structure possibly used as "crypt", just as I mentioned in one of my first notes to you here. Wattasamatta? Can you not read and comprehend? Is it all too complicated for you for you to grasp all at once?
The original article hinted at or as much said the contents of the headline itself had indeed come from Corless -- are the only things about the story that are "bogus", which is not enough to make the entire background story false, or enough to establish that the concrete structure below ground was not at one time in the past a septic tank.
Is that sinking it, YET???
There were (and still are) justifiable reasons for continuing to consider that the structure to have been once a septic tank, in the least as possibility, if not a strong possibility, for that supposition is what best fits the available evidence presently. The alternative so far, is so far, only in the realm of conjecture -- just as I told you, originally.
Offering plausible alternatives is one thing, and is fully acceptable. Pounding the table with the supposition, then adding to that further personal insult -- is NOT acceptable. Yet time and again that is what I see from a particular cadre of FRomans. If there be the least covering for being able to express their own hatreds and bigotries towards those not "Catholic" (particularly when some subject matter arising which rightly or wrongly could be seen to be injurious to RCC reputation) then what kicks in but a Bill Clinton "war room" type of thing, much like Carville saying "drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and you can get a lot of things" sort of smear tactic which was aimed at the women who were trying to tell the world that Bill Clinton was a real "heel" of a guy.
You do to myself, much as Carville & Co did to Clinton's critics, then in the same breath dare to compare me to "liberal media" and the like?
Are you trying to coax me into flattening your nose? If so, your doing fine job of that...
But let's have a closer look at the parts of the article (which you just linked to -- which contains repeat of portion of the previous article which had linked to -- as if it were "news") which may well enough be an alternative explanation (noting here that all you did yourself was lazily include a link -- which others would have to go dig through to see what you were talking about -- when not insulting me personally at the same time). You REALLY need to stop mixing information with insult. Got that? If you won't stop -- you SHOULD BE zotted permanently.
There are two paragraphs, which should be examined one at a time;
“In the 19th century, deep brick-lined shafts were constructed and covered with a large slab which often doubled as a flatly laid headstone. These were common in 19th-century urban cemeteries…..Such tombs are still used extensively in Mediterranean countries. I recently saw such structures being constructed in a churchyard in Croatia. The shaft was made of concrete blocks, plastered internally and roofed with large concrete slabs.
If such a structure were to in fact have been built on the premises, that raises a few questions.
When was it built?
In 2012, on the opposite side of the property (along the Northern perimeter, to the West) there were a number of graves uncovered, with those (through formal investigation of the remains) having been dated to the old "work house" days of the property. The buildings themselves generally date to that era also.
If there had been a "deep brick lined shaft" or an underground, concrete, purpose-built structure dating back to the work house era -- why were the bodies dating from that time not put within a then existing burial place, but instead were buried in the yard, without caskets (but wrapped in cloth or blankets).
Those graves were said to be rather orderly, but otherwise as I have described, and not in some brick or concrete lined chamber. Would you like a link for that info? I could dig it out if need be.
The description of "burial vault" sort of thing does otherwise possibly very well fit with what the witness uncovered in 1975, and how he opened a chamber, thus be plausible explanation. Yet it also could as well fit with it having been a septic tank.
Yet if possibility for it having been something other than a septic tank is to be considered, the questions as above still go begging -- if there was a structure such as that --- built in the same vicinity as maps indicate there was a sewage tank -- then who was that it built it, when was it built, and why was THAT not used in the work house era, or for the graves which collapsed causing a woman to fall in with the collapsing earth which covered those?
There is yet that last lingering doubt (as expressed in the last sentence above, to be more fully explained a bit further on) even if considering it was burial chamber which had been opened instead of being sewage tank, for the place where the woman is said to have fallen into a collapsed grave is fully on the other side of the yard or small cemetery, some tens of yards distant from where the man indicates he pried up a 2ft X 4 ft covering stone or piece of concrete slab seeing bone in THAT location. Putting these things together, it seem like there was more than one place which bodies were either buried or placed, in addition to the site on the North side of the property which dated back to the 19th century.
