boycott-riaa.com - Article: Odds and Ends (March 2007)

Odds and Ends (March 2007)

Posted by Mike (Shmoo) on March 30, 2007 at 8:10 PM (printer friendly)

'Odds and Ends' is for the "off-topic" and/or other stuff not covered in other areas here at Boycott Riaa.

However, from now on, please post any of the relevant "quickie news-links" you find at The Digital Music Scene for both Boycott-Riaa's and/or Dmusic's consumption.

(Yup, that means: THIS is an OPEN thread!)

...BUT, I will not tolerate any spam AND I might have to KNOCK HEADS if you become personal and ugly with other Boycott Riaa participants.

DAMNIT, (please) PLAY NICE!!!

(...at least with each other and your frazzled admins.)

--Shmoo

User Comments (These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)


independentm...	Date: March 2, 2007 @ 8:14 PM Folks, the previous edition of Odds and Ends can be found here. Tracy, leflaw, Dmusic admin, please avoid putting Odds and Ends on the front page at Dmusic. I have created "The Digital Music Scene" to serve both sites instead.

gdZiemann	Date: March 3, 2007 @ 5:49 PM James Brown died on Christmas Day. Yesterday, they opened up the coffin to do DNA tests. They didn't have to dig him up because he's NOT BURIED YET! That's just wrong. The man deserves to be put to rest.

pepe512000	Date: March 3, 2007 @ 7:50 PM That's ok, they want to dig up anna nicole smith's son for testing AND they want to move him from the Bahamas to Texas, so then mama has a reason to move her daughter (who just got to the Bahamas, I might add) to Texas as well....apparently dead people get around pretty good, compared to live ones...like me. Man, I need a vacation after listening to all this...

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 3:19 PM Here's some things from the inbox: Message: (From Danther) I guess what I don't understand is the vast differences between my generation (60's) and the current college students. Where has the spirit of standing up and doing something about things you feel strongly about gone? There was a time that if you had a grievance, you took action. Often in the form of demonstrations or boycotts. The young people of today have the ultimate power in stopping the RIAA line their own pockets. And that is the power of the purchase. Simply withholding the almighty $ of a relatively short period of time would rock RIAA back on its heels. One semester of refusing to purchase music CDs would have such financial impact on the recording labels (the ultimate beneficiary of those purchases) that there would be immense pressure by them on the RIAA to rethink their strategy of suing everyone that swaps a song. And, it would hardly impact the artists themselves due to the fact that the lions-share of their money comes from concerts. Well, so much for my thoughts on the subject. However, it does bother me that tomorrows future leaders appear to be so lax at taking a stand on issues that should be important to them. -------------- Message: (From Eiger) "We are taking advantage of that technology to make universities aware of the problem on their campuses," RIAA President Cary Sherman said. "They need to be sending a message to their students about how to live a lawful life." taken from: http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/02/21/downloading.music.ap/index.html I read this and it infuriates me. For one thing I do not agree with their stance on copyright laws, and after reading your mission I don't think it can be said any better. For another thing, it is insane that they can say something about universities needing to show students how to live a lawful life when so many of the musicians under the mega labels are living anything but lawful lives. What hypocrasy. After reading the latest and greatest from RIAA I couldn't take it anymore so I tried to contact them, but found no links on their site, but I was able to find your site....Thanks for what you are doing. I am tired of corporations controlling government. It has gone too far. I'm going to read more on the site now...Thanks again! Keep up the good fight! ------------ Message: (From Mattew) As a college student, I was more than offended when I found out how the RIAA was targeting big-name schools. One of my potential schools was on that list, Purdue U. To prevent other students from the fines, suspension, and warnings they may receive I went to collegeCONFIDENTIAL.com, and posted a topic on how to prevent being hunted from the RIAA. (Simple things such as using proxy servers, purchasing and using private routers ect.). It seems CC didn't much like that, as they deleted my thread and banned me from the site. After reading the ToS, I did not see a single section where I broke the ToS. I feel my 1st Amendment rights have been thrown out the window. I have contacted the Admins of the site, but to no avail. I would like to spread the information to college students, but cannot find a way to do so. So, can briia.com help? Thanks ------------------ Message: Hello, I'm an up-and-coming recording engineer, and I was just wondering if there are any books out there I could read about the RIAA from a expose, here's-how-bad-it-really-is kind of angle. You know, kind of like how Fast Food Nation was to the fast food industry. All I really saw in Barnes&Noble today was the straight, reference-booky Music Business stuff. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -Mark ------------------- Message: The RIAA has recently shut down my independent music blog over the preview of an unreleased track. That's right, one single track that was aiding in the hyping of a new release. The site was: http://whoneedsradio.com The track was "Charmer" by Kings of Leon. I had a legal disclaimer stating that any copyright owner in complaint with material posted was to directly contact me for immediate removal of the material, but instead the RIAA went straight to my host and got me shut down. Of course they don't care about the hundreds of independent artists being promoted on our site a month, nor do they care to admit that the labels directly send me these advances to review purely for this "hyping" purpose. So now I'm jumping through hoops, and may possibly be put in court over this. And get this, the site has been down for 3 days, even after I've agreed to remove the file, and they are still not reinstating my site. FUCK THE RIAA. Fuck major labels. Fuck the people who kill music and all that it stands for. What else can we do to bring this system down? Sincerely, Lady Byrd Founder. Contributor. Victim of the RIAA. http://whoneedsradio.com ---------------- Message: I am 58 years old. My daughter introduced me to downloading 5 or 6 years ago. The site that I was using had a feature that allowed me to listen to similar music. I downloaded quite a few songs that year. I also purchased about 20 CDs that year. I haven't downloaded an audio file in 5 years... I have purchased only 2 or 3 CDs since then. We have a small radio market in Fargo, ND. Without the P2P sites there is no way to preview new music. --------------- Message: I'm in a band and we would like to take part in boycott-riaa. We're thrash/grind/punk band from Spartanburg, SC...we're called the rocket boys..thanks for your time..check us out if you have time. www.myspace.com/therocketboys -dani -------------- Message: Hello! I'd like to see more of an effort to associate the term "RIAA" with its members. That way, bad press for the RIAA won't just be bad press for the RIAA -- it will be bad press for Sony, BMG, Geffen, RCA etc.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 6:00 PM Sheesh, where the f**k is everybody? Have our recent turmoils driven away all our active participants? lol Hey folks, I am GIVING you all "Odds and Ends" as the place to rant and rave, cuss and fuss. (TRUE, I do NOT want ugly Jerry Springer style flame-war name-calling and bickering...) But, that does NOT mean you can't let your hair down. :)

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 6:01 PM All work and no play... (You all know the axiom.)

gdZiemann	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 7:00 PM "I would like to spread the information to college students, but cannot find a way to do so." Neither can the administrators. Have you tried the bars? "wondering if there are any books out there I could read about the RIAA from a expose, here's-how-bad-it-really-is kind of angle" Hit Men by Fredric Dannen "The RIAA has recently shut down my independent music blog over the preview of an unreleased track. That's right, one single track that was aiding in the hyping of a new release." Repeat after me: The RIAA's music is illegal. The RIAA's music is illegal. The RIAA's music is illegal. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 7:22 PM Hit Men by Fredric Dannen Yup, that book was an early (and only slightly pre-Internet) source that provided ME with some of the insight/info about what the RIAA scoundrels were up to back then. (Hope you like reading about TRUE LIFE Mafia tie-ins!) It deals with crap that went down in music biz history up thru the '80's. Highly recommended.

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 9:46 PM It almost sounds as if Mike expects some controversy (or at least a little crap) on this thread now and then. Okay, off-topic, here it goes: What we need is a better deterrent for heinous, cruel crimes. Case in point: That vicious killer who buried that poor, innocent little girl alive to die horribly suffocating in dirt. (And there's been all kinds of truly horrendous crimes in recent decades.) Here's what we do: Simply add one phrase to the Constitution at the part where it talks about no cruel or unusual punishment -- "except in the most severe cases of horribly cruel crimes committed". That way, the parents of that poor girl could get closure from her inhuman-beast murderer gasping his last breaths in the throes of execution by being buried alive in dirt just as he did to his victim! Fitting, it would be. And serve as a warning to those who might contemplate doing something terrible to somebody. Thousands of years ago, there was a rule of justice: "An eye for an eye" -- it envisions the prospect of dishing out painful punishment for committing painful crimes. Societies that have strayed from this concept have more problems with prevention of brutality. It won't stop all of it, but it very likely would reduce the amount.

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 9:52 PM But, of course, fat chance of our nation agreeing to stronger justice. Hell, we've got too many bleeding hearts who don't even believe in capital punishment for murderers at all, not even for serial killers. Execution violates a murderer's rights, perhaps? (rolls eyes)

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:06 PM None of this coddling crap. Make the S.O.B.s really pay for their gruesome crimes in the manner deserved!

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:09 PM No plea bargaining for a lesser charge, either. And set a limit on the number of appeals. GET TOUGH ON KILLERS, damn it!

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:09 PM Hang 'em all from a high tree! I agree! (So long as it ain't me.)

pepe512000	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:15 PM I think there is one place in the world where the authorities shoot the bad guy and present the bill for the bullet to the next of kin..think of all the jail space and tax this would save?

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:20 PM You're safe, Shmoo; you're a good guy! (symbolically giving Mike a white hat to wear)

pessimist	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:22 PM Pepe - your points are well made. Those ARE extra benefits (about the jail space thing and saving tax dollars), aren't they.

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:44 PM pessimist, I am not sure if I want you to crown me with a white hat. Damn STRAIGHT, and YOU BEttchya I'd like to have that "white hat" you speak of... But, TRUE life might intervene. I know you to be a very active participant here at Boycott-Riaa. I am so happy and glad. But, I do NOT know much about you other than that. I try very hard to take as "neutral" philisophical/religious/political position I humanly can. ======== Just for the record. I am an agnostic/aethist who can not be converted (unless GOD/ALLAH/BUDDA shows up himself in person for REAL in front of me.) (And, even then I'd probably say "Bullsh*t") "unsaved" does NOT mean the same thing as "evil" SURE, I am probably "wrong" in my convictions. (MOST of the major religions tell tales about how "even the unwashed" can be a tool for enlightenment.) Maybe I am one of those. lol

independentm...	Date: March 4, 2007 @ 10:45 PM Ok, enough religio-philosophical crap from me. I'm going to BED.

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:08 PM Nobody been using the "Odds and Ends" this past week. Hmm... ========= Oh well, here's something from the INBOX: Message: "I think i'm going to start a new business! Considering the legal precident the CRB's new Royalty Rates and Rules decision will make, this might be the perfect time to start up a money making venture and Join the RIAA in its takeover of the US. Using their tactics, I will hire people to patrol the streets of this nation looking specifically for cars with 2 or more people playing Music. Then write down their license plate number. We will provide this information to the RIAA for a fee so they can sue the driver for 1) Not having a Promoters License to hold a public performance of copywrited works and... 2) Broadcasting this material without permission of the Copyright holder .... 3) so they can collect royalties from the Driver for each passenger who hears the music off the CD or Radio in the vehicle... Our First targets will be the Lawmakers, congressmen and women, state representatives and the members of the CRB and Library of Congress! Then we'll go after the public who has the Audacity to listen to music! Just think what fun it will be watching the RIAA sue an artist for playing another artists music to their buddies in their rides under these conditions. I know a few Gangstah Rappers who would love that! And finally we'll target the RIAA officers and workers for the same things...play music, pay the price. After that, we'll go after them in their houses when they throw their kids a birthday party to collect royalties for singing "Happy Birthday" or playing music at highschool proms...all those teenagers dancing to music without paying Royalties? Lets get them all! We'll make millions! Anyone want in? --MADcHATTER"

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:09 PM Message: with the new ruleing i may have to close my internet based radio station i wanna show my support to this site! hockingradio.com

independentm...	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 2:11 PM Message: I thought about something the other day that the copyrights for the media industry extend for periods longer than the patents for life saving medicines. The recent round of law suits and RICO violations by the RIAA are getting to be outlandish. They errode the ideas of a free market society, place pressures on members of society that will be felt for a long time, and propogate the idea that piracy is a social justice against socially injust industry. We are coming to a time were people must stand up to the bullying nature of industries and fight back in all ways that they possibly can.

gdZiemann	Date: March 11, 2007 @ 10:20 PM Must be spring break.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 13, 2007 @ 7:30 PM Okay, here's a topic to debate: Our democratic republic was instituted with the concept of majority rule, but with consideration to be given to minority rights. Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Lots of peripheral perspectives to ponder, don't you think? Deep water to navigate. (Relevance: abortion on demand; imposition of homosexual marriages; etc.) Anybody want to venture their ideas?

TrueAudio	Date: March 13, 2007 @ 8:46 PM Here's some people that have the balls to tell it like it is: "U.S. music industry demands students pay for downloading" http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31348 "Well, yeah, there are situations where students pirate software to help with their educations. A lot of graphics design software is ridiculously expensive. I actually just helped my girlfriend torrent $1200 worth of software for her next semester as a graphics design major. She simply did not have the money to buy it, and would have had to take out another loan JUST for software if we hadn't downloaded them." ---------------------------------------------- A nice response to this previously posted topic titled "Lawmakers Bash Colleges Over Campus Piracy" "today i was working with 6th graders. they were doing powerpoints on authors. the highlight of my day was when the librarian showed them how to use printscreen/paste to copy any website pics, even ones that are "rightclick protected". they teach kids in 6th grade how to circumvent protection schemes. by the time they are in high school, they are pros. good luck selling the intellectual property b.s. when this generation turns 35. i'd like to think that the next generation will be the ones to explode on the tech scene, hopefully, the internet won't be turned into a stupid one way box by then to replace the tv" --------------------------------------------- "DRM to stop you Watching your TV" http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31462 http://www.eff.org/IP/DVB/dvb_briefing_paper.php "this says 1 thing to me which the industry isn't getting because they are not human they cannot be else they would have the same thoughts. would you stick your hand into a pool of sharks to pick up a coin risking having your hand biten off, and still not getting the coin. or would you rather stick your hand into a tank of goldfish thus picking up the coin with no fears or worry of getting your hand bitten of at anytime + obtaining the coin and being happy. In other words why risk having all your devices fucked because they've decided they dont want you taping or watching a show when you can get the same thing better quality no commercials, no bullshit can do what you want with it when you want without risking destroying your hard earned equipement. yes pirated is the only way to go from now on. because pirated is the only way you can safely watch your tv shows play games or watch movies. because all the legal alternatives could end up costing you mega bucks when the content destroys it Tell me how this is ment to prevent piracy???? this gives people who never pirated a thing in their lives to actually start doing so in fear of legal contents destroying their hardware isn't it ment to be un-official pirated underhanded sly black market contents that is ment to be the security risk? not the offical stuff lol boy do they know how to promote piracy they are excelent at doing the job us pirates have been trying to do but failed for years." "GraphiX why the surprise?HDMI/HDCP,plugging analogue holes,broadcast flags,the DMCA,"trusted computing" etc etc..its all been coming for a while. I'll be very surprised if the consumers weren't even allowed to record shows for their own personal viewing.Copyright protection is not only about the main studios.Hardware manufacturers are linked in this chain as well.Everyone is trying to safeguard their own interests and sooner or later they will begin to clash.When consumers stop buying the recorders because they're not allowed to record their favourite programs the big Studios may not suffer but the hardware makers will.They're not stupid,they'll leave backdoors into their systems to make them hackable. Now as long as these interests remain seperate we as consumers are ok.However vertical integration is our biggest enemy.Take Murdoch for example.He owns the studios which makes the content,he controls the distribution channels for that content and manufacturers the hardware to display that content.This is every studio's wet dream.Sony manufactures hardware and makes movies.You'll see alot of studios owning part stakes in hardware manufacturers.These are all anti-competitive practices which will need to be addressed by consumer organisations of tomorrow."

