Ok have been offline for a few days and have a few to add.

Yael - (as per Nelle) would you prefer we wrote G-D? I understand why you do so and would be only to happy to oblige.

Rayray - you can have MJ baptised in a Uniting church as a a non-denominational christian... therefore he is christained but not into a church with its Dogma. HOWEVER don't baptise him just because he is the only one who isn't. I would leave it unless its something you truely feel deep down inside that you need to do for him. What about having father bob do it, its not like he is typical of our church at all.

I actually like a lot of the dogma... but then I think that's one of my draw cards... the routine, ritual and history.

So here is some dogma for you on Limbo (go back about 50 pages..lol)... Yes Rayray the current view on Limbo is that it is out. Limbo has only been around since the 1300's and is really a theological place. (For the non catholics) We have this concept of 'original sin' which we are all born with and 'personal sin' those sins we commit ourselves. Anyway we baptise our babies so young because it is believed that Baptism absolves us of our original sin and only those who are baptised without sin can enter the Kingdom of G-D. So if an infant dies before baptism they will not be able to get into the KoG. Historically this quandry was first faced by Augustine of Hippo and his basic ruling that was those babies who died before baptism would be condemned to damnation although there suffering would be slight. Catholics will no baptise still born babies. SO there were some issues with this. It was thrown around by theologians for many many years and then in the 1400's a group of theologians came up with the principle that those babies (later extended to the age of 7) who died without being baptised would go to Limbo, or more precisely the Limbo of the Infants (there also a Limbo of the Patriachs which is for those non-baptised adults (heathens) who were honorable and ''good christians'' (can't think of another term) in their actions but due to not being baptised had not absolved their original sin and therefor couldn't go to paradise so they went to Limbo of the Patriac and on Jesus' return he would judge them for their worthiness to go into heaven.. this is still around in our catechism). Basically Limbo of the infants (here in Limbo) was never an 'offical' doctrine of the church (RC) but was taught in varing degrees throught the world. Then with Vat II it was just not mentioned. This ommission caused further debate and the thinking was split in the church... Limbo, which had never really been was back out, but the church 'taught' that if you chose to believe it then that was ok. With the re-write of the catechism that occured in 1992/4 (blanking on the date but during my final years at school) it was commented on that Limbo wasn't real and as per the special funeral service for infants that died without baptism we would place their eternal souls at the mercy of G-D because while we are tied by the rulings of the catechism he is not and he has it within his power to place their little souls in paradise, so we must have faith in his decision. SO why the change??... the prevailing theory amoungst catholic theologians and questioners is that it is to do with the current availability of termination/morning after services.... the thought is that without a state of Limbo then there is greater strain on those parents that would terminate because their babies can not reach paradise or almost paradise (limbo... the edges/hem of paradise without beatific vision... so a nice bright shiny place but not quite heaven)... ergo dropping limbo is basically to put people off termination.

Personally I like the concept of Limbo. Admittedly it isn't part of Jesus' teachings but it was a nice concept to circumvent the dictates and thus appease the parents (particularily mothers) of children who died before baptism... so the thought behind it was very nice and caring, IMO.

On making my kids (ok DD) go to church with me... its just something she will have to do until she is old enough to stay home alone and not come. I don't have an issue if she decides that she doesn't want to go to church as it was during this time that I personally made peace with my beliefs and decided that it was something that made me a better person. So should she decide that she doesn't want to go, I wont stop her. Should she tell me she wants to change her religion then it want change the way I feel about her and I wouldn't try to make her not do so... well maybe I would if it was some way out their cult... then I think I would have to step in and de-program her.

Ok so here is a question for ALL of us weather we be muslim, jewish, christian, hindi, budist, shinto, wiccan, atheist, agnostic or ANY OTHER .... what is the one thing you value most about your religion/faith?

For me is the fact I am never alone in anything I do and I am a much better member of my society.