As to my mention of a grave collapsing (in comparison to a lid of an underground tank or vault being opened) there is yet another witness as it were, who says she at one time fell into a grave (as it collapsed) in the same general area the 'tank' or other structure is located, but along an opposite wall from where the other witness said he had opened up a 'tank' of sorts and seen it full of bones.
The woman says that when she fell in to this collapsed hole, she saw human remains, with it being her testimony I *think*, from which comes the tidbit of info that one of the skulls had small teeth, for as I recall, the bones there were also said to be small (as the other witness said of what he himself had encountered) like as they were remains of a small child, perhaps toddler size, which info generally fits the lists of the deceased, for not all were infants. If memory serves... the woman came across bones of more than one person? I'll have to search again as to that, with it being difficult to keep track of all the various information -- as to which precise article it was in also, which complicates things even further when trying to fairly enough cover the various elements of the story.
She said that the hole was covered over soon after she had fell in, herself allegedly having reporting that to others at the time, which resulted in someone back-filling that hole.
The area which she indicated this occurring was one of the two places which were swept with the ground penetrating radar device. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2651766/We-need-dig-babies-graves-Ground-Penetrating-Radar-reveals-lies-beneath-Tuam-Home-site.html
Local source indicated that where the woman was said to have walked into a collapse is somewhere in the area indicated as "Plot A" I believe, while the stone or slab which had been pried up is in the "Plot B" area.
It doesn't help that in the graphical maps on this particular page, what is shown as "Potential burial ground" which is that portion of the property outline which juts out towards the lower left corner of the "map" appears to have been rotated in presentation in the inset labeled "Top view of site", for the high walls as seen in photographs are the old perimeter walls I take it, and the lower walls which include a gate for entrance would not face or open to the West-Southwest, but to the Northeast and back towards the inward portions of that property.
Allegedly there were anomalies indicated in or quite near to the place she says she fell into a collapsed grave of some type (in the Plot A area) as were also anomalies indicated in the location the other witness says he had pried up a covering to a 'tank' -- or whatever that was. Yet-- the ground penetrating radar (as results were interpreted)according to the article, did not show presence of a "tank" anywhere, including generally where the man said he had pried up a covering stone to a chamber or old septic tank.
These two places are both within the same walled area which sort-of jutted out from the rest of the property boundary. Have you looked at any maps? (I ask for the second or third time).
The other graves which had been investigated in 2012, are near the Northwestern corner of the property, which on the map indicted to be "Map of Tuam Home" is near to where an inset box indicates "Grey areas indicate roads and houses as they currently exist".
Leaving those older graves somewhat aside;
If the woman's testimony is true, and she did "fall into" a grave as it collapsed when she was unwittingly standing on top of it --- then why, whomever it was who was buried there, was not buried instead in an underground burial vault/shaft if such was indeed used for burial purposes?
I knew all of the stuff at the link(s) which you have provided, in attempted support of your own contentions -- before you used those in support of your various contentions, as I was aware of such before I originally challenged your own contentions and have been all along addressing the issues raised there too, which you may have noticed if you had been paying better attention -- rather than stuck in the idea this had all already been "decided" or in actuality firmly established -- to then go on from there and continue to spew insult in my general direction.
If the "story" now is that all the bodies were "properly buried" as you have contended (yet not yet proven) in an alleged burial vault, even one which had been 'roofed over' -- then how did a woman fall into a collapsed grave, I do wonder.
Consider that, along with all else, and you may see how this possibility of some other structure (other than a septic tank), though possibly being the answer & solution to many of the remaining questions; first has itself to be firmly established -- making or leaving the claims that the entire previous article a "hoax" or entirely in error being based merely upon THAT possibility alone, and that possibility itself being yet to have been firmly established much beyond supposition itself --- which when that sort of thing was in engaged in, in the other (septic tank) direction, has been termed "hoax" (for reason that has not been entirely proven either) and people who were swayed by those details to have considered the structure likely to have been a septic tank were termed "morons", even though there are maps which do indicate there was a sewage receptacle in the very area which the lid was removed from some underground structure or another.
