What is the Bible? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 76 Old 11-20-2005, 10:51 PM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Well, you may not have intended to offend, but you have. Why is there such a misconception regarding Catholicism as a Christian denomination? Where do you think the other denominations of Christianity derived from? Why are subtle forms of Catholic-bashing allowed. Catholics are Christians, sorry if that bothers you, but it is an inescapable fact. I'm just as much of a Christian as a Lutheran, a Baptist, or a Methodist. If anything, that article just points out what some Catholics believe. It certainly doesn't make them less Christian than anyone else.
I was only responding to this quote
Quote:
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
"The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
"The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
I do not intend to bash any Catholic person, just point out that this quote refers only to the position of the Catholic Church, not to all of Christianity and that the contents of this quote - the belief that the Bible is not accurate - is one reason that some Christians do not consider the teachings of the Catholic religion the same as theirs. I do not wish to judge people of any denomination or religious belief - I was just responding to the quote.
Quote:
I mean no disrespect, honestly, I don't. However, you made the conscious choice to leave the religion in which you were raised and then made a choice to read the Bible from cover to cover. That is the choice you made. You can take it literally if you so choose. I choose not to take it literally, and that does not mean that I don't believe in Christ. However, I could not fathom (as I am a teacher myself) the amount of arrogance that it would take, to suggest that any of my Muslim or Hindi students (which make up a great number of my students mixed with Christian students) read the Bible. If it were me, I'd be beyond insulted that someone else's religious viewpoint was being shoved down my throat, even as a suggestion. If they wanted to read it on their own, fine. However, I wouldn't want to be the one suggesting that my beliefs were more valid than theirs, just as much as I'd dislike it if they suggested that their beliefs were more valid than mine.

As for the Bible shaping our culture and society, yes, I do agree that there are some codes of conduct that everyone, in our societies, abide by; treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. This is in no way a Christian-only thought. It is the basic golden rule.

Not everyone in our society has the faith of a particular religion. Not everyone is religious. Some people are atheists or agnostics. Are they not part of our society? Why should they have to be forced, or have it suggested to them, that they need to read the Bible. I am not an American, but have enough US history to understand that your founding fathers separated from England to get away from religious persecution, so as not to have the Church of England dictate how, when, or why someone should worship. Separation of church and state, anyone?

Did you ever stop to consider that your hs English teacher suggested you read the Bible as a piece of literature (historical document, if you will), and not as literal fact?
When I was in high school - over 20 years ago, political correctness had not yet been invented and yes, my teacher was not suggesting that I read the Bible to convert me to Christianity, but as a piece of literature or historical document. And no, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to read the Bible or any religious document. I do think that we are much better educated and understand the American culture better if we do read it though, and if we learn about other religions as well we will be better educated and have a better understanding of the world, cultures, and politics as well.

My becoming a Christian was not a result of my English teacher's suggestion, and in today's politically correct, anti-religion culture, it would not be a good idea to suggest that students read the Bible - which is unfortunate.

I used to teach 6th grade social studies which was at that time world history and there was a unit on religions and I found that most children in 6th grade knew very little about any religions including their own.
Anyway, I only taught what was in my curriculum, but it was interesting to me that the students had so little knowledge even of their own religions. Many did not know what religion they were and they asked some very interesting questions and had some interesting and fun observations.

My favorite comment from that unit was when I was teaching that Hindus see the cow as a sacred animal. I taught that lesson the first 5 class periods and in 6th period, which was my honors class, one boy asked "is that where the saying "holy cow" came from?" I thought that was a terrific observation and question and I told him that I really did not know if that was where that saying came from or not, but perhaps it was. I love it when children have wonderfully brilliant observations like that.
christianmomof3 is offline  
#62 of 76 Old 11-20-2005, 11:20 PM
 
MyLittleWonders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Always learning something new.
Posts: 8,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm wondering if anyone has any information on why the Christian version of the Hebrew Tanakh was included in the Christian Bible. It is something that has always confused me a bit, and now that I have studied even more about the whole Jesus story and what-not, really confuses me. From a Christian pov (at least the one I was taught while in the church), the "OT" is null and void, and an outdated piece of writings which show a different G-d than the one portrayed in the "NT." Why did the early church "fathers" choose to keep the Tanakh (more or less) as part of their religion's holy writings if they really didn't use it for anything in terms of teaching the Jesus story?

