Hot Topics — Handle with Care!

1

KitKat

in November 20th, 2005 @ 14:01

1st post!!!

Does that say I’m a humanist? cuz I didn’t say anything that had to do w/ boys or girls…but WAIT I just did, so does that mean I’m a feminist or not? Hrm. This whole thing is getting me utterly confused..
ahaha!! confusion!! Confusion usually resorts in complaint, and complaint can’t be found in animals, but if a animal could complain, it would be a donkey, so does it mean that if I am confused I am democratic?
Democratic!!! Democratic has the word Demo in it!!! If you put a n and the end of demo, that makes demon, so does that mean that I am a demon, there fore one of those people who worship the devil?
Devil!!! ahaha! At the end of devil, theres a il, and if you add a l to il, you get ill. Or if you change the i to a o and the add a l and the beginning that means lol and I am lol-ing!!!!

lol! I’m crazy!!!! he he he he

Okay, crazy burst of randomness there.

None of the stuff above is true.

0

0

2

Phoenix

in November 20th, 2005 @ 16:07

okay. that was really weird.

0

3

Axa

in November 20th, 2005 @ 16:29

: points to previous statements stated in Math(s) :

1) “Time”= Not real. Just like everything else. Yup.
2) I think that political parties really only make everything worse. For instance, I read political comic strips, and I freely admit that I try to find fault with the Republican ones simply because they are Republican. Ther’s something wrong with that. The labesl “Democrat” and “Republican” have been exaggerated to the point where the name means more than the ideas.
3)People who sue restaurants are ridonkulous. Yes, ridonkulous. I Harth Darth. ( I hope someone gets that…)

0

4

Daniel

in November 20th, 2005 @ 20:01

i think the colts will win the super bowl

0

5

Daniel

in November 20th, 2005 @ 20:02

oh i got the joke, maybe.

0

6

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 20th, 2005 @ 21:40

yeah I agree w/Axa. Not completely-I think there should be some political party to represent the ideas of the group-but I know people who’s parents just go vote all republican. (I don’t know any who just go vote all democrat but I’m sure they’re out there. Besides, I have a limited exposure to people’s voting.) I also think that somebody running for president shouldn’t have to be republican or democrat. Legally they can win without a party but in reality it’s not something that will happen soon. When I vote i’m going to be a democrat but that doesn’t mean that I won’t vote republican once in a while if I agree with their candidate’s ideas.

heh. finger in the chili.

if people stopped suing restaurants then who would we have to laugh at???

oh yeah and I can hear your joke totally whooshing over my head. sry.

0

7

Lizzie

in November 20th, 2005 @ 22:11

Is it superbowl time again? Who’s doing the halftime show?

MG, would you like to continue our little debate here?
Was that a dangerous question?

0

8

Axa

in November 20th, 2005 @ 23:05

I Harth Darth was a hilarious comic strip adventure like objuct at the livejournal of the same naem. Very amusing.
The quote I used went like this:

Darth: Obi!
Obi Wan: Aniken! Long time no see!
Darth: :breathing noise:
Obi Wan: You know, you look ridonkulous in that outfit.

Something like that.

Yeah, representation is important, but I thihnk it’s really been blown out of proportion these days.

0

9

MontgomeryGurl

in November 21st, 2005 @ 00:29

I would like to continue the debate here. Why don’t you start off, and then I’ll respond? I’m fine talking about whatever you want to. I’m really interested in what specific things with Bush you don’t agree with. And if you say Iraq, explain what you think he did wrong there, in specifics.

0

10

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 21st, 2005 @ 17:29

Basically just going there in the first place. Why did we start a war there anyway?

Oh yeah and I don’t like how they make it sound like Iraq and Afghanistan were connected because they weren’t. Two totally different things.

Plus I think he’s had plenty of chances to take us out of there but he hasn’t. I mean I think we should help them rebuild and all, cuz we messed it up in the first place, but why does the army stay over there?

just fyi i didn’t like kerry either but he wasn’t bush. of course all the best people for the job don’t want to be president. *sigh*

0

11

Phoenix

in November 21st, 2005 @ 18:53

hello. not gonna get in to this discussion. MUST RESIST…….

0

12

Artemis Fowl II

in November 21st, 2005 @ 20:32

I agree with Ebeth the lurker. Most of the best people do not want to be president. For example, my social studdies teacher keeps announcing that he would be president some day. It is mostly to prevent our 1st period class from falling asleep,but and even if he was serois: 1) Even though he is only in his thirties, he does not exactly a millioniare, or; 2) He has never been to the required colleges, and How would he pay for the ads and such!?!. Anyway, done typing about my teacher.
In the 2004 elections, I did not favor Kerry, but wasn’t very enthusiastic about Bush either. At first I agreed with Bush, but then the war’s progress really changed my mind. I do not really like how the fighting is being done. I believe some areas of both sides have been fighting in sneaky, unfair ways, such as suicide car bombs and the soliders’ tourchuring prisoners. I think we should remove the troops, but still attempt to help rebuild, like ebeth the lurker previously stated.

0

13

Artemis Fowl II

in November 21st, 2005 @ 21:10

I know this is a slightly different topic, but what do you think about the avian flu?
I think it was caused by the overcrouding of poultry and the artificial antibiotics injected into them. I am not trying to blame it on anyone, or say that we should have known, but does this remind you of the Boubonic plague? ItThe plauge was partially enabled by crowded, filthy streets full of rats and garbage. The crowds of both people and poultry helped/will help/e disease to travel. In my opinion, by growing away from nature using genetically engineered chickens, artificial foods or antibiotics, causes disasters and viruses. I think it is a bit sad how some things are becoming so processed.)-:

0

14

MontgomeryGurl

in November 21st, 2005 @ 21:37

First off, there is a lot of evidence that Saddam was connected with Alqeida (sorry, can’t spell that). You know those bombings in Madrid? Those were by Al. They were because Spain had soldiers in Iraq. Why would Alq bomb someone for being in Iraq if the two were not connected?

Our soldiers have to stay over there. It’s a really tentative situation, the control of power is up for grabs, and if the army leaves the whole thing will probably collapse. If you remove the army, all you have is aid workers and civil engineers, and if something happened there would be no way to stop it. All the different groups in Iraq want power, and we have no clue what some of them might do. If the military gets out of there and civli war errupts, then it will take a long time to get hem back in there to stop it, and by then it might be too late. Most soldiers support Bush and the war and say they think they have to stay there. I think they know best.

The torturing of the prisoners was terrible, and should not have happened. Those soldiers were punished, because the U. S. does not believe in stuff like that. You shoudn’t put the entire U.S. military in the some group as those soldiers, because they’re completely different people. I think what those soldiers did was terrible and they shouldn’t have done it, but Saddam did that too. He tortured prisoners all the time, and while that of course doesn’t make it right, we shouldn’t act like this was just the U. S. military, either.

0

15

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 21st, 2005 @ 22:07

hey this is off topic, but artemis fowl, if you do your smileys what i consider the right way and what you probably consider backwards, they make little people. instead of (-: maybe you knew that. maybe not.

In a hopeless attempt to make this sound at least slightly deeply political I will say that overcrowding (birds or whatever else) is bad. bad bad bad. overcrowding+ebeth=ebeth maaaaad. i have no opinion on the avian flu thing, I haven’t really bothered w/it all that much.

0

16

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 21st, 2005 @ 22:17

hey MG it’s not like I’m saying the soldiers are all like that, it’s just that I don’t think the military is the group to do the job.

why would the Alq bomb anybody?? And how do you know why they did that?

And even if that were true, I still think it’s a stretch. I really didn’t like the whole “War on terrorism” thing, I thought that was really messed. If we’re going to fight a “war” on terrorism, why not fight it on the terrorists?? why the country??

0

17

MontgomeryGurl

in November 21st, 2005 @ 22:39

Finally, something we agree on!!!!!! I have no opinion about avian flu, either!!!!! I feel like I fit in. Actually, I do have an opinion, it’s bad. Avian flu is….bad. No avian flu. Death to avian flu. Bad. Yeah.

I noticed that Ebeth did not respond to my comment. That means I won!!!!! Ha ha, she didn’t respond, and that means she has no answer and that means I’m better!!!! Nyah, nyah!!!! I hope you guys realize I’m joking. I understand she may have just not felt like it, or maybe she’s trying to keep it more light-hearted or something. Anyway, I will be glad when someone responds to my comment!!!!!

0

18

Axa

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 00:02

Did you know there are turkies that never see the light of day? Think of that whislt you give thanks. The whole concept of eating is wacko if you ask me. Everything is weird when you think about it…

Iraq- Honestly, we had no business going in there, but it’s not like we can pull out. As previously stated by MontgomeryGurl, there would be a total collapse. So then what? Like Gimli says “Maybe there is is no right answer.” ( Well, something like that. ) While the dictatorship going on over in Iraq is wrong by American standards, what right did we have to do anything about it? Invasion only makes things worse. Russian attacks on Afghanistan( I think it was, that or Iraq. Bad memory…) helped form parties like that Baath that Saddam was in.

What bothers me most is that seemingly nothing is being done in Afghanistan. What happened to getting Bin Laden and his cronies? That all just kind of fizzled over. I’m not saying they weren’t connected, but dosen’t it make sense to go after the people you know are manical and evil before invading a different country?

On a somewhat unrelated note, I thought the whole “freedom fries” thing was the most idiotic thing I have ever seen. Americans can be so selfish. Here we are, Land of the Free, supporters of freedom of speech, and when a country does that, Oh no! We boycott them. And a fried dish that had absolutely nothing to do with France. It’s a cooking term for goodness sake.

I don’t mean to come off sounding un-American, but I certainly don’t agree with some things.

( And Schwarzenegger is a TERRIBLE governer. You’re all lucky you don’t live in California. )

0

19

randomrohanfreak

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 00:03

I think that the whole “reason” for the war was phony. Bush said he had evidence that Saddam was dealing with Al Qaeda (which I think I spelled right) and that he was plannign to build weapons of mass destruction. Years later, we still haven’t found any weapons, and we’re so bogged down in the whole mess that is Iraq that we can’t adress problems in countries that have a far greater likeliehood of having nuclear weapons. I’m not saying that Saddam was good, or that he should have stayed in power. He was a really awful dictator. But the war was chasing after imaginary weaposn of mass destruction, not trying to overthrow an opressive tyrant. I find something very wrong with that.

0

20

MontgomeryGurl

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 00:16

I posted my thing before Ebeth’s was up, in case you were wondering.

After the bombings, alq claimed resposibility and said why. They said that the bombings were because Spain had troops in Iraq, and if they didn’t elect the candidate who was for getting the troops out, they would do it again. All the people caved and elected the guy who was behind in the polls but would take the troops out of Iraq. (side not: does this strike anyone else as strange? They elected the guy that the train-bombing terrorists liked? They elected the guy whose veiws were acceptable to the terrorists? I just found that a little weird) Alq said that’s why they did it. And there’s other evidence that I can’t currently remember.

A country that supplies terrorists with stuff is just the same as a terrorist. You have to go for the source if you want to stop anything. And you could argue that Iraq was against Saddam, not the country, because most of the people there disagreed with the regime we were taking out, and the vast majority of the everyday Iraqis are happy he’s out of power. A lot of people woudl call Saddam a terrorist, since he gassed the Kurds and all. Anyway, we couldn’t go after Saddam and the terrorists without goign after the country.

0

21

MontgomeryGurl

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 00:31

Okay, two of those posts weren’t there before, so I’ll address them here.

First, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. You know how I know? He used them on his own people. They were there. Why would he have not given full access to the U.N. weapons inspectors if he didn’t have them? He was acting like he had them, which he wouldn’t have done if he didn’t. He knew we were more powerful then him, why would he try to tick us off? The fact that we haven’t found them doesn’t prove anything, he had a lot of time to get rid of them. And even if he didn’t have them, he could have gotten them at any second. Even if he didn’t have them, which I am by no means conseding, you wanted to wait until the crazy man did? Everyone thought he had them, even the democrats. Just about every democratic leader said that Saddam was a threat and needed to be taken out. I promise you, it’s true.

As far as it being unstable, of course it is!!!!!! Find me one country that was not unstable after a war and shifting of power. It will get better once the power system is set up, and then we can pull out of there. Then we’ll have a starting point for that whole messed up middle east, and we can begin to deal with the terrorists.

As far as Bin Laden goes, we’re still looking for him. You don’t hear a lot about him because everyone is busy with Iraq, but we’re still looking for him, hard. People are in Afghanistan. You must understand that the middle east is a big region with a lot of caves, and you’re not going to find one man in it just like that.

The whole French thing is another topic entirely and one that I will not go into because it really isn’t that important and would take forever to disscuss.

0

22

Mirjana C.

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 10:48

Axa, you said “While the dictatorship going on in Iraq is wrong by American standerds, what right have we to do anything about it?”

Nothing should be done by American standereds, but by God’s. Dictaorship is wrong, PERIOD. And if something is wrong, you have the duty to do something about it, not just a right. My dad said, “People always say, ‘War should be our last choice’ and by all means it should. But now we’ve come to our last choice.” Also, Sam says,”There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.” And how do you define good and evil? by the standerds that God sets. And how do you know what God’s standerds are? I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but through His Church. I have absolutly nothing against people of other religions, but I really do belive that Catholicism is the right religion.

as I live in Europe I don’t get the details of American news, so I can’t really debate politics. I do know that we weren’t wrong in going into Iraq. Just so you know, I was born in and have lived in the US untill I was 11. However, I do know my religion. If people comment, I will give an answer, even though I don’t go on here as often as the rest of you.

0

23

MontgomeryGurl

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 11:37

I agree with what you said, but I’m a Protestant. I do have a few, um, issues with the Catholic church, but I believe you will go to heaven, so it’s really not that important. The differences seem major until you look at the big picture and realize how much we have in common.

Just so you know, I think religion is a separate issue, and this is in response to Mirjana and I’m not talking about politics. If anyone takes issue with me or Mirjana I think it should be a different disscussion from the political one. I think the two do mix, but for the sake of clarity and being able ever get a topic debated out, we should keep them separate. Both of these are such compicated issues that we won’t get anywhere if we mix them into the same disscussion. So talk about religion, but keep a religiong debate and a political debate separate.

0

24

Ebeth the Lurker

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 12:27

mwahaha so there mg!! lol!

wow where do you live mirjana?? like country type madoodle whatsit?

Nobody ever calls them “freedom fries” anyway. But that’s just really stupid.

