QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Jan 24 2005, 00.52)

Companies want to avoid associating their products with war and violence? And liberals are to blame? German companies still haven't recovered from NAZI war guilt, and liberals are to blame? Curious what else they're responsible for.

And the soccer mom's lately, more often than not, are conservative. But in most cases, over-protective mother knows no political boundaries.

You have me on the German company / Nazi relationship part. That was my error. As for matters in this country being related to Columbine or any of those other things, no. It has been a much longer time that Megatron has been politically incorrect. It began even when *Transformers* were still on the air. I remember my mother (being on every list known to man) getting pamphlets in the mail that blocked CBS from airing a cartoon they ALREADY made called "Garbage Pail Kids" (remember them?), filled with flat-out LIES of the content on the cards, that I was there to correct.. She also got ones that slammed Transformers for "corrupting youth by the glorification of war and teaching that guns are okay to own". WOAH hello! My dad, getting pissed at that dug a bit deeper to find it was an anti-gun group distributing the crap.
Soccer moms are mostly conservative? In what I thought "soccer moms" has largely meant to be a description of, are women who get goofy eyes when talking about protecting their kids from the evils of the world. Women who are suckers and change their political affiliation on a dime, eating up any bad reports that contain the word "children" in it.

I ask you, how many kids were injured from playing with Fortress Maximus? I want numbers, dammit. It's these same child safety groups speaking about the harm to children who said dropping Brave Max from a distance of so and so feet = shattering that might cut flesh. This is the kind of silliness a soccer mom would eat up.
But I'm going off track. Soccer moms are not as conservative as you say. Conservative moms are not the wishy-washy, "the news said it so it must be bad" types. They're not the moms that make you stop playing with fireworks because EVERY 4th of July, the news shows a quarter stick of dynamite blowing up a watermelon, with the reporter saying "this could have been a firecracker in a child's hand". They're not the kind of moms who don't let you go trick or treating because EVERY Halloween, the news does special segments on what kind of candy tampering takes place... even though it's all fear-mongering BULLSHIT. (see Snopes.com if you don't get what I'm saying there).

The whole anti-gun climate started well in the 80's and before, during the cold war fears. Bowling for Columbine (note: see bowlingfortruth.com) and other incidents (like the news ONLY reporting negative gun stories, entirely discarding the positive ones) have been the cause of toys being neutered so badly.

HEY! ...If toy guns like Megatron the Walther P38 is SO bad "for our children"... then why the hell aren't people losing their left nut over it in Japan like they are here, huh?
Oh... that's right... we are just "stupid Americans" after all, are we not? It's the reporting of news in this country that has made such a paranoid, anti-gun climate. Don't even get me started on their crimes of racism too...

And in reference to "kids bringing daddy's gun in for show and tell" being a negative thing... my dad brought his gun collection in for show and tell back in the 30's.
Hunting friends of mine brought their crossbows in for show and tell in the EARLY 80's.

Guess what... it was no big deal. Noone cared.

There was more freedom back then,. not irresponsible levels of fear.

Ick... too much typing. Too much thinking.
Yeah... keep this stuff FAR away from the movie. Please please PLEASE.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

the mail that blocked CBS from airing a cartoon they ALREADY made called "Garbage Pail Kids" (remember them?), filled with flat-out LIES of the content on the cards

Sure I remember them. Had a respectable collection. But that wasn't liberals in that case. Not that any real harm was done, they'd already jumped the shark by than. A fad like Cabbage Patch Kids, played out.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

Transformers for "corrupting youth by the glorification of war and teaching that guns are okay to own". WOAH hello! My dad, getting pissed at that dug a bit deeper to find it was an anti-gun group distributing the crap.

Don't think you could blame the liberals for the uproar over 'shit and damn' in the film. Transformers (and to a lesser extent GI Joe) took enough criticism from both sides.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

Soccer moms are mostly conservative? In what I thought "soccer moms" has largely meant to be a description of, are women who get goofy eyes when talking about protecting their kids from the evils of the world. Women who are suckers and change their political affiliation on a dime, eating up any bad reports that contain the word "children" in it.

I believe I pretty much concurred completely with this in my previous post.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Jan 24 2005, 00.52)

"And the soccer mom's lately, more often than not, are conservative. But in most cases, over-protective mother knows no political boundaries."

Most of those Soccer moms took conservative colors in this last election, for whatever reason believed that Bush was more likely to protect them and their children from terrorism. Fear and paranoia can make people do crazy things. But I also agree that as time goes on, they do drift back and forth along the political spectrum.

And on Snopes.com, great site, I'm a fairly regular reader. And yes, I'm well aware how the perpetuation of urban myths can send soccer moms into a tizzy. (yes, I make up my own words as a I go along). My personal favorite is the list of 5-6 court cases being sent along the internet for the past 5-10 years (all fabrications) as examples of ridiculous lawsuits that ended in victories to strengthen the argument for tort reform. No wonder people hate lawyers when all their middle aged friends are sending them crap like that and they're eating it up.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

Bowling for Columbine (note: see bowlingfortruth.com) and other incidents (like the news ONLY reporting negative gun stories, entirely discarding the positive ones)

If you watched Bowling for Columbine, you'd note that near the end it all but abandoned its thesis and proclaimed excess media scare-mongering, paranoia, and fear as the main contributor to our trend of violence. In an indirect way, agreeing with you. In either case, that was an example of an entertaining, intelligent, and witty piece of propaganda. Its what Farhenheit 9-11 should have been. The the overwhelming number of 'negative' gun cases far outweighs those occasional instances of a man saving his family or stopping a burglar due to his handgun.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

HEY! ...If toy guns like Megatron the Walther P38 is SO bad "for our children"... then why the hell aren't people losing their left nut over it in Japan like they are here, huh?