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:48 AM independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:29 AM Merle, Willie and Ray get together Merle Haggard sometimes misses the old way of making records, when fixing an off-key note wasn't so simple and all the little mistakes were captured on vinyl. independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:41 AM Andrea's dad ( http://www.herbywallace.com/ ) used to play pedal steel guitar for Ray Price. independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 12:54 AM Kid's label "Sony Wonder" is going under. Sony closing the doors to "concentrate on core music business" grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:19 AM I recall one of Ray's first successful songs back in the 50's called "Crazy Arms", which was also covered by Jerry "the killer" Lee Lewis (one of his first hits too). Wow, that was a long time ago . . . but then, after all, Ray IS 81. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:30 AM Jerry Lee and Elvis, both on the Sun label, doing rock-a-billy stuff ... so was Buddy Holly at the time, circa 1953-54, before he got primed by Petty the opportunistic producer. Can't recall when Tom Parker got his hooks into Elvis, but it was still with Sun prior to RCA. Ah, those were the days ... prior to Bill Haley. Rhythm and blues were raw and magnetic. Rhythm and blues! That's what I miss most of all; I mean, not having any new R&B to look forward to . . . thanks to hip-hop and rap which supplanted it. pepe512000 (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:34 AM Al Gore tries to get a hand from Congress for a rock concert promoting environmental issues Al Gore just wants to get out there and make another 46 million bucks.... grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:34 AM Re-reading my previous message, I did not intend to leave any impression that Buddy recorded for the Sun label; I know better. I bought Buddy on Decca '78 rpm records before he went on Coral and Brunswick. I lived through those years; scarcely need any book or Google to recall a lot of stuff. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:37 AM Well, promoting the environment is certainly better that polluting it, which is what mostly goes on in the developed world these days ... corporate greed being what it is, of course. I say, more power to Al. grumpygeezer (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:38 AM typo: better THAN polluting it independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:42 AM Herby didn't play on the original version of "Crazy Arms" (He's only in his late '50's/early '60's, lol.) But, I believe he did tour and record with Ray a lot in the late '70's and thru the '80's. I'll try to remember to ask him next time he has me and Andrea over for dinner. (Herby is a Country Music "Hall of Fame" artist who has worked with a lot of "names" including: Jenny C. Riley, Con Hunley, and many others.) -------- Oh well, I'm breaking the rules and "chit-chatting" too much... Back to work: Startup to offer the 'personal radio' independentm... (Delete) Date: March 14, 2007 @ 1:45 AM Let's move our "chit chat" over to the "Odds and Ends" currently at: http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/21359

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:05 AM pessimist (Delete) Date: March 13, 2007 @ 11:28 PM COMMENTS ABOUT THE AT&T CLAIMING THE CASE AGAINST THEIR HELPING THE GOVERNMENT DO ILLEGAL SPYING IS JUST "TOO SECRET FOR ANY COURT": Monday, 12 March 2007 - 7:34 PM Name: Biil Owens This secret stuff has gotten way out of control. I believe the reason they spy on Americans is to find out just how much the citizens know about their illegal activities! I don't trust our government at all anymore. If we could get some good investigations into what they have been up to and those investigations indicated they were innocent, then I might regain some of my trust. ----- Monday, 12 March 2007 - 8:24 PM Name: Agent Johnson Bill; You should trust the government without question... After all, we keep you safe from terrorism ... Asking too many questions can only lead to trouble. And we know who you are, so be good... A. Johnson ------- Monday, 12 March 2007 - 9:01 PM Name: Derrick Vote Libertarian!

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:10 AM Sorry all the stuff I imported over from "The Digital Music Scene" above is so messy. (I only have a limited amount of time online, so I copy and pasted several things in bulk/en masse.) But you all are fine fart smellers (...er, I mean "smart fellers") lol, gotta watch my dyslexia I know you can figure it all out. :)

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:16 AM "Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes." Sorry to respond all "socratic" but... What the hell is a "moral absolute?" We better ALL agree on it (including provisions for the rights of those in "the minority") before we call something "absolute" :P

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:25 AM "Tell me how this is ment to prevent piracy???? this gives people who never pirated a thing in their lives to actually start doing so in fear of legal contents destroying their hardware... (and etc.)" True. However, never forget the REASON DRM and other garbage exists has never been to keep "illegal" folks from doing copyright infringement DRM exists to herd the law abiding sheep and to preserve the monopolies. DRM only hurts the consumer. (And the industry when it backfires.) True bootleggers, hackers & crackers, copyright infringers and so called "pirates" only laugh at the RIAA and etcAA because their actions create a black market to be exploited. Kinda like the war on drugs.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:33 AM re: agreeing on moral absolutes The framers of the Declaration of Independence were evidently aware of some moral absolutes: "We hold these truths . . . that all people are created equal in God-given rights . . . that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In other words, the right to life and liberty are truths. And that these rights came from God's hand. AND that PEOPLE came from God's hand. Pretty significant stuff.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 2:36 AM axiomatic concept: Problems come when people turn their backs on truth.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:02 AM I certainly agree with the self-evident truths in our Declaration... But not everyone out there does. (And, I myself might have some doubt in the existance of this "God" fellow you speak of.) ------ lol, That's why I like the phrase "self-evident" our Founding Father's used when talking about truths. It doesn't make those points invalid even when you are like me and can't easily swallow the idea of an invisible omnipotent being up in the sky.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:08 AM NOTE TO ALL BOYCOTT RIAA READERS AND VISITORS... MY OWN religious beliefs and/or non-beliefs have NO BEARING on anything that matters here at the site. (In fact, I'd probably be smarter not to even ever bring it up. lol.)

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:10 AM MOST of the people in the world are "religious" to one extent or another. That puts me in a minority. (Protect my rights PLEASE!) :)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 AM But their "self-evident" included people being "created" (by God), not evolving from primordal ooze. And the framers were in agreement with this. Our society has strayed far from this. And just what does our culture have to show for our wonderful "enlightenment" and our "freedom" from the constraints of the concept of divine power-- our independence (as it were) from God?

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:16 AM I guess some folks want "self-evident" apart from any divine element. They may BE in the minority, but, indeed, as you wrote, all rights deserve protecting. In essence, that's a good rationale for being a libertarian ... to champion individual freedoms.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:22 AM freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:38 AM Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. A) There are no moral absolutes. B) The majority seldom make the rules, but usually follow them. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Applied to what? Even noting your examples (abortion and gay marriage) and adding in scenarios such as downloading or waging a war, how can the majority apply a rule to an issue of morality, other than making a law against doing the "bad" thing? No consideration is ever given to the dissenters, even if there are a half a million of them in the streets of Washington, D.C. Morality comes from within. You can't force people to act the way you want them to if they don't believe the same thing you do.

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:41 AM Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe.

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 4:21 AM "True bootleggers, hackers & crackers, copyright infringers and so called "pirates" only laugh at the RIAA and etcAA because their actions create a black market to be exploited. Kinda like the war on drugs." -------------------------------------------- "True drug traffickers and drug smugglers (CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY), so-called "Traitors to America" (/sarcasm on) only laugh at the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), feds, local, state police, and the entire US Judicial system with its monumentally overflowing prisons, because their actions create a black market to be exploited". Kinda like the war on 2urruri5m

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:57 AM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Are you "absolute"ly sure? Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute! Sorry, you lose that one, George. Technically: People can have faith in God and believe in the metaphysical, without imperical proof. Those with the faith can't prove they're right, but neither can the ones without the faith prove them wrong. You can't disprove a negative, so your position about there being no absolutes is untenable. By the way, imperical science often finds itself in its own trap: It says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. But matter exists, duh! Evolution cannot account for the origin of matter. Science textbooks are prone to proffer a so-called "big bang" theory, but where did the original material come from to have the potential for a "bang" in the first place? You also wrote: "How can the majority apply a rule to an issue of morality, other than making a law against doing a 'bad' thing?" My response: They can apply a rule to an issue of morality by making a law against a "good" thing, that's how! (Another point of logic for you.) And that would be a case of the majority ruling in an inappropriate manner. Would you like an example of one of those kinds of things that occurred in the 20th century? And you wrote: "Morality comes from within. You can't force people to act the way you want them to if they don't believe the same thing you do." My response: Many societal laws are based on threat of punishment, for the common good. For example, there is a severe form of punishment for unjustifiably taking a person's life. This indeed is a form of coercion, to the extent that even though one may not accept the belief of the value of a human life, society's safety is served by hanging a threat of strong penalty over the head of a potential miscreant inclined to take the right to life lightly. . . and thus, he/she is fairly well deterred from acting in a murderous manner. A murderer (and murderers are relatively rare mostly because of the law) who is apprehended (and most are caught) is reasonably deterrred from being a repeat offender. Plus, others similarly inclined definitely feel the pressure to conform to the rule of law, even if they have a dim view of the value of human life. Thus, they are mostly compelled to act the way society wants them to. You wrote, "You can't force people . . ." That premise may be unsupportable. Concerning your phrase, "if they don't believe the same thing you do": The founding fathers did not all share specific religious tenets of faith (there was considerable diversity), yet they all concurred in a form of government that had its bases (plural of basis) on rights endowed by the Creator. And they knew that there would need to be a strong deterrent put in place (criminal laws) to enforce these God-given rights when it came to the protection of the life of its citizens. The theory of government relies on the consent of the governed. There is implied consent. Earlier I had asked something to the effect of what have we as a society gained by the increasing loss of respect for divine influence. Our culture has multiplied technological progress, but, in general, peace of mind and happiness have not gone along for the ride of the multiplication process. There is a reason.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 7:24 AM "Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe." Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished. How many decades did medical science consider bloodletting to be a viable form of therapy before it was discredited? Until a magician comes along, it is (tongue in cheek, here) self-evident that "matter cannot be created". And, oh yeah, "life comes only from life" (that was in the science textbooks up until about twenty years ago). Granted, the fathers' use of "self-evident" was not a commendable phrase. They weren't perfect; and you are observant enough to point out their human-ness in that regard. Criticism warranted. But that does not detract from the impact of their (by extension, I mean those later devising the Constitution) arrangement for rule of law to better serve the needs of society. Self-evident or not, we generally believe in protecting life (at least, once it has managed to emerge safely from the womb)! Conforming to the rule of law is essential. But, I know, I haven't devoted time to how our laws AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT need to be fair and just and preserve basic individual liberties. That's room for another day's attention.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:03 AM God may very well exist (it can�t be proven or disproven), and, if so, we may be responsible to Him. It�s a matter of a belief system on the part of an individual. However, it also takes faith to believe that matter came about without it having been created (current scientific thought). In our closed system (which is what science says our universe is, though they could be wrong!) how can something come from nothing? Ah, you gotta have �faith� (or better yet, not ask that question; it�s embarressing, like asking where the original matter came from that made the big bang)! Those who have spiritual faith, in a sense become part of something bigger and better than themselves or any human. Life can have meaning and purpose. There is inner peace of mind. Take that away by espousing existentialism (which has been a growing trend of orientation), and what do you have in the place of God? Life loses significance. We homo sapiens are here by circumstances of chance, and there is no future of life after death. Note I said �Life loses significance.� That�s one important reason why the founding fathers acknowledged that the right to life is the number one priority. Once life becomes devalued in any way, it starts on a wayward path from precious toward trivial. ON BALANCE, what does our culture have to show for our "enlightenment" and our "freedom" from the constraints of the concept of divine power, our independence (as it were) from God? I'm serious. What have we as a society gained by the increasing loss of respect for the divine? Our culture has multiplied technological progress, but, generally, peace of mind and happiness have not accompanied that multiplication AT ALL! There is a reason.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:27 AM You wrote: "Until Galileo came along, it was self-evident that the Earth was the center of the universe." No, not self-evident until Galileo came along. You see, it was Copernicus, NOT Galileo! Just goes to show that ANYbody can make a mistake with that self-evident phrase. Comic relief: Even if we disagree, we can all share a bit of camaraderie in our proneness to err as humans.