I’m really against the whole generalization thing, like basing the whole country on the leaders and stuff. or the people in power. anyway yeah just because we disagree about something the government did doesn’t mean we have to insult the entire country. Like how a lot of people hate us because of bush and the whole terrorism thing so they assume all americans are like that. not dissing bush. well actually i am sort of but not really.

The thing about bush’s foreign policy is I think there’s too much of it. I say let’s fix (*coughscrewup*) our own issues before we “fix” (screw up) somebody else’s.

0

25

Axa

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 14:10

To me, right and wrong are based off of personal values. An example: A farmer says snow is bad, because it may kill his crops. On the other hand, someone could say snow is good, because they like to ski. Who’s right? Both. Who’s wrong? Both. It dosen’t end.

Dictatorship is wrong, with that I agree. Since the general thought was that Saddam was a terrible “ruler” then it seems somewhat justified to overthrow him. But now that he’s been put away, why have the WMD been found? The only reason our troops are still over there is because, as said before, the country would collapse without them. That’s the only reason I can see.

:coughs: I have a cold at the moment, if anything in this was incoherent, that’s why. : wink :

0

26

Lizzie

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 20:02

You know, this entire war has been a great recruiting tool for Al Q.

Also, Bush threatened to VETO the proposed law outlawing torture.

I’ll write more later. Have to go practice.

0

27

randomrohanfreak

in November 22nd, 2005 @ 23:06

Note that the current Attorney General of the United States has approved torture (in politicalese, of course) as long as it’s Americans doing it. I’m not anti’American or anything, I just believe that there’s something wrong with an important official in a powerful country condoning torture.

0

28

Phoebe

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 00:41

I’m available for political debates, someone.

I’m a democrat, I agree with they’re views on most subjects. Unless they’re John Mcain, because he rocks. Yuhhuh.

WMDs. Oh yes, I am a Daily Show/ Colbert Report watcher.

Saddam was cruel and terrible, no doubt, and although there was probably a better way, and we rushed into it, he did need to get out of there sometime sooner rather than later. But he said there were WMDs in there, and now we discover that was a load of (CENSORED), and we’re stuck in there. Bad situation, to say the least.

Randomrohanfreak, I agree with you here. Torture is wrong, and Dick Cheney won’t approve the bill against it (Oh, right about now, my well – honed Daily Show skillz are dying to go into…Oh…must..resist…) and that sorta makes me think… How come he won’t? Torture is cruelty to another human being, and that isn’t ok by me. No one, no matter they’re crime, should be tortured.

I’m not religious, so I won’t bring God into this, but war is what one calls a LAST RESORT, after everything else has failed, so I agree with you here Mirjana and thank you for not being like some people I’ve seen on other boards who force they’re religion upon others.

Right. Questions?

0

29

randomrohanfreak

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 00:56

I agree with Phoebe that people who try to force their religion on others shouldn’t. You can believe whatever you want, but you have no right to make others believe the same thing. Don’t tell someone she’s going to hell (sorry for the swear, but what else am I supposed to say? Delete it if you want to.) and expect her to convert. And don’t tell me to my face that you’re praying for me. Pray for me if you want, but for whoever’s sake, don’t TELL me so. To some people, religion is an important part of their lives, but it doesn’t seem to fit me. I think that you and everyone else in the world should be able to believe in whoever or whatever they want, whether it’s God, the gods, or no gods.

0

30

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 01:38

For anyone who is interested in finding out about what different religions (including different variants of Christianity) teach, I highly recommend Huston Smith’s book The World’s Religions or its earlier version, The Religions of Man. It’s short, readable, upbeat, and absorbing.

By the way, I don’t consider “hell” a swear word, the way you used it. It’s a place, or at least a condition, that some people believe in and others don’t. Either way, in order to talk about it, you need a word for it, and that’s the word. As far as I’m concerned, it’s like “Belgium.” Well, maybe more like “Detroit.” So, no censorship.

0

31

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 10:59

I see what you’re saying RRF. Just about all religions believe anyone who doesn’t believe them will go to hell, and to be perfectly frank wiht you I believe that, too. If you want to get into why, I would say that God hates sin, and if you’ve ever sinned in your life you deserve to go to hell. So that means everyone deserves to go to hell. I do, for sure. But God was sad that all of His beautiful creatures were going to be separated forver from Him. So He died for us, on the cross, in the form of a Man named Jesus. And now Jesus will take any sins you have and get rid of them if you ask Him to. So I deserve to go to hell, but in God’s eyes I’m sinless, because Jesus took all my sins upon that cross. That’s the religion I believe. I try not to shove it down people’s throats, but I want to tell people about it. I have to tell people about, I mean, I believe I’ve been rescued form eternal damnation by God Himself, I can’t keep that to myself!!! But you can believe it or not, it’s the religion I follow. Sorry, I kind of got carried away.

0

32

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 11:23

MuseBlog takes no stand on religion, of course. But in the interest of factual accuracy, I should point out that of the religions I’m familiar with, only Christians, Muslims, and Zoroastrians hold that unbelievers will go to hell. Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews don’t think so, for example.

0

33

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 11:33

What exactly do Jews believe, then? What I really meant was that all religions believe their’s is the way. Buddhists believe you have to get in touch with the universe, or something like that, and lead a “good” life to get better reward in the next life, or is that the Hindus? I do know that the Hindus have the caste system. To be perfectly honest with you, I never understood either religion and I’m always getting them mixed up. But the main point is that all religions think they have the answer, and some think non-believers can find it, too, but they all think that the way to do it is the way they say to.

0

34

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 12:31

Buddhism isn’t really a religion is it? I thought it was more like a way of life. can’t you be buddhist and a diff religion at the same time?

maybe not. that’s what i thought.

0

35

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 12:54

Like Christianity, each of the other major religions comes in many different versions. The World’s Religions (which, again, I highly recommend) describes them much better than I can. Speaking very broadly, though, I’d say that Buddhists don’t really care whether you practice Buddhism (many forms of which hardly seem like a religion at all); they just think you’ll be happier if you do. Hindus figure that you’re already a Hindu without knowing it. And Jews believe that their religion is right for them, aren’t eager to convert anyone else, and just want to be left alone. (Right, Phoenix? I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.)

Larry Gonick’s Cartoon History of the Universe books also tell a lot about the history of different religions, in his inimitable Muselike style.

0

36

Lizzie

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 13:13

*gasp* The administrator said “B——“! I’m shocked!
*end of HHG2Gal moment*

I don’t really know- to me, it doesn’t seem that likely that there is actually some infinitly great person sitting up in the sky who cares about what is going on and takes care of all his creatures- it seems to me sort of like a grown-up version of a security blanket- it doesn’t matter if your life is wretched, God will make everything all better. It also seems to me that during the Middle Ages and stuff it might have been a tool for keeping the peasants from rebelling- you know, “the poor will inherit the earth”, so just shut up and keep plowing. And also, the events that have been going on- wars, tsunamis, poverty, crime, hurricanes, religious persecution, kidnappings, oil spills, mass extinctions, etc etc etc sort of make me think that if there is someone out there, they kind of like to see us suffer. I don’t know. This is just my opinion. I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone- this is just what I think, and feel free to censor any of this, Robert, if you think I’ve been a bit offensive. But I didn’t mean to be. *end of disclamer*

0

37

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 13:20

Yes, I said “Belgium.” Excuse me, I mean That Which Must Not Be Named.

0

38

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 14:49

Lizzie!! you’ve uncovered the fatal flaw in our system! what happens when the GAPA says naughty things like B******?? WHO WILL DELETE HIS POST????!!!!!!!

aaaaaaaah!!! *pantpant*

*deep breath*

meh.

I guess the GAPA will just have to watch his mouth. ooooh!

heh.

sry i had a fit of randomness there.

I know what you mean about the middle ages and all lizzie-it was kinda an excuse and all. but i do believe in god, i just think too many people try to use other people’s belief and trust to their advantage. and i think that still happens sometimes. not all as much but still.

not dissing any priests or anything. didn’t say they all do that.

but yeah i kind of figure out god for myself. i mean i listen to what’s in the bible and all and believe it but it’s not complete implicit trust. which isn’t exactly all that religious i guess (i’m a catholic), but that’s what i think.

0

39

Duncan_Quagmire

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 14:58

Well, I’m leaving for my grandparents’ house soon, so I don’t have much time to chat. I will say a few things, though.

1.) I am a Christian. However, I don’t think that “If you’re not a Christian, you’re going to hell” is a great thing to go around telling prople. My favorite Bible verse says, “so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe as you hold out the Word of Life” (Philippians 2:15-16a). The better way is to bring others to Christ is to “shine like stars” — to live your life as a constant testimony to what God is doing in and through you.

2.) As far as I know, Christianity is the only religion that is not about trying to work your way up to salvation, or “enlightenment”, or nirvana, or whatever. Christianity is about realizing and admitting that you can NOTHING by yourself and putting your trust in Jesus.

3.) Lyrics to “The Truth” by Relient K (go to http://www.gotee.com to listen):
And I’ve collected all these thoughts
And I’m dying just to lose them
And if your words are true or not
I’ll die trying to prove them
But I’ll just have to accept
That my mind is so inept
And the only thing that’s left
For me to do is to trust you

Convince me
Because I really need your help
Oh convince me
Because I can’t see this for myself

I’ll put the emphasis on the evidence
Begging for the proof
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth

This is so unnerving
I know you’ve never lied to me before
But the things you’re telling me
I can’t yet believe
Yet can’t ignore
But I’ll just have to accept
That my mind is so inept
And the only thing that’s left
For me is to trust you

Put the emphasis on the evidence
Begging for the proof
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth

It’s a world full of cynics
Who say to stay alive in it
You gotta stick with what you know
But the soul is always aching
For the heart to start taking
A chance by letting go

So let go
Let go
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth
Attempt to place our lives into your hands
Confide in what you’ll do
Cause sometimes when you’re trying to sleep
And all your doubts and your faith don’t agree its cause
Sometimes the hardest thing to believe is the truth

0

40

Axa

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 17:43

Actually, we studied religions last year ( in a public school, which I always thought was wierd, what with all the stuff about the Pledge going on….) and there are certain forms of Christianity that beleive you have to work to get into heaven. I can’t remember which it was right now, but I think it was the Lutheran Church.

I don’t see why there are so many divisions. Or rather, I don’t understand: the message of Christianity is supposed to be something we can all relate to, so why the different versions?
I suppose different people interpret differently.

Shintoism has yet to be mentioned. HA! My knowledge of Japan proves useful :cackle:

Shintoism is a religion that originated in Japan, and is different from Bhuddism in that it focuses on the natural world. Each object has a kami, or god in it. By object, I mean rock, tree, natural things. All of that should be mostly accurate.

0

41

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 19:38

I actually don’t consider Lutherans Christians. They believe someting totally different than I do. To me, Christianity is all about how helpless we are and how we could do nothing without God. We can’t work for heaven, and anyone who believes you can isn’t a Christian.

Lizzie: I find it more difficult to believe we came from nothing. We are so complex and everything works together so perfectly just to keep the world from falling apart, how could it all be random? And as far as bad things happening, I know what you mean. But I just have to accept that God is smarter than I am and it all has a purpose. Like the hurricane, I think it might have been allowed by God to draw people to Him. And when I think about it, I have no idea how many things could go wrong that He keeps from happening. Maybe three category 5 hurricanes, four 9.0 earthquakes, and an oil spill were all about to happen today but He prevented them. He has to let some bad stuff happen, or people would never rely on Him, which is His ultimate goal.

D_Q: You’re right about the threat of hell not being a good way to convert people. And you’re right about letting our lights shine. The hard part is figuring out how to do that. I guess we just have to rely totally on God for this and a lot of other things.

One time a group of Christian men were together, and they were trying to figure out what made Christianity different. They thougth and thought, but nothing was exclusive just to Christianity. Then C. S. Lewis came in (yes, this is a true story). They asked him. He said, “that’s an easy question; grace.” Christianity is the only religion that believes God did everything for us and we just have to believe.

That’s a good song. I feel like that all the time. I just have to let go of what I think and feel and believe blindly, even though it might not make sense. And you know what? When I lay aside trying to figure out the unfathomable, it all makes sense and I’m at peace. Is that song off Relient K’s new CD?

And one last thing. You’re a real Christian, right? I mean, you don’t just follow your parents to church, this is really your God? From the way you were talking it doesn’t seem like this is just your parents religion. I’m glad, because I’m a real Christian, too, and if my parents stopped believing tomorrow I would still trust in God.

0

42

Phoenix

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:10

ok: Judism dosn’t have a set group of beliefs. Some people don’t belive in evolution, my family does. (as in, we belive Adam was the first man and all, but we hold that he was the first fully evolved human.) also, the world was created in seven days– but not literally. days are a rotaion of the earth regarding the sun, but the sun was created on the fourth day. Most Jews translate “day” as a certain amount of time– somtimes millions of years.
Anyway, the widely held belief about death is that after dying, everyone– even the greatest Tzadikkim— goes to a place called Gehennom. Depending on what kind of a person you were (sins, good deeds, etc.) you go for a differant amount of time. However, the longest you can go for is 11 months until your sins are atoned for. Then you go to Olam Habah, the next world, no matter what. No one is left out, because they have atoned for thier sins in Gehennom. Some people say you go to Gan Eden (Eden), but others say you go to the kingdom in Shamayim, with God and the angels, and some say they are one and the same. No one really knows. Also, we don’t belive people go to Hell because they don’t belive in our religion. I think, as long as you are a good person it shouldn’t really matter. For instance, all non-Jews were given seven commandments, basic ones, like not to kill, steal, comit adultery, kidnap, etc. If you keep those, you’re fine.
In addition, some people have mistaken ideas about the command not to practice magic. Magic, we belive is nonexistant– just the rituals were cruel and sadistic, like those worshiping Moloch or Satan. We do belive, however, that God gives prophets to all nations, not just Jews, which is how the sorcerors in Egypt were able to preform limited copies of what God did through Moses, and Bilam was able to curse and bless people. Also, some people say Jews don’t belive Jesus was real. We do, and he was a great Tzadick and a prophet, we just don’t think he is the son of God. I HATE when people say the Jews killed Jesus. We didn’t, that was the Romans, who killed him because he preached freedom, and they said he was treasonous. Jesus was a Jew, and a prominent Rabbi.
One more thing before I shut up: Jews don’t belive in Satan in the context Christians do. We belive evil came from eating from the Tree of Knowlage in Eden, before then people didn’t have the Yetzer Ha’rah, the urge to sin. In places in the Old Testament where it says “Satan” it dosn’t mean the Devil, such as in the book of Numbers when Bilam is cursing the Hebrews, it says, “Vayarad malach v’hafach l’Satan…” (and the angel came down and changed to Satan…” it dosn’t mean Satan was taking on the form of an angel. Satan was (and still is, even in modern Hebrew) the word for obstacle.
Those are my beliefs. As MontgomoryGurl, I like people to know and understand, if not accept them.