It could be that Japan doesn't have an epidemic of several thousand gun murders a year...but hey, I could be wrong. No need to look at potential causes/cures when you don't have the disease.

That said, the only justifiable reason for the maintainence of private gun ownership that outweighs the social ills, is defense against tyranny, should it ever arrive.

QUOTE (JINZONINGEN 73 @ Jan 24 2005, 03.08)

There was more freedom back then,. not irresponsible levels of fear.

There weren't sixth graders blowing away their class-mates, white supremecists going on shooting sprees, and thousands of gun murders every years back than. (definately not in the 30's, though they growing epidemically worse in the 80's) Its very similar to someone complaining about long lines at airport security...there's a very good reason we have it now...there's a very clear and present need that noone can deny. The public's current attitude to guns and their various restrictions may or may not be proper, right, or effective...but they exist because there's a need for a change from the old way of shrugging acceptance.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Jan 24 2005, 00.52)

quit the moral crusade against all things fun (porn, violent video games, prostitution, gambling, pre-marital sex, recreational sex, and drugs), ...

Ouch! Wow. You're...joking, right? Erm...drugs, prostitution...? Call me crazy, but...I don't think the average liberal would agree with you about all of those things being fun, or healthy, never mind about them being morale. But I guess you really were probably joking. ^_^

About the soccer moms thing. You guys make it sound a disease..Oh no! I'm gonna get married, have kids, and then WHAM! First my ability to reason things through will fade, my emotions will always get the better of me, and then...I'll put my kids in a soccer team! (They'll be twins I guess) And only then will I realize...I'm a soccer mom!
Noooooooooooooooo....
I don't know, but I've never associated anything political with them, but...most couples probably vote the same way, right? You'd better watch out for all those goofy soccer dads too...

QUOTE (Elbereth @ Jan 24 2005, 19.13)

Ouch! Wow. You're...joking, right? Erm...drugs, prostitution...? Call me crazy, but...I don't think the average liberal would agree with you about all of those things being fun, or healthy, never mind about them being morale.

Libertarian, not liberal. And drugs and prostitution wouldn't be so popular if there weren't some fun involved. And while perhaps not healthy for the individual, these practices if legal, would be healthier for society than the current status quo.

Prostitution: Prostitution is an act of economic need. Noone wakes up one day and says, 'Hey, I wanna screw sweaty, fat old men when I grow up!'. But there are alot of professions nearly as distasteful. Things that would be no child or adults first choice. But those things are done because the need is there. And Prostitution, monetarily, is often more appealing than any of those other alternatives. (whats preferable, grinding your body to shit for minimum wage in a factory 12 hours a day or laying on your back for a much better wage for 4 hours a night?)

But as it stands now, this practice is illegal. So if these women are raped, robbed, or beaten...they have no legal recourse. No hooker is going to be taken seriously at the local precinct and they're just as likely to book her as investigate her complaint. She has no legal remedy if her rights are abused. So she is put at the mercy of abusive pimps, violent Johns, and all manner of STD's that she's bound to recieve at one point or another.

This is the world's oldest profession. There will always be men willing to pay for sex...and always be women willing to accept payment for it. You're not going to stop it, you're not even going to slow it down. Our most conservative historical periods often coincide with the greatest explosions of prostitution and brothels. (Victorian area was notorious for this. Prim and proper, fine and upstanding Christians on the outside, visiting the house of ill repute every night on the side) The self-righteous morality of our puritanical roots are ultimately are responsible for the hypocritical perpetuation of this state of affairs. There is no legitimate reason besides deep rooted morality to keep this practice illegal.

Legalize it and suddenly these women no longer have to be at the mercy of pimps. They can practice their wares from their home or a brothel, without fear of being beaten for being on the wrong corner, or having no recourse when a john stiffs, robs, or beats her. They have the protection of the law and the ability to practice their trade in a relatively safe environment.

Regulate it and ensure it stays in lightly populated, non-residential areas. Away from churches, away from schools, away from the public eye, unless you're looking for one...you shouldn't see it. Much like they do with strip clubs. As it stands now, there are several streets, corners, areas just filled with these women, adding to the seediness of the area, bringing in a negative criminal element, and destroying property values. That would be remedied with legalization.

Tax it and watch a new, major source of income that would put the gambling boom of the last decade to shame. Sure they're gonna hide some of their earnings, but so do waitresses...be content with what you get, audit if necessary, cause its more than you had before.

Police it. Curb the sex slavery trade by registering every prostitute. Any investigation that leads to a brothel or escort service with a number of unregistered prostitutes, close it down. When you can differentiate the legitimate services with willing participants, it becomes easier to find those who would seduce and enslave unwilling participants.

Test them. Ensure every prostitute has a monthly test for STD's. Curb the spread of these needless diseases and protect the health and welfare of the entire nation.