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 11:15 AM "God may very well exist (it can�t be proven or disproven), and, if so, we may be responsible to Him. It�s a matter of a belief system on the part of an individual." Romans 1:19-21 "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." I Corinthians 2:14 "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" Matthew 12:22-45 "Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation." Psalms 14:1 "To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:12 PM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Codger wrote: "Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute!" It's a logical absolute. Not a moral one. "Thou shalt not kill." That's about as morally absolute as you can get. The same rule seems to be included in (almost?) every religion. Seems pretty simple and straightforward, until someone breaks the rule which, in most societies, results in the pursuit and capture of the perpetrator. Then we generally kill them. ---------- Copernicus, Galileo, it doesn't change the fact that things which seem self-evident are very often not the way things actually work. "Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished." Vanquished? If you've ever smashed a finger in the nail region (for instance), you know that bloodletting still has a use. Intellectual beliefs are subject to modification based upon the emergence of new information. It is also subject to modification upon the emergence of bogus information if it's really convincing.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:27 PM OMG... What evil have I wrothed.

independentm...	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 3:29 PM OK, ok. I believe in each and all of your God's and religious credo's... (Go to bed you dummies!)

pepe512000	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 5:45 PM Shmoo, we're all just here to make your life a living hell! :)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 5:54 PM gdZiemann wrote: "There are no moral absolutes." Codger wrote: "Logically, saying that is in itself an absolute!" gdZiemann: "It's a logical absolute. Not a moral one." My response: What is your antecedent to your use of "it's"? Regardless, how can you literally wave away the existence of a category of absolutes, moral or otherwise? Saying there is not a moral absolute does equate with evidence; but, by the same token, I've already said I can't prove the existence of a moral absolute. The point is you're willing to say there are no moral absolutes; that's something you cannot prove. How can you prove a negative? To maintain that there isn't a certain type of absolute is an absolute in and of itself; doesn't matter if it's a moral issue or not. gdZiemann wrote: "Thou shalt not kill. That's about as morally absolute as you can get." My response: No argument from me on that one! I fail to grasp the purpose of what you wrote. BTW, if God can't be disproven to exist, then I'm free to believe His Word (the Bible) from which your quotation is taken. You're free to be a pagan, which I've noticed you once wrote to admit being. No problem, since that's a matter of personal liberty. I have difficulty following part of what you write because I risk reading more into your words than may be proper... and I'm generally an analytical type person. For example, when you say "Then, we generally kill them" -- am I to assume you are opposed to strong measures to control (punish; deter) murder? I'm trying not to make unjustifiable conclusions from what you write, but you don't make things easy. Again, you're free to consider alternate views from something that most of our culture has accepted, just as I am free to disaprove of something most of our culture has accepted in the instance of, for example, abortion since 1973. gdZiemann: "Things which seem self-evident are very often not the way things actually work." Again, you've got my head nodding up and down! Previously, I alluded to the way this phrase actually has little meaning when used in a way that appeals to common sense alone. Incidentally, I believe in divine revelation (the Words of the Bible were revealed by God), as many religious people do. I'm not saying that's "self-evident" at all. But neither can scientists (or even you) explain away the "self-evidence" of matter existing without a Creator. (Especially when they say matter can't be created. So, we've got matter around us, alright; how the H did it get here? According to science, it shouldn't even exist.) Speaking of an enigma or a paradox, I used to smile when I was a kid and someone would ask, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It still has no simple answer. But to this day, I can still chuckle at an old (not that old) science textbook that insisted that "life comes from life." That was a biological concept taught. In another science text, there was this theory about how the first lifeform might have evolved from some primordial ooze! You wrote that things may not always be what they seem, and things change. Yes, I concur! And, I stand by this: "Frequently, belief systems based on intellect have their day and are then vanquished." Bloodletting, which I had written about previously, was done up until several hundred years ago to supposedly aid in treating patients. (Though based on the intellect of the day, it was counter-productive, of course.) But had the doctors believed the Old Testament, it had said at least two millenia earlier that the blood contains the life of a person. Your reference to "bogus information" is what I would apply to that practice of bloodletting. Your mention of blood coming from a smashed finger is a different topic; not applicable to the point I had been making about the failed medical practice of intentional bloodletting in past centuries. Belief systems of the past have not always stood the test of time, and, yes, many of them HAVE been vanquished. I'm almost certain you want to be convincing. So, I don't want to deter you from trying.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:02 PM To err is human, and I was human when I wrote: "How can you literally wave away the existence of a category of absolutes, moral or otherwise?" My mistake was in not typing the word "potential" which should have been written in front of the word "existence."

TrueAudio	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 6:55 PM "Piracy killing PC gaming market?" http://psp.joystiq.com/2006/08/07/id-piracy-killing-pc-gaming-market/1 "12. Whats killing the PC market is the fact that half the people out there are not gonna consistently upgrade their rigs every year to play the newest game out there. Did piracy kill the Xbox? Did it kill the Playstation? I dont think so."

CriticalCodger	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 7:04 PM MY SUMMARY (and then I'll shut up for awhile) My belief system: A creator-God could have instituted spiritual laws (unseen, unprovable), some of which are moral. As I have said, I cannot prove this. But, neither can anyone disprove it. It takes faith to believe in a divine being, but it also takes faith to ponder various hows and whys in the absence of intelligent design. I stand by my previous positions; example: "People can have faith in God and believe in the metaphysical, without empirical proof. Those with the faith can't prove they're right, but neither can the ones without the faith prove them wrong." The founding fathers had faith, and they spoke about liberties granted by a Creator. Society is well served by rules and a government, but only if both are just and fair. Does life have ultimate meaning apart from being responsible to God? Do temporary toys, possessions, power, and pleasure lead to lasting happiness? What about our relationships to others' needs? And what about the possibility of the hereafter? These are some vital questions to consider. Science, medical expertise, and technology are subject to change (even about-faces). Science has been known to contradict itself, as I've already indicated... and it still has no answer for the origin of matter. You wrote that morality comes from within. Well, ideally, that is the best way to have it. But, for the best interests of the group (society), we still need to deal with those who have no good sense of right or wrong. A prime example would be the bad guy in the 1960's movie "The Man Who Shot Libery Valance". We need protection (and yes, strong medicine for potential offenders) for our very lives and our property. Citizens need to feel safe in their homes (and elsewhere). Okay, your turn on any of these issues if you want to try to convince me otherwise.

gdZiemann	Date: March 14, 2007 @ 8:51 PM "My response: What is your antecedent to your use of "it's"?" The statement "There are no moral absolutes" is a logical absolute, not a moral one. "How can you prove a negative?" Lack of evidence to the contrary. There may very well be monsters in the closet, but no matter how many times I check, I haven't found one yet. "You're free to be a pagan, which I've noticed you once wrote to admit being." Really? I don't recall that. I haven't even got to the issue of religion yet in this discussion. It wasn't part of the original questions. "For example, when you say "Then, we generally kill them" -- am I to assume you are opposed to strong measures to control (punish; deter) murder?" My point was that "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have an "except for people that killed someone else" clause. If you execute a murderer, you're still breaking the rule. If God does exist, and the rule came from God, it should be absolute.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 1:03 AM gdZiemann: "Thou shalt not kill" doesn't have an "except for people that killed someone else" clause. If you execute a murderer, you're still breaking the rule. My response: The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" is from Exodus 20. Other passages from Scripture elaborate and impart a more enhanced understanding of it: Gen. 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood shall have his blood shed; for God made man in His image." "Whoever intentionally strikes a mortal blow to a man must be put to death. He, however, who did not hunt a man down, but caused his death by an accident, may flee to a place of safety set apart for this purpose. But when a man kills another after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him and put him to death." (Exodus 21:12-14) gdZiemann: "The statement "There are no moral absolutes" is a logical absolute, not a moral one." CriticalCodger: "In logic, how can you prove a negative?" gdZiemann: "Lack of evidence to the contrary. There may very well be monsters in the closet, but no matter how many times I check, I haven't found one yet." My response: It isn't always possible to check all circumstances to demonstrate a rigorous proof of a negative. A classic example is trying to prove that there aren't any two-headed calves alive on earth at a given moment. Back to your statement about "Lack of evidence to the contrary", you say (corresponding to your knowledge and experience). We'll need to dig deeper than that. Beyond a reasonable possibility is likely the minimum standard to apply in crucial cases like this. For us humans who don't have any evidence, much less proof, for how the material for the universe originated (science claiming matter can't be created), one should defer to a very high standard insofar as hypothesis testing would go in attempting to prove a negative. Extending the idea, it could be said that either a higher (divine) power exists, or it does not. God can't be proven to exist, nor can He be proven to not exist. We'll have to leave it at that (namely, that faith is required for or against, but faith nonetheless). ["Faith": belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence] However: If God exists and He creates, He could very well have initiated spiritual absolutes, including moral absolutes, for mankind's responsibility. He might have even left a manual or a kind of roadmap for us to follow in life. If so, we would not expect it to contain errors. An error-less book telling us how to live and get forgiveness to be saved? That shouldn't be any kind of "monster." The real monster with religion has been those groups who disgraced the faith with improper methods of dealing with people. The Crusades and The Inquisition didn't follow Christ's example or admonition. Even Martin Luther advocated unjust violence against Jews. How tragic and tainted their deeds or words have been! In a real sense, Christians are as Christians act. BUT, it does not follow that CHRISTIANITY is as Christians are or do. Hypocrites or deceivers or even murderers bearing a spiritual image of Christianity have been an occasional reality but do not invalidate Christ's teaching. (Example: Philosophy as a concept is not intrinsically defined by a sampling of philosophers who may or may not be following established philosophical precepts at any given point in time. Thus, we must consider the source of the protocols. It's the same with religion.) [Thanks for helping us keep the discussion civil.]

pepe512000	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 2:25 PM People philosophize till the cows come home...wonderful, but if you're seriously talking about "absolute morality" you might as well leave God right out of the picture. God did not give man the authority, nor the ability for absolute morality. Why? The following people had a direct line to God..wouldn't we love that nowadays?...there would be everyone's proof of God. However.... Right from the get go, Adam and Eve...they stole something, in direct defiance of God. Cain and Abel? The first murder.....from a murderous heart. And a biggie, the Israelites in the wilderness...following a Pillar of Fire at night and they got to watch the Red Sea being parted from the Hand of God Himself! Moses goes off to talk with God and get further instruction, and what are the people doing? they're building a golden calf idol to worship in place of God. What was that all about???? You see, people keep asking for proof of God, but when it's right in front of us...we just miss it! Again I say, God did not give man the authority, nor the ability for absolute morality. Did God make a mistake? No, and here's why....If we had the authority, the control, why would we have needed Christ and the Cross? What purpose or need would any God supply for us? He would have created us and made Himself redundant. Ok, end of sermon..fire away!

gdZiemann	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 2:55 PM if you're seriously talking about "absolute morality" you might as well leave God right out of the picture. Question #1: Does majority rule apply over areas of morality? Worthy response: Only in the absence of moral absolutes. Although I am unable to define a moral absolute, moral rules tend to be defined by a distinct minority and enforced against the majority. Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 4:26 PM Web censorship spreading globally http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_web_censorship_spreading_globally.htm "Hate Crimes" Legislation Again Rears Its Ugly Head in Congress http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/hate_laws_hate_crimes_legislation_rears_ugly_head_in_congress.htm

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 5:23 PM http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19990 "Downloadable DVDs Incompatible With Current DVD Recorders" "The recently proposed "DVD Download" format that features the CSS copyright-protection software will not be compatible with all DVD recorders or PC burners, according to the DVD Forum. Announced by the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) last August, the new "DVD Download" format features the CSS (Content Scramble System) copyright-protection software that will allow stores to burn any one of thousands of movies on to special DVD discs while customers wait. The DVD Forum approved the CSS-MR rev1.0 specifications in January 2007. According to the specifications, DVD discs that comply with the specifications should not be recorded using burners that do not comply with the CSS-MR rev1.0 specifications as well. In addition, the new discs will be readable only by DVD-Video players only and not by non CSS-MR rev1.0 hardware that have a recording function." "So the new CSS DVD media will be recorded only be devices that have the "DVD Download" logo, and will be recognised for play-back only by DVD-Video players or DVD burners/recorders/PC drives marked with the specific logo. Sonic Solutions introduced a licensing and certification programme last month for its Qflix technology, which provides the tools for media companies and retailers to take advantage of the new standard." ""DVD Download" logo" -What a freaking joke, same old 20+ year old cat and mouse game. people can ALREADY download DVD's DUH. Oopps, but thats not "legal" according to them. This is just like the Interview that some female rep at EFF was on national television talking to Cary Sherman, where she said to him something along the lines of "Your taking away our digital rights and then trying to sell them back to us piecemeal". The MPAA/RIAA are coming off like ;DONLOADABLE DVD" is a "feature", pretending that it doesn;t already exists, because to them, if it doesn't fit their definition of whats legal, it's not even an option. Yeah, "it's not even an option alright, try telling that to the people who monitor the bandwidth on the major backbones in the US, where 70% of the Internet traffic is Bittorrent". The majority of people don't buy shit, people don't buy hobbled hardware. hardware that gets bad reviews for being user UNfriendly DOESN'T SELL. You want to start to see some change in this country? Then everyone in the U.S. needs to start boycotting a hell of alot more than the RIAA. Boycott DIRECTV, DISH NETWORK, so-called ON DEMAND digital cable. I've got all the DEMAND right here, at the click of a mouse, should I choose to use it. Like I said before, I wish they would shut down all public libraries in the United States, because they facilitate "IP" infringement. I wish they would do this because it would take something THIS severe to actually wake people up that are so stupid, they think their mouse is a telephone and try to talk into it, or use it as a foot-pedal when they're seeking technical support.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 6:33 PM US Senators Pressure Canada on Camcording Laws http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31268 1st we DRM'd 5 1/4 floppies then we DRM'd 3 /12" floppies 3rd we DRM'd CD's 4th we DRM'd TV broadcasts 5th we DRM'd DVD's 6th we DRM'd garage door openers and printer cartridges 7th we DRM'd memory sticks 8th we DRM'd Rental cars so we can shut off the engine remotely if you try to leave the U.S. 9th we DRM'd CPU's, Motherboards (BIOS) 10th we are going to DRM your Driver's License and Passports within 2 years or less 11th we are going to DRM your entire country 12th we are going to DRM the Entire internet 13th we will finally have DRM'd the world It's everyones fault because 6 billion+ of you in this world didn't think know what was going on, didn't care, still don't care, and don't/didn't believe boycotting was powerful enough (it is if enough people do it). Since the majority of the world did not care, enjoy your life of DRM, it really was about respecting copyright, just ask the Boy Scouts of America. It's ok, the Government loves you because TV says it does.

pepe512000	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 7:29 PM ~~moral rules tend to be defined by a distinct minority and enforced against the majority~~ Are you simply referring to our governments control over us as the minority rule? Or, if you are referring to the civilization of mankind as a whole, I think you will have a long road to walk to find the correct answers, but you might start with the "Story of Civilization" series written by Will and Ariel Durant. If we, as a society today, had never known our Christian God? If our blueprint, the Bible, had never come into the picture? Who would have known what a moral was, other than how we treat our fellow man, as to what kind of respect is due him. What about the native Africans? Or the Australian aboriginals, pre-missionaries?. As a society, we know they had laws to live by but usually pretty straight forward..you steal my goat, I come and kill you. Isn't there a tribal law out there yet, that if one steals, they have that hand cut off? There would always have to have been a few guidelines to follow to co-exist with fellow tribesman. So Without God... Question #1 Would the majority rule over areas of morality, or "whatever would be considered moral." Answer # 1. Sure! If the majority all carry big sticks and have many guns. "Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died." Answer # 2 - No doubt!