0

43

Phoenix

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:11

whoah, that was long. Sorry.

0

44

Elasse-Adael

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:25

A Muslim woman came into my history class and talked about Islam and apparently Muslims believe that both Adam and Eve ate an apple, neither of them told the other to do so, they both did it of their own accord. I thought that was interesting. She told us a lot of other interesting things of course.

0

45

randomrohanfreak

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:27

Randomness is great and powerful. And the universe is infinitely vast. Therefore, it’s likely that on at least one of the huge numbers of planets out there, something will have happened that triggered life. Maybe it was a god. Maybe it was a chemical reaction. Maybe it was a god causing a chemical reaction. I don’t claim to know, just that some random thing happened here that sparked something. It could have happened on millions of other planets and succeeded on only a few, but there’s so much out there that each planet, moon, or star is unique and suited to something (or somethings) a little bit different.
So then, how did we get to be who we are? I think it’s evolution. But we aren’t the “goal” of evolution, as many people seem to think. We’re merely a step on an infinite stair (I think that’s a song lyric), because evolution is a concept. Concepts aren’t alive. They don’t think or have goals. I think that evolution is the way we, amoebas, pandas, narwhals, mangroves, and wheat got to be the way we are. I’m not trying to force anyone else to believe that evolution is true. I’m just saying what I think, which is what this thread is all about.

0

46

Elasse-Adael

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:28

oh and to become a Muslim what you have to do is say, before witnesses and completely truthfully something that translates to there is only one God and Muhammad is his prophet. What do you need to do to convert to Christianity or Judaism? (or anything else)

0

47

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 20:46

Okay, I won’t go into most of what Phoenix said, just a few things. First, evolution. I don’t think evolution makes any sense. I just can’t see how something could just spontaneously change for no reason. I think God could and did make everything exactly like He wanted it.

I agree that the Jews did not kill Jesus. But, I don’t think it was the Romans either. According to Christianity, Jesus died to save us from our sins, so anyone who ever sinned was at least partially responsible for His death. So I killed Jesus, in a sense. And one thing a lot of people don’t understand is that the death of Jesus was a good thing from the Christian perspective. If the Jews had killed Jesus, and I’m not suggesting they did, I would be eternally grateful to them, because it’s only through Jesus’ death that I’m able to live.

And one last thing; A lot of people say they think Jesus was a great teacherm just not the Son of God. Well, that’s not possible. Jesus said He was the Son of God, so if He wasn’t he was either a complete loony or a very evil person trying to make people worship Him. There are only three possibilities
1. Jesus was insane and thought He was God
2. Jesus was trying to make people think He was God
3. Jesus was God.
You have to pick from those three choices, there is no other one. Try to explain to me how Jesus could have been a prophet of God, and yet He still went around declaring He was God. It doesn’t make sense. So say Jesus was a loony, or evil, or God, but don’t say He was a great guy who told many great truths, He just happened to be an insane liar.

0

48

Axa

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 21:11

For some reason Phoenix, your post reminded me of the movie The Pasision of the Christ. Though I haven’t seen it, I heard from my dad and from others that it was simply violence, and non of the actual teachings of Jesus. While his death was incredibly important, are we not taught that his words were important too, if not more?

I agree that the statement that the Jews killed Christ is false. People really need to get theri facts straight before they start the accusations. As for evolution, I beleive in it, but also in God. It makes sense to me. The real message, sadly, the natural message of evolution has been obscured in all this arguing over whether it’s true or not.

0

49

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 21:34

I’ve seen The Passion of The Christ, and I think a lot of people missd the point. It was more of a reminder between Christians, an inside message, about what Jesus went throught for us. I didn’t think of it as a movie intended to teach, but one intended to move. It was just a reminder of what God had to go through to save us.

Evolution doesn’t make any sense whatsoever to me. I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. Do you realize that the odds of the proteins in one cell, just the proteins, not even all the other stuff in there, in one cell, being formed by chance are 1in 10 to the 42,000,000 power? That means that the odds are one in ten followed by 42 million zeros of proteins in a cell forming by accident. Can you imagine what that translates to in odds for the whole universe? Do you know someone once figured out the odds on DNA being made by chance, and there is not one chance? Not even one!!! It’s literally impossible!!!! And everyone’s always talking about the primordial ooze, combined with the sunight, on a bare rock earth made life. Well, first off that’s nonsense, and second where did the primordial ooze, sun, and bare rock earth come from? If you can explain that to me, I will be eternally grateful. And one last thing; everyone is always talking about all the scientific evidence for evolution. Well, can you give me some of it? Everyone always just talks about it in the abstract, well give me some concrete!!

0

50

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 22:29

hey MG, i totally disagree w/what you said about lutherans. Just because they don’t believe what you do doesn’t mean they’re not christians. Actually I live right by a lutheran college and they believe a lot of the same things that I do, and i’m catholic.

hey E-A to convert to catholicism you have to be confirmed. Basically a priest says “do you believe…” and then he names off a bunch of things and you say “I do” after each one, and then you have communion, which is where you eat the little bread thingys (symbolizing the body of christ) and drink wine (symbolizing his blood). then you go to a party w/friends, relatives and play baseball. at least that’s what i did. ha my team totally won too. good times…

Evolution is something i don’t know all that much about. i’m gonna figure it out one of these days…gotta read darwin though cuz there’s no way they’re gonna tell you much in skool.

enough deep religious thinking for today. I’m off to rant about hp4. see y’all! (yes I am in the south so there! heh. ohio. it’s south of MI!!! that’s all that counts!!!)

0

51

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 22:38

Sorry if my last post was kind of rude. I’ve been in a bad mood most of the day, and I’m downloading something which is making my computer go very slowly, and that made me even madder. Sorry if it wasn’t civil, try to read it in a very sweet tone of voice.

0

52

Phoenix

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 23:26

hey hey– I belive in evolution– and I belive that God caused it. As you said, there is NO WAY we could be alive just by chance. Keep in mind that I am an Orthodox Jew, and if I didn’t belive God made the world that would be totaly weird and I wouldn’t fit in the category of Orthadox. I belive that God set the world in place and fixed it up so we have free choice. Just our being alive is a miricle.
I don’t know the exact procedure for converting to Judism, but I know that, if a non-Jew wants to convert, any Jew who hears them is religiously obligated to tell him all the hard and sometimes unpleasant (like fasting) aspects of Judism. He or she is only allowed to convert when they hears these and accepts them.

0

53

Phoenix

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 23:31

oh, yeah, and I was thinking about Passion of the Christ whe I wrote it, even though I’ve never seen it. From what I’ve heard, it was really anti-semetic.

0

54

MontgomeryGurl

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 23:53

First off, Ebeth; It depends on your definition of Christian. I think I have a different definition than you, and that’s where our hold-up is.

To convert to Christianity you basically just have to pray to God and admit you’re a sinner and ask Him to forgive you and say you give your life to Him. There’s no “official” way to become an “official” Christian, you just have to believe in God and all that.

I believe God made us all perfectly like He wanted us, but I’ll admit that’s just personal belief. I was mainly talking to people who believe evolution is the replacement for God, and explains everything.

The Passion of The Christ was not anti-semetic. It didn’t blame anybody, except maybe Satan. What a lot of people don’t understand is
1. We all killed Jesus, at least according to Christianity. He died to save us from our sins, so if we hadn’t sinned He wouldn’t have had to save us, therefore anyone who’s ever sinned killed Jesus, therefore we all killed Jesus.
2. The death of Jesus was a good thing, at least according to Christianity. We would all be headed to hell without the perfect sacrifice.
3. According to the gospels, Jesus gave up His spirit on the cross. No one took it from Him, He gave it up, so one could say no one killed Him.
The movie just told what happened according to the gospels. I didn’t get an anti-semetic message at all. Most of the people who complained about it being anti-semeic had never even seen it.

0

55

ChinTsu

in November 23rd, 2005 @ 23:56

I believe god made the rules and that’s howeverything turnedout how it is. But I am open to ideas.
Sorry, MG, but I just don’t think Bush is a good president. I think we shouldn’t withdraw now because it is too late. And where are those so-called WMD’s anyway? I disgree with Bushes ideas on the home front as well. Such as banning gay/lesbian marriage and abortion and stem cells. Plus, he does not know how to make speeches.

0

56

Axa

in November 24th, 2005 @ 00:15

All Catholics have to be confirmed, not just converts. My brother’s was actually a little boring, my whole family started falling asleep….XD

Our discussions has drifted away from the war. Hohoho.

0

57

MontgomeryGurl

in November 24th, 2005 @ 00:50

Well, back to war.

The WMD’s were there, as I explained in post 21. The fact that we haven’t found them doesn’t mean anything, because Saddam had a lot of time to get rid of them. Read post #21.

I do not want to get into gay/lesbians. As far a abortion goes, we can talk about that if you want to. You lead off why you think it’s moral to have abortions, and then I’ll repond. As far as stem cell research goes, Bush has no desire to ban it. None. He just said he thought federal funding shouldn’t go to it. That means people can still do it, our tax dollars just don’t pay for it. I don’t think there’s much promise in stem cell research. Want to know why? Well, if there was, private citizens would be flocking to invest in it. Do you know how much a cure for Alzheimers would be worth? But as it is, they’re staying away, and I think it’s because they know something we don’t. Anyway, they can get cells to research on from that tube-I can’t remember the name, but it supplies food to the baby in the womb and makes the belly-botton-they can get cells from that!!! And there’s a lot of promise in adult stem cell research.

As far as not being able to make a speach goes, he makes tons of speaches. Every now and then he has a slip of the tongue. So? Find me one person who doesn’t occasionally stumble!!! That’s completely irrelevant, anyway.

0

58

Phoenix

in November 24th, 2005 @ 12:33

I just read the Mists of Avalon. Very sad book, it made me cry. It has some stuff about Christianity in it, but I don’t know if that’s an accurate representation, and about Peaganism, and I’m not going to say anything about that either–except that it was DISGUSTING! however any Paegans here keep in mind that it was mideval Paeganism, I have no doubt that modern Paegenism isn’t horrible and cruel like that.

0

59

Lizzie

in November 24th, 2005 @ 13:13

First off, this isn’t about abortion exactly, but it is kind of related-
Bush’s supreme court nomainated person (sorry, I can’t spell today and I forgot how to spell the term for someone who’s been nominated and I’m too lazy to look it up, if that makes any sense), Alito, upheld a law that said that women had to notify their husbands before having an abortion.
Think about that for a second.
That’s basically saying that a woman can not get a medical procedure done to her own body without getting the permission of another human being. In other words, it’s like saying that a husband owns and controls his wife.
Now, I have major problems with that. This is the 21st century, for Pete’s sake, people. It doesn’t matter what your views on abortion are, but a person shouldn’t be required to get another person’s permission to have a medical procedure, unless it’s their doctor or something like that. I mean, Susan B. Anthony and all of the other women’s rights reformers were fighting to get equal rights for women in the 19th and early 20th century, and the battle sure isn’t over yet..
This also relates to why I believe the government shouldn’t control abortion- is it morally and ethically right to force someone to go through an uncomfortable and unwanted pregnancy and childbirth to produce an unwanted child? People should be able to be in control of their own bodies, and the government shouldn’t force a certain group’s religious beliefs on its citizens.
Also I think that the belief that “oh no, we can’t teach the kiddies about contraceptives and stuff because then they’ll all go out and have wild orgies” is stupid. But that’s another issue.

0

60

ChinTsu

in November 24th, 2005 @ 15:09

Just curious MG, but what do you think is the orgin of Satan. Jews don’t really beleive in h**l.
Did anyone read about how Bush tried to duck out of a press conference but the door was locked? I thought that was a joke at first.

0

61

Lizzie

in November 24th, 2005 @ 15:47

I liked the memo he wrote to Rice asking “May I go to the bathroom?”

0

62

MontgomeryGurl

in November 24th, 2005 @ 16:16

The Bible doesn’t say a whole lot about the origin of Satan, and I honestly don’t know how much of what I’ve heard about it comes from the Bible, and how much is just myth. I’m pretty sure the official position is that Satan was an angel (Lucifer was his name), and he thought he was as good as God. He thought people should worship him instead of God, so God kicked him out of heaven and threw him and his minions in hell. Satan was mad about this and decided to make it his mission to make man like him. He decided that he wanted to steal God’s prized possession (us) and make it his own.

The notifying of husbands is not about getting permision to get a medical percedure. It’s about telling someone before you kill their child. The baby is just as much his as hers, and while women do have a special connection to their babies, and matbe should have a little bit more say, the man should know before his wife kills their child. It’s not on her body, it’s on a separate human being’s body, one that happens to live inside of her.

We’re not forcing women to go through anything. They chose to get pregnant. They could have taken birth-control pills, but they didn’t. The obvious exception is rape, but very few abortions are rape. You think it’s better to torture a baby to death than let a women go through a difficult pregnancy? You think we should kill babies for the sake of convenience? I’m fine with a woman giving up her baby for adoption, and I think she can take a nine month pregnancy to save a child’s life.

This is unrelated to anything, but interesting. A lot of senate Democrats have been very vocal about their view that we should remove the troops from Iraq right now. I’m not saying you guys were advocating that, but most of the senate Democrats were. I promise. Well, recently the Republicans set forth a bill that would have the troops removed immediately (I think they just got tired of hearing about it). The vote was 403-3 not to take the troops out yet. Several Democrats who have been very vocal about getting them out now voted no. I just thought it was interesting.

0

63

Axa

in November 24th, 2005 @ 16:28

While I think if someone was stupid enough to get pregnant without wanting to, they should go through with it; no one has the right to say you can’t do something to your own body. Do you know the what the actual process of abortion is like? I’ve had it explained to me before, it is extremely unpleasant.

0

64

MontgomeryGurl

in November 24th, 2005 @ 17:04

I do know what the process of abortion is. I can’t think too much about it, or I start thinking about how that’s being done to a baby right now probably, and that it’s been done to 30 million innocent children, and then I start to cry and wish I could stop this somehow. I can’t think about it without wondering why people who are against it don’t spend all of their time trying to stop it.