 Me + dh = heartbeat.gif ds (7/01), ds (11/03), ds (6/06)
and dd born 11/21/10 - our T21 SuperBaby ribbluyel.gif heartbeat.gif
MyLittleWonders is offline  
#63 of 76 Old 11-20-2005, 11:54 PM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
I'm wondering if anyone has any information on why the Christian version of the Hebrew Tanakh was included in the Christian Bible. It is something that has always confused me a bit, and now that I have studied even more about the whole Jesus story and what-not, really confuses me. From a Christian pov (at least the one I was taught while in the church), the "OT" is null and void, and an outdated piece of writings which show a different G-d than the one portrayed in the "NT." Why did the early church "fathers" choose to keep the Tanakh (more or less) as part of their religion's holy writings if they really didn't use it for anything in terms of teaching the Jesus story?
Actually, the OT is not null and void.
There are many different denominations among Christianity and I cannot speak for all of them, so for those Christians who disagree with me, I am just giving the Christian point of view that I have learned and believe.
The reason the Old Testament is part of the entire Bible that is used in Christianity is that Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism and the Old Testament and New Testament all together form the Bible. The Old Testament is the background for the New Testament and it contains predictions of Christ and the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in many places. In order to understand the New Testament, you need to read and understand the Old Testament. The New Testament is not complete without the Old Testament. Together they are all God's revelation.
According to the Christian religion, Jesus is God, the same God that is in the Old Testament. Christians believe that there is only one God and He is triune - three/one - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but still only one God, and He is the same God of the Old Testament.
christianmomof3 is offline  
#64 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 12:16 AM
 
MyLittleWonders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Always learning something new.
Posts: 8,275
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Actually, the OT is not null and void.
There are many different denominations among Christianity and I cannot speak for all of them, so for those Christians who disagree with me, I am just giving the Christian point of view that I have learned and believe.
Well, I guess it depends one who you ask! I've been in a non-denominational church that used the "OT" for making some points, but never for direct instruction. I've also been in a messianic church that tried to keep the "OT" as Jewish believers. From my personal experiences, there is quite a division between the two churches. By stating that most of what I've been taught involved the "OT" being "null and void" meant that most every Christian church believes that the "Old" Covenant is gone and the "New" is now in place.

Quote:
The reason the Old Testament is part of the entire Bible that is used in Christianity is that Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism and the Old Testament and New Testament all together form the Bible. The Old Testament is the background for the New Testament and it contains predictions of Christ and the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in many places. In order to understand the New Testament, you need to read and understand the Old Testament. The New Testament is not complete without the Old Testament. Together they are all God's revelation.
According to the Christian religion, Jesus is God, the same God that is in the Old Testament. Christians believe that there is only one God and He is triune - three/one - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but still only one God, and He is the same God of the Old Testament.
Again, it depends on who you ask as to if they agree with this. The first thing that began my leaving of Christianity was actually researching the "OT" mentions of Jesus and really studying these supposed prophecies. There is another whole school of thought when it comes to things like the "virgin birth", the prediction of the death on the cross, as well as things like human/vicarious sacrifice. From a Jewish perspective, Jesus could not be G-d; that would be polytheistic in belief. (As well, the belief of a trinity is polytheistic.)

But, back to my original question, which I'm still wondering about ... most churches do not believe that the covenant laid forth in the "OT" is in place today; most believe they have replaced Israel as G-d's chose people. Some don't believe that per se, but do believe that G-d has different dispensations for different sets of people in different sets of time. No matter how you see it, I'd argue that 99% of the Christians in the world (all-emcompassing; I'm not into leaving out people who believe in Christ from that definition) do not believe the need to adhere to the "OT." Heck, there are even some denominations out there that consider themselves "NT" churches. Which, in a way, begs my question:

What was it that the church fathers (what basically began the Catholic church [or Orthodox, depending on who's view of the Great Scism ? you believe]) saw in the "OT" to keep it as part of their cannon. The "OT" is VERY different in many ways from the "NT" - it preaches to a different set of people a different set of rules for a different set of times. Most churches don't see any validity in the rules of kosher, for instance, nor do they keep the Sabbath of the "OT" or the Feasts of G-d. So, if 90-99% of the book, as a whole, is defunct according to Christian theology, why did it become part of the Christian cannon? Wouldn't it have been easier to maybe include a new book written about the basic Creation story, and then gone right into the "NT"? It would have made it much easier than constantly trying to explain why things were in there that contradicted the new message of the "NT".