Let them organize. Once their trade becomes a legitimate profession, there will be brothels, madame's, and newly legitimate pimps who will still seek to exploit them. Let them unionize, form trade groups, alliances. Let them negotiate better terms, perhaps open their own houses, all in the best interests of those who are doing the work.

When it all comes down to it, its a matter of personal choice. To pay women for sex or to accept money for sex violates the rights of no other individual. Some choices are healthy and some are harmful, but ultimately they are our personal choices. And if they do not violate the rights of other individuals, the government should have no business sticking their ugly snouts in there. As a bonus, legalization is better, safer, makes it easier to police, and healthier for society as a whole. Lets get over the hypocracy and our overly paternal government. We're adults. We can all make our own informed choices. Perhaps its time to let us do so.

I'll get to drugs later. But yes, Prostitution should be completely legal. For the benefit of us all.

QUOTE (Elbereth @ Jan 24 2005, 19.13)

You guys make it sound a disease..Oh no! I'm gonna get married, have kids, and then WHAM! First my ability to reason things through will fade, my emotions will always get the better of me, and then...I'll put my kids in a soccer team!

When it comes to the safety of their kids, be the threat real or perceived (or the proposed solution effective or fraud), reason tends to go out the window for many mothers. Can't exactly blame them though.

Drugs:

Many of the principles are similar to Prostitution. But this is the big fish. This is the scourge of our nation. The corrupter of our youth. Few things are more vile than drugs. Few things more saddening than watching an addict ruin his life and waste away. So I can't possibly want it legal, right? Well...of course I do. And once more, because of our personal freedom to make choices...even bad ones, and because when its all said and done, its better for society.

Few things will get you thrown in prison for a third of your life quicker than drugs. We all think rape and murder are the big ones, but you'll often find drugs getting harsher sentences. Mandatory minimums ensure that drug offenses will usually result in some sort of imprisonment of several years, often on the first shot. But like prohibition our war upon drugs is a failed proposition. An experiment thats been detrimental to every aspect of our society that should have long since been abandoned.

Drugs are the oil that fuels our organized and disorganized crime. Gangs fight turf wars over it. Guns, cars, lifestyles, and respect are bought with its blood money. Younger inner city kids look up to these people, see drugs as a way...perhaps the only way to make a living and enjoy the lifestyle that we all want. It is the kinling, it is the flame, it is the bonfire.

Legalize it, put it in the hands of legitimate businesses, and where are these thugs going to get their money for the newest guns? Without the profit motive, whats going to be the incentive to join these gangs? The flashy lifestyle gone, the gilded allure faded. In one strike you could ultimately cripple organized crime in every city throughout the nation. Sure they'd adapt, but on a smaller scale. They'd no longer have the ridiculous amount of income that drugs provided. No longer able to wield the influence or man-power they once did. Drug related crimes are a massive society ill, with one single effort...most of it could be wiped away...making the streets safer for all considered.

Legalized it and put it in the hands of America's unparralled productive capacity. The artificially gigantic prices would come down in no time. Those who are addicted would no longer (in most cases) lose house and assets trying to pay for their addiction. Or worse, steal, mug, and rob others to support it. It would no longer have an economically crippling effect on families, households, and individuals.

Legalize it and you instantly stabilize (after a brief struggle for supremecy, the Pablo Escobar's of the world won't go easily) the developing nations of the world who produce this stuff. With these products legitimized in America, there is little incentive for them to continue their bloody standoffs between government troops and druglord militias. These nations can begin finally making a profit off of their most lucrative export, instead of having it in the hands of criminals and murderers. It no longer becomes a source of funding for guerillas, militants, and terrorists in many parts of the world. Watch the warlords and resurgant Taliban in Afghanistan crumble (maybe wishful thinking, but at least crippled) after their primary source of income is destroyed. And watch a barren, unstable Afghanistan potentially bloom with its newly found, legitimate export.

Watch us save hundreds of billions each year. Thats right, we're talking landslide here. Over one third of all our prisoners in this nation are non-violent drug offenders. As their crimes would no longer be crimes, they could all be released. A mass exodus from our prisons. Its impossible to even imagine the enormous amounts of money that we pump into our criminal justice system for drugs alone. Prosecuters who spend a large part of each of their days putting away dealers and users. Judges that preside over these cases. Public defenders at our expense. Prison guards, wardens, no prisons. The DEA, sections of the FBI, cops who spend 90% of their day dealing with drug related issues and crimes.

In a single gesture, you can cure the prison overcrowding epidemic, clear the grossly overloaded court dockets, leave the police to pursue real crimes, and as the violence drops to more manageable levels, many of these bodies can be downsized, saving tax-payers all around hundreds of billions each year. Much of that money could be used for schools, healthcare for the tens of millions without it, homeland security, or any number of other programs.

And of course, treatment. Even the criminal justice system recognizes almost unilaterally that prison is a punishment, not a cure. Anyone who thinks that prison serves and true rehabilitative purpose is a fool. (stated more eloquantly in my law books, but you get the picture). Treatment is not full proof. But on a nationwide scale, with aggressive recruitment and a secure, sizable source of funding, many more addicts can be reached...and many more helped than we can currently provide for. Drugs and drug addiction are still a major societal ill. They can still destroy families. Still lead to criminal behavior. But with the proper access to treatment, we might actually make a dent in our rates of addiction.