WARNING: GRAPHIC DESCRIPTION ABOUT TO HAPPEN. IF YOU’RE A SENSITIVE PERSON YOU SHOUDL LOOK AWAY NOW

A claw is inserted into the woman. The abortion doctor uses it to grab the baby’s leg. He then rips it off. Then he grabs the other legs and rips that one off. Then the arms, then the head. There have been ultrasounds or something taken during an abrtion, and when the first leg is ripped off, the baby draws back in what looks very much like a scream. Can you imagine the outrage if this was done to unwanted babies after they were born?

0

65

Phoenix

in November 24th, 2005 @ 17:54

*cries* horrible! I think they do it with a drug, though…
I DO NOT support abortion, unless it is from rape, or the birth will kill the mother, or the baby has some horrible disease (like Taysacs) where it will suffer horribly and then die.

0

66

Axa

in November 24th, 2005 @ 17:59

:nod nod: I didn’t mean you specifically, sorry if it seemed that way. I’m against abortion, but if it is illegalized, it’ll go undergound, which is really scary. While I’m unsure of whether or not the baby can actualy feel this, it’s still idiotic. If you don’t want a kid, don’t get pregnant in the first place.

0

67

Kricket

in November 24th, 2005 @ 19:48

eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nasty and totally cannabilic!!!!! eeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwww!!!!! oh and by the way, I’m back!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

68

MontgomeryGurl

in November 24th, 2005 @ 21:18

Sometimes they do it with drugs, sometimes not. I don’t support it in any circumstance, unless the birth will kill the mother. Just because a mother was raped doesn’t mean we should let her brutally kill her child. I feel sorry for her, but we shouldn’t kill the child because if the father’s sin. And the baby having a bad disease is no reason to kill it!!!! Would you advocate killing born children you have diseases? This is coming from my belief in God, so it might not matter that much to most people. But the fact is God made that baby, and while it might make no sense to us, we have no right to murder what He created. I think abortion is a horrible war on the unborn. 30 million babies have already died, those babies will never come into our world. The rate of abortions makes the womb the single most dangerous place on earth, and it should be the safest. The fact that you’re even reading this means you survived the most dangerous part of your life. That’s not right.

0

69

Phoenix

in November 24th, 2005 @ 22:48

Actually what I said was abortion (the more humanistic kind, of course) should be allowed if the child would have a horrible genetic disease like Taysacs that would cause it to suffer horribly for a few years and then die. And think about it– You are too old for this issue, but if I, a thirteen year old, was, God forbid, raped, I would want an abortion. Well, I would check with Jewish law first, but a child who was raped shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion?

0

70

MontgomeryGurl

in November 24th, 2005 @ 23:10

No. A child who was raped should not be allowed to brutally murder their child. The exception is if the child is too young to safely carry a child to term, and that falls under the category of “cases where the birth would kill the mother”. It’s horrible for the girl, but why should we punish the baby? It’s a human being and it has rights too.

0

71

Axa

in November 25th, 2005 @ 00:26

My stance is that, while I hate it in many ways, the option of abortion should not be taken away. Because:

1) As I already said, it would then go underground. That’s terrible to think of: illegal abortion means shoddy jobs. Shoddy jobs means terrible injury to the mother and the child.

2) Though it’s a bad choice, it’s still a choice that a mother could make. Taking that away is taking away her right to choose.

0

72

Elasse-Adael

in November 25th, 2005 @ 00:33

I’m sure that when a woman chooses to have an abortion she goes through a lot of pain. I mean it is her child after all. I think that we have to let her decide. If it would be painful or harmfull for her or the child to go through the pregnancy maybe abortion is the best choice.

About what religion I am, I believe in God.

0

73

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 01:30

Saying that we should keep abortion legal because if it is illegal it will go underground doesn’t jive. You think we should keep a horribel evil legal because people will still do it? The abortion rate would go down to almost nothing if it was illegalized. Maybe a few women who wouldn’t have otherwise would die, but thousands upon thousands of children would live.

As far as right to choose goes, no one has a right to choose to murder someone else. Is it a man’s right to choose to beat his wife? The fact is each individual humn being has individual rights that should not be taken away by anyone else, and among these is life. Do you think that mothers should have the right to decide to kill their born children? Just answer me that one question: do women have a right to kill children who have already been born?

0

74

Kricket

in November 25th, 2005 @ 08:23

I believe in God!!!!!!! I’m also a republican and a Christian!!!!!!! by the way, ……… well I’ll say that later.

0

75

Phoenix

in November 25th, 2005 @ 12:21

okay, I did some research on the Jewish views of abortion. If you have the patience to slog through it, go to:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/stemcell.html

0

76

Lizzie

in November 25th, 2005 @ 13:42

Well, see, it depends if you believe a fetus/zygote is alive or not if it’s murder.. Murder is bad. But, if something is not alive, is not a seperate human being functioning by itself, does not have a heart or lungs or liver or spleen (spleen!) is it murder?
Okay, that was kind of convoluted, but, for instance, if you believe a group of cells=baby, then you would think that stopping that group of cells from developing further would be murder. On the other hand, if you believed that a group of cells wasn’t alive yet, it had the potential to be but it wasn’t actually alive and living, then it wouldn’t be; it would be more like removing a tumor.
So basically the whole issue comes down to at what point life begins.
Which is up to individual interpretation based on the person’s religious beliefs, personal beliefs, etc.
And I don’t think that anyone should be allowed to force another person to do something based on the first person’s religious and personal beliefs. People should be allowed to choose.
(And sorry if this all is rather incoherent, I haven’t put my contacts in yet and my ant bite on my wrist is distracting me)

0

77

Axa

in November 25th, 2005 @ 14:20

No, they don’t. I guess I just worry about the “what ifs” to much.
I don’t think there is a real solution to abortion today. There’s always going to be those people who are irresponsible and get pregnant without wanting to. That’s what we should be worried about- the causes of abortion.

0

78

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 14:53

Well, the only differences between a born baby and a fetus are:

Size
Level of Development
Enviroment
Dependency on Others

Can you tell me which one of these determines life? None of them do in my opinion, so therefore a fetus is just as alive as a baby.

As far as that just being my opinion goes, the fact is, either I’m right, or I’m wrong. There is a right answer. Either it’s not alive and is just a blob of tissue, in which case abortion is fine and should be legal, or it’s a baby, in which case abortion is murder and should be stopped now. It’s one or the other, and ou have to pick. You can’t just say one is my opinion, but who am I to impose it on others, you wouldn’t say that about murder, would you? If I wanted to kill someone, would you say, “well, I think it’s wrong, but that’s just my personal belief, so I can’t tell you not to”? No, because certain things are just wrong, and murder is one of them. Either the fetus is alive, or it’s not. Plain and simple, one or the other.

0

79

Phoenix

in November 25th, 2005 @ 15:01

Judism belives the soul is put in the baby at three months. After that it is full murder, unless it endangers the mother’s life.

0

80

Lizzie

in November 25th, 2005 @ 15:48

By the way, do you realize that this has twice as many posts as the Monty Python thread?
And that it’s been going for 77 posts so far and we’ve managed not to insult anyone or their believes or get all mad at each other and throw little huffy tantrums screaming “I hate you all I wish you were dead I want my mommy!!!1”?
I think that we all deserve a round of applause and all the leftover pie from Thanksgiving for our restraint.

0

81

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 16:37

Do people actually throw tantrums after the age of three? I am glad we managed to behave like sort of mature people, and not embarass the view we were supporting by being rude. All you guys have been courteous, and I know a lot of people aren’t. I still don’t agree with a lot of you, but none of you guys have behaved in a way that was, um, jerky, rude, immature or anything like that. Yeah, we do deserve a round of applause!!!

0

82

Phoenix

in November 25th, 2005 @ 16:50

Hey– we’re all Musers heraaaaaaargghhh… *sound of Phoenix being assulted by the Union of People who get Extremely Annoyed at Endless Repitition (UPEAEE)*

0

83

Kricket

in November 25th, 2005 @ 18:01

NOOOOOOOOOO…………. we have to save Phoenix!!!!!!! after we go blog for a few hour… i mean minutes

Phoenix- eeeeeeeeeccccccccchhhhh……… aaaarrrrrrrgggghhh

0

84

Lizzie

in November 25th, 2005 @ 18:40

By the way, I think it’s disgusting that the two turkeys “spared’ this year are named Marshmellow and Yam…

0

85

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 19:21

What are you talking about, Lizzie? I think I missed a memo or something.

0

86

Axa

in November 25th, 2005 @ 19:39

Has anyone read the book “You Don’t Need Meat” ? I was flipping through, and I got to the slaughterhouse part. It’s terrible. Animals are being killed without the supposed humane ways. Do you realize that some animals actually go through the slaughter process alive? As in, fully conscious. There are workers who abuse the animals because they can. It’s disgusting. I’m very glad I don’t eat pork ( not for religious reasons, I just love pigs) because it sounds like the pigs get it worst. And the cattle. I’m finding it harder and harder to eat meat now.

And my previous comment was answering MG’s question. A bunch of other comments popped up before mine, thought I’d clear that up just in case…

0

87

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 20:49

I never get very much into animal rights. I know a lot of times the animals are treated cruely, and that is wrong, I just have more iportant things to think about. I’m fine with people being vegetarians, it’s just these people who scream in my face and demand I don’t eat meat or wear fur that bug me. Those kind of people make me mad, and when I get mad I try to annoy people, so I love to tell those kind of people, “ha ha, I just got a new leather jacket!!!!” I’m really not as uncaring as I seem a lot of times, because a lot of what I say is intended to shock and annoy.

0

88

Axa

in November 25th, 2005 @ 21:37

I understand that, but reading it, I wanted to die. It was that bad. I’m not sure this is blog appropriate ( it can be taken out if it’s not) but here’s an example. Say a steer got his leg caught on a loading ramp or in a line or something. He’s not disentangled: his leg is burned off. It’s repulsive. There was more, but I’m sure it’s not blog friendly, so I’ll leave it off.

0

89

randomrohanfreak

in November 25th, 2005 @ 21:43

Many abortions happen before the zygote/fetus/baby even has legs to rip off.
Abortion is a difficult issue, and there are no easy answers. But we’ve been a lot more civil to each other than we could have been about it.

0

90

Lizzie

in November 25th, 2005 @ 22:53

And actually, they use suction and stuff, so I don’t think any ripping is involved..
And I don’t eat beef or pork; my brother is vegetarian, and I understand his reasons for going there, chicken soup just tastes really good…

0

91

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 23:08

Just because it’s not as developed doesn’t make it any less alive.

0

92

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 23:09

Oh, and you need to start a country, RRF!!!!!

0

93

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 23:19

I forgot to talk about the meat thing. Axa, I honestly don’t believe a lot of that stuff happens. I think if people were really that cruel to animals, someone would have had a hissy fit and made them stop by now. It might occasionally, but I don’t think it happens as a general principal. It would be easier to just disentangle the steer rather than burn his leg off, so if someone did that they would just be being intentionally cruel. Of course, I could be wrong. Do you have any outside evidence to support this book? A lot of people lie in books, an astonishing amount really, and I would just like to know if anything else backs it up. It might be true, but I’m not prepared to believe it on the word of one book.

0

94

MontgomeryGurl

in November 25th, 2005 @ 23:21

Sometimes suction is used, sometime ripping. It depends how far along in the pregnancy it is. But I am sure that ripping does happen. I think suction is only very early along.

0

95

Lizzie

in November 26th, 2005 @ 18:32

Actually, suction is used up to the 15th week- that’s basically the first trimester. Chemical abortions are also used for about 10% of abortions. Herbs can be used also but they have side effects.
*Brought to you by the courtesy of Wikipedia*

0

96

MontgomeryGurl

in November 26th, 2005 @ 19:20

That’s good to know for sure. Is it official that they use ripping the rest of the time, or not?

0

97

randomrohanfreak

in November 26th, 2005 @ 20:37

I started a country. But I don’t like its flag. I picked the Bhutanese flag for the chooser thingy, but it gave me the default one. Bleh. I like the Bhutanese flag.

Never mind. I just discovered you can change your flag. Yay!

0

98

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (QJtFoK)

in November 26th, 2005 @ 20:49

Ahem, ahem ahem. Must we? Must we? It’s considered a reproductive right, you know, not an evil, in most other countries. Next time you see someone with a coat hanger in one of those red circles w/the line thru it, it refers to backstreet abortion methods, just so you know. And on the other hand, it’s like, hello, it should at least be an option. If it’s illegalized, the abortions will just move to illegal methods. (Long story how I know this.)

0

99

Axa

in November 26th, 2005 @ 23:04

I’m veering off to my own subject a bit, sorry everyone! XD

The section I was reading was actually an interview of Gail Eisnitz. She’s ” one of America’s leading experts on slaughterhouse practices, and has conducted investigations for the Humane Farming Association, an organization that monitors and tries to improve conditions in slaughterhouses.” I looked her up through Google, and found this link –

DO NOT READ IF YOU ARE WEAK OF HEART. GRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS OF CRUELTY.

http://www.all-creatures.org/book/r-slaughterhouse.html

I advise anyone of weak constitution to not read that.It very detailed. Also, this doesnâ€™t just affect animals. Working conditions in slaughterhouses are terrible. Workers die, or are mangled. The whole meat industry seems messed up to me. Mad cow disease didn’t just come from nowhere: cattle were fed pellets that were made of beef.

0

100

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 27th, 2005 @ 08:39

All,

Rosanne and I try to discourage links to other Web sites–partly to avoid attracting the dreaded spam bots, partly because we don’t have time to check them all for “inappropriate” content. We’ll sometimes relax the rule if a site looks Muselike and/or useful and Mostly Harmless, but please remember that the rule is there.

There is plenty of shocking material on the Web. People post it for various reasons, good and bad. Because Rosanne and I can’t evaluate it all, we’d just as soon not become a portal to it. So go easy on the links, please, even when they relate to something you care passionately about–maybe especially then. After all, we’ve all got Google.

I’m also going to post this as a separate announcement.

Thanks,

Robert

0

101

Beady

in November 27th, 2005 @ 10:49

Ok. . .Just think about this. . .
We already have a problem with over population. and I feel like the aborted children would have gone to unhappy homes, (had they been born) where no one was ready for them and they weren’t wanted. In poor familes, the number of children has to do with the amount of food to eat, too. I just feel like there is stuff to focus on other than the baby itself. Just a quick though.
Axa- lets all move to Europe , whre conditions are better.

0

102

Lizzie

in November 27th, 2005 @ 11:55

I don’t think they use ripping the rest of the time, no.