I included a ping to the one person who slung around that generally insulting term "morons", for he was one of those who also gave mixed-up and misleading explanation himself (which you seemed to reference as having been previous FR thread -- where the issue you claim was laid to rest) while there bashing people both generally and more specifically in typical display of his own biases and "opinion" of others.
I knew I should have nipped that in the bud when I first saw it, and though writing extensively at the time on more than one occasion -- lost it all in browser crashes -- too many tabs open all at once in effort to establish my own contentions (by sourcing each little tidbit of info all along the way). And so here we are.
There is no record of an underground burial vault having been built at Tuam, or any of the other work houses, or mother & baby homes, though some of the other homes do have cemetery areas indicated on maps, or otherwise made mention of in records.
Which consideration towards can serve as intro for the next paragraph )from the last article which you provided link to);
“Many maternity hospitals in Ireland had a communal burial place for stillborn children or those who died soon after birth. These were sometimes in a nearby graveyard but more often in a special area within the grounds of the hospital.”
Though the Tuam mother & baby home was not a quote-unquote maternity hospital, there were many babies born there I take it, for there has been testimony in regards to someone's mother or aunt having been a mid-wife there. It is no crime in itself that the deceased were buried on the property (not to be confused with the Grove Hospital property) "about a kilometer away" as one article put it.
The Bon Secour nuns did also operate a hospital, not too far distant -- the 'Grove' facility, as just spoken of. Some History on the Grove.
It is possible that *some* of the Tuam "Home Babies" were born there(?)...yet in all of this has come to light also, old newspaper clippings in which "paying customers" objected to unwed mothers being in the same hospital wards as they were (whether that be the Grove hospital facility or not, I do not know -- I am not suggesting it be assumed that it was) with that sort of thing, the attitudes of other "mothers" as expressed, coming by way of newspaper mention, underscores how the society in general regarded those women (unwed mothers).
When the Grove hospital property was sold by the nuns in 1994 or thereabouts, the Bon Secours had a number of nuns disinterred for reburial elsewhere. SO -- no Tuam Home Babies buried there -- right?
Which leaves the Tuam mother and baby home property as about the only location left for those person listed as lacking burial information for.
Although it is indeed a possibility that there was a purpose-built burial vault (or even something else -- like what had possibly originally been something akin to being a "root cellar" as I have included mention for more than once) it is still mere conjecture at this point that there was a burial vault at Tuam.
Are there or were there "burial vaults" at any of the other mother & baby homes, with a few of those other being also located at old 'work houses'? I don't think anything of the sort has at all been proved to be true -- leaving it still to be assumption or conjecture that there was.
Or were persons who died at those other facilities, buried more like what was HAS BEEN proven to have been "a" burial practice as uncovered at Tuam in the year 2012?
Some of the other facilities do have cemetery areas indicated on maps for them, or other documentary mention of 'cemetery' on those same properties, yet not in any way, has a single one of those been shown to have had one of these burial vaults which are being pointed towards as proof of "debunking", which means that all the noise you have been making about my own self personally -- "Catholic haters" liberals, the media, the whole schmear of that, to be just so much extraneous GARBAGE, if not false accusation and even LIES. So for that part of things -- again, just shut your mouth.
Don't call me a liar, don't insinuate that I am a liar -- don't insult me at all.
There you go again, trying to make this about me.
I'm the only one?
What about the Archbishop? What is he, chopped liver?
What of Catherine Corless? She has merely denied she used the word "dumped" or that SHE had told the media that it had been firmly established (as in proven) that the underground concrete structure which the bones were found in, was without a doubt once a cesspit tank.
I have taken pains to previously, before your last reply make mention of --- there still very well could have been something else, some other structure in that same area, while maps do indicate there was once a septic tank located in vicinity.
It is also possible that the maps are wrong, are in some way incorrect, or just misleading. I never said anything different.