CriticalCodger	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 7:33 PM "If we had the authority, the control, why would we have needed Christ and the Cross?" Because man is prone to err, and discretion would not necessarily accompany the use of spectacularly mighty power even if man had access to it. "What purpose or need would any God supply for us?" We would still be in need of salvation from the condemnation that follows transgressing GOD'S absolute laws (and His standard of perfection that only Christ could fulfill in our behalf).

Dreddsnik	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 8:37 PM " So Without God... Question #1 Would the majority rule over areas of morality, or "whatever would be considered moral." Answer # 1. Sure! If the majority all carry big sticks and have many guns. "Question #2: If majority rule over an issue of morality is applied, how is consideration to be given to the minority of dissenters? Usually by the monuments marking where they died." Answer # 2 - No doubt! " The answers are all the same 'With God' as well. Doing it, 'with God' just makes it seem justified.

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 9:01 PM Two people in history that I can think of have probably facilitated more confusion, crime, despair, hatred, bloodshed, oppression, and just utter ruination of the United States, and of the world. I will mention them in a minute. They, in my opinion, are great contributors of the reason this country hates God, and/or denies His existence, 2nd only to the Devil himself. While salvation from God can only come from denial of self and an earnest acknowledgement from the heart that one is lost, and needs to trust His Son, who shed his Blood for us, and call upon Him. You can clearly see the consequences of a nation who has all but rescinded the notion of God (U.S. currency still holds His name). This first man alone is probably one of the main reasons billions of people have argued for over a millenium about "what the truth really is". He is responsible for ALL false versions of the bible which came about over 1500 years later, responsible for the creation, and the EXISTENCE of many cults, etc. Origen (Greek: Ὠριγένης Ōrig�nēs, 185�ca. 254) http://bibleprobe.com/falsebibles.htm "All of the other newer Bible versions, such as the NIV, NASB, etc. are based upon another manuscript family known as the Alexandrian Manuscript family which was put together by Origen of Alexandria, Egypt in about the 2nd century. Most scholars agree Origen was a heretic because of his denial of essential doctrines. In all, there are over 5,000 major changes between the Majority Text (KJV & Douay Reims) and the Minority Text (all other newer bibles)." The other person is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Hellbent (unfortunately for Madalyn, this term likely had more than figurative significance) on removing prayer and Jesus from the public schools of America, she is the chief reason why: 1) We have an unprecedented amount of violence, students commiting murder and other unprecedented acts of destruction and reckless disregard for life and everyone else's right to not have their freedom infringed upon. 2) We have had and continue to have a sickening, out of control population increase in the jails and prisons throught the U.S. 3) We have an absolutely ridiculous and shameful divorce rate and adultery rate in the United States. It's now "cool" (maybe to some) to be divorced, or the norm, as well as being a "single mom". 4) We have replaced God with man made "religions" called PSYCHOLOGY AND PSYCHIATRY, go ahead, flame away, it's the truth. Look at the success these have had, how many "patients" have continued to commit atrocities. Some will say "But this guy here said he was a Christian but look he's been found out to be a pedophile, or a serial killer." When your sitting on your death bed, don't forget to recite that excuse to yourself many times before you expire, Im sure it will amount to something. If God does not exist to YOU, SOMETHING ELSE DOES, that is taking His place. What could that be? 1) Money (and/or your life's work/passion) 2) Money (and/or your life's work/passion) 3) See number 1&2 5) Sports (Football, Hockey, Baseball), Sex, Alcohol, Drugs, Porn, Concerts, Gambling, etc. These are your gods, you don't consider them "gods" however, you see them as "life". Well, I don't make the rules, and neither do you. If you disagree, then please do me a favor. Please, make me a Universe.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 9:08 PM What's number 4? stubborn pride?

TrueAudio	Date: March 15, 2007 @ 9:13 PM 4) Your current Luciferian based philosopy: Humanism, and everything else that in one way, shape, or form, is founded upon a Babylonian system in which Man believes that he can "ascend", "become christed", become "more aware", etc. This is, genreally speaking, the religion of the Illuminati, disguised under such names as: Freemasonry, Scientology (both of which by the way, are the belief systems of most if not all of the RIAA/MPAA members, most judges, high officials, those in postitions of great power), and you wonder why these people are so "evil"?

pepe512000	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 12:27 AM Great thoughts people!~~ "man is prone to err", now there's an understatment. Madalyn Murray O'Hair....wasn't she murdered? Scientology..I studied that years ago, and now it seems all the rage with the "jet set" as if spirituality is something that needs to be worn as the "in thing" that they've just discovered. Tis to laugh... And I agree wholeheartedly, this ole planet is in grave trouble....but I still trust that God is in control.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 1:21 AM "Madalyn Murray O'Hare....wasn't she murdered?" Yeah, but not before she did the devil's work. "This ol' planet is in grave trouble....but I still trust that God is in control." Yes, God's in ultimate control, but: 1) For a season he's likely to let Satan have HIS "day" for 3 1/2 years. 2) He determined that the most stressful and perilous times Earth-dwellers will have ever faced are still ahead to come. (reference: the book of Revelations)

TrueAudio	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 11:56 AM Chertoff warns of Web of terrorism http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/160307Chertoff.htm Mr. Chertoff said. "In terms of recruiting, I would say that the principal way to enter the U.S. is through the Internet." Yeah, it certainly wouldn't be the wide open border would it Mr. Chertoff? Your child molesters and pedophiles that work at the Department of Homeland Security (btw I'd like to see DATELINE NBC nab one of you bastard scumbags, oh but you'd get off scott free wouldn't you?) -you need those illegals coming in to serve your NWO agenda, and how convenient it is for you to drag the Internet through the mud. I know you Chertoff, FEMA, and Gonzales, that you must do this, because you have to start working on preventing American citizens from communicating with each other at will at the click of a mouse so that we cannot discuss how to DEFEND ourselves against your tyrannical governemt which is our RIGHT as laid out in the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. You don't want people talking about the fact that they are suddenly missing family members when your jack booted sex offender, felon DHS "agents" start busting peoples doors down. You don't want Americans to be able to post to millions of people UNSAFE roads to avoid CHECKPOINTS that will lead to being hoarded off to some FEMA camp. You don't want Americans to be able to communicate to their LOCAL MILITIAS to WHERE YOU ROCKEFELLER/ROTHSCHILD/ASTOR CONTROLLED HENCHMEN are deployed so that you don't have to face a heavily armed force of PATRIOTS invoking their 2nd Amendment CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to defend this country FROM ALL ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. You don't want Americans alerting others in real time where your super high tech "crowd control" heat wave weapons are geographically that can disable thousands of people at a time at a distance of 1/4 mile. Chertoff, do you think people are really that stupid as to what the use of such vehicles mounted with such devices are going to be used for? Do you think we are so naive as to not realize YOUR INTENT of now having SILENT PREDATOR STEALTH DRONES FLYING IN THE US? When this "attack" on the Internet occurs, many will KNOW it was perpetrated by the US, possibly in conjunction with MI6, and the MOSSAD, and we know that you and/or your Illuminati cohorts, Chertoff, will attack the US STOCK EXHCANGE, because it has already started to happen/been insinuated at subtley on a small scale. You will also likely attack all BANK computer systems and MEDICAL computer networks, as well as probably disable, cripple KEY Internet backbones. YOUR lies will be quickly disseminated to all Internet Service providers in the Unite States, who will be gripped with irration PANIC and FEAR, backed up by Fox News (not limited to them though) propaganda, propagated by you . Then, just as depicted in Star Wars, you will then POSE AS THE SAVIOR TO THE US ECONOMY AND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE BY SAYING "NO NEED TO WORRY, WE HAVE A SOLUTION, OUR DHS AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IT PROFESSIONALS WILL HAVE THE INTERNET BACK UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE". THERE'S ONLY 1 PROBLEM WITH THAT, IT WILL BE YOUR INTERNET 2. http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg9.htm http://www.petitiononline.com/NO_NAU/petition.html

TrueAudio	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 2:10 PM "Chertoff warns of Web of terrorism" (link above) Now add in this: " Researchers Scheming to Rebuild Internet From Scratch" http://slashdot.org/articles/07/03/15/1830217.shtml http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/12501 http://cleanslate.stanford.edu/ "We believe that the current Internet has significant deficiencies that need to be solved before it can become a UNIFIED GLOBAL communication infrastructure." -emphasis mine

CriticalCodger	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 3:42 PM Yeah, and those "significant deficiencies" are that it isn't CONTROLLABLE enough to suit the globalist schemers!

CodeWarrior	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 4:09 PM Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :) OK... Atheist O'Hare "Madalyn Murray O'Hair....wasn't she murdered? " Answer- Yes. see http://www.who2.com/madalynmurrayohair.html I met O'Hair's son and his wife...they shopped at the same Whole Food store I did in Austin. They were assholes. Although there are nice athesists, many are humorless people who stab at what wonder and magic there is in life, trying to kill any sparkle there may be in the raindrops (not all are like this). I would put assholes like Penn and Teller, James "Amazing" Randi, and that a-hole head of Skeptical Inquirer, Michael Schirmer, and that be-atch...Susan Blackmore ...and just about anyone who associates with them, like Joe Nichols. I thank God every day that I am not an atheist (come on, gotta laugh at that one). Look, who in the name of all that is holy actually FOLLOWS the teachings of any religion? Christians DAMN sure don't. How about "remember the Sabbath" and keep it holy. News flash, the word "Sabbath", "Sabbat", and all the spellings thereof, refer to SEVENTH, as in the seventh day, as in , on the seventh day HE rested. The Sabbath is Saturday, and in the Bible, there is the urging that anyone working on the Sabbath should be stoned if they even so much as pick up sticks. That means no washing cars or being a checker at Great Wall o China MART. I read the Bible a lot as a kid, and there are some HORRIBLE things that are mandated according to Jewish law, and make NO mistake, Yeshua bar Yoseph was a Jew (or, Half Jew Half God). If we look at the Christian bible as it exists today, without the apocryphal texts, and you find some odd things...like the fact that Lucipher, is the Angel of Light (Lucipher means Light Bringer in Latin) and Adam and Eve were told to eat of every fruit, EXCEPT that of the Tree of Knowledge...hence, enlightenment (joining light and knowledge) almost appears antithetical to the traditional Christian tradition. One CANNOT disprove the existence of God. One cannot prove that there are no dragons anywhere. You can't prove a negative. In fact, if someone says they KNOW there is no God, it forms an interesting conundrum. To know everything, implies omniscient, and we know, by definition, to be omniscient, is only the purview of God. So , only GOD could be aware that there is no God :). Morality is an interesting topic. For example, "Thou shalt not kill". OK...but how about King David...didn't he kill people? Didn't the Angels kill the first born of the Egyptian people? But, even better, using the previous example, aren't people advised to stone to death people who violate Jewish laws against working on Saturday? Take homosexuality. Some use Biblical scripture to say it is a sin, and yet, God made homosexual humans, and homosexual animals, even hermaphroditic animals like earthworms that can cross-fertilize each other. The Romans certainly had homosexuality, and , because the movie The 300, about the Spartans is big right now, homosexuality was not only a fundamental part of ancient Greek male life, but an integral part of Spartan life. Of course, back to morality, in law there is malum in se, and malum prohibitum...things such as murder of children are bad in and of themselves, and there are things considered wrong ONLY because a law is passed making them illegal. Now, back to Pepe's notion that, "God is in control". According to some thought about the Bible, this Earth is the province of the devil. http://www.harmlessasdoves.com/satanownsgov.html "A plethora of scriptural evidence exists to confirm the above conclusion that Satan is in control of human governments and all worldly authority. For starters: 1 John 5:19: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of Satan. According to John, the world is under the control of Satan, just as Satan himself claimed during Jesus� temptation. " There have even been sects who deprived themselves of eating most kinds of food because they said all earthly things are under control of the devil, and since food is an earthly material, one ingests food and contaminates the body. The Albigenses thought procreation of children was the "supreme sin". http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/albigens.htm "The Albigenses stood on a totally different standpoint. The procreation of children was for them the supreme sin. A woman with child was described as having a devil, as possessed by the evil one. No one could be saved unless he renounced marriage. Even sins between unmarried folk, or unnatural crimes were looked upon as of less malice than marriage, for marriage was held to be the shameless flaunting of evil under the cover of legality, and there was less hope of repentance for so-called "wedded" folk. As human nature was too strong to be overcome by Albigensian tenets, only the perfecti submitted to the full rigourism of this unnatural superstition, the bulk of their followers lived the ordinary human life. These people regarded the perfecti with a veneration bordering on worship and they lived in the hope that sometime before death they would also renounce all gratification of the flesh and receive "the consolamentum." When they had undergone this rite of complete renunciation, when in fear of death or in moments of fanaticism and there seemed danger of their returning to the ordinary ways of the world they often went on hunger strike and starved themselves to death. This death was often forced upon them by their Albigensian brethren, who refused all food and drink to the unfortunate victim, thereby thinking save him or her from eternal damnation. It is not contended that the perfecti were all people who were leading sinful, hypocritical lives, no doubt many were honest fanatics. " People interpret religious texts and teachings differently. There are the Great Vehicle and Small Vehicle Buddhists (Mahayana and Hinayana), there are folks in the Taoist Religion (Tao Chiao) and the Taoist Philosophy (Tao Chia). I know a lot of so-called Christians, but NONE follows the full teachings in the Old and New Testament (and before you say X-tians just follow the new, because Jesus came and made things nicer, remember the Bible itself, "I am the Lord thy God, and I change not". He (God) is supposed to be the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow. I disagree with those who say that Jesus acts like our Lawyer, and paid the price on the Cross so that his Dad would be nice to us...that's just silly to me. How petty would a God be that you had to get in good with his kid so he would show favoritism to him? And of course, I listen to Alex Jones too True Audio, and I know about the NWO. :) ~Code

CodeWarrior	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 4:13 PM Oooops...I met O'Hair's son and his wife BEFORE they were murdered.... no miracle happened like Lazarus in the Bible , in this case.