0

103

Lizzie

in November 27th, 2005 @ 13:27

or Canada.. I saw some editorial a long time ago saying how “ooh, the liberals are all closet racists- you always hear them talking about moving to Canada, but they never are going to move to Mexico.” Maybe not all of us speak fluent Spanish, and judging from the quality of my Spanish teacher and class, I doubt I ever will..

0

104

Kricket

in November 27th, 2005 @ 14:27

ha! they made us take spanish in 1rst grade!!!! well at least in Tennessee…. luckily i moved….. i saw an article on the news about how chinese is going to be required in about 20 years because we’re supposedly going to interact w/ the chinese a lot more…. i feel sry for whoever has to learn chinese…. it must be hard!!! my dad used to live in Mexico (he was born in Michigan) when my grandpa was working for Ford in Mexico…

0

105

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 14:48

First off, we do not have a problem with overpopulation. The population is actually decreasing. In order for the population to remain steady, each mother/father pair need to have about 2.2 children (the extra point 2 is to make up for children who die at a young age), and the average mother/father pair only has 2 children, so the population is decreasing. And we’re not low on food at all. Over the last….I’m not sure, but I think 200 years…the population has increased by a factor of 6, but the amount of food by a factor of 1700.

Second, it doesn’t matter how horrible a life the child would have had, they have a right to be born and live it. And I have no problem with families giving babies up for adoption.

Axa; That might be true, and I’m not prepared to say it’s not. However, I think if it was that horrible, someone would have come forward and said we needed to put a stop to it before now. I think some slaughter-house worker or USDA agent would have come forward and said that what’s going on is wrong. I might be wrong, and I’m not saying that that doesn’t happen, I just find it a bit hard to believe.

Lizzie; Okay, that comment about Liberals being racists because they don’t want to move to Mexico is stupid. I’ve never heard somebody actually say that, so I’m inclined to believe it was some irrational wacko. I’ll admit it, every political party has a few. I won’t get into the “let’s all move to Canada and see how much everyone misses us” thing, except to say that I woudn’t miss all the people who were threatening to move, and if any of them want my help to fill out the paperwork to move, I’m available any time.

0

106

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 15:24

Oh, and I know ripping is used sometimes. I’m not sure how often, but it is used.

0

107

Phoenix

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:01

MontgomoryGurl, you are a great persuader. Just, make sure of your facts before you post them, okay? you nearly gave me a heart attack.
Time for a new topic:
Deth penalty, guys, death penalty.

0

108

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:06

I had a feeling that this would turn out to be the most popular part of the blog.

0

109

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:07

hmm..abortion…i’m against it personally-i would never do it-but i think a person has the right to it. Maybe just restrictions on it would be good. dunno if there are any but like say if it was your choice then you have to have the baby (like if you weren’t raped)

?????

it’s a hard question.

i’m for animal rights but not like obssesively, maybe obssesively isn’t the word…but anyhoo the point being that i’m not actively going against it much, like going vegan or anything. not even vegetarian. i like chicken.

0

110

Lizzie

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:09

Hey, Robert, serves you right for letting us debate political/religous/other topics..

MG- I think it’s pretty much the exception, instead of the rule.
Anyway.
Death penalty-
Isn’t killing people to show that killing people is bad a bit hypocritical?

0

111

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:11

ooh. death penalty. didn’t see that before. ok. I say no not death most of the time. there was a lotr quote…hang on i shall find…

k this is gandalf…”Deserves it! I daresay he does. But many that live deserve death. Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

i think that just about says it all for me. why should we be the ones to choose who lives and dies? we just live here. seriously though, leave that to (depending on what you believe) god or fate or chance or whatever.

0

112

Lizzie

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:21

I have a feeling the death penalty may not turn out to be that much of a debate….

0

113

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:49

I’m for the death penalty (what do you expect? I’ve been on the opposite side as ya’ll on every issue). Okay, first off, some times people are so terrible they are too dangerous to be out on the street. Life in prison isn’t much of a life. Why do we want to keep on living? It’s so we can be with family and experience all the stuff that makes life worth living. If someone is in prison for the rest of their life, honestly, they don’t have much to live for. It seems kind of pointless to me to keep them alive just to have them alive. But that’s not the real reason for it. Sometimes a person does something so horrible, they forfeit the right to live. Yes, I believe that. And in those circumstances, the death penalty is justified. Plus, the death penalty is a powerful deterent. I promise you, when people know that if they commit this crime they could be killed, they will be a lot less likely to do it. And the argument, “what if they’re innocent?” doesn’t persuade me much. We have and entire court system, judges, lawyers, and juries to make sure we get it right, and appeals in case something went wrong the first time. It takes a long time before someone sentenced to the death penalty is actually killed, and in that time almost all the facts that are going to come to light already have.

Phoenix: What are you refering to? My description of the ripping? I’ve read about that several places, so I’m about as sure as I can be that it happens. Lizzie just said that it happens sometimes. But, no matter how much they do it, the fact is even once is too often. I’m pretty sure ripping happens on a regular basis. Maybe it is the exeption (I’m not really sure if it is), but given the number of abortions that happen in this nation alone, it’s a substantial number.

Robert: Well, what did you expect? I don’t have a lot of opportunities to debate these issues with people who disagree with me, and I like expressing my opinion. It’s been fun to argue with people and see what they believe, and why.

0

114

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 27th, 2005 @ 17:53

Oh, I wasn’t complaining. And it is what I expected.

0

115

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:01

MG-I think people could choose the death penalty instead of a life in prison, but i’m against the death penalty as a sentence, instead of an alternative. Death shouldn’t be forced. Unless it’s in self-defence. and then you’d better be pretty desperate.

the GAPA had a feeling. The GAPA must be a great jedi master. All hail. The great jedi master GAPA. *falls on knees to bow down but falls asleep at the GAPAs feet* zzzz

sry i’m in a strange sort of tired/insane mood today. i miss the snow. I always get insane when i’m sad or tired. and when i’m happy, mad, hungry, hyper, etc.

0

116

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:04

A great Jedi master am I, think you? Strong the Force within you must be.

Sorry. Carry on.

0

117

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:24

The “it’s the best thing for them” argument was only a minor part of my whole case for the death penalty. (yeah, I know I talked about it for a while, but I was just trying to make it clear). My main point is that there comes a certain point where a person has forfeited there right to live. And that it’s a good deterent. Anyway, the “it’s the best thing for them argument” still holds, in that it’s the argument that shows it’s not cruel, and that it’s not stealing a part of our society, or a valuable part of people’s lives. We’re just taking a life in prison from them, a life that would yeild nothing good or fruitful, and a life that they forfeited with their heinous act. THe fact that they don’t want to die doesn’t matter, I’m sure whoever they killed didn’t want to die, either.

0

118

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:36

as much as everybody loves to make fun of the phrase, it’s true that two wrongs don’t make a right. Why sink to their level? If we gave them the death penalty then we’d have to sentence ourselves to death too, cuz we just killed them. does that make sense? of course not! so something’s wrong.

Also, as much as i really don’t want to bring the religion thing in again, I think the right to live was given by god and it’s not for us to take it away.

Besides it’s not really just because they don’t want to die that it’s wrong. Nobody wants to die. but killing baaad. Killing anybody is bad. Just cuz they did it doesn’t mean we have to.

0

119

Phoenix

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:37

I support the death penalty for some things. (following is Jewish law) if you know somone is a murderer, but also know the person will never murder again (for SURE), you can’t turn him in.
therefore, if a person is such a “one-time killer”, I don’t support anything but long imprisonment. For a murderer who might kill again, I support life or almost-life inrisonment. Mass murderers, terrorists, et cetera, I support death, as for peopl ewho will certainly strike again (i.e. attempted suicide bombers).
also on abortion: personally, I would NEVER have an abortion, but I think that, under the aforesaid circumstances, people should have an option (HUMANELY).

0

120

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 18:57

If you want to get into religion and the death penalty, I know of a tom of places in the Bible where God told the Israelites to kill people if they did so and so, and only banish them if they did such and such. As far as religion goes, God gives the punishment, but there are some times when He uses us as a tool for His will.

We aren’t taking anything from a person when we give them the death penalty, they gave it up. They freely chose to commit the crime which landed them there. They didn’t have to kill that person, but they did, knowing full well that if they got caught, it might lead to the death penalty. They made that choice.

Phoenix: If we make an exception for rape, what’s to stop anyone who wanted an abortion from claiming they were raped? You think we should kill the child because the father committed a crime, or because the mother doesn’t want them? I think making a mother go through nine months of pregnancy to save the life of a child is reasonable. And this only applies to people who believe in God, but God decided to let that rape turn into a pregnancy. It didn’t have to. He therefore must have some purpose for that child, and we have no right to stop that purpose from coming to fruition. And I don’t believe there is a way to kill an innocent, defenseless child humanely. Killing a baby for the sake of convenience is innerantly inhumane.

0

121

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 19:54

the rape thing all depends on your definition of a child. When is it actually a kid? do we mean when it’s fully developed, or partway, or is it a child right from the start? Legally, religiously, personally, however you look at it. that’s the big question though.

MG, you have good arguments. clap clap. all i can say is A-you haven’t changed my mind and B-I guess my interpretation of the Bible is a lot looser than yours. I still think it’s wrong but i’m not gonna say the same things over and over. that makes for a very boring debate.

MG: yes! It’s right!

Ebeth: No! It’s not!

MG: YES!

Ebeth: NO!

MG: YES!

Ebeth: NO!

so I’m gonna leave it there seeing as i obviously can’t change your mind and you definitely can’t change mine.

oh and another on the abortion thing-it depends so much on the particular case, it’s kinda hard to generalize. But i definitely think that if it’s a teenager who was raped they shouldn’t have to go through that. NOT that abortion is good or right. Most cases I say no. I just think that it should be a right, with restrictions of course. People’s choice.

0

122

Lizzie

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:05

Ack- once more, I don’t think people should be allowed to decide for other people when and in what circumstances they should have a medical procedure.. I don’t have time to go into more detail right now- I’m taking a break from practicing.

I remember reading in a Muse a while back about how there were 12 prisoners killed in one year in Iowa or somewhere on Death Row. 13 others were found innocent, due to new medical info. Mistakes happen. 112 people sentanced to death have been found innocent due to new information.
Robert- which issue was that in? Was it in the one with the gorilla as well?

0

123

Axa

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:08

Sorry ofr the linking. Eheheheh…Anyhow, I think that’s exactly why nothing’s been done: people don’t believ it or won’t. And not a lot of us even know about it. I don’t know if things are really much better in Europe, but I would hope they are somewhere.
Another obscure Axa fact- in Texas, the mentally disabled can be executed. Isn’t that terrible?

Anyway. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

0

124

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:11

Lizzie (#122),

I don’t remember offhand, but you can look it up in the Back Issues list.

0

125

Phoenix

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:15

Ok, to MontgomoryGurl: firstly, the Torah never gives a banishment punishment. Also, if you are mistakenly aquitted on earth you take your punishment in the Heavenly Court, but if you are killed for your crime on earth you are not punished by the Heavenly Court. The reason I bring religion in is because that is who I am. Jews always follow Jewish law. As for God making the choice, we belive that He sets things in place but gives us a choice what happens. As in, the most rietious woman could become impregnated from rape. Sins you commit usually have no effect on your life through divine intervention.

0

126

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:30

Firstly, the only things different about fetus from a baby are:
Size, level of development, enviroment, and dependency on others. Now, which one of those would you say determines life and/or value? I’m really asking, because if the fetus is not a child in your opinion, I want to know exactly why not. If the fetus does have the same value as a baby, then it’s never acceptable to have an abortion. If it is ever acceptable, than that means there is something that makes a fetus worth less than a baby, and I want to know what you think it is. I mean, you wouldn’t say that a baby who’s already been born should be killed if the mother doesn’t want it, would you? Then if it’s different for a fetus, we need to pin-point why.

This isn’t about a medical procedure. It’s about a life. No one has the right to choose to kill their child. If the fetus is a child, than it’s not a medical procedure on the mother’s own body, it’s murder.

Yeah, Ebeth, you’re probably right. We’ve both made our arguments, and we both remain unswayed. We have nothing new left to offer, so I won’t debate it with you anymore. But Lizzie still wants to talk about it so….

They were exocuted wrongly a long time ago. Now we have forensic evidence, and those kind of wrong convictions won’t happen anymore. I mean, wrong convictions for that reason. Since our systems of obtaining evidence are a lot more advanced, it’s a lot more unlikely that someone will be wrongly convicted. I there isn’t any forensic evidence in a case, the odds of it ending in the death penalty are very low.

Axa; I mean that I think someone on the inside would have come forward by now. I think by now someone who had witnessed it first hand would have stood up against it, called people, made a big deal. A lot of people have kept quiet about this if it is really going on. I mean, thousands of people have seen it and not complained, not been so strongly affected that they had to tell someone. And I want to know why all those workers who were hurt by the unsafe conditions didn’t say something. I could be wrong, it just seems like a pretty massive cover up for someone to exocute. But, maybe it is happening, I don’t know. I just have my doubts.

0

127

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 20:38

Sorry, Phoenix, I just thought I remembered that in the Old Testament. Maybe the Torah is different, or maybe I misremembered it. I think God gives punishments in this life, as well as the next, and He uses us as His instruments. I guess that’s a Christian thing. If we go too much into this, it will become a religion debate, which is fine, if we want to go there.

And I didn’t mean that God sent rape and pregnancy as punishment, just that He chose to have the rape result in pregnancy (He didn’t cause the rape, just the pregnancy), and that means He had some reason for it. Not all rapes result in pregnancy, so He must have had a reason for letting that one lead to it. That view might be a purely Christian view, too, I don’t know.

0

128

Axa

in November 27th, 2005 @ 21:06

Hmmm, my philosophy on religion is that God can intervene, but does not control. If that makes any sense.

0

129

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 21:48

I agree with that, in the sense that I don’t think the wind blowing is caused by God. But with something as important as a life, I believe He must decide specifically what leads to pregnancy, and I believe He decides every time a pregnancy happens. Even if He didn’t cause the pregnancy, He has a plan for that life, and we have no right to stop that plan from coming to fruition.

0

130

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 27th, 2005 @ 22:08

I dunno, when it comes down to it my vision of god is sort of less involved in the world. just sort of watching y’know? coming in here and there…i guess i’m with axa on that.