All of which does not make me into being a "Catholic-hater" or a liberal, or any of that other GARBAGE you keep shoving in my face. At his point, you continued to insult and insinuate, despite all the efforts I have made to include that there are reasonable or plausible enough possibilities which do include there could have been something other than a 'septic tank' opened up in '75.
There could well enough have existed, in addition to a disused "septic tank" if it had indeed been that, something ELSE having been used as a crypt of sorts, with the included supposition or understanding that if so that structure and a disused sewage tank could have BOTH been utilized as crypts of sorts.
We do not know that this possibility is not the real story, for it has not been established there WAS indeed a purpose built, and even if there was --it has not been so far disproved that an old septic tank believed to have been in that general location was NOT used. Reliance on the opinion that "nuns" would be too good to do such a thing is just so much guesstimation based on positive views of these nuns. they may have been wonderful -- they may have been some of the foulest harridens to ever don nun's clothing, or there could have been some thing of a mix of range or both extremes, which of pondering of would lead myself to being very sorry for the more hopeful "nuns" if they were all but compelled by way of their vows and memberships of religious organization to have to endure living and working alongside Sister Mary-the Battle-ax, and Mother Admin the bureaucrat/harpy, with the rest of the sisters doing the best they could under the circumstances.
One interesting aspect which perhaps may not speak highly of them, is that baptismal records were found locally for some 3,000 children associated with another one of the 'mother & baby homes' but not for the Tuam facility, leaving one to assume those children were not baptized -- and if not -- then they would considered by many (including nuns of that era?) to be doomed to hell anyway, so what difference would it have made what happened to the bodies?
If it does turn out that an disused sewage tank WAS pressed into service as crypt (there could have been some other septic tank on the property too -- which could have been the one that at one point was reported to be leaking, and had a bad smell) with it being further (I would think) safe enough to assume that if a septic tank somehow included as used as crypt at some point --- as much as anything that could have been due to general impoverished conditions, rather than deliberate disregard or disrespect of the deceased, on the part of the nuns.
The bodies needed burial somewhere. Would you think that they would be digging a grave or two, or three, a month? If there was a "crypt" it must have had an open top, or else the woman would not have fallen in (to a grave or graves). Unless there was a crypt, and surface graves too, in that area similar to the ones on the North side. Who knows? A crypt of sorts could have become too full, and sometime in the latter years of the facility a by then fairly long disused sewage tank be utilized b for pragmatic reasons and economic reasons. One could pay workmen to shovel out long dried-out sewage tank contents, to open that up for secondary usage. Or not. We don't for much any certainty, truly know one way or another yet, now do we?
I'm getting the impression you don't READ what I do say, but instead skim over it (or are too dull to fully understand what I do say?) not grasping details whatsoever (or else not considering their import) -- then decide to stick with the simplistic words "hoax" and bogus, having also accepted the MERE mention and alternative supposition to be "proof", even though there is no real evidence for that alternative (yet, though it may turn out that way eventually).
Since the word "hoax" was used again in yet another article which you linked to, you seem stuck on that -- then try to bludgeon myself personally -- with your own prejudices & opinions, despite how I had already had shown you how the debunking didn't *quite* make it. Yet, though it may. Go ahead and jump the gun and decide that is what the truth is -- just do not then make sets of assumptions that are acceptable to your own sensibilities ground for further insulting me.
Otherwise, you really do need to lay off break the habit of going after people here (including me) personally, making persons here (freepers) themselves, the primary subject of discussion.
Not let it go? I'm only following up on my original note of complaint as to your own contentions, and responding to comments which you make at this point. Those do revolve around the very info mentioned in the article which you seem to be relying upon -- but which isn't quite making your own contentions be beyond reproach, as I have again gone into some detail of just how and why.
Further, what exactly was a "lie"?
I think I have already covered what was misrepresented, and what was not.
Covered in depth on FR you say?
Not so fast. I saw the whole thing...and much of the treatments here of the information gave short shrift to it, using carefully worded commentary to try to both deny the whole thing -- and at the same time attack anyone who would not simply go along with whatever some 'Catholics' were saying about it.