CodeWarrior	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 4:25 PM but, this about O'Hair...let me preface my comment by saying that both of my parents were preachers, and I went to a parochial school for the first four years of life...they were fundamentalist Pentecostals, but I went to an Episcopalian school, and was an altar boy while there...I prayed every morning and at lunch, and when I went to public school, I prayed before I ate, and silently throughout the day, even though it wasn't "cool" to do so. In light of that, I applauded O'Hair's case "taking prayer out of the schools". No one can keep ME from praying in any venue I am in, but, for someone who is not a Christian, or who is a non-believer/atheist, they should not feel pressured or ostracized because they don't believe. I don't see her right as the devil's work (respectfully), but, more as a victory for the individual over the masses. Remember, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. :)~Code

CodeWarrior	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 4:25 PM Her fight, I meant.

pepe512000	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 5:58 PM Ah Code, I was wondering when you'd jump in here...and we've crossed swords here before, my friend, on these subjects....for the most part, I agree with most of what you've said, just a couple of points I tend to disagree with. (cause they are Scriptural) I mention that God is still in control, in spite of this being Satans time on earth, because Christ will be back....Lucifer will be sent to his appointment with the Lake of Fire. Rev. 20:10 Jesus Said...No man comes to the Father, except THROUGH HIM. John 14:6 I can't ignore, nor refute His words. ~~Although there are nice athesists, many are humorless people~~ I had to laugh at this..I just read the other day, wish I could find it again, but basically the article was saying that pessimists have no sense of humour..guess I was comparing that to athiests..they may not be one and the same..but perhaps it's true then, that a good deal of athiests are pessimistic as well. I said MAY be people, I'll not lump all atheists into this unhappy category....I'm pretty sure there are probably just as many happy atheists as well.... (got to cover all my tracks here) But I have yet to meet a really unhappy Christian, and that's the truth of that! That could be a whole different discussion :) Carry on....

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 6:35 PM "Have our recent turmoils driven away all our active participants?" Mike, you're still having them?? amazing.

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 6:55 PM "I disagree with those who say that Jesus acts like our Lawyer, and paid the price on the Cross so that his Dad would be nice to us...that's just silly to me." Those who interprut what Jesus is all about this way have no idea what his death was all about. Keeping religion out of schools is funny to me. classes discuss Buddah, Tao, Confucious, and even mohammad while no one bats an eyelash. let the word Jesus be heard, Wham!! a battery of politically correct Lawyers are there to stop it. But lets go a bit further. If we really need to have seperation of Church and state then seperate it. quit pussyfooting around. ban the prayers at the opening session of Congress and Supreme Court. Remove chaplins from the military. (the government has no right paying good honest hard working tax payers money on religion). Those Crosses and Star of David symbols at Arlington National Cemetery... they've gotta go. Not on Government property. quit posining the minds of people with the concept of a good, rightous, loving, perfect God and teach us to rely instead on the flawed, imperfect, self rightous, pompas humans that we are. After all 15% of the population can't be wrong. speaking of which, isn't it amazing in a country that moans and complains about the winner of the 2000 election not getting the required 50% of the vote (which isn't required at all) because the majority should rule, caters to the minority view when it comes to political correctness? interesting tidbit to ponder.

TrueAudio	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 10:12 PM "I don't see her right as the devil's work (respectfully), but, more as a victory for the individual over the masses. Remember, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." Democracy is not freedom, in other words, and we shouldn't be bitching about losing or having had lost something that we should have never had and should never have in the first place, welcome to the biggest brainwash of the century. Rep. Ron Paul, MD \| February 7 2005 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2005/070205notfreedom.htm http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html "��man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.� ~ Ronald Reagan We�ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. George Orwell wrote about �meaningless words� that are endlessly repeated in the political arena.* Words like �freedom,� �democracy,� and �justice,� Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell�s view, political words were �Often used in a consciously dishonest way.� Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word �democracy� as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, �There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.� John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word �democracy� is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents? A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They�re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government. Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders� belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn�t be called taxes, they�d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less. The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such �freedom� for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive � and thus incompatible with freedom. �Liberalism,� which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state � but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today�s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. �Conservatism,� which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity. Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word �freedom� to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of �liberals� and �conservatives,� in favor of an accurate term for both: statists. Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word." ---------------------------------------------- http://www.fff.org/comment/com0502j.asp "�What?� you ask. �How can that be? Democracy is freedom! President Bush and our military leaders tell us so.� Unfortunately, however, it just ain�t so. President Bush and the Pentagon are as wrong about freedom and democracy as they were about WMDs in Iraq. The fact is that democracy is the very worst form of government there is, except for all the rest, as Winston Churchill once pointed out. Its only real advantage, as Ludwig von Mises observed, is that it provides the citizenry with the ability to peacefully change a regime by voting it out of office. To change a totalitarian regime almost always entails violence, such as a revolution. What ultimately matters with respect to freedom is not so much how a ruler is selected but rather the extent of the ruler�s powers once he�s installed into office. Let�s assume, for example, that an elected ruler has omnipotent power over the citizenry. That is, there is no legislature that enacts laws and no judicial branch to interpret them. Whatever the ruler says, goes. He rules by decree. He has the power to jail anyone he wants for any reason whatsoever, to torture people, to punish critics, to shut down the press and public assemblies, to confiscate weapons, and to send the nation into war. He has unlimited power to tax. He even has the power to force people to attend religious services. Could people in that society be considered free? President Bush would undoubtedly say, �Yes, because people had the right to vote, and he was the one who won. And if people feel that their ruler has abused his powers, they are free to oust him from office in the next election.� But how can living under dictatorship, albeit democratically elected, be considered genuine freedom? It�s not difficult to see how our American ancestors felt about democracy. They considered it so bad that they enacted the Bill of Rights to protect us from it. After all, carefully read the Bill of Rights. You�ll notice something interesting: It doesn�t give people rights at all. Instead, it protects us from democracy. The popular refrain, �We are the government,� is false too. After all, if we are the government, then why does the Bill of Rights protect those of us in the private sector from those in the government sector? Will Bush�s militarily installed democracy bring freedom to the Iraqi people? He says it already has, because the Iraqi people were free to vote. There are strong indications, however, that the new Iraqi regime intends to establish close ties to the Islamic regime in Iran, which Bush says is evil and unfree, and may even mirror many Iranian policies. If that happens, one can only wonder whether he will change his tune about democracy and freedom, especially if U.S. troops end up killing and dying both in Iraq and Iran."

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 10:22 PM Very very good and well thought out. Freedom is never absolute. However there are a couple things. "The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away." To be honest I've never heard a responsible Democratic liberal make those kinds of statements. or insinuations. "today�s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world." yes, just like Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy and Roosevelt did. they were good republicans. The major argument you present is right on and exactly true. Both the Repubs and Dems will both do the same things if the Majority of the masses demand it however.

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 10:27 PM Bush is no different in this matter than any other president. contrary to popular belief on the left Life would not be a bed of Roses, nor would the arab people love us, nor would attacks on us stop if we had a different outcome in 2000. We need to get out of our ivory tower of simplicity and stop believing the worlds problems are caused by, or cured by one individual. If we spent half our energy coming up with positive solutions to the worlds problems as we do ripping apart those we hate, THEN we'd have the kind of world which we all would like to live in. But alas that's wishful thinking.

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 10:31 PM by the way, Hitler brought employment, prosperity, national pride, and order to a failed democratic system so why did we have to oust him and have a military occupation of an entire contenent for decades. when he never attacked us?? sure his ally attacked us but he didn't. Russia was an ally of Sadam too but didn't attack us. maybe we should've attacked them too cause they were allies.

compmore	Date: March 16, 2007 @ 10:34 PM I'm sorry, I ment Afghanistan not Sadam

CriticalCodger	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 1:13 AM "How petty would a God be that you had to get in good with his son so he would show favoritism to you?" Here's what God says: "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and My ways are not your ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8,9 God is sovereign, ominipotent, omniscient, righteous but able to grant mercy, etc. He is not a human with human reasoning that He should be expected to act like we act or think like we think. Critiquing God is not the best thing to do. "Thou shalt not kill". OK...but how about King David...didn't he kill people? Didn't the Angels kill the first born of the Egyptian people?" First of all, I can't help but wonder what your motive is in writing this. Second, there is so much more in Scripture that can bring fairly good perspective as to the intent of this "Thou shalt not kill" commandment, namely, taking a life without just cause. God does maintain the prerogative to think differently than man, and this could be one of those cases in the minds of some. Other parts of the Bible can shed light how we are not to kill others out of viciousness or anger or greed or some other base reason. But God has delegated the right of government to execute murderers. And then there is the aspect of self-defense sometimes requiring lethal force for protection of self or familly. More could be mentoned, but I don't want to prolong any one issue. A good case could be made that a government should not involve its citizens in military warfare except in instances where the nation is imminently about to be attacked. It is quite doubtful that the U.S.'s so-called pre-emptive attack against Iraq would have prompted a condoning nod from God. "But, ... aren't people advised to stone to death people who violate Jewish laws against working on Saturday?" Let's keep in mind that the ancient Herbrew theocracy was ruled almost directly by God, and His ways, though often subjected to second-guessing on the part of some, were ultimately the best ways for His people in the long run because He is omniscient about any other alternatives not being as good. Additionally, I take note of your use of the word "aren't" instead of the expected "weren't", so this might well imply: a) You wonder if that stoning directive ought to still be in effect; OR b) You are attempting to find fault with the Bible or how God did things. "Take homosexuality. Some use Biblical scripture to say it is a sin . . ." And some CITE Biblical scripture to say it is a sin; i.e., Romans 1:24-27. This is indeed a parting of the ways between what God doesn't think is okay and what man thinks is okay. "God made homosexual humans." Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :) Aren't you going out on a limb a little bit there? Has that been established with a degree of certainty? Here's a personal testimony: I was born with a tendency to want to be selfish and take things. I had to work at refraining from catering to this proclivity once I got out of early childhood. Some people continue in a vice into adulthood. Except by the grace of God, there go you and me. I suppose there are various OTHER tendencies that God would consider improper, and that He doesn't want us to indulge in when we grow up. Maybe some of them are found in the first chapter of Romans. "Look, who in the name of all that is holy actually FOLLOWS the teachings of any religion? Christians DAMN sure don't." Unfortunately, many Christians or other religious people do not follow the teachings closely. Some try hard with prayer and perseverance, but still fall short . . . of what? Perfection? Or what other standard? Whatever standard it is, we can't perform to perfection, and that's the only standard the Father, who has to be true to His holiness, can accept. Christ lived without sin, though, and His perfection counts in our stead to the Father if we have faith in Christ's meritious life and His suffering and death for us. It is regrettable that many believers do not live their lives in ways that bring glory to God. Technically, that does not detract from Scripture's truths. It can, however, give cause for doubt or disdain. (Like the bumper sticker says, "Crap happens!")

CriticalCodger	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 1:38 AM ERRATA: "mentoned" instead of mentioned "meritious" instead of meritorious

independentm...	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 1:57 AM Very glad to see you folks are being respectful of one another while discussing such hot-button issues. I suppose it would be wrong of me to deny the existance since I can't disprove God, (but if he/she/it exists, God could show up and say "Hi, here I am and here's proof it is me.") And tho I have not been convinced by any of the evidence that there is a God, I don't personally need any proof (nor "belief") either way. I still function just fine IMHO. I do recognize (and respect the decision) of others who wish to have personal faith. I also recognize and respect that personal faith can take many forms. (Various religions and creeds.) I want religion taught in schools, but I don't want religion PREACHED in schools. (BIG difference! The majority of USA's religious right often cry about the Bible being banned from public school while "other" religions are taught... but for the most part, this is a false charge IMHO with the intent to get the Bible preached.) Bottom line is that I believe in freedom of ...AND from religion. But mostly, I believe in freedom. It's not an "absolute" because we can't always obtain it, but I think we should always strive for it as a society.

compmore	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 2:40 AM Mike, God has shown his proof to you. but it's your decision weither you want to see it or not. free will. Each of us has to make that decision in our own hearts and respect each other for it. it's between the individual and God.

compmore	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 2:41 AM I'm going to bed now. see you again in about four months or so. the political race should be heating up again by then and I'll check back to see if there is civil discourse on it this time. somehow I have my doubts.

pessimist	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 6:41 AM Somehow I have my doubts as well, but then, I'm not known as a pessimist for nothing. Speaking of my name, there was something about pessimism posted yesterday that I wanted to refer back to for a moment: It had to do with an article saying that pessimists have no sense of humor. Then it was said that perhaps most atheists are pessimistic. Yes, most atheists prefer to be pessimistic about the prospects of there being a God! Pessimists have no sense of humor? Perhaps they don't laugh or say funny things because they don't want to be mistaken for someone who feels good ... about things.

pessimist	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 6:48 AM And maybe they consider feeling good as something reserved for optimists.

TrueAudio	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 1:25 PM "Advanced EFS Data Recovery 3.2 Breaks Vista EFS Encryption" http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19905 Screw MSFT, and Vista encryption, use http://www.truecrypt.org/

gdZiemann	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 1:39 PM First of all, sorry that I disappeared in the middle of the conversation. Pepe wrote: ~~moral rules tend to be defined by a distinct minority and enforced against the majority~~ Are you simply referring to our governments control over us as the minority rule? ---------- No, although that's a good example as well. We're talking about moral rules, and I was actually thinking of any religious organization, although the Catholic church best illustrates the idea. There's only one Pope at a time. He's the Decider. What he says determines the moral rule for millions. ---------- "God made homosexual humans." Whoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah :) Aren't you going out on a limb a little bit there? Has that been established with a degree of certainty? I really tried to avoid the God issue in this thread, but this I'll make an exception for. And I'm REALLY not trying to offend anyone. If you believe in God, then everything came from God. God is supposed to be omnipotent, all-seeing, all knowing. God doesn't make mistakes. You can't suddenly exclude gays, or serial killers, or realtors just because they offend your sensibilities. Where did they come from then? An evolutionary accident in the midst of all that intelligent design?

pepe512000	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 2:47 PM God did create the potential for homosexuality, like He created our potential ability to murder, to cheat, to steal, to lie, etc, etc......I'm thinking it may just be another big old God Test...that we again, have failed...there's that facinating free will thingy again.....