Tax the living hell out of it. Cigarettes style. They won't complain, most users will be happy and jolly just to be able to light up without having to look over their shoulder. Watch the government windfall from prostitution, gambling, and most other sources of revenue quake in fear, awe, and wonder at the immense source of revenue just unleashed.

Isolate it. Much like the brothels and strip clubs, keep places to buy these things few and far between at licensed businesses that sell little else. (there's another revenue source for uncle sam, licensing). Not in residential areas, not in schools, and not in the public in general. Don't allow it in bars, clubs, or any other public establishment. Allow usage in the privacy of ones home and thats about it.

Make 'driving under the influence' laws and make them have teeth. A first offense resulting in a warning and fine. A second the forfeture of license, car, a year in prison. The third, ten years. While this may be a personal choice, your freedom does not extend to directly endangering others. (I'd like drunk driving laws to follow a similar pattern.)

What about the explosion of drug users? Its really unpredictable, but the one major case study we have...has rates of drug addiction lower than our own. (Netherlands) Decriminalization had no explosion of drug use there...most of the coffee shops (wink-wink, nod-nod lingo for a pot bar) are usually filled with either average, middle class locals enjoying a joint or two after work...and more often British and American tourists breathing in the fresh scent of real freedom. This isn't full proof. Netherlands, for all its similarities (most of them in the cities speak better english than I do), is still a vastly different society. The reaction may differ, but there's no reason to conclude that we'd have a sudden and sustained explosion of hard drug use. (though I suspect many may spark up a bowl or two, but lets face it...that drug is less harmful than alcohol)

We can finally get over the pleasant fiction of pot being a gateway drug (a willful misinterpretation of the study by the media and legislators looking for an easy punching bag), and a dangerous narcotic on par with heroine and cocaine, that has no medicinal value. People with chronic diseases for which pot may ease the symptoms, no longer have to look over their shoulders to see if the DEA is breathing down their neck. Other medicinal uses of pot and other drugs can be investigated without fear of a disapproving uncle sam.

We can police and regulate it. Ensure that you get what you pay for. No more bad doses, no more coke cut with rat poison or bleech. No more pills that could be anything from E to cyanide. Sterilize all needles. Limits the spread of IV related diseases. No longer will an otherwise law abiding teen have to die at a rave because she got duped into swallowing poison.

The War against Drugs is a phrase so regular, so familiar, and yet, so sickening...for when it comes down to it, its essentially a war declared upon ones own citizens. Its prosecution has made and broken careers. Many of our political leaders throughout the nation got their feet wet putting junkies and dealers in prison. Conservatives say they hate welfare, but the Drug War and all the government funded generals, lieutanents, and grunts that fight it are the most massive and bloated welfare system the world has ever seen. Its sole purpose is to perpetuate its own existance. Justify its reason for being.

Well, we don't need it. Its continued existance costs us hundreds of billions a years. It destroys careers, livelihoods, the futures of young men and women who become essentially unemployable with a single minor conviction. It sends naive youths to prison where they learn to become hardened criminals. Even when they try to play it straight upon release, their opportunities are non-existant, and crime often becomes most appealing alternative.

Its also a failed endeavor. All the efforts and all the resources we commit to the drug war have not raised the price of heroine or cocaine over the last decade. It has not stemmed the flow of drugs into this country. Despite our massive financial committment, we are still at the point of emptying the pacific with a tee-spoon.

This war cannot be won. While the demand exists, there will always be a supply. There's too much money involved. Too much opportunity. We cut off the head, another 3 will grow in its place. We take out a regiment of foot soldiers, another dozen will multiply like tribbles. And the only way to fight the demand is through education, opportunity, and treatment. All the things we're not doing enough of. You do not fight a war you cannot win. We realized that in 15 years with prohibition. Why has it taken us over 50 so far for drugs?

So, to recap. We have an unwinnable war. Spiraling crime that would be greatly reduced. The crippling of street gangs. Stablized third world. A blow struck against global terrorism. Enough money to balance the budget once again. Countless new areas to spend said money for the benefit of society...or we could just get one big, whopping tax break that would put all of G-dubs earlier ones to shame. No longer criminalizing the youth of America. Racist laws struck down. (mandatory minimums for drugs are indeed racist). A victory for personal freedom. And I'm sure there's more. There will be some newfound societal ills, but nothing we can't handle. And the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks...and the newly found resources will allow us to face the newfound challenges. And what do we lose? A bunch of unnecessary enforcement jobs. Don't worry, with the money saved, we'll retrain them for necessary professions.

Once more its my right to make choices for myself. I don't need big brother leering over my shoulder, slapping my hand when I err. My choice does not violate the rights of other citizens. The government's job in this arena is to advice, inform, and offer opportunities should I decide to reform, but not to inferfere. It is my right to make my own decisions, be the healthy or unhealthy. We are better than most nations, but no...we do not know real freedom in this country, not yet.

The largest and most harmful drug related criminals today are the major pharmecutical companies...but thats a rant for another time.

So what have we learned today? Personal freedom good. Big brother bad.

QUOTE (EnlightenmentHK @ Jan 24 2005, 00.52)

And being a Christian doesn't make you a conservative. Wanting to impose your religiously based values upon others, does.