Again -- the story has NOT been shown to be "bogus" other than the aspects of how it when it broke, the inflammatory headline presented the information as if it was an open and shut case, when it is far being that. One way or another...
The underlying information which the headline was based on has absolutely not been shown to be incorrect or "bogus", while the alternative has not in the least been proven to be true -- if that is being relied upon as falsification of the 'septic tank', grim possibility.
Unfortunately, it may never be on way or another, for as I made mention of also, there are some locals who are dead set against excavations in that area which they have long regarded as being a (small) cemetery (with unmarked graves).
I have spoken here not one word of "lie" or false information that I know of (or have been actually shown to have done so).
If there is some aspect to which more complete information is available, or there is something I have missed, or something I am mistaken about -- SHOW me precisely what (and where) that is.
No more of this LAZY putting up some link which purports to establish something as matter of established fact, while you make other than generalized, broad sweeping statements which include insinuations and disrespect of my own person -- for sadly enough, so far, little has been indeed established as "fact" other than there has been various eye-witness testimony, the list of those who died but lacked burial records, a map showing there was a septic tank in very area where an underground chamber (more squarish than a "shaft") had been opened up and seen to have been full of bones scattered or heaped in disorganized fashion (according to testimony, fwiw) and other things which I have again here touched upon -- but which you seem to fully ignore, being stuck on the word "hoax" and stuck in a rut of insulting me also. Which last sort of thing -- I have had about enough of -- out of you.
All the rest of this hand waving (in my face) is otherwise entirely failing to establish that the entire "story" (other than the presumptuous headline itself) was "hoax" or bogus.
Get back to me when you have something other than second-hand conjecture to which is added personal-like insult.
You can find all the trash you want about those “terrible nuns” from liberal websites that you love to cite. Go to MSNBC,Salon, or National Catholic Reporter, I’m certain you’ll find what you’re looking for there. In the meantime.....
http://www.realclearreligion.org/2014/06/11/that_story_about_dead_irish_babies_is_a_hoax_261086.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2014/06/that-story-about-irish-babies-dumped-by.html
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/commentator-dismisses-crazed-claims-about-ireland-child-burials
Excuse me? The "terrible nuns"?
No, I did not condemn them nor judge them or spread trash about them.
And the real whopper, the flat-out falsehood of from liberal websites that you love to cite.
is just more of the same exact character assassination sort of smarmy smirk for which you should be zotted from FR for.
But you just can't put the brakes on your own hatreds and bigotries, can you? Obviously NOT.
If there is something which I missed, was mistaken about, should consider -- which I already have not touched upon, then as I told you -- point precisely to what that is,and I'll consider it.
A handful of links is meaningless.
And meanwhile also -- your previous contentions still don't fly, interestingly enough for very much the same sort of conditional reasons the "800 babies dumped in a septic tank" doesn't quite fly either.
Imagine that.
You can't back up what you say, while in comparison I can and do, and if not, when not --I'm willing enough to allow myself to be corrected, or modify my opinions, whichever is most called for due to facts and actual evidence as those could apply to the situation, this one and others also.
Got any of that? Facts and actual evidence, mean...
Apparently not, or you may have brought it out already? What? You expect ME to go search out your own argument FOR you? Again?I've already done that at least once, in regards to this issue.
I'll not go fishing, and continue to do all the work will you sit back on your smug & smirky backside, tossing insults in my face one after another.
Only cowardly PUNKS sit back and insult others when there is no chance they will have to back it up. Chicken droppin's. cluck-cluck.
Meanwhile -- you seem to have forgotten. I could well enough be assisting your own cause, providing a link to information which is potentially, highly favorable to the Bon Secours -- but as I did tell you, I will not provide it until you STOP insulting me.
But you won't stop. Why is that? Is that too much to ask? Are you that lacking in self control? huh?