 Me + dh = heartbeat.gif ds (7/01), ds (11/03), ds (6/06)
and dd born 11/21/10 - our T21 SuperBaby ribbluyel.gif heartbeat.gif
MyLittleWonders is offline  
#65 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 12:24 AM
 
beansricerevolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,276
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just wanna say that I believe the bible is holy I have faith in that my creator did play "telephone" and that every word is true
beansricerevolt is offline  
#66 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 12:41 AM
 
christianmomof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think that you are looking at the commandments in ordinances - the rules and regulations in the Old Testament like the kosher laws and such, and it is true that most Christians feel that these are types that were fulfilled in Christ and do not need to be practiced, but that is certainly not 90 to 99% of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is much more than only the feasts and rules and story of creation and even though most Christians do not practice the OT practices, they are types and pictures of Christ and we need to understand them to have a complete picture of Christ. The Old Testament does not contradict the New Testament - the New Testament fulfilles the Old Testament.
I don't see the Old Testament as defunct, but as types and pictures of Christ,and as the history of God's move on the earth and of His people and as beautiful prayers and God's word.
Some Christian groups have probably forgotton this or lost this meaning, but I imagine that this is why the Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible.
christianmomof3 is offline  
#67 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 01:23 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by christianmomof3
The Old Testament is the background for the New Testament and it contains predictions of Christ

Just to jump in for a quick clarification ...

Perhaps your English Old Testament contains predictions as you describe them, but the Tanakh in its original language ... Hebrew ... does no such thing. At the FAQ section of this site are the proof texts usually cited as "predictors," with the appropriate translations and explanations provided.

Just for clarification.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread ...
merpk is offline  
#68 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 07:35 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
Well, I guess it depends one who you ask! I've been in a non-denominational church that used the "OT" for making some points, but never for direct instruction.
Don't forget the 10 Commandments.

Quote:
I've also been in a messianic church that tried to keep the "OT" as Jewish believers. From my personal experiences, there is quite a division between the two churches. By stating that most of what I've been taught involved the "OT" being "null and void" meant that most every Christian church believes that the "Old" Covenant is gone and the "New" is now in place.
The belief is that the covenent is different, but the God does not change.

Quote:
Again, it depends on who you ask as to if they agree with this. The first thing that began my leaving of Christianity was actually researching the "OT" mentions of Jesus and really studying these supposed prophecies. There is another whole school of thought when it comes to things like the "virgin birth", the prediction of the death on the cross, as well as things like human/vicarious sacrifice.
The author of the Gospel of Matthew was esp interested in "quote-mining" from the Septuagint(Greek trans of Tanakh).

Quote:
From a Jewish perspective, Jesus could not be G-d; that would be polytheistic in belief. (As well, the belief of a trinity is polytheistic.)
Correct.

Quote:
But, back to my original question, which I'm still wondering about ... most churches do not believe that the covenant laid forth in the "OT" is in place today; most believe they have replaced Israel as G-d's chose people. Some don't believe that per se, but do believe that G-d has different dispensations for different sets of people in different sets of time. No matter how you see it, I'd argue that 99% of the Christians in the world (all-emcompassing; I'm not into leaving out people who believe in Christ from that definition) do not believe the need to adhere to the "OT." Heck, there are even some denominations out there that consider themselves "NT" churches.
Not sure which churhces you mean. Pauline churches would be against circumcision and kosher rules, as argued against by Paul in the epistles and referred to in Acts in the dream of all food on the sheet--go, kill and eat all of it.

But all churches preach the 10 commandments and the creation story and the exodus and the validity of the prophets, do they not?