EHK,

First of all, the fact that you say Creationism has no scientific bearing at all? Were you there when the "BIG BANG" happened? It's all conjecture. Creationism has valid scientific points even outside the bible. First and foremost, your very life is a contradiction to the Evolution theory. We for a short time violate the second law of Thermodynamics. I'd like to see you explain that part away or the Cambrian Explosion?

Secondly, you expect us to give up our ideals so you can have your ideals through 100%. Um, you're advocating that you can push your agenda down our throats and we should just take it. (which by the way is hypocritical since you are saying you don't want this done to you)

This country is about voting for what's best for this country. You have your ideas, I have mine. And we take our disagreements to the politicians. Lastly, I agree with those that say homosexuality is wrong, but I'm not going to sit there and bash a homosexual person, make fun of him or her, or say that AIDS is their fault (another generality of yours that all Christians do that). We live in a fallen world and any diseases that come about is all of our faults combined. Homosexuals aren't worse then me, nor is anyone else. We're all in the same boat. They are just as much my brothers and sisters needing help that God offers as I need God's help day in and day out. Do you have to believe this? No, you have free will. But don't assume I want to see everyone in Hell cause I don't want to see anyone in hell; not even Chokeii, Danbei, or Gawl. Everyone has consequences and they'll have to deal with that here on earth. (I'm referring to how they treated Don)

Read my quote that God said He doesn't want anyone to die and when they do He doesn't have a party. If your child said to you, that you don't exist, and that taking a poison wasn't wrong and it was killing them, would you be happy and holding a sign up saying "You're going to die or You're going to hell" to someone you love? Only nuts do that.

No one is shoving anything down your throat, we just don't want our beliefs cast out of society and life any more than you want yours. And for all the separation of church and state supporters...I'd like to see your quote of the actual Constitution where it says that? Not Jefferson's misinterpreted letter to a friend.

EHK, I don't hate you, nor do I condemn you. I state what I believe and welcome you to state yours without ridiculing you.

I'll leave you with this to ponder, for those who say God must not be loving if He sends people to hell. Look at it this way, if I pretend you don't exist, ignore you, make fun of you in front of others, deny anything you say as falsehood, and even say I don't want to be around you when I die. Would you ever let me in your house?

It is ironic that some people out there (not saying you) will also tell God they want nothing to do with Him and yet expect to be in heaven if He's a "loving God"? If someone walks away from their home, why do they blame someone else or God for their God-given, free will, decision to destroy themselves?

It is sad and breaks His heart, my heart and others who believe in Him. And thinking "I'm a good person so I should be in doesn't do it either. It is a two fold thing with God. If I offend you, will anything good I do matter if I don't resolve our relationship? Will you care about all the good I did but didn't bother to reconcile with you? That's what Jesus did is reconcile us to God again (Only the offended person can pardon or forgive), you can't pardon yourself with good deeds, He pardoned us through His death and resurrection.

But if someone in prison doesn't accept the terms of their release it's not the releaser's fault they don't get out. Also sin is a cancer to all of us, but if we don't take the cure and let it kill us, who's fault is it? God's? I'm now off the soapbox and have said my peace dunt da da... la la la, and now we return to The Transformers........

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

or say that AIDS is their fault (another generality of yours that all Christians do that).

Your reading comprehension skills need some work. Apparently you missed the part where I placed such sentiments upon 'the more extreme ones', not your every day run of the mill Christian. But apparently you have a kneejerk reflex where a criticism of a few becomes a criticism of all. An instant rally around the flag defense mechanism.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

"You're going to die or You're going to hell" to someone you love? Only nuts do that.

I'm not sure of the relevance of that entire paragraph, it doesn't seem to be in reference to anything I've stated.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

I'd like to see your quote of the actual Constitution where it says that? Not Jefferson's misinterpreted letter to a friend.

Irrelevant. Legal interpretations of the constitution for decades on end now have established a legal seperation of church and state. It exists. It is its own legal concept supported by the laws of the land. Not much to do but deal with it.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

EHK, I don't hate you, nor do I condemn you. I state what I believe and welcome you to state yours without ridiculing you.

I've never hated a single person over anything said or done on an internet chat board. Hell, I don't even know how to hold a grudge, here or in real life. Were I not paranoid of every other internet person being a fat, balding 65 year old pedofile, I'd invite you out for a beer to further discuss it. (assuming you lived in the greater Chicagoland area). Just want to make it clear, that even if my methods (or yours) get a bit intense, I take none of this personally. In fact I love this shit. And I hope that other people that get into debates with me love it too. Just to say, no matter what, there will at least be no hard feelings on this end.

Gonna drop a second post on the philosophical/religious points. And gonna leave creationism for tomorrow (no time tonight)

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

"I'm a good person so I should be in doesn't do it either.

Actually, I personally believe this to be of paramount importance. I'm not all knowing. Nor am I arrogant enough to suggest that my religion is the only true and right way to heaven. Hell, God could be a Buddist or Moslem for all I know. Alot of choices out there and each one of them has their own 'divinely inspired' rule book on how not to burn for eternity. As neither God, Buddha, Isis, Zeus, Allah, nor any of the million Hindu gods has yet to come down and make it abundantly clear which route will save your soul, I'd say its still an open issue. Uncertainty exists and each sect is equally devoted and convinced of righteousness. In the face of this, all you can do is hope for the best and try to lead a decent and moral life, have a positive impact upon others, love thy neighbor, and hope the organized religion you have chosen (if any) is the right one.