CriticalCodger	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 4:28 PM "If you believe in God, then everything came from God. God is supposed to be omnipotent, all-seeing, all knowing. God doesn't make mistakes." Each supposed-to-be is a valid presumption, yes. Intelligent design by God. Free will for mankind. But, keep in mind: God's ways and means are transcendent to ours. Here's where we could consider the passage about God's ways of thinking and acting that go beyond our analysis. You might recall I used that in my response to CodeWarrior last night. To begin with, it's necessary to refer to the book of Genesis. Strangely enough, God didn't create an absolutely perfect heaven on earth -- the Garden of Eden. For one thing, He made a rule for humans that could be broken (don't eat fruit from a certain tree). Breaking that rule was a possilbility, and if/once that happened, things could be expected to change, and probably not for the better. (God knew all about that in advance; He's omniscient, as you said.) He also allowed Satan (the original deceiver) access to the first humans, meaning he was free to periodically tempt them to do wrong, even though they were created with power/choice to resist him. The point of this background is to show that God didn't plan on people being able to live perfectly, nor did He facilitate altogether perfect conditions for them. Quite naturally, our human minds are prompted to speculate WHY. If you and I were God, we might make humans unable to violate our will in any way, or at least, we would intervene to preclude that from occurring! And, certainly, we woudn't let a troublesome villiain like Satan access to their pristine environment. No way! It's easy to see how God's methods don't fit our conception of how things "ought to have been", so to speak. Occasionally, Scripture gives some good clues as to some of His motives and methods. In another part of the Bible (besides Genesis), it indicates God having decided certain things as a way to bring satisfaction and glory to Him by giving people the power to choose whether to serve him, or not, in their lives (like Pepe said about free will). He could have made robotic humanoids to live flawlessly in a true earthly paradise, but He didn't. What God treasures is when people who could consistently choose to NOT follow Him instead decide to rather consistently do so! (I know, "rather" implies imperfection, which exists with all humans, and that's a potential "dilemma" for God, but one which He resolved long ago... in fact, prior to creation.) Well, the painful dilemma for a holy God, in all this arena of free will and options in life, is that there is a price that had to be paid for disobedience! The price is one that had to be suffered and made up for. (Again, our minds can't comprehend, or aren't inclined to accept, this aspect about God.) God's sense of justice is as powerful as His sense of mercy, and that says a lot about Him. He obviously knew there would be a tendency for evil (murder, theft, abuse, war, you name it) in this bitter world. But with his standards of holiness so high, He can't tolerate disobedience to his will (in the Bible this is known as THE LAW) without some drastic recourse/retribution. In short, the only righteously (by His standard) acceptable payment that His nature accepts to deal with sin was/is (on behalf on humankind, I'm speaking): a) a substitutionary perfect life to be credited to the account of those who are penitent over sin; b) a substitutionary suffering for all sins committed for all time; c) personal belief in this process occurring; d) spiritual commitment on the part of those being saved by faith; e) acknowledgement and reliance on the Holy Spirit as Facilitator in the process of saving faith and in living that faith to the best of one's ability, knowing that Christ's cloak of meritorious perfection adequately covers flaws and occasional transgressions (but not the subsequent living of a blatantly vile life). No ordinary human is perfect; thus none could qualify for this daunting substitution project (vicarious atonement). God's Son (Jesus Christ) agreed to take on the form of a human to live a perfect life and then sacrifice His earthly life as a ransom for everyone (everyone who trusts, by faith, this act of redemption). On a Roman cross of crucifixion, He not only suffered the expected excruciating painful death associated with that monstrous form of execution, but the Father also had to heap upon Him the total load of suffering for the sins of all time (that's what the nature of God the Father demanded). Since Christ retained the divine ability to do it, that's what happened (He suffered the pangs of hell for us). Then, Jesus rose from the dead and returned to His heavenly place, ready to receive prayers that get people right with God. (Jesus, like the Father, is true God; God has power to exempt Himself from the physical limitations in this universe; He created the universe, so He can do that metaphysically.) Metaphysically, by the way, is only alternative to the biggest thorny problem that remains unsolved for empirically oriented science: How did the original matter for the universe get generated in the first place? (They'd rather not discuss that; they're more comfortable in having some matter already on hand to play with -- i.e., the Big Bang Theory). Allow me to approach wrap-up by anticipating another issue that's probably on your mind. But first, as I wrote last night, God reserves the sovereign right to do things quite differently from what we might think would have been better or easier. Kind of like us preferring to create robotic humanoids in the first place, or prohibiting the devil from being around to try to get us to do wrong. Here's the thing: Instead of people resorting to second-guessing, what we all need to do is ponder what He values (the Bible gives good clues on that) because we all going to be ultimately responsible/accountable to Him sometime in the future! Anyone can pray for pride to stop hindering them. Anyone can ask God, in Jesus' name, for the Holy Spirit to enable them to obtain forgiveness and for the hope of eternal life. Anyway, some folks think God goofed by creating an angel who could possibly fall into rebellion (and Lucifer did!) And, even after that, they think He goofed in not annhilating Lucifer on the spot, or at least, God didn't have to let him have a crack at coaxing Adam and Eve to transgress that rule about the forbidden fruit. But, see, the varous wrong actions resulting from people having free will is the price that God needs to have paid for letting people have a viable choice between Him and the devil. There really aren't any accidents or errors or unforeseen circumstances that surprise God. The only surprised minds are ours. Well, sometimes surprised, sometimes obstinate. Okay, that's sufficient theology for the moment. Sorry for the length, but I didn't want to risk responding with a brief and perhaps superficial treatment to your important questions.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 5:16 PM I wrote: "Anyone can ask God, in Jesus' name, for the Holy Spirit to enable them to obtain forgiveness and for the hope of eternal life." There was an omission in that segment; it should have said: Anyone can ask God, in Jesus' name, for the Holy Spirit to enable them to believe the good news (Gospel) about being saved through Christ, and be granted forgiveness and the hope of eternal life.

TrueAudio	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 9:27 PM "...God doesn't make mistakes." "You can't suddenly exclude gays, or serial killers, or realtors just because they offend your sensibilities. Where did they come from then? An evolutionary accident in the midst of all that intelligent design?" "realtors"? It's a sin to sell homes? They came from you, and me in the sense that the effeminate and serial killers are human beings the same as us. Our fleshly bodies, which all age and deteriorate over time, are the consequence of the original sin of choosing to disobey God in the garden of Eden, instead believing the first lie of the Devil who said: "ye shall be as God's". We were fine at the beginning of our existence up until that point. God had provided everything we would ever need and we had ETERNAL LIFE until the fall of man. God is eternal, everything he created was intended to be eternal from the beginning of creation. Through our freedom of choice, we rescinded our initial state of eternal life, and thus, death was appointed to us, a consequence of sin. Death is a consequence everyone will face, death is 100% guaranteed at some point, and it is the consequence that transcends down to us because of Eve's following the guidance of a LIE, just the same way a murderer believes (rationalizes) to themselves the LIE that they can take someone else's life freely, their action has guaranteed consequences that THEY ARE NOT FREE TO CHOOSE. First, remember, millions of people who love to attack and attempt to discredit bible believers are unaware that the knowledge that they have acquired which they use as ammunition against the truth; has been derived from two predominant sources of disinformation: 1) ecumenicalism, and 2) the ancient texts of Origen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen People love to say �Blah, the bible is a bunch of BS, the bible was written by man, and/or is fake�. The defense �The bible was written by man� is used so often, because what it really says is this: �I'll be damned if I'm going to change my life for that bs, I'll be damned if I stop getting drunk, I'll be damned if I'm not going to go through with my gay marriage, I'll be damned if I stop having secret affairs behind the back of with my ornery wife in this marriage I'm in.� Well, first off the bible that you are likely exposed to these days, was written by man alone (not divinely inspired by God), and is largely false and incorrect. Satan had his hand in it to try to keep you from Christ, this is historical fact and does NOT require faith of any kind to prove for yourself, all it requires is the willingness to look back in history and read about the ancient texts, who wrote them, what texts were used in history, and what bibles they were the progenitors of. Christians should not be telling you how to live your life if you are unsaved, Christians should be telling you about Jesus message of Salvation, meaning that you are in DANGER, it's not about �how you live�, that will come after you are saved, God Himself can and will guide you to become what He wants you to be once you realize your corrupted �natural� condition (lost, separated from God). This is the current condition that what your current Father, the Devil, wants you to remain oblivious to. Your Father, Satan, sinned before man even existed. He rebelled against God before you ever did, he hated and thumbed his nose at God before you ever did, he blasphemed against God before you ever did, and he awaits a CONSEQUENCE of the greatest punishment in existence. The reason I emphasize the words �before you� is because innumerable numbers of people love to spout off verbiage as if their defiance against the bible and God is something �new� or is �the in thing� or because �it's the 21st century�, or that their wide grinned smile and mockery of the bible is the result of what they believe is a �superior, �scientific�and/or modern education�. Yeah, as if millions of human beings before you sir, or ma'am weren't just as rebellious as you are today, thousands of years ago who stuck their chest out or held their chin in the air with pride back then thinking that their �confidence� was superiorly derived from current trends and �education�, �philosophy�, or theologians and scholars of their own time. History repeats itself in every way. That seemingly ironclad excuse isn't going to work. Romans 3:23 �For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;� Bible believers do not have an �agenda� as you might think they do, we are not in it �for ourselves�. No one �gets converted� by a bible believer, no one �gets converted� by a pastor, a minister, a priest, etc. Bible believers aren't preaching to you to engage in a battle of wit, we possess no pride, it's not about �proving you wrong�, and/or �proving ourselves right�. It is a mistake for you to think that it is. Your only hurting yourself by gleefully defending that belief. Anyone who challenges a person to prove to them that God exists, is real, and/or that the bible is the truth (or isn't false), or is in fact, divinely inspired by God, is trying to set that person up to justify his or her �pet sins� and current �belief system� or lifestyle, out of cocksure, arrogant pride. God is no respecter of persons: Acts 10:34 �Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: � Romans 3:22 �Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:� Revelation 20:15 �And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.� People love to bash �faith�. If a blind wife is married to a loving and trusting husband, and the husband tells her �That's a beautiful blue sweater your wearing�, can his wife �know� that the sweater she is wearing is blue (because she can't see it, therefore how can she KNOW�)? She CANNOT THROUGH directly OBSERVABLE �PROOF�. She can however have FAITH in that her husband is telling her the truth, and just because she cannot SEE her sweater, doesn't mean that the fact that it is blue IS FALSE with respect to her faith/trust. God created a special place for Satan to pay the price, it's called hell. God made hell for Satan, the Beast, and the False Prophet, and all of the angels that followed him, this happened before man was created. Final judgment for them still awaits, and is guaranteed. Human beings love to use �free will�, and �freedom� as a defense to justify your belief that you are not, and cannot be held accountable for anything after death (maybe you think that you'll be just �worm food�), freedom and free will does not transcend into the power for you to change the consequences that will inevitably (by design) follow you as the result of the sin of unbelief. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first rebellion:: Isaiah 14:12-15 �How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.� Death, the penalty of sin: Hebrews 9:27 �And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:� Genesis 2:17 �But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.� Romans 5:12 �Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:� Genesis 3:19 �In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.� James 1:14,15 �But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.� 1 Corinthians 15:56 �The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God does not want anyone (meaning you) to go to hell Romans 5:8 �But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.� John 10:28 �And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God will destroy all of creation to erase all presence of sin once and for all: Revelation 16:20 �And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.� Revelation 20:11 �And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.� Revelation 21:1 �And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God has said that man cannot grasp how wonderful of a place he has created for those who accept His Son as savior in heaven: 1 Corinthians 2:9 �But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. � The law of entropy repealed: death and sin is vanquished, true peace prevails Revelation 21:3-7 �And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even the Devil and his angels believe in God. Their belief is knowledge of His existence, but are not redeemed, nor redeemable, nor will he(they) ever be spared from judgment. Instead, they are afraid, KNOWING what their future has in store for them. James 2:19 �Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.� Revelation 20:14 �And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.� Matthew 25:41 �Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:� Jude 1:6 �And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.� The second death is spiritual death, permanent separation of God to pay for your sins eternally in fire and darkness, you can escape this fate by praying and truly confessing from your heart, with the prayer at the bottom. Titus 1:2 �In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; � John 14:6 �Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.� Dear God, your divine word has shown me my sin, the power of your truth has revealed to me that I, in fact am guilty before you, I have sinned against you. Jesus, your Son had said that He was the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man can come before the Father but by Him. Forgive me for all my transgressions, forgive me for my unbelief. You have said that you cannot lie, and I believe you. I believe and accept the sacrifice of your Son on the cross and the blood He shed to pay the penalty in my behalf, because I cannot pay it myself, nor can anyone but you. Please Lord, save me from the judgment of eternal hell, destruction, and torment, come into my heart and save my soul, in Jesus name, Amen.

TrueAudio	Date: March 17, 2007 @ 10:07 PM "instead believing the first lie of the Devil who said: "ye shall be as God's" edit out the word "instead"

CodeWarrior	Date: March 19, 2007 @ 3:33 PM Satan rules the RIAA, MPAA, BSA.... We're all angels here :)

CodeWarrior	Date: March 19, 2007 @ 3:40 PM "God made homosexual humans." OK...let's say there is a God. And, the Christian view is that everything on earth was created by God, and he/she/it has ultimate say so over everything. I believe prevailing thought is there is a strong biological/genetic component/etiological link to whether an individual is homosexual or not (if needed, I can conjure up a few links on this). So, if there are homosexual men on earth, God is the ultimate source, just like God, by definition, is the source of all Good and all Evil, because, if another entity was as powerful as God, and could put things here that God didn't want to be here, it would be a direct attack on the traditional Christian model of God as all powerful, and the source of light, land, water, humans, animals, etc. Or not ;)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 19, 2007 @ 4:19 PM ". . . God, by definition, is the source of all Good and all Evil. If another entity were as powerful as God, and could put things here that God didn't want to be here, it would be a direct attack on the traditional Christian model of God as all powerful . . ." Your premise depends on a conditional, "if." (If a designated condition exists, then _____________ follows.) The Bible does not portray Satan as powerful as God. And, as previously covered, God in His sovereign ways (sometimes mysterious ways to man's notion), can reserve reasons for doing things (or allowing things) that we either haven't been briefed on or have trouble agreeing with. Having improper tendences or committing improper acts, etc., owe their source not from God but indirectly from the adversary (Satan). God permitted this lamentable (by our thinking) situation to occur because He has a higher goal to reach from these circumstances: the benefits that can accrue to His kingdom through the existence of free will. Someone once wrote that two things are initially intuitive in coming to grips with the prospect of an omnipotent divine force: 1) God exists. 2) We're not Him.