Quote:
Which, in a way, begs my question:

What was it that the church fathers (what basically began the Catholic church [or Orthodox, depending on who's view of the Great Scism ? you believe]) saw in the "OT" to keep it as part of their cannon.
Christianity was a snycretization of Judaism and pagan Greek theology. Monotheism was seen as the Truth of the Jews that was very attractive to Greek/Romans tired of the polytheistic forms of Roman state religion.

I think when you read further in The Jesus Mysteries and then read Jesus and the Lost Goddess, you will get a clearer and clearer picture. They posit the Jesus story is a midrash of the Moses/Joshua (Jesus in Greek) story. The sacred number 40 and water miracles occur in both, a wandering in the wilderness, temptations, etc.

Quote:
The "OT" is VERY different in many ways from the "NT" - it preaches to a different set of people a different set of rules for a different set of times.
Yes, but so do the Xtian books--they were written over 100 yrs in different places in the Roman empire.

The Revelation of John is based on the prophetic/symbolic style of Ezekiel and parts of Daniel. There is continuity there. Jesus was depicted as a Jew with travels all through Galilee and Judea, and much of it takes place in Jerusalem. Jesus is a Biblical (Hillel style) scholar and debates with the proto-rabbis of the day, the Pharisees, who were reinterpreting Judaism in a day when many sects were doing so.

So the inclusion of the "OT" in the final canon seems to make sense for that reason.

Quote:
Most churches don't see any validity in the rules of kosher, for instance, nor do they keep the Sabbath of the "OT" or the Feasts of G-d. So, if 90-99% of the book, as a whole, is defunct according to Christian theology, why did it become part of the Christian cannon? Wouldn't it have been easier to maybe include a new book written about the basic Creation story, and then gone right into the "NT"? It would have made it much easier than constantly trying to explain why things were in there that contradicted the new message of the "NT".
An early Christian argued for getting rid of the "OT" and much of the NT gospels, another one rewrote the gospels and made them into one story. But the majority overuled these attempts at streamlining.

There were however, many books left out of the canon--the apocrypha is included in Catholic bibles but not in Protestant. As well, dozens of gnostic books (discovered at Nag Hammadi) and books like Enoch, the writings of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) were called heresy and suppressed.

I highly recommend reading the New Oxford Annotated Bible for lots of info on the creation of the canon. Also, The Other Bible, for examples of suppressed literature.

websites for selection of ancient Jewish and Christian writings, some in the canon, most not:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
DaryLLL is offline  
#69 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 07:51 AM
 
BelovedBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HOME!! Northern Israel
Posts: 3,505
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I love how the "early jewish writings" site calls the OT from the king james bible the "TaNaCh". And they're all in English. what a crack up! :LOL

Mom of 5 boys- 13, 10, 8, 2 : and newbie Aug. 24th, '09 . babywearing advocate . Cook, baker, homemaker, wife to a man with another woman's kidney (live altruistic, unknown donor).
BelovedBird is offline  
#70 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 09:07 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelovedBird
I love how the "early jewish writings" site calls the OT from the king james bible the "TaNaCh". And they're all in English. what a crack up! :LOL
As Kirby said on the site:

Quote:
Would you like to see an improvement of some kind--aesthetic, navigational, functional, or content-wise? Now is the time to be heard! I am devoting most of the next 6 weeks to providing an overhaul of Early Jewish Writings. And I want to hear any suggestions about what you want, big or small. Please think about how you use the site, how that could be better, and what use you could get out of it that isn't even there now. Basically, your wish is my command.
Maybe, rather than laughing in an ironic manner, you will write to him with suggestions? I agree, the KJV is not the best English translation. Maybe you'd like to tell him which English translation of the Tanakh you prefer, as the site is obviously provided for an English speaking audience.
DaryLLL is offline  
#71 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 03:00 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Maybe it would be interesting to have it be a site called "earlyjewishwritings" from a Jewish perspective rather than a Christian one. As in, the selection of a translation is only the symptom, not the disease.

Just maybe a thought on perhaps an inkling of why BB was cracking up.

Just maybe.
merpk is offline  
#72 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 03:11 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Kirby is an atheist. His site is for the benefit of those who seek to learn about the Bible (your definition here) from a historical critical viewpoint, not a faith viewpoint.