Because I cannot say which one is the proper incarnation of god and which laws are truly his laws, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence that god frowns upon wicked people...and favors those who are good.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 00.39)

I'll leave you with this to ponder, for those who say God must not be loving if He sends people to hell. Look at it this way, if I pretend you don't exist, ignore you, make fun of you in front of others, deny anything you say as falsehood, and even say I don't want to be around you when I die. Would you ever let me in your house?

Lets assume for a moment that you're right. That your particular branch of Christianity is God's chosen path for his flock. Deny it and your likely destination is south. But what about those hundreds of millions of souls who never had a chance to accept or deny? If that is the one true path, what about those millions of native Americans, Aztec's, Inca's, Apache's, etc, living good lives, worshiping as they knew how, but died before the missionaries arrived? The hundreds of millions more in East Asia who died without ever hearing about or ever knowing of Christianity or the Christian god. Is a place less than heaven reserved for them? They did not deny God, they simply never had the opportunity to meet him. What have they done to offend God? Is that just? Is that the act of a righteous god? (Playing more devils advocate here since it is an interesting philosophical question. Curious about your response)

And largely, this is kind of what turns off alot of the moderately or non-religious folks on the center or left. The self-righteous moralizing and the implication that if they don't follow your specific religious path, they're condemned to hell by the followers of your religion. The arrogance to assume that you or anyone else knows Gods will, which religion he favors, if any, and that choosing differently will lead to damnation. The Bible, if that be the answer, has more interpretations than the Constitution. I could walk between 3 different Christian churches and the Priests could potentially tell me that the same passage means 3 different things. Who's right? Who's wrong? And would god frown upon me for arrogantly proclaiming that I know the proper way and faith?

God said this through the Jewish Prophets, "From now on, no longer will a man say to another "know the Lord" for they will all know me from the least to the greatest." and "I saw Millions of people from every tribe, tongue and nation in heaven." (paraphrase) Deep down in our souls we know our Creator. And one day we'll have to admit that fact by bowing our knee to God (Jesus) and confessing that in the end.

If you look at all the other religions, their answer for sin is either denying there is no sin, or we can reconcile ourselves. If you stick with the Big 3 Jewish, Christian and Moslem, all know there is one God, all agree that Jesus was crucified. And Jesus' enemies back up the claims of the disciples, in that He was crucified for claiming to be the Great I AM. And educated people set up all these obstacles when Jesus was laid in the tomb. Did you know the Romans sent a spheria of soldiers? 600 soldiers to get Jesus in the Garden of Gesthamene? More proof His miracles were real and scared even the mighty Romans. A man who had never hurt anyone in his life, spent his life teaching in the open, and 600 Roman soldiers need to take Jesus to trial? And who ever thought of putting Roman solidiers outside a tomb that is closed by a bolder and it opens from the inside and the Roman soldiers don't hear it open or see anyone go inside or come out? And yet His body is gone.

Even St. Paul who God spoke through in the New Testament said if we follow Jesus for the sake of making something up or for the sake of having a false hope with no evidence of His resurrection, then we are to be pitied above all men.

There is not one person on earth that can find Jesus' body anywhere. It is because He rose from the dead. Jesus said it clearly when He said "No one comes to the Father except through me." He said it, not us Christians. God Himself said it. Choosing another religion, would be like me killing a family member of yours, and coming to your house to hang out with you and tell you your neighbor pardoned me so it's the same that as you forgiving me or I what I did to your family was ok to do. You'd be like "get out of my house now". And real Christians aren't trying to be arrogant and say we know it all and you don't. This isn't about being right this is about life or death and it's not a game. If you knew something that would kill your family member, let alone was killing their quality of life and you loved them deeply, would you stand there and watch them die or would you speak up? I'd rather someone hate me for speaking the truth than to love me for allowing them to die. Even God says "The wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses." It means a true friend will speak the truth even when it isn't what you want to hear. It's like being in a life raft and people drowning in the water. You have the boat, others have a hole in their boats trying to help along with you. Would you let others get into the other boats that are sinking? Would you be happy when they do? I apologize for going on a tangent but this is too important to worry about who isn't going to like me later on. As far as the Pastors, our own egos get in the way of hearing what God really wants. His Holy Spirit is the correct interpreter of Scripture and the Bible is God breathed. That may sound bold, but something that is false doesn't hang around this long? I've studied Hebrew and some Greek and the translations into English are solid. Just remember, just cause someone's ego misinterprets something, doesn't make the thing he or she is reading invalid or in error. And there are a lot things people twist in God's word that is so plain as day, there's no way it can be twisted the way they do that. But the devil tried to do that to Jesus by twisting Scripture and He corrected the devil. Did you know when Jesus was 12 years old He knew the entire Law without ever having studied it? The Jewish council was so amazed that a boy who had never studied knew so much. It is because He wrote the Law. The Law was to show us we can't save ourselves. We can't be perfect which the Law demands and it points to needing a Saviour. If you want to discuss this further, in a respectful way, please e-mail me at jasncondit@aol.com. I still am not expecting you to somehow take on my beliefs. God gave you free will for a reason. Because if He forces you to love Him, it is not real love. But when we don't choose Him we can't blame Him. It's like an astronaut blaming NASA for him or her choosing to believe that they don't need their oxygen suit in space and takes their helmet off. God is our oxygen, if we choose to not breathe it, not His fault. Time is just too short to worry about someone hating me in this life. (Not saying you are). So anyways, e-mail me if you want to talk more about this. I don't want to continue to eat up space on Don's board. He didn't set the board up for this purpose. Thank you EHK for having a good discussion on this, even if heated it wasn't malicious and I respect you greatly for that!
God Bless!