pepe512000	Date: March 19, 2007 @ 6:44 PM 1) God exists. 2) We're not Him. I love that! But lets have a look at the science of an inherited deviation.... 1)~~~1991 In "A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men" published in Science (vol. 253, pages 1034-7) Simon LeVay et. al. state that the hypothalamus in the brains of gay men were a different size than those of straight men.~~~ Does this mean that if your hat doesn't fit..you should check your hypothalamus? 2) 1993 Dean H. Hamer, Ph.D. et. al, publishes their findings of "a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome," pointing toward at least some inheritance of sexual orientation. Arggggg... Just Read this... http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html 1998 Dennis McFadden et. al. publish their findings that the inner ears of gay women work more like those of men. The discovery adds new support to the theory that sexual orientation may be predisposed at birth. Just how do mens ears work anyway? 1999 Anthony Bogaert, Ph.D., published an article in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 213-221) which stated: "The relation between sexual orientation and penile dimensions in a large sample of men was studied...On all five measures, homosexual men reported larger penises than did heterosexual men...Alterations of typical levels of prenatal hormones in homosexual men may account for these findings." This is the best one yet....Did these guys actually go out and measure everyone? They couldn't have measured my husband. :) 2004 October: Qazi Rahman, Ph.D. et. al. publishes a study which examined the eyeblink startle responses to acoustic stimuli of 59 healthy heterosexual and homosexual men and women. It concluded that "homosexual women showed significantly masculinized PPI [eye blink] compared with heterosexual women, whereas no difference was observed in PPI between homosexual and heterosexual men." Dr. Rahman stated in an interview that "because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than learned, this strongly indicates that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth." Hey, blinky...what's shakkin! These are all really sad SCIENTIFC studies http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html Study done on twins "Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project As Dr. Collins would agree, environment can influence gene expression, and free will determines the response to whatever predispositions might be present. Dr. Collins succinctly reviewed the research on homosexuality and offers the following: "An area of particularly strong public interest is the genetic basis of homosexuality. Evidence from twin studies does in fact support the conclusion that heritable factors play a role in male homosexuality. However, the likelihood that the identical twin of a homosexual male will also be gay is about 20% (compared with 2-4 percent of males in the general population), indicating that sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations [emphasis added]." The heritability estimates for homosexuality is substantially lower than General Cognitive Ability, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Aggression and Traditionalism! Dr. Collins noted that environment--particularly childhood experiences--as well as the role of free will and choice affect us all in profound ways. As researchers discover increasing levels of molecular detail about inherited factors that underlie our personalities, it's critical that such data be used to illuminate the issues, not provide support to ideologues. Myself, I still have to stick with the Scriptures; which tells it like it is...from the Old Testament to the New...it didn't change. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, not idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Corinthians 6:9-10). "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Romans 1:24, 26-27). And this is the longest thing I've ever submitted here, so I'm going away now...

CodeWarrior	Date: March 20, 2007 @ 2:52 PM I tried posting a reply but system would not let me.

CodeWarrior	Date: March 20, 2007 @ 2:54 PM Reply Part I The Francis Crick link is found at Narth.com...I submit they are biased and have a religious agenda...see this link about Narth.com http://exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/09/the-qualificati/feed/ Additional reading about genetic basis of homosexuality in homo sapiens (lol...Homo sapiens...thinking man...in and of itself, that's a joke)... http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/ http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html "Researchers first suspected that homosexuality might also be gene-related when they studied the occurrence of gayness in siblings. Franz J. Kallman’s and W. W. Schlegel’s experiments in the 1950s and 1960s showed that identical twins had a 100 percent concordance rate for homosexual orientation, where concordance is defined as the level of similarity existing for different characteristics (Wertz 1). Although the results seemed overwhelmingly high, they laid the base for further studies. In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard conducted a similar experiment comparing identical twins, fraternal twins, and nongenetically related adopted brothers. By placing advertisements in gay newspapers, they were able to be relatively certain that the twin responding to the ad was homosexual; by sending the other twin a questionnaire, they were able to determine the other twin’s sexual orientation. If homosexuality is genetically linked, the probability of both identical twins being gay should be higher than that of fraternal twins, which should be still higher than that of nongenetically-related brothers. Indeed, Bailey and Pillard found that both siblings were gay in fifty-two percent of identical twins, in twenty-two percent of fraternal twins, and in only five percent of nonrelated brothers (Burr, Separate 35; Hamer 28; LeVay 112; Wertz 1). In 1994, Frederick Whitham of Arizona State University conducted a similar study and determined that if one twin was gay, there was a sixty-six percent chance that his/her twin would also be gay (Matthews). Granted, if homosexuality was solely gene dependent, Bailey and Pillard would have found 100 percent gayness in identical twins. Though their results did not reveal such a relationship, the numbers were significant enough that they could conclude that homosexuality is gene related. Yet perhaps the most compelling evidence that sexual orientation has a biological basis came in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; as a result, he hypothesized that homosexuality may be an X-linked trait since men inherit their X chromosome from their mother. To test this theory, Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000 (138). Hamer also found that no other region of the X chromosome is linked to sexual orientation, for none of the sixteen markers outside Xq28 showed any statistically significant concordance (139). Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Thus, it makes sense that Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives because homosexuality is X-linked. Admittedly, Hamer has not isolated a “gay gene,�? but rather a region of over five million base pairs in which such a gene may exist. Critics wonder why “the researchers did not do the obvious control experiment of checking for the presence of these markers among heterosexual brothers of the gay men they studied�? (qtd. in Hamer, 141). Yet the answer is obvious: Hamer was not trying to prove that Xq28 alone determines a person’s sexual orientation, but rather that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. Combined with the results of other genetic studies, Hamer’s findings only strengthen the argument that homosexuality has genetic links."

CodeWarrior	Date: March 20, 2007 @ 2:55 PM Reply Part II And http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/npr_letters_on_the_biological_ba.htm "euroendocrine Studies Neuroendocrine views were originally motivated by the observation that gay men are like most women in being attracted to men; lesbians are like most men in their attraction patterns. The neuroendocrine view posits a process that is analogous to the differentiation of the external genitalia, about which much is known. At the risk of oversimplifying, the basic neuroendocrine hypothesis is that sexual orientation is determined by the early (probably prenatal) effects of androgens on relevant neural structures. If these structures are effectively exposed to high levels of androgens, then they are masculinized, and attraction to women will result in adulthood. If they are not exposed to high levels of androgens (either because there are low amounts of androgens or because the relevant tissues are insensitive to their effects), the structures do not masculinize, and attraction to men will result. Several lines of research support the likelihood of neurohormonal influences on human sexual orientation, and we consider them from the least to the most direct. Studies of rodents have shown clearly that some sex-typical sexual behavior can be affected by altering early androgen levels. Adult female rats and mice that received male-typical doses of androgens sufficiently early will, under certain circumstances, display some male mating behaviors such as mounting and reduced lordosis. Conversely, males deprived of early androgens will show the opposite pattern of behavior. It has been widely acknowledged--by both sides of the biology debate--that neither mounting nor lordosis behavior is directly analogous to human sexual orientation, in which the sex of attraction is primary. Nevertheless, these studies have been heuristically valuable in suggesting how sex-typical behavior differentiates under the influence of early androgen exposure. Furthermore, some recent studies of various nonhuman species have supported the possibility of neuroendocrine influences on preference for male versus female partners. Perhaps the single most reliable finding in all of homosexology is that gay men and lesbians recall, on average, substantially more gender atypical behavior in childhood than do heterosexuals of the same sex. Gay men often report that they were considered Òsissies,Ó and lesbians Òtomboys,Ó though there are plenty of exceptions in both groups. This supports the idea that homosexual people have been subject to some influences more typical of the opposite sex and is thus consistent with a neuroendocrine hypothesis. Furthermore, studies of primates including humans have shown that some patterns of sex-typical childhood behavior can be altered if fetuses are exposed to unusual levels of androgens. Female rhesus monkeys exposed prenatally to high levels of androgen show elevated rates of male-typical (rough-and-tumble) play behavior. Similar findings have come from studies of girls and women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). CAH is a genetic disorder that causes a fetus to secrete large amounts of androgens from the adrenal glands, enough so that newborn girls with the condition often have virilized genitalia. Several studies have found high rates of masculine behavior in girls with CAH, including preference for masculine toys, increased rough-and-tumble play activity, and other ÒtomboyishÓ behavior. Even more importantly, some studies have found elevated rates of homosexual feelings among adult women with CAH compared to control women. Women prenatally exposed to DES, a chemical that causes masculinization of sexual behavior in some animals, also have an elevated rate of homosexual feelings. At the same time, it should be noted that only a minority of women with a history of DES exposure or CAH admit to homosexual feelings. Furthermore, there is no model of male homosexuality that maps as neatly onto the hypothesized neuroendocrine route as does CAH for female homosexuality. The study most relevant to neuroendocrine theories of male homosexuality, and certainly the most widely-discussed biological finding, is that of Simon LeVay. LeVay examined the brains of gay men who had died of AIDS, as well as those of presumably heterosexual men and women who had died of a variety of causes. He studied cell-groups (nuclei) in an area of the hypothalamus that had been implicated by animal work as important to sexually-dimorphic sexual behavior. Two of the nuclei had previously been shown to be larger in men than in women, and LeVay found the same sex difference for one of the nuclei (INAH-3) when he compared heterosexual men and women. More important for sexual orientation, he found that INAH-3 was as small in gay as in heterosexual women. The differences were statistical rather than absolute, i.e., there were some gay men and heterosexual women with INAH-3 as large as those of most heterosexual men. This shows that the size of INAH-3 cannot be the sole cause of sexual orientation; indeed, it may not be a cause at all. But it does suggest that some aspects of the brainÕs sexual differentiation are shared by gay men and heterosexual women, and it is noteworthy that these include a portion of the brain that animal work shows to be involved in sexual behavior. LeVayÕs study has been intensively scrutinized, and several criticisms have been made. These include the concern that the difference may have been due to AIDS, that the ÒheterosexualÓ sample could have included some homosexual subjects (because medical records did not include sexual histories), and that the observed difference could have been an effect, rather than a cause, of homosexuality. These criticisms are unimpressive. Some of the heterosexual men died of AIDS as well, and their average INAH-3 volume was no smaller than that of heterosexual men who died of other causes. Recent surveys have suggested that the incidence of homosexuality is rather low, and so it is unlikely that the heterosexual control groups contained a significant proportion of homosexual people. (And if they had, LeVay would have been even less likely to find the results he did.) Finally, although the possibility that the anatomical differences resulted from behavioral differences cannot be dismissed altogether, research on some other mammalian species suggests that sex differences in the hypothalamus develop early in response to innate hormonal influences and are not modified by later experiences. At least one other neuroanatomical study has found an association between male sexual orientation and brain structure that tracks the heterosexual sex difference. Laura Allen and Roger Gorski found the anterior commissure of the corpus callosum to be relatively larger in heterosexual women and homosexual men compared with heterosexual men. This portion of the brain is unlikely to be directly involved in sexual behavior. Rather, the study suggests that neuroendocrine influences may have more general effects. Genetic Studies Our own work has investigated the origins of sexual orientation using techniques from human behavioral genetics. We have attempted to elucidate the degree to which people who differ in their sexual orientations do so for genetic versus environmental reasons. Both male and female sexual orientation run in families, with gay men having more gay brothers and lesbians more lesbian sisters than do same-sex heterosexuals. (It is less clear at this point if gay men have more lesbian sisters, and vice versa.) Of course, this is insufficient to show that genes matter, because a trait can run in families for environmental reasons as well (e.g., Catholicism). In order to distinguish between genetic and familial environmental influences, more sophisticated designs are necessary. Perhaps the most widely used design in human behavioral genetics is the classical twin study, in which monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs are examined for their similarity on the trait of interest. The rationale for this design is that because both MZ and DZ twins are typically reared together, they are equally similar environmentally. However, MZ twins are identical to each other genetically, while DZ twins are only as genetically similar as ordinary brothers. Thus, if MZ twins are more similar than DZ twins on average in their sexual orientation, the importance of genetic factors is supported. An explicit assumption of this design is that the environmental factors important for sexual orientation are no more similar for MZ than for DZ twins. This "equal environments assumption" has been criticized. However, in studies of other personality traits, those aspects of the environment that are particularly similar for MZ twins (such as being dressed alike) have not appeared to be very important in causing behavioral similarity. There have been several twin studies of sexual orientation. The earliest, by Franz Kallmann in 1952, found an amazing 100% concordance rate among 37 male MZ twin pairs, compared to a much lower rate of 12% for 26 male DZ twin pairs. Kallmann's study had enough methodological problems that its specific results, particularly the 100% MZ concordance rate, cannot be taken very seriously. On the other hand, no one has provided a satisfying explanation of how the methodological problems could wholly discredit evidence for genetic influences. Thus, it is somewhat surprising to us that nearly 40 years passed before others attempted to follow up his promising results systematically. The largest genetic studies to date have been our own, one with men and one with women. These studies included not only MZ and DZ twins, but a third group, homosexual subjects with adoptively-related same-sex siblings, who are genetically least similar and thus should be least similar in their sexual orientations. Our two studies obtained results that were quite similar to each other. In the male study, MZ twins of our gay index subjects had a 52% chance also of being gay, compared to a 22% rate for their DZ twins and an 11% chance for their adoptive brothers. In the female study, MZ twins had a 48% chance of also being lesbian, compared to a 16% rate for DZ twins and a 6% rate for adoptive sisters. Note that similarity in sexual orientation corresponded closely with genetic similarity in both studies. Quantitative analyses provide heritability estimates of the relative proportion of genetic causation, and our heritabilities were consistently above 50%. Thus, both studies were consistent with moderate to strong genetic influences on sexual orientation. Of course, both studies yielded figures lower than the 100% suggested by Kallmann. Two newer twin studies more or less supported ours. One found concordance rates that were lower than ours, the other found higher rates, but both found MZ higher than DZ rates. All recent studies find that MZ twins often differ in their sexual orientations, which shows that sexual orientation cannot be completely explained by genes. Environment must play its part. On the other hand, we emphasize that environmental pathways can be biological as well as psychosocial. One of the most interesting questions to stem from the recent twin studies is what environmental factor could affect MZ twins differently enough to give them opposite sexual orientations. One other twin study is worth mentioning because it contained what many consider to be the ideal (if rare) subjects: twins reared apart. In this study both of two male pairs were concordant for adult homosexual feelings and behavior, which would be highly unlikely if genetic factors were unimortant. Although none of four female pairs was concordant, this sample was too small to be conclusive; of course it provided no support for genetic factors affecting female sexual orientation. Although we believe the available evidence is strongly suggestive of genetic influence on sexual orientation for both men and women, one serious methodological limitation of available studies prevent them from being definitive. The studies have recruited subjects via advertising in gay- and lesbian-oriented publications. They may have had an overrepresentation of concordant pairs because such studies might be more appealing to gay men and women with gay twins. Such bias is not very serious unless it was stronger for MZ than for DZ twins, and we have no reason to suspect that such differential bias occurred. But only a study using systematic ascertainment could exclude this possibility, and unfortunately none exists. Research that helps settle some questions raises new ones. By what pathway do genes lead to the expression of atypical childhood behavior and homosexual orientation? Our studies have usually been discussed as supportive of neuroendocrine theories, and genetic influences might indeed be neuroendocrine. One could imagine a gene that led a fetus to secrete unusually high or low levels of prenatal androgens during brain differentiation, or alternatively, to be especially sensitive or insensitive to androgens. But genetic influences on sexual orientation would not have to be neuroendocrine in nature. For example, genes could influence personality (say, independent thinking or unconventionality) that could increase the chance of adopting a homosexual identity. For reasons we discuss later, we doubt that the indirect route through personality is typical, and instead believe that genetic influences operate via a neuroendocrine pathway. But our studies have had nothing so far to say about this. " http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n1_v14/ai_13652190 " If one accepts the idea that sexual orientation has a strong genetic component--and some researchers doubt it--the next logical step is to try to track down the responsible genes. Among the scientists taking that step is geneticist Cassandra Smith, who is collaborating with Pillard. One way to approach the problem, says Smith, "is to take some educated guesses about what might be involved in homosexuality and sexuality. Men and women are different; maybe it's something on the X or Y chromosome. There's not much on the Y. But several candidates have been isolated recently on the X." One she hopes to study codes for a substance known as the androgen receptor protein, which enables the body, including the brain, to respond to male hormones. "It's a long shot," she says, "and there's a high probability it's wrong. But this gene is interesting. Everyone is excited about it." Recent studies have shown the gene to have three unstable spots that might make it vulnerable to mutation. "Because there are three independent regions," Smith says, "there's potential for enormous variation between individuals." Like Bailey, she suspects that any gene found to cause homosexuality will turn out to have a hidden advantage. "Nature," she says, "is keeping it around for some reason." "