0

131

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 22:30

I think it’s impossible for us to really know how much God is involved. But I God created us in intricate detail, with all these highly specialized sytems. He is in all powerful, so it wouldn’t take Him much to get involved. If He cared enough about us to make us, and if it isn’t hard for Him to help, why wouldn’t He? With the amount of things that could go wrong in today’s world, it’s astounding how much doesn’t. All those times people almost got in car wrecks, but had a narrow escape, they wouldn’t happen nearly as often as they do if God wasn’t helping. He might not help as much as I think He does, but I don’t think He would let people just randomly pop up on earth, without having some kind of say and plan for that person. He puts souls in all of us, I don’t think He goes, “whoops, there’s another one!!! Have to get a soul for them, and figure out a plan and a purpose for their life!!” He knew He was going to make us since before time began, and He’s had a plan for us since then. He decided when the right time to make us was. How could God just let us float through life, not having really wanted us to be born and not really having a plan for us? No, I think God is always helping us and dong stuff for us, more than we could ever imagine.

0

132

Axa

in November 27th, 2005 @ 22:39

But couldn’t you then say that the abortion was the plan? For it does affect others greatly. That depends, again, on how much you believe God is involved.

0

133

MontgomeryGurl

in November 27th, 2005 @ 23:04

I don’t think God creates people specifically to have them killed. He might use abortion for His purposes sometimes, but it’s not His purpose. I mean, after the baby is dead, He my use it to minister to someone, but His plan was for that baby to live and do something else. God doesn’t put people on earth for the sole purpose of bringing something to others with our death, He has something else planned for each of us, something that will help us and others. But He doesn’t create humans just for other humans. We all have something to do for others, and something in store for us. God doesn’t plan on people murdering, He doesn’t build whole plans around someone killing one of His creatures. It’s hard for me to explain, but do you think God would have you be killed just to help someone else? You must remember, that in every human there is a “me”, someone who looks out from behind those eyes exactly the same way you and I do. You could have been aborted. Do you think that would have been God’s plan? He doesn’t make souls, make minds, make a glorious creation unlike any other for the sole purpose of throwing it away. It seems like that would be incredibly cruel to make a mind, and a soul, and then just kill it off.

0

134

Kricket

in November 28th, 2005 @ 11:45

my quote-

“Hell is cheaper than Heaven. But Heaven is worth every last penny…”

MG- i totally agree!!!

0

135

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 28th, 2005 @ 16:52

again, it’s back to the specifics. I disagree with abortion in general but we should know the specific case before we judge. And again, back to when is a baby a baby? It’s hard to decide without knowing all the details.

0

136

Kricket

in November 28th, 2005 @ 17:48

can we talk about something else? this is getting boring…..

0

137

MontgomeryGurl

in November 28th, 2005 @ 17:58

To me, you either have to be for abortion, or against it. Either the fetus is a baby, or it’s not. If it’s the former, abortion is always murder, and if it’s the former, there is nothing wrong with abortion. I don’t see how you can say the fetus is just sort of alive, you kind of have to decide which one it is.

Well Kricket, what do you want to talk about? You don’t have to hang out on Hot Topics. If everyone else thinks this subject is talked out, we can move on. Otherwise, it’s an important issue, and one that I think needs to be discussed fully. But, if everyone thinks we have discussed it fully, we can go to something else.

0

138

Elasse-Adael

in November 28th, 2005 @ 18:14

Odd. I usually agree with most of what Phoenix is saying, disagree with most of what MG says and do both with the rest of you. however you are all cool people no matter what your opinion. It is fun to debate and read your debates. you guys all argue well and I agree with whoever brought it up that we should celebrate because we haven’t started going “no! I’m right” “no I’M right”

0

139

Phoenix

in November 28th, 2005 @ 18:44

The Torah and the Old Testament are one and the same, MG. You can get punished or rewarded on Earth, but only sometimes. Otherwise, good people would always be happy, and bad people would always be unhappy.

0

140

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (QJtFoK)

in November 28th, 2005 @ 18:51

What is it with anti-abortionists and their constant allusions to infanticide? I mean, hello! Let’s look at it this way: It’s a right. You can’t judge for each and every situation. A baby will respond, if it’s awake, to stimuli. Anything still unborn will not. The pregnant woman might, but that’s a different story. Let’s go back into science, go down our biology checklist, and find out that it really doesn’t quite qualify for intelligence.

I’m going to stop now, in case I’m going to insult someone if I go on about the religious qual., and someone gets hurt. Though if you want me, I’m here.

0

141

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 28th, 2005 @ 19:01

yeah but the world’s not just black+white like that. There’s always something in the middle that’ll change everything. I can’t really say I’m for abortion-especially if it’s a somewhat developed baby-but I do think there are exceptions, and I also think that choice is part of our natural rights, and people should be able to decide what’s best for them.

0

142

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 28th, 2005 @ 19:04

sorta what queen j said. actually i was on the page, called to dinner, came back, posted, and lo and behold a whole bunch of comments!

0

143

MontgomeryGurl

in November 28th, 2005 @ 19:19

I know that the world isn’t normally black and white, but I just want to know how a fetus can be sort of alive. Most things aren’t black and white, but the issue of life is. It either is alive, or it’s not.

I’ve already explained why I think a fetus just as valuable as a baby. See post #126 for a list of what is different about them, and tell me which one you think determines value. A fetus will move, suck it’s thumb, yawn (I’ve seen the ultra-sounds), I don’t see how that isn’t alive.

If a fetus is alive, than abortion is murder. It’s never right to murder in cold blood, no matter who it helps. Nine months of inconvenience, that’s all it would take to save the baby. Abortion happens for the sake of convenience. I don’t see how convenience is worth the life of the fetus, especially if abortion is wrong most of the time. If you don’t approve of abortion most of the time, that means you think a fetus has value, and if it has much of any value, it must be more important than convenience.

Phoenix: I thought the Torah and The Old Testament were the same, but I wasn’t sure. I just thought I remembered banishment in there. I guess my mind was just playing tricks on me. I agree that “bad” people will have “bad” lives, but not in the sense that they won’t be successful, or won’t have a lot of stuff. I think of it more as a sort of empty life, one where they aren’t happy, despite all the things that they have that we would say would make anyone happy. I think sometimes it’s emotional punishment rather than physical or tangible punishment.

0

144

Phoenix

in November 28th, 2005 @ 22:06

well, the Old Testament as tranlated in modern times isn’t very reliable. The best translation you can get is the Septuagint, or, in Aramaic (I forgot to say I can read Aramaic) “the translation of the seventy”. I can give a whole historical thingie about that, but it is really boring. I only want to do it because my Jewish History teacher just made us learn it.

And about the last paragraph: Uh, MG, sorry, but that just isn’t how it works. Some people, to be sure, feel that way, but more just think they are the best even though they are evil and cruel. But this whole discussion is just hingeing on religious beliefs, so it won’t matter either way.

0

145

Axa

in November 28th, 2005 @ 22:59

Agreed Kricket. Not boring, but…covered. Any suggestions?

0

146

randomrohanfreak

in November 28th, 2005 @ 23:28

I personally would not have an abortion unless I was raped or something and was in danger from carrying a seven-pound paby around all the time. (I don’t even weigh 90. This is not a good thing. Trust me.) However, I don’t have the right to make laws for other people. Another thing: the decision for many abortions to happen is made early in the first trimester, and that’s when the abortion happens. This is often before the zygote/baby/fetus can survive otuside the mother or even has a heartbeat. Is it really alive? This is a hard decision to make, and I think it’s one for those involved to make, not Congress, Bush, the Supreme Court, or anybody else.

To start another debate: gay rights. I’m not even talking marriage here, just rights. I think that anyone and everyone over a certain age should be able to legally marry anyone else, barrinng extremely close relatives. It’s not fair to exclude some people just because they are in love with people of the same sex. If they want to enjoy the same benefit as any other married couple enjoys under the law, they should be able to.

People opposed to gay rights (not everyone, just a lot of them) often say that anyone who supports homosexuals must be gay. Two words: NOT TRUE.

0

147

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 00:01

I look at people who have everything in the world, yet I know they aren’t following God’s laws. I think that at this very moment they are being punished, but yet they still have everything. Emotional suffering can be much more acute than physical, and I don’t see why God wouldn’t use it. Of course, I believe in hell, and I believe anything in this life pales in comparison to that. I guess it’s just one of those things that religions just believe, and they’re unprovalbe. I’m interested in what exactly everyone on here believes about God.

I’ll start off by telling what I believe about hell. Hell is often thought of as a place of physical agony, and it is, but what people often don’t think about is the emotional agony. I believe hell is a literal burning lake of fire, but more importantly it is a place of eternal separation from God, which in my mind is much worse. Hell is a place of extreme lonliness, with literally no one to comfort you, no one to turn to. Think about that. In hell you have no one. God is the ultimate in peace, love, caring, wisdom, lovliness. He’s just perfect. In my mind (keep in mind, this whole post is just what I believe, I don’t expect you to believe it, though I think it’s true), everything that’s good in us, every good feeling, every time your heart pulses with love, that’s from God. In hell, it would all be gone. Everything that’s good would be gone. I ahve to go now, if anyone wants to talk about their beliefs I would like it.

0

148

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 00:10

Sorry, RRF’s post wasn’t up before.

I think we’ve gone through abortion. I can’t say anything to that post that I haven’t said already.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t want to get into gay rights. I don’t know much about it, and my opposition to it is entirely religiously based, and that’s not very convincing. I will just say, that normally I don’t agree with forcing religion on to people, and I think normally God wants to give people a choice. But this is different. I don’t know how, but God doesn’t want this to happen. I think we need to stop it, but I can’t prove it. I honestly don’t have anything to say about it. Sorry.

0

149

Axa

in November 29th, 2005 @ 00:30

WHat dosen’t make sense to me is why people ( I’m not saying you MG, but there are people REALLY opposed to this ) think that God wouldn’t want any of HIs children to be unhappy. But whateve. Since it’s a huge topic and such, maybe something else? Like, um, animal rights :cough: or something.

0

150

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 29th, 2005 @ 10:20

You know, you don’t have to work at finding controversial topics to debate all the time. You’re free to take a rest and focus on other threads for a while. This one will still be here when you find something you’re bursting to talk about.

0

151

randomrohanfreak

in November 29th, 2005 @ 18:22

I think that animals deserve rights. I find slaughterhouses (just the idea) disgusting. I mean, a place where thousands of living beings go to be systematically killed. Eew.

To MG (147): I’m an atheist who does not appreciate being told she’s going to hell. (That was not directed at you, but someone annoying at my school.) I respect the right of others to believe in God, and understand that religion is very important to some people. I just don’t.

0

152

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 18:33

I don’t have much of an opinion at all about animal rights, so I won’t get too much into that topic. I will say that animals are not as valuable as us, and I see nothing wrong with eating them. That opinion actually has a lot to do with religious beliefs.

Why don’t you believe in God? I’m just wondering. I believe so strongly in an all powerful good force, I want to understand where other people are coming from.

I’m not bringing back up the subject of gay marriage, and I still don’t want to talk about it. I just thought of this quote, and I thought it was pretty funny. “I think gay marriage should be between a man and a woman.”-Arnold Schwarzenegger

0

153

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 29th, 2005 @ 18:37

my cousin has this whole club called chickens need rights (cnr). he’s making a website for it. it’s not up yet, and knowing my cousin it could take a while. he loves messing with comps. anyhoo if the GAPA gives his/her mighty consent, i will post the link when it comes. actually i don’t think there’s much to worry about seeing as A-he’s pretty young and B-I have my doubts about the site ever even getting up.

animal rights!!! woohoo!!!! i agree with rrf, sorta, ish, well anyway i think killing animals is way too set, and just sorta like “ok we’ll kill this many this year..” I think if you need them, fine, if not, why kill them? Actually what I think is go back to way long ago and just let everybody hunt their own food. (woohoo! cavemen ROCK!!) but obviously that’s not gonna happen. Unless there’s some major disaster (like civilization blowing each other up) which would be BAAAAAD.

hey rrf i don’t think mg actually said that atheists were going to hell anywhere in that.

actually what i think about hell (who goes and who doesn’t) is not what they believe, but how they use that belief (or unbelief) to help others and do good in the world. I don’t really think you have to believe any specific thing or any specific god, just as long as you stick to what you think is right and try to make people’s lives better. I don’t see god as the type to say “you don’t believe this this and this, go to hell” I think if you do what he wants you to do it won’t matter whether you believe it’s him telling you to do it or not. Some people need religion to help them along, some people don’t. Some people are religious and still don’t do what god wants them to. Some people aren’t religious at all but they are nice to people and try to give something to the world.

k religion rant over now, g2g eat. MAC+CHEESE!!! WOOHOO!!! happy days…

0

154

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 18:37

Oh, I don’t think we should treat animals cruely. I just don’t think they’re as important as humans, at all. Like, they aren’t even in the same league. But we shouldn’t be cruel to them. That opinion has groundings in my religious beliefs too, and I can explain it if you want me to. (As you can see, my religion really affects every area of my life. Maybe you can see why religion is so important to so many people!!!)

0

155

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 19:09

I don’t see God as measuring out all of our beliefs. I think He doesn’t let anyone who’s sinned into heaven. Of course, we’ve all sinned, so that would mean no one would ever get into heaven. I believe He created a way to let us in. He came, and He lived, and He never sinned. Then He died, and was the perfect sacfrifice that covers all our sins. All we have to do is believe in Him, ask Him to forgive us, and then in His eyes those sins never happened. So it does matter what you believe, but because what you believe determines how clean you are. And there are several places in scripture where God says to people “get away from me, I never knew you.” I think God will also judge by how much we know Him, how much we’ve talked to Him, how much we just hang out with Him. That might sound weird, but I hang out and talk to the God of the universe. He knows me, and I know Him. That’s what a Christian is.

I don’t see how you could say that it doesn’t matter what you believe, just what you do with it. To me, that’s like saying it doesn’t matter which map you use, just what you do with the map. Different religions lead to different places. You and I can not both be right. Either God looks and sees who He knows, or He looks for the “good people”. It’s one or the other. And either I’m right, and there is a hell, a place of eternal damnation, or I’m wrong, and everyone goes to heaven. And either I’m right, and ew must know God to go to heaven, or I’m wrong. So Ebth and I can’t both be right. If she’s right, it doesn’t matter, if I’m right, it does. We can’t determine who is right, but one of us is and the other isn’t. It’s the same way with all religions. Either they’re right, or they’re wrong.