I see no reason why we can't keep the discussion going here. Thoughtful, intelligent debates should be kept public IMO. And I invite anyone with an interest or a thought on the matter to come on in.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

He said it, not us Christians. God Himself said it.

Did he? How can you ever be sure? Assume that the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, which tongue is the proper one? Do you assume that there have been no mistranslations, lost passages, or reinterpretations in the over 1500 years the scriptures were initially collected to their final form? All those translations and retranslations of often incompatible languages? From Aramaic, to greek, to latin, to the Romance languages, to English? The meanings of passages and indeed individual phrases and words are being debated, reviewed, and reassessed all the time. How can you know which version is definitive, or if in its original incarnation, Jesus didn't say something completely different according to the original text?

And how can someone accept this at face value? Point blank. Especially when they may be equally convinced by and devoted to their own religion. When you have 2 (or many) groups of people equally sure, on pain of death and eternal damnation, that their way is the right one, that their god/s is the only one...who exactly are we supposed to listen to? If each has a book that says 'god wants this', who are we to listen to? Both proclaim the word of god. Both do it with no doubts.

Uncertainty exists and while you may not share it, neither do those of other faiths. If both are so certain, its a crapshoot as to which word is god's (if any) and which is just words.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

And real Christians aren't trying to be arrogant and say we know it all and you don't.

But isn't that exactly whats being said? That there is one way, our way, and all others are false? Yet there is no more evidence to support your way than there is for any number of others. Why should yours be accepted as opposed to theirs?

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

If you knew something that would kill your family member, let alone was killing their quality of life and you loved them deeply, would you stand there and watch them die or would you speak up?

And this also grates, because a great many don't want to be saved in the particular fashion your faith proposes. They either strongly disagree with the tenants or have no interest in learning them. And no matter how good the intentions, it comes off as arrogant and overbearing, essentially saying that you know best, better than they do, and only your path is right.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

It means a true friend will speak the truth even when it isn't what you want to hear.

Once more, there are countless faiths and cultures who proclaim a monopoly on truth. They can't be all right. In the end, it is just your truth. Lacking conclusive evidence, one cannot say that your truth is any more valid than another on these matters.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

That may sound bold, but something that is false doesn't hang around this long?

Hinduism predates Christianity and is still around, going strong. Pre-Christian pagan religions existed for far longer than the 2000 years of Christianity and is still evident in Christianity itself, as many of its festivals and customs were adopted by Christianity. (the date for Christmas for example).

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

Did you know when Jesus was 12 years old He knew the entire Law without ever having studied it?

So says the scriptures, compiled by his followers with a vested interest in building his iconic status. No mention in Josephus or other contemporary historians at the time. Could be true. Could be a much simpler story blown out of proportion. And it could be complete myth.

QUOTE (jasncondit @ Jan 25 2005, 10.35)

More proof His miracles were real and scared even the mighty Romans. A man who had never hurt anyone in his life, spent his life teaching in the open, and 600 Roman soldiers need to take Jesus to trial?

Whats so difficult to believe? He was a charismatic leader that inspired countless to his side in his life. Many of those followers proclaimed him a prophet or the Messiah himself, the line of King David, the true air to the kingdom of Jeruselum. He clashed with the Pharisees and other dominant religious and political powers in the region. He may have advocated peace, but his presence fomented unrest. He was a direct threat to Roman control of the province. Riots and small revolts did break out in his lifetime (historically recorded), and its not to hard to attribute much of the cause to him or another like him. Plus, he did declare himself the Messiah...something considered blasphemus to the religious authorities of the time and thereby pissed off those in power in Judea, since he challenged their authority as well. Imagine if Bush, tomorrow, declared himself the Second coming of Christ...you'd be a bit pissed too. Some people need proof.

Ghandi didn't raise a finger and he toppled centuries of British domination. The Roman's decided to move before the threat got out of hand.

He also wasn't the only proclaimed messiah of his time or the decades immediately afterwards. It was a time of relative chaos and unrest in Judea, getting worse with the revolt of 66AD. Many came claiming divine inspiration, to be the messiah, to be prophets, leaders...his story persisted. THat could mean he was the one, true messiah...or it could be extraordinary good luck. Watch 'Life of Brian', it has a pretty amusing take on how these sorts of things can come about.

Hell, his divinity was still a matter of debate til 350 years later at the First Council of Nicea. There the Roman leadership, bishops, and religious leaders VOTED...fricken voted on whether Jesus was divine or not. The vote was kind of a given since many religious leaders who opposed this view were barred from attending. Also established was the canon of early Christianity, not so much to purify the religion...but to consolidate security and better political control in the empire. Dissent on something as powerful as religion was dangerous, and Constantine would not have it.