Did you email him with your suggestions, amy?
DaryLLL is offline  
#73 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 03:21 PM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
Kirby is an atheist. His site is for the benefit of those who seek to learn about the Bible (your definition here) from a historical critical viewpoint, not a faith viewpoint.

Did you email him with your suggestions, amy?


Yes, I did. Thank you for pointing it out to me.




It makes not one bit of difference what Kirby's personal beliefs are. His website purports to be for study of "earlyjewishwritings," and his site only contains specifically Christian versions of those writings, and he actually does have an indication that "some are not Jewish" ... but then he doesn't point out precisely which ones, does he.
merpk is offline  
#74 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 04:37 PM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
His site contains English language translations of Jewish writings. As I said, it is for an English speaking audience. Of course, historians know the Tanakh was originally written in Hebrew. This is a simple site for reference.

The other writings he cites may have been originally written in Greek or Hebrew as is obvious by their titles. I don't think he wanted to set up a site for only Hebrew and koine Greek speakers.

As far as not pointing out which writings are conventionally Jewish, probably if you start clicking on the links, it will be stated.

for example:

Quote:
Information on Pseudo-Hecataeus

Martin McNamara writes: "In his treatise Against Apion (1.22 §§183-205 and elsewhere) Josephus gives a number of excerpts on Jewish history from a work he attributes to Hecataeus of Abdera—a well-known pagan Greek historian of the late fourth-early third century B.C. Modern scholarship is divided as to whether the excerpts are derived from the pagan writer Hecataeus or rather from a Jewish writer, presumably pseudonymous. The passages cited by Josephus, and the contents of the work as given by him, show such an acquaintance with Jewish affairs that the work may well be from the pen of Jew rather than of a pagan, the work may even have been composed by a Jerusalem priest who became a soldier and joined the army of Alexander the Great as it marched towards the Red Sea. A date of about 300 B.C. would suit for the composition of this work on the history of the Jews. Together with the excerpts given by Josephus in Against Apion 1.22 §§183-205, there may also be an excerpt from it in the same work 1.7.23 §§213-215 and also in The Letter of Aristeas 83-120." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 213)
That is cool you wrote to him.
DaryLLL is offline  
#75 of 76 Old 11-21-2005, 11:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
QueenOfThePride's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: the frigid north
Posts: 4,716
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is a man at my church who just spent the last 25 years translating the Bible into Bossa, an African language. He is fluent in reading, writing, and speaking Hebrew and many other languages. I have some questions for him the next time I see him, like how are the Tanach and OT different, and why do you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Can anyone else think of some questions I can ask him?

Tis the season, for hot apple cider!
QueenOfThePride is offline  
#76 of 76 Old 12-07-2005, 11:18 AM
 
DaryLLL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Under a Chimpocracy
Posts: 13,693
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From this website:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bibleanalysis.html

[go to site for notes and elucidations]



Quote:
Haphazard Canonization and Textual Difficulties

Many Christians have a very vague idea about how this collection was achieved. Even then it is probably filled with belief that the method of collection was miraculously inspired...the "canon of the Bible" ...sacred writings or the word of God to the exclusion of all other books... [Christians believe]Either a book is inspired by God or it is not...The uninitiated would naturally and common-sensically expect these "inspired" books to be somehow so different from those rejected that it would be an easy matter to separate them... The truth of the matter... is very different.

Old Testament:

* The Jewish OT canon, finalized at the end of the first century CE, was based on, among other things, the mistaken attribution of authorship, political considerations and haphazard selections of the "authoritative" textual versions.

* The Christian OT canon is similarly confused,...various denominations unable to agree on even which books are inspired!

* Some canonical New Testament books even refer to books not in the Old Testament Canon as though they are authoritative scripture.

New Testament canonization:

* ...transmission of New Testament...became more and more corrupted as time goes on...

* The canonization process was a hodgepodge of mistaken authorship attribution, faulty logic and the politics of heresy...

[Bible as a whole]

* ... is filled with scientific errors, contradictions and numerous other errors.

* Many of its myths...were derived from earlier middle eastern myths.

* The authors are largely anonymous.
DaryLLL is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off