And about the “good people” thing. I sure hope it isn’t how good you are, because I don’t know anyone who is good enough to go to heaven. A pastor of mine once said “no one, on their best day, deserves to go to heaven,” and I agree with that. I think Mother Teresa didn’t deserve to go to heaven, on her best day, because she never had a day where she didn’t sin, or did everything she possibly could, or did everything prefectly. That’s a very scary thought. God is perfect, and heaven is where we’re with Him all the time, so that would mean in order to deserve to be in His prescence we would need to be perfect. I would go crazy if I didn’t believe that Jesus saved me from having to work for heaven. I know that if I died right now, my sins are all forgiven. That makes me so happy, I could just about fly.

0

156

Elasse-Adael

in November 29th, 2005 @ 19:31

I believe in God as kind of a happy peacefull loving force. I really don’t like it when people who believe in God try to force people who are atheists to believe in God. You can’t force someone to believe in something that they don’t believe in.

I agree that everyone should have the right to be married to anyone they want as long as they aren’t marrying their mother like Oedipus does or their brother or something. I think that people no matter what race, gender, religion, what gender people they like, and other things should all be treated equally.

0

157

Elasse-Adael

in November 29th, 2005 @ 19:33

Oh and MG- I see your point and I understand why you believe what you believe about abortion I just think that the women in that situation has the right to decide whether she wants an abortion and that we shouldn’t have a law making that decision for everyone, not letting them have a choice.

0

158

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 29th, 2005 @ 19:38

I’m not saying you have to deserve heaven, because you’re right, nobody really deserves it. But there are definitely people that are closer to it then others. And I didn’t exactly say the belief part didn’t matter, but I know people who believe in god who are total jerks and I know people who don’t believe in god who are amazingly good. And the other way around too. Another thing about that is that religion has a lot to do with how you were brought up. Yes sometimes kids convert but mostly they follow what their parents taught them.

I don’t know. Maybe you do have to believe in heaven to go there. But I think that by that argument you would have to believe in hell to go there too. Nobody really knows, it’s all a trust system. Which makes arguing it pretty pointless in my opinion. Which makes me a total hypocrite cuz here I am arguing it. But whatever…

Another thing-It’s not just “either I’m right or she is” We could both be partly right. Or maybe we’re both completely wrong. There’s always more than just a choice between two things. You can look at things all different ways.

And now I’m gonna go cuz I haven’t even started my hw. ouch. into the panic stage now…

0

159

Phoenix

in November 29th, 2005 @ 20:02

About my beliefs regarding God:

In the Beginnig, God was going to create the world with one of His two basic attributes regarding humans: He was going to use His Attribute of Justice instead of His Attributer of Mercy. Then he decided to use His Attribute of Mercy, because if He didn’t people couldn’t survive. So He govorns the world using both, which is why we only stay in Gehennom for 11 months at most.

About the angels: the angels have no sins. Niether do they have Mitzvot. They are not rewarded or punished, and thier existance hinges on what people do. If we sin so much we are destroyed, so are they. In addition, on the High Holy Days, when we pray for forgiveness and praise God the whole day, the angels can’t begin thier praises until humans begin thiers.

What is everyone’s opinion about the purpose of man? we belive people were placed here by thier own choice, because our souls were origianlly created close to God, but then our souls became sad becuase we had done nothing to deserve God, so He created the earth for us to live in and earn Heaven.

Rohan, I could not imagine life without beliving in God. It seems so… empty. Like living for nothing. I won’t tell you you’re wrong or evil or anything, just it seems sort of sad.

Anyway, I belive animals were put here for people, but I don’t belive we have the right to kill them unless we need food, or to hurt them in any way. In fact, untill the time of Noah humans wern’t allowed to eat meat, but then Noah saved the animals so he was allowed to hunt for food. And animal torture is unnacceptable! animals are God’s creations, just like we are.

0

160

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 20:40

Ebeth: I really meant by my “either I’m right or she is” statement that we could not both be right. And those “Christians” who say they believe in God yet are total jerks are not eally Christians in my book. To me, the definition of Christian is someone who’s accepted Jesus, and people who act like so call “Christians” do sometimes have not done that, or they wouldn’t act that way. I kind of follow my parents, but if they stopped being Christians tomorrow I would still follow Jesus, no matter what they did to me.

Phoenix: I don’t think we chose to come here. I think God made man because He was lonely, and that in the beginning earth was heaven. But man fell, and now they have to have their sins clensed away before death to get into heaven. I agree with you that a life without God would be incredbily sad. I personally think that a life without the knowledge that Jesus saved me, and that I never have to work, and without His love coursing through me (because at this very minute I feel God’s love), would be scary, and kind of meaningless. That’s not directed at you.

I wish all of y’all would read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. He really explains well why Christians believe what they believe, and his logic that leads to the conclusion that there is a God is really thought provoking. Even if you don’t agree with what he says, I think all of y’all would find it interesting and challenging. I would love it if some of y’all would read it.

0

161

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 29th, 2005 @ 21:16

ah. gotcha. makes sense.

y’all y’all…i count 3 y’alls.

no diss. y’all is a cool word.

cs lewis is cool. never read mere christianity. might if i ever get to the library (and find time to finish any of the other books i’m reading/wanting to read)

0

162

MontgomeryGurl

in November 29th, 2005 @ 21:24

I highly recommend it!!! It’s very thought provoking, it really explores some deep and interesting stuff, but it’s not that hard to grasp.

0

163

Duncan_Quagmire

in November 29th, 2005 @ 21:36

Well… I’m back. I don’t really have time to reply to or even READ most of the comments — I have to go outline a research paper (topic: coral reef conservation) — but in response to Phoenix’s question about the purpose of man (#159):

“in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his [God’s] glory.”
–Ephesians 1:12 (NIV)

0

164

Phoenix

in November 29th, 2005 @ 21:44

My dad the theologist says I have to master Judism before I study other religions. I would, however, like to read somthing like that. I think it’s important to understand people. Ignorance leads to predjudice and hate.

0

165

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 29th, 2005 @ 22:05

yeah i like knowing about different religions. it helps you understand different people a lot better.

i learn a lot on here too. you and mg are very informative. virtual choklit coming your way! *whoosh*

0

166

Axa

in November 30th, 2005 @ 01:53

: weeps over lack of intrest in Shintoism : Sob sob.

While perhaps animals were put on Earth as means of sustanance, the right has been exploited. Animals should never be raised simply to be brutally slaughtered. And they are: if an animal isn’t tasered correctly, the line keeps moving, because as they say, time is money. That’s why I’m having a ahrd time eating meat: I keep thinking that the animal probably went through a great deal of pain, just so I could eat it. It’s almost barbaric in some senses. Sigh.

0

167

Phoenix

in November 30th, 2005 @ 08:03

oo! yummy! *eats virtual choklit* thank you!

0

168

MontgomeryGurl

in November 30th, 2005 @ 09:47

I read some more of Mere Christianity last night. Some of it is really starting to make my head spin. He gets into some deep stuff, and he’s trying to make us understand the unfathomable, so it’s confusing at times, but it’s good. When I finish with it I’ll post something to tell you guys what it’s all about, and what sort of ground it covers.

0

169

choklithotpinkbuneez

in November 30th, 2005 @ 11:13

Hey ppl, Im new, so I may as well get lynched for my *treasonous* beliefs right away.

I’m a sarcastic moderate pro-life Catholic Republican (No, not Catholic like that, I’m not insanely conservative, I just am.) and I thought I’d just go on here to get farted at in my general direction. I personally think that up til now it’s been very entertaining watching all the liberals agree. Seriously, what’s the point of Hot Topics if nobody gets verbally hanged?

Sorry to not continue the thread and be randomly insane.
But maybe it wil be fun for all the liberals to blow their noses at me, the Englih pigdog that I am.

0

170

Axa

in November 30th, 2005 @ 12:10

Uh, I think the point was to debate, not necessarily argue.
I want to read that book now MG, did you get it at tthe boookstore, or did you order it? Must look….

0

171

MontgomeryGurl

in November 30th, 2005 @ 15:45

I’m not a liberal!!!! I’m a right wing conservative, and I’ve been disagreeing with everyone on here since the beginning.

I don’t know where I got the book. It’s an old one, from the ’40s or something like that, and my parents had it in their book case. The first part is a case for Christianity. It’s really interesting, he shows why he believes in God, but he doesn’t user the normal methods. The next part is what Christians believe. It’s interesting. Then it’s proper Christian behavior, or how a perfect Christian should theoretically act. For this part of the book he assumes Christianity is true, but only because he’s trying to explain a large and complex moral system, and he tries to explain why we have each rule, in the context of a loving God, and things are just a lot simpler if he just assumes the basis for all Christian morals is true. I don’t know what the last part is, I haven’t gotten to it yet, but I’ll tell you after I read it.

0

172

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in November 30th, 2005 @ 15:50

It’s still in print and should be available in just about any library.

0

173

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 30th, 2005 @ 18:18

his other stuff has a lot of christian stuff hidden in it too if you look hard enough. actually it’s not too hard to find but then i’m a christian, so it’d probably be harder if you weren’t…but like if you read the chronicles of narnia, or the perelandra stuff, you’ll find it all over.

not just him either. we were doing that stuff in english a couple days ago…the “hidden meanings” and all that. our english teacher is so cruel. she makes it so that we can’t even just read a book without seeing symbolism (whether it’s there or not) that’s how all our tests are too. like the strawberry story i posted a while ago…arrgh.

but that’s kinda off-topic, so i’m gonna scroll up and see exactly what the topic is.

hmm…I think what choklithotpinkbunneez wants is to be verbally hanged. all in favor say aye!!!

hoom, well, i don’t really have much to say about this so i’ll go now…later peoples…

0

174

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (QJtFoK)

in November 30th, 2005 @ 18:44

I can’t imagine life with a God in it. As for my religious beliefs, I thought about this awhile back, went atheist, assigned Douglas Adams the post of Personal Religious Guide, and went entirely disinterested in the whole thing. But the intellectual effort is there. Adams holds the post of PRG, and the world is well and fine again.

Symbolism is like a lost item. Look for it everywhere and it’s nowhere. You see, some things, like crosses on necklaces, are obviously symbolic. Other things, like strawberries on cliffs, are not. (Buddhists are very poorly understood by most of the Western world, in deference.) Some people get this-others do not.

Ebeth, darling, life CAN be black and white. (sings Kodachrome by Paul Simon) I mean, I’m completely passive about this, but on the other hand, it’s scientific and that appeals to me and my sense of logic, which at the moment ranks, on an ascending scale of 1-10, at about a -12931. Never mind, though. On to religion.

I have a working knowledge of some more common religions (Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Sikhism [spelling?], Agnosticism, etc.), and I have an Emersonian (from the Elizabeth Peters series) view on this-they’re pretty similar. I don’t want to kill any Evangelists or semi-tolerants with this, but there you go.

0

175

Phoenix

in November 30th, 2005 @ 18:49

DOn’t have anything to say, but the book sounds interesting, MG.

0

176

Ebeth The Lurker

in November 30th, 2005 @ 18:54

I know what you mean. Adams almost had me. But the world was created somehow (obviously it’s here) and it being done by god makes sense. The whole religion makes sense to me (which is why i belong to it dur). Even if i love to make fun of it. But yeah understanding what you mean.

life CAN be black and white, but if it is it means things are missing along the way. Nothing is exactly what it seems. If it was everything would be worked out and solved and there would be no point in living anymore.

0

177

randomrohanfreak

in November 30th, 2005 @ 19:01

I never said that MG said I was going to hell. I said that there is an incredibly annoying Christian kid at my school who goes around telling everyone who’s not Christian that they’re going to hell. Very annoying. Thankfully, all Christians are not like that.

I’ve been atheist practically since birth. I respect the possibility of God’s existence. I just find it hard to believe in a possibility like some people do. Religious people have told me that this is called “faith.” Unfortunately, I am a nasty sceptic. Tell me why you believe in God or the religion/no religion you do. I’m interested in what other people believe.

0

178

randomrohanfreak

in November 30th, 2005 @ 19:03

That last post was a bit snarky. Especially for me. Sorry.

Well, maybe not snarky. But it could be taken the wrong way.

0

179

MontgomeryGurl

in November 30th, 2005 @ 19:11

The religions of this world are incredibly different. They can’t all be true, and this is an eternal question. I veiw life on earth as just a breath, a snap of the fingers, and then we have eternity, never ending eternity, and where we spend it is determined by the breath. You may not care much about religions, but the fact is (as Ebeth said) we’re all here somehow, and I believe there must be a god (C.S. Lewis proved it in a really unusual way in the book I’ve been reading), and if there is we must learn how to do what He wants. It might be easier to just not care, but in the end it is the most important thing in life. Not just what you believe, but which religion is true, because this world is ruled by a totally different god if Islam is true than if Judaism or Christianity are true. Whether or not there is a god and what He wants from us if He exists are the most important questions in our lives.

0

180

Duncan_Quagmire

in November 30th, 2005 @ 23:01

Some people are saying that they don’t see how they can believe in God. For me, it’s exactly the opposite — I don’t see how I can NOT believe in God.

Do you know what it takes for a muscle in your body to contract? First, the brain sends a nerve impulse to a motor neuron. This causes the release of a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine. The acetylcholine then diffuses across the synaptic gap and reaches the motor end plate, where it triggers a muscle impulse that travels down the transverse tubules and reaches the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Herr, it causes calcium ions to become released into the cell’s sarcoplasm. These ions bind to troponin molecules and unblock the binding sites on the actin myofilaments. This allows myosin heads to form cross-bridges with the binding sites and to pull the actin inward. This causes the sarcomere to shorten, which causes the myofilament to shorten, which causes the muscle fiber to shorten, which causes the muscle to contract.

Then, for the muscle to relax, the nerve impulse stops. This triggers the release of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase which breaks down the acetylcholine. Once the acetylcholine is broken down, the muscle impulse stops, and the calcium ions are transported back into the terminal cisterns. With no more calcium ions to bond to troponin, the actin’s binding sites are closed. This breaks the cross-bridges between the actin and myosin myofilaments, and the muscle relaxes

And how long does all this take? EVERY TIME YOU BLINK YOUR EYE, all of this happens. I just don’t understand how anyone can say that something this anazing and complex just randomly evolved from NOTHING — there just has to be intelligent design; nothing else makes sense.

More tomorrow (maybe…)

0

181

randomrohanfreak

in December 1st, 2005 @ 19:36

As I said before, randomness is an amazing thing. Stuff happens every day somewhere in the universe (infinite) that nobody could ever dream of. So it’s actually much more probable than you might think that something (possibly God, possibly something else) triggered a chemical reaction billions of years ago, setting off the creation of amino acids, which bonded together to make proteins, which bonded and generally smooshed around until there were cells. Then the cells diversified, some evolved nuclei, some joined together and created multicellular beings, and some just stayed how they’d always been. Whether God was involved in the process or not, he probably didn’t plan it out every step of the way.