pepe512000	Date: March 20, 2007 @ 7:58 PM Everyone of these "cases of proof" can be put to rest...the articles and authors themselves dispute their own findings... Here we go round and round, where she stops, nobody knows :) UCLAs Study on Genes and Mice Brains In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study by UCLA researchers indicating that sexual identity is genetic.Reuters reported it this way: Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported. A number of other media outlets picked up on this theme, creating the impression that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic theory of homosexuality. The trouble is, the study doesn't say anything about homosexuality. All it does is support a widely accepted theory about hormones and gender. Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's assessment: The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes as no surprise. But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill-informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics in precisely the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did either in the naive hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Hamewith Books, Baker Books, 1996), p. 38. 18 Phoebe Dewing, Tao Shi, Steve Horvath and Eric Vilain, Sexually dimorphic gene expression in mouse brain precedes gonadal differentiation, Molecular Brain Research, Vol. 118, Issues 1-2, 21 October 2003: 82-90. The Hypothalamus The first widely publicized claim for a gay gene came in 1991 when Salk Institute researcher Dr. Simon LeVay published a study in the journal Science noting a difference in a brain structure called the hypothalamus when evaluating 35 men 19 homosexuals and 16 heterosexuals. LeVay found that the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. He concluded that the findings suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate. The media splashed the study on front pages and TV and radio broadcasts from coast to coast,despite the fact that LeVay himself cautioned: It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later. The study also had major problems, which LeVay himself readily admits. First, all 19 of his homosexual subjects died of complications associated with AIDS. The difference in the hypothalamus might have been caused by chemical changes in the brain as a response to AIDS. Dr. Byne argued in Scientific American that [LeVay's] inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments.Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS. In addition, six of the Тheterosexual men died of AIDS. LeVay admitted later that he didn't actually know whether the subjects in his heterosexual sample were, indeed, heterosexual; all of these subjects were simply presumed heterosexual. Given that very few straight men in San Francisco were contracting AIDS at the time (and still aren't), this was a wildly unscientific assumption. Another weakness of LeVay's study is that his sample included major exceptions. Three of the homosexuals had larger clusters of neurons than the mean size for the heterosexuals, and three of the heterosexuals had clusters smaller than the mean size for the homosexuals. LeVay is an open homosexual, and some comments he made to Newsweek suggest he had an agenda from the outset of the research. He said he believes that America must be convinced that homosexuality is biologically determined. �It�s important to educate society,� he said. �I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes. 23 Quoted in David Nimmons, Sex and the Brain, Discover, Vol. 5, No. 3 (March 1994): 64-71 and cited in A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., Shirley E. Cox, Ph.D., and Jeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D., The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science, National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality Web site, http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html, downloaded 12 January 2004. 24 E. Byne, The Biological Evidence Challenged, Scientific American (May 1994): The X Chromosome..concerning Hamers findings... In a later interview, Hamer said, Homosexuality is not purely genetic. [E]nvironmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay. Hamer's results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study found an identical sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all homosexual brothers in the study. In reality, what it found was matching sequences in each set of brothers who were both homosexual. Dr. Byne argues that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer would have had to examine the Xq28 sequence of homosexual men's heterosexual brothers. Hamer insisted that such an inclusion would have confounded his study. Byne responds: In other words, inclusion of heterosexual brothers might have revealed that something other than genes is responsible for sexual orientation Androgen and The Ear .... The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently. http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:ObvnfoviAegJ:www.cwfa.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf+do+homosexuals+support+the+androgen+theory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=ca This is a cached website. I have the pdf file, which is a lot more3 detailed than what I've posted here.It goes on to the fingernail theory, etc, etc... if you'd like me to send it to you....I can.

compmore	Date: March 21, 2007 @ 2:44 AM Isn't free will wonderful. doesn't change the truth but it's fun to watch in action.

CodeWarrior	Date: March 21, 2007 @ 1:48 PM "LeVay is an open homosexual"...What exactly is an "open homosexual"...the opposite of a "closed homosexual"...are some "open all night"..."we never close"....like Wal-Mart? "Inquiring minds..."

pmmusic	Date: March 21, 2007 @ 2:17 PM "Inquiring minds..." He started out as a tight end, but now he's a wide reciever...?? Sorry, old joke...couldn't resist... : ) Seriously, well done gang, nearly a whole week of reasoned discussion and not one flame out....We Can be good. Keep up the good work.

pepe512000	Date: March 21, 2007 @ 9:15 PM "open homosexual" = practicing homosexual. I could never figure out the terminology of "practicing" either...as in rehearsing? In training? Just weird. pmmusic Nothing like adult, intelligent, challenging, thought provoking, conversation. Rather refreshing, all in all.

independentm...	Date: March 22, 2007 @ 12:49 PM Hi folks, sorry I've not been around all week. I have been in bed with the worst case of the flu I think I have ever had in my life. I'm still not feeling well (and I'm rather dizzy from all the medicine) but will try to get a few good articles posted today if I can.

CodeWarrior	Date: March 23, 2007 @ 7:56 PM Hope you are feeling better my friend. Have a great weekend one and all... I'll be cleaning house and practicing arpeggios...someday I will be able to shred like Leflaw :)

CriticalCodger	Date: March 24, 2007 @ 1:52 PM I'm planning to have a custom bumper sticker made: God, bless America with better leaders! I am convinced that both Republicans and Democrats have been misleading our nation for, oh, say, at least a hundred years (with few exceptions).

gdZiemann	Date: March 24, 2007 @ 2:22 PM "realtors"? It's a sin to sell homes?" All types of salesmen offend my sensibilities. The whole moneychangers thing. And Lemony Snicket. It's all in your perspective. You could have just as easily questioned the validity of serial killing as a sin. Many serial killers are lauded as heroes. It seems to be dependent on whether you kill "good" people or "bad" people. That's why a lot of civilian serial killers seem to target hookers. If you're wearing a uniform, the criteria seems to change and "bad" includes anyone without a uniform (or the wrong one) who is holding a gun. Take 'em out and you get a medal. Kill all you want.

pepe512000	Date: March 24, 2007 @ 3:08 PM "You could have just as easily questioned the validity of serial killing as a sin" I think what often confuses things is that we tend to always relate the "10 Commandments" as to the rule of the land. Sin is sin, no matter what, and that is up to God to decide at Judgement.. We are also told to obey the laws (render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, or in other words our submission to authority) as they apply to us in our land, by the authorites who rule over us....these are mans laws, which we have to adapt to in many different ways, over time...example, we don't stone women anymore, as this man made law was changed.... This thing with the riaa has me questioning myself at times..are they to be considered the law of the land? If they are, then I'm in trouble and will here about it later.....this is that conscience thing that always nags us Christians :)

pepe512000	Date: March 24, 2007 @ 3:10 PM here...hear....duh!

pepe512000	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 3:32 PM Here's an interesting topic for debate... Florida man says ex-wife's sex change should end alimony obligation I tend to agree with the x-husband, from a legal viewpoint....

gdZiemann	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 5:05 PM "this is that conscience thing that always nags us Christians :)" Conscience is not limited to Christians.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 5:31 PM George -- That's a very valid point you made.

compmore	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 8:36 PM God is present in every human heart weather we accept/believe it or not. denying it doesn't change the truth. This is our concious. each persons belief guides them in it's understanding. I once asked an athiest if there was no God then who do we answer to for doing good or bad. How do we know somethings bad? they replied, it just is. you just know it. it's the law, you answer to the police, courts etc... I responded with, what if I Killed someone and took all their money. I don't think it's bad. I wanted the money. me having the money is good. I get away with it and no one catchs me. I enjoy living with the money I got and have a happy, sucessful and fulfilling life. is that bad? Yes. Why? It just is. but I'm doing what I want and I don't suffer any consequences. I die and disolve in dust and just disappear from existence. I think it's good. the person killed and their family thinks its bad because they were hurt. who's view is right? we're both people. who decided it's not ok? what if the majority made a law saying it was ok to murder and take their money. would it then be good?? All the athiest could say was that it just is bad, we feel it instinctively. But I don't feel it, I responded, so therefore what I did was good. That's how our conversation went until the athiest walked off in a huff shaking his head saying I just didn't get it. Without the sense that there is a higher spiritual authority in our lives to hold us accountable there would be chaos. Mankind would consider themselves the authority in our universe and that arrogance would lead to chaos and destruction. Those who appear to have no concious have totally blocked out their awareness of God in their hearts, but still suffer in other ways that they don't even know. No good Christain ever claimed that Christains were the only ones who has a Conscience. They just know in their faith what drives that conscience even though none of use truely understands it.

compmore	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 8:38 PM That's why Pepe said what she said.

pessimist	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 10:50 PM But what George said is still valid. This has to do with the concept of an inner prompting that communicates to the person if they're about to do something "wrong." It's an instilled "voice", so to speak, that's not limted to Christians.

compmore	Date: March 28, 2007 @ 11:19 PM Of course his point is valid. however the statement insinuates the presumption that Christains think that way. No good Christain I've even know says that. that's my point. therefore I don't know where that statement comes from

pepe512000	Date: March 29, 2007 @ 12:53 AM Of course what George said is valid...Most people come with a conscience, unless they are 100% psychopathic. I was simply reacting to the subject of discussion at the time...law of the land versus sin. But (I believe) the biggest differerence between the Christians conscience and that of the non-Christian, is the Holy Spirit.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 29, 2007 @ 7:39 AM In regard to: "law of the land vs. sin" I'll summarize a key perspective. Referring back to the context, Pepe was considering the prospect of part of the RIAA's unbalanced actions as deriving their impetus from the DMCA which is a codified law, and thus, in accordance with a Christian's conscience together with what the Bible says about obeying the government and the laws it enacts. . . She was saying this makes for an interesting dilemma. In regard to: "the biggest differerence between the Christians' conscience and that of the non-Christian, is the Holy Spirit." That's a Biblical teaching and therefore worthy to be cherished by those who get right with the Father through trusting in the merits of Christ (His substitutionary perfect life and sacrifice for sins). For Christians, the Holy Spirit (who proceeds from both the Father and the Son) is both a guide and a comfort to the soul.

CriticalCodger	Date: March 29, 2007 @ 7:54 AM And just to clarify one point I made earlier. . . Followers of Christ are instructed from Scripture to obey the laws of the land except in cases where a law conflicts with the will of God. A striking example of that comes to mind from the Old Testament: There were three Hebrews who refused to obey the rule to bow down and worship an idol designed by King Nebuchadnezzar. Their disobedience was the right thing to do, even though it almost cost them their lives. Hopefully, nobody should harbor any misconception about whether being a true believer is an easy life. For those who are faithful, there will come times when a "sacrifice" is necessary (foregoing the pragmatic or the immoral in favor of what God wants). Comes with the territory.

autodidact	Date: March 29, 2007 @ 1:02 PM I don't know where to post this -- it isn't about the digital music scene, but as it is about copyright, it has implications: Orwell's Copyright Police State: the illegal link http://patterico.com/2006/08/29/5033/the-illegal-link-orwells-copyright-police-state-reloaded/

autodidact	Date: March 29, 2007 @ 5:30 PM Somebody mentioned the Satinover book, which is excellent. The problem with the "born gay" theory is that identical twins do not have identical sexual orientation, especially when raised apart. That said, there appears to be a genetic influence, but influence is not the same as determination. So, it is nature combined with nurture, as with most things. Now Ringo Starr once said he was a "born lever-puller." That one I can't argue with. (a little Yellow Submarine humor) :)

pessimist	Date: March 30, 2007 @ 10:04 AM Statistically, identical twins raised apart are less likely to have the same sexual orientation when compared to those who are raised together . . . and that punches a hole in the "born gay" theory. Evidence does support a genetic influence to homosexualilty, but influence does not equate to determination. I recall research that indicated the tendency of alcoholism as being similarly described. In regard to the aspect of nature together with nurture -- It will be difficult indeed to overturn heredity PLUS environment as being the combined culprits. So, okay, pre-disposition rather than pre-determination. Huge difference. The INCLINATION may be there prior to birth, but a person cannot indict inclination as being the exclusive factor. It may not even be the PRIMARY factor. Indeed, various studies indicate that formative experiences are a powerful influence, and probability would favor the latter as being the most crucial. Incidentally, less than 10% of the general population are gay. The flawed Kinsey study from 1948 which estimated 10% of society as being homosexual was projected from non-representative samples. (The Kinsey report has been discredited by several sources of reliable research. Yet, even today, that false ratio is still found to be floating around.)

pepe512000	Date: April 2, 2007 @ 6:19 PM With Mike not minding the ship, who is going to keep odds and ends up front? :(

pessimist	Date: April 3, 2007 @ 3:26 PM Good question! (Let's see who can answer it.)

CodeWarrior	Date: April 4, 2007 @ 10:16 PM It will get done.