So there we have a man debated and voted truth of Christianity. Was their will that of god? Did he work through them. Did he later inspire them to persecute and push out the sects that opposed the Jesus=divine theory?

And not quite an answer on the earlier question the millions who died with no opportunity to ever hear of Christianity or Jesus. What spot in heaven or hell is reserved for them?

Ok hopefully I am able to answer all of your questions asked, if I miss something let me know. Not trying to rush over it.

1. How can we be sure? The Resurrection. No other religion not even Ghandi managed that.

2. Hinduism being older than Christianity. Actually Christianity is the extenstion of Judiasm. Which has been around since after the Flood with Abraham. Jesus fulfilled the Jewish Prophets Prophecies. Over a 100 of them. And some He could not have faked. Like the prophecy...not one of his bones would be broken. The cat o nine tails used on Jesus during his flogging made him bleed faster so when they broke the legs of the two thieves on either side, Jesus was already dead. Also, he was buried in a rich man's tomb. Judas was prophesied to turn against Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Like the Pharisees would help Jesus by giving Judas that much that matched the Prophecy. Did everything Isaiah Prophsied about in Isaiah 35. Healing the blind, lame and sick. All marks of the Messiah.
Jesus also turned water into wine. Only the Creator can manipulate the elements into anything He wants.

3. The bible was handed down in oral tradition long before it was written down. Ever play the game where you have one sentence and you have 30 people try and pass it on and it becomes a muddled mess. This never turned into a mess.

4. Jesus hung around for 40 days after resurrecting and was seen by more than 100 people. Jewish law only needed 2 people to count as valid witnesses to something. That is why two angels were at the tomb when it was empty.

5. God's word says Death reigned from Adam to the Cross. Before Jesus died on the cross, man was judged by the Law, and the recognition of a Savior to come saved those people. Those who served idols perished. Jesus said the road to destruction is broad but the narrow is the road to everlasting life and only a few find it. In short a lot of people in the world went south and some went north, how many I cannot tell you only God knows their hearts and judges them on what they did before Jesus came. Jesus said, had I not come, you would not have been guilty, but now that I have come there is no excuse. His sacrifice saved those before and after Him. But Jesus said a lot would not hear the message because the devil would prevent them from doing so. But the only power satan has is the power he we give him. satan's only weapon is lies.

6. Your right it would be blasphemous to call yourself God and not have proof. Only Jesus had proof. Those on the Sanhedrin were jealous of Jesus, and tried to use blasphemy as a false charge. And I'm not blaming the Jews for killing Jesus because Jesus is Jewish so I'd have to blame Him too. Only the most corrupt part of the Sanhedrin played a part in His death, because the honest ones denounced what they were doing. And His crucifixion was prophesied 400 years before that kind of torture was even used. Do you see how hard it is to fake this?

7. As for saying the Catholic church voted on the divinity? Actually there were different churches not just Catholic that existed. The Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, Bereans etc... were different denominations even back then. The ones that God approved of the most were the Bereans. Why is that? Because they heard someone like me tell them something about God and went back to God's word to see if what was said was true. The fact they voted on something doesn't make the original Word of God invalid. Every time someone comes to Christ and gives their life to Him, which He really gives His life to us, they have voted in their heart that He is God and their Heavenly Father. God talks about drawing lots too, and says "A lot is cast, but it is the Lord that determines which one comes out." In Revelation these churches that continue to pervert God's word Jesus said this. Repent and come back to me or I will remove the lamp from there. Meaning the church will cease to be a church. Also, the Pope is not the head of the Christian church, in fact having him up there is heresy. When Jesus talked to Peter, the rock He was going to build His church on was Himself not Peter. Peter meant pebble rock, Jesus was referring to the chief cornerstone that He was prophesied to become.

7. Canon of Christianity. Actually Christians weren't called that until Antioch. They were called Followers of the "Way". Jesus called Himself the Way the Truth and the Life. And that no one comes to Him unless the Father draws them. There is a certain point where God pursues us and after a certain point gives us over to our sin and leaves us in a depraved state. Like the prodical son story where the father gives his son his inheritence before he dies. Back on topic...the Canon was already set with the Disciples when they were the "Way" followers. Nothing was changed on that. Now will you know everything about God before you die? The answer is a definitive "no". God said through St. Paul that what we know in part now will be fully known in heaven. But God has displayed enough evidence that what He did for us was real, and set too many obstacles for someone to fake, and when God gets a hold of your heart? That is the final piece of evidence that is unexplainable to an unbeliever. But I can relate because I had the same questions as you, so I don't look down on your questions at all. And I didn't have some crisis, He just called me in my heart in a language too beautiful for words. He died for our sins and we get to be in heaven just for saying thanks with our lives. I mean how much easier do we want it?

8. His story persisted...Yes it wasn't because of luck, it was because His Holy Spirit stayed behind to finish the work in us. Did you know the disciples when they preached in different towns and spoke in tongues, that each person standing to hear them heard what they had to say in their own language at the same time? It would be like we have at the UN now where Bush speaks and they put headphones to their ears to hear the translation. Only back then there wasn't such a thing. Another miracle. I hope I was able to answer in some sort of way in better detail than before.

Seek and you shall find. Keep asking your questions and keep searching and you will eventually find Him. Waiting patiently to enter your heart.

God Bless,
In Christ Jesus,

Jason