It's only some small pieces of "anecdotal" evidence which I encountered, an off-the-record personal testimony as it were (related by a good source, a source very local to the area) but also backed by an informational, associated newspaper clipping -- from 1940 --if memory serves, which provides some very strong corroboration for the anecdotal comment, although there is yet another portion of similar comment, in part corroborating and in a fashion also --- partial refutation of this particular additional info which you are likely to have not yet become aware of, coming from one of the witnesses previously featured, which could limit this small but possibly very significant oral testimony to possibly not reaching quite far enough to explain (all on it's own) all the way to there actually having been, on that particular property, a purpose-built burial vault. Or -- something much like it, such as a root cellar,or something of the like.
It is both interesting and sickening to me -- that regardless of how much I may make room for there to be potential explanation for where the bodies of 786 dead babies ended up OTHER than a "septic tank" -- you seem to never HEAR those portions of what I'm talking about, and I have been including that all along.
Just how many times do I have to go over all of this before you finally get it? huh?
Once you do or did -- then you would possibly stop all the personal insults.
When you are on the "religion forum"you really need to put and end to those entirely -- regardless.
Unless -- all you are seeking is a FIGHT.
So is that it? Answer the questions, or be a PUNK.
You have an agenda and that agenda is to tar and feather the Catholic Church in any way, shape or form. That’s pretty obvious. Do yourself a favor and wait for the official investigation be finish. Then if the Catholic nuns are held responsible and liable for any death of a child you will be vindicated.
If you want anything from me, say what it is in 100 words or less and I will do my best.
I read a few paragraphs. It is in the realm of possibility, yes, that a structure most resembling a crypt was used as a septic tank at some point and as a burial crypt at another point; or was a flying saucer; or the nuns there got so confused and overworked that mixed up the two structures. It is also possible that the anti-Catholic hounds of the mass media just did a thorough and honest investigation without any bias whatsoever and are now reporting it.
But somehow I still think that ducks quack, Protestants lie and obfuscate to defend their pitiful superstitions, and the left wing media keeps doing what it is designed to do: produce hoaxes.
God holds each person responsible for how they receive the light He has given them. It is not something that you nor I can do FOR someone. We can share the gospel of the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ but it is the Holy Spirit - not baptism - which softens the heart to believe. It is an individual's decision to receive or reject that grace and be saved.
The good thief didn't die "giving his blood for Christ", he was executed for being a thief.
It wasn't that long ago you were asserting (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/3163905/posts?page=3#3):
Respectful of the unmarked grave in their midst, residents long have kept the grass trimmed and built a small grotto with a statue of the Virgin Mary.
What evidence did you have then?
That's a new one! You ARE joking, right?
What are you implying is "fabricated" about this story? ALL of it? A great many Catholics believe something went on in this place in Ireland. As for the "nothing to see here, move along" remark, may I remind you that this is EXACTLY the same thing the current occupant of the White House and his administration advise whenever evidence about their dirty actions comes to the fore. Freepers shouldn't be adopting the same kind of rhetoric. You're putting the cart before the horse and presuming facts not in evidence - evidence that just MIGHT come back and bite you. What will be your reaction if the investigation closes another shameful chapter in Roman Catholicism's history book and reparations are demanded? Personally, I hope the worst is not the case because it hurts ALL pro-life Christians and feeds the fire of doubts the pro-aborts already harbor about the sincerity of our cause.
You really have to wonder why some are frantically rushing around trying to hush up this story and accusing everyone, who dares to, of talking about it because they obviously hate the Catholic church. Shouldn't the TRUTH be what everyone wants? What are they afraid of? That is what makes OTHERS wonder, too.
Babies were not aborted at the home.
The original KJV had the same books as the Catholic bible.
1826, when the British Bible society decided not to print bibles with the Deuterocanon, or as protestants refer to them as the apocrypha....to save money on printing costs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
1826, when the British Bible society decided not to print bibles with the Deuterocanon, or as protestants refer to them as the apocrypha....to save money on printing costs.
...it would be most interesting to hear what the Bible Thumping Brigade has to say about your link...
Who's saying they were?
I hope you realize that being pro-life is about a lot more than keeping babies from being aborted.
Your source mentions NOTHING about "costs" being the driver behind excluding the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books. It only says:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.