How do I know this? Well, the complexity and occasional stupidity of the way life works is actually a testament to blind luck, not intelligent design. For example, take a look at the peacock. Any designer must have had a pretty good laugh when it tried to run away from a predator dragging its ridiculous tail. Why, then, does the peacock have a tail like that? Peahens think it’s hot. Sexual selection. Evolution.

Also think about your own tailbone. If humans were designed from the get-go to be human (i.e. no tail), why do we have this annoying little vestigal tail? Because we evolved from apes, which evolved from monkeys, which have tails. And why haven’t we gotten rid of the tails? Because evolution works randomly. Our genes haven’t mutated so that we don’t have tails of any sort, ever.

That leads me to the human fetus. They have gills, webbed hands and feet, and tails early in development. These are not features usually associated with the word “human.” Adult humans and those who have already been born don’t have these features, but fetuses do. This is because all animals evolved from proto-fish millions of years ago and then adapeted to their circumstances. Humans didn’t need tails, gills, or webbed hands and feet, so evolution did away with them in our more developed forms. (By developed, I mean in individuals, not the whole species.)

Basically, I’m saying that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I’m not saying that anyone has to believe in it, or that a belief in evolution means you don’t believe in God. (A-C is Christian, and she’s also an evolutionist.)

Long rant. Sorry.

0

182

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 1st, 2005 @ 19:59

yeah we were talking about that in history today. (yes i see your blank stares-“what does evolution have to do with victorian parlors?” you ask. well darwin and the theory came around the same time, so we had a minor excuse for discussing it. sort of. ish.) anyhoo y’know Darwin was a christian. he never tried to use evolution as a proof that god didn’t exist.

so evolution might be real, might not. If it did happen, then i think god planned it that way. decided “hey, let’s make everything evolve. that would be cool” If it didn’t happen, well, basically what’s in the bible i guess.

I really can’t say much of anything about this though cuz i don’t know all that much about the actually theory and how he proved it and all.

oh and d_q, agreeing w/you totally.

0

183

Phoenix

in December 1st, 2005 @ 22:21

Reasons I belive in God:

1) if the universe came in to existance by “the big bang”, what was there BEFORE the big bang? and how do you explain infinity?
2) our history books. The Torah, the Talmud, everything– it RECORDS that these miracles happened! and it corresponds with the records of other nations! like that codex they unearthed a few years back– “…and the one who lifted the staff has cursed the great waters…the rivers flow with blood…darkness is apon us all, all of our treasures have been stolen back from whence they came…the insects have eaten our food…” sound anything like the ten plagues to you?
3) I have, personally, experienced closeness to God. You can’t possibly understand what it is like. I have prayed my whole life and my sincere prayers have always been aswered. I fear God and I love Him.

Common sense, history, and personal experience– supported by faith. Good enough reasons?

0

184

Boxty

in December 1st, 2005 @ 22:31

Are we talking only evolving humans or a different kind of evolving that has to do with us?

What I mean by that is, what about the way stories have changed and how perspectives have evolved over time? To me that would be immensly interesting, but I don’t know how to start a little conversation like that. I don’t know if you all understand, I hardly understand what I am trying to say either. I know in my head, but my fingers are too far away from my brain to know.

0

185

Duncan_Quagmire

in December 1st, 2005 @ 22:38

But here’s the thing — you have to understand that evolution says that EVERYTHING that is here today came from NOTHING. THat just doesn’t happen.

Here’s a challenge. Get your parents’ permission to take everything out of your garage. I mean EVERYTHING. All the rakes, lightbulbs, small woodland creatures, whatever you keep in your garage. Now lock the door and don’t disturb your garage. Then, come back in a few years. I can guarantee you that there won’t be a brand new sports car there. Anyone who read the May/June 2003 issue of Muse can tell you that the Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that you can’t get something from nothing. It’s just not possible.

0

186

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 1st, 2005 @ 22:52

I need to correct some factual errors here:

(1) Evolution doesn’t try to explain where everything came from. It doesn’t even try to explain where life came from. All it explains is where species of plants and animals came from. The answer is, from other species of plants and animals, over millions of years.

(2) The second law of thermodynamics does say that things go from order to disorder, but it applies only to closed systems–those without any new energy coming into them. The surface of the earth, where we live, isn’t closed, because it gets energy from the sun, as well as from radioactivity in rocks and other minor sources.

(3) In general, scientists tend to be careful not to believe anything that is obviously impossible, if only because they’re afraid other scientists will catch them doing it and make fun of them. So if you think you’ve caught them making a mistake that’s obvious to any eighth-grader, it might be a good idea to reserve judgment. Maybe they don’t really believe what you think they believe. (Of course, that applies only within the scientist’s area of expertise. Outside his or her field, a scientist can be as dumb as anybody else.)

0

187

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 1st, 2005 @ 23:02

Evolution says that things came from other things. I don’t really know enough about it to know if i believe it or not, but I can see how evolution could work with god. who knows? evolution could just be part of what god planned!

0

188

Duncan_Quagmire

in December 1st, 2005 @ 23:23

My mistake — that last post of mine should have said “the big bang says that…”

That’s what you get for typing these things at10:30 at night…

Freiden aus
–D_Q

0

189

MontgomeryGurl

in December 1st, 2005 @ 23:39

Maybe it is, but God must exist. Actually, if an evolutionist believes there is no God, he must believe that evolution started life, and therefore he believes that everything came from nothing. Either God was involved, or evolution is the sole creator of our universe.

And that thing about the peacocks doesn’t mean anything. If the survival of the fittest rule worked, then that big cumbersome tail would have disapeared a long time ago. I think God made it, just because he has a weird sense of humor.

Evolution with no God doesn’t make sense. If fish evolved into land animals, they eventually had to develop lungs. Well, evolution says that the lungs would have slowly developed over time. But evolution also states that the animals with the things that made them the strongest would live. Well, undeveloped lungs would have been of no use to a fish, and would have actually been a hindrance, and so those fish would have died. Also, if a fish was spontaneously converting into a land mammal, two fish would have had to do this at the exact same time for them to reproduce. The odds on that are truly staggering.

Scientist believe in evolution not because it is scientific, but because the idea of a god is scary. Yes, I believe that. The mind is not entirely ruled by reason, but a large part of it is by emotion. I honestly think that humans would rather believe in no god, no matter how much evidence supports His existance, then admit that they are under someone else’s control. The idea of a god can be terrifying, and I believe that people are so afraid of that idea that they choose to believe in something that doesn’t make sense. People see what they want to see.

0

190

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 00:20

MuseBlog is really for Musers, so we GAPA/MAPs avoid getting into debates except to correct factual errors that we’re sure about. Here, I think a few things are worth pointing out:

– Again, evolution doesn’t try to explain how life started. That’s not what it’s for. Charles Darwin himself had no idea what got the first living organism going, and it didn’t bother him. He was concerned with what happened after that. So are almost all biologists today.

– Most scientists I know aren’t anti-God; they just don’t talk about Him much on the job. Isaac Newton, who discovered a lot of the physics that MuseBloggers have been complaining about, spent much more time studying the Book of Revelation than he did on science. When he got curious about why planets follow the orbits they do, though, he didn’t just shrug and say, “Because God made them that way.” He looked for patterns and laws of motion–and found them. In the same way, when medical researchers want to find out why people get sick, they don’t say, “Because God wants them to be sick.” They look for germs and genes and environmental poisons. Natural causes like that might not be able to explain everything, but they are very useful when you can find them, so they are what scientists look for. That doesn’t mean that scientists are opposed to religion; it just doesn’t help them very much while they are doing research. Off the job, they hold just as many different beliefs as everybody else does. Most of them are really very ordinary people.

I really don’t think scientists are going around picking fights with anybody. As far as I can tell, other people are afraid of and hostile to them.

Whew. Long post.

0

191

Kate

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 00:28

I’ve been gone so long, but I have to weigh in.

MG – Few things actually come down to a choice between one thing or another. I see a third option for the origin of life (in addition to God and evolution): the physical laws that rule chemistry and chance and the right series of events pulled together enough molecules to make some very simple form of life.

like a virus

also, on the fish/lung thing: consider amphibians

and, maybe you’d be surprised to learn that many scientists believe in God. I have the misfortune of being surrounded by people with PHDs in science (I call them fuddies) and they belive in God. they go to church (they drag me along) and somehow it doesn’t confuse them.

0

192

MontgomeryGurl

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 00:52

Scientist don’t have to believe in evolution. I promise. Evolution is not a universally accepted fact in the scientific community.

Evolution might not be concerned with the start of life, but the fact is life did start somehow. It was either with god, or through random processes. Maybe evolution doesn’t worry about that, but it had to happen somehow. You can’t just say “we don’t worry about that”, and expect the problem to go away. It happened somehow, and you can’t just ignore it.

Kate: The quetion must be asked, where did the molecules that were pulled together to form the somple form of life come from? They had to come from somewhere. The thing is, molecules smushed together don’t make life. You have to have DNA. DNA contains highly specialized blue-prints for life, and it doesn’t make sense that it formed randomly. If I came up to you with a floppy disk that had detailed instructions for how to make a bike, and then told you that it formed as result of lightning striking a bunch of scrap metal, you wouldn’t believe me, would you? Well, the information contained in DNA is much more complex then the blue-prints for a bike, yet people believe that it formed out of random processes. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

0

193

Kate

in December 1st, 2005 @ 23:46

actually, first life could just be RNA – sort of half a DNA?

like my virus

and why not a bolt of lightening? Is that so much harder to imagine than suddenly Adam?

so maybe not a bike at first, just a bolt (the metal kind this time, not electricity)

0

194

Axa

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 09:43

What’s sad is, Darwin’s natural message was lost in the controversy over what, apparently, he wasn’t really considering.
Very sad indeed.

0

195

choklithotpinkbuneez

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 10:04

Yaaaaaaaay!

Another conservative!

HUZZAH! HUZZAH! HUZZAH!!!!!

LOTS OF SPAMABIX!

(ebeth, have you introduced this charming subject?)

Spamabix is spam and weetabix combined.

ok, cu

0

196

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 10:15

What I think it boils down to is that many people misunderstand what science is. It’s not a philosophy of life or a body of doctrine that claims to be absolute truth. It’s a way of finding out things you don’t know yet. It doesn’t claim to have all the answers–just to be an effective approach of getting answers to certain kinds of questions.

In the case of evolution, I think many people use the word vaguely to mean a lot of things they question or disapprove of. But it really does have a specific meaning. Evolution might be much less of a “hot topic” if people who disagree about it would stop to discuss what they mean by it. They might find that they’re not talking about the same thing at all.

But that’s enough out of me. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program of hot-topic-ing.

0

197

Phoenix

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 13:25

Peacocks have a big tail to attract mates and frighten predators.

0

198

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (QJtFoK)

in December 2nd, 2005 @ 16:17

Randomly is the wrong word. Evolution specialized DNA. It happened over an impossibly long time, started out with RNA, as someone said, the very simplest life forms(like amoebas), and got so complicated that it produced people as brilliant and wonderful as Musers!

Did somebody mention thermodynamics? That puts me in mind of Flanders and Swann, and their song about thermodynamics (You can’t pass heat from a hotter to a cooler/you can try it if you like but you’ll only look a fooler) which I adore.

OK, let’s cut to the chase. I know we’ve got some orthodox people, some atheists (that would include my luminous self), and a selection of people from all over. (No Buddhists explained the lion-cliff-strawberry thing to us, anyway. Pity.) How do we feel about gay marriage? I support it, on the basis that we’re denying gays rights they should enjoy, and also to ban gay marriage would be a religious consideration, which has no place in politics.

0

199

Paul Baker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 03:06

Actually, molecules smushed together COULD make life. It depends what you define as “life”, but to get something that could evolve into RNA, then DNA, all you really need is some sort of organic compound that self-replicates. That’s still a very tall order, but it might be possible to reproduce the process. It’s been tried, with partial success. A guy called Stanley Miler created a system in the lab which attempted to simulate a very tiny part of the early earth. It was basically boiling and condensing water in an atmosphere containing simple stuff like methane, ammonia and hydrogen, with a periodic spark simulating lightning. He didn’t get little crawly things, but he did get some fairly complex stuff like amino acids, purines adn pyrimidines. Before you claim that as a failure, consider
1. He was guessing about conditions on the early earth. More research should get much closer to a plausible early-earth volcanic mudpool.
2. He ran the experiment for a couple of months, if memory serves. Assuming that the spontaeous generation of self-replicating compounds is pretty unlikely, he may have succeeded if he’d run it for, say, 30 thousand years. Because that’s probably how long it originally took.

0

200

Kricket

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 08:08

WAIT WHO THE HECK IS KATE?

0

201

Kricket

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 08:14

*to be read in formal queenish voice*

wow, i do believe i am the 200th post. what an honor. i’d like to thank the community!

*normal voice*
oh yeah my new adjective is oboeish. see, i was talking to my friend who plays oboe in my make up lesson and she was exclaiming that my piccolo was so tiny, and then i asked to see her oboe, and i couldn’t think of a word to describe how cool it was so i just said, “it’s so….. oboeish!!!!” and then we started cracking up!!!!!!!! wait is that supposed to be under the words thread?

0

202

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 10:48

probably kricket.

gay rights…it does seem more of a religious thing. i dunno what they’re doing making laws about it…

0

203

Lizzie

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 10:51

I personally am
1. lost- I’ve been gone for a week, and suddenly we’re on a whole different topic, with people saying random things, and I thought that choklithotpinkbunneez or whatever the name is (I’ll just call you CHPB, okay?) was a name of Ebeth for a while, and I’m altogether confused.
2. an atheist. It seems very very very improbable to me that there is someone sitting up there in the sky, controlling our lives, etc., and judging from what’s been going on in the world, it seems that if there was a God/Goddess/gods/goddesses/alloftheabove He/She/they/etc would pretty much have to like watching people suffer, kill each other in Their name, starve to death, etc, so altogether I prefer to believe that there isn’t any..
3. not in favor of teaching “intelligent design” as a science- if you want to believe in that, or even in the idea that God created the world and everything in it as it is today, go right ahead, but intelligent design is not science- it can not be proved, it is not likely, and it basically gets all of it’s “proof” from the absense of any contrary evidence- it’s sort of like saying that “no, Chicago is not north of Houston, it’s south of it” (I’m assuming that we all know where Chicago, Illinois, and Houston, Texas are?) and to prove it, you drive north, and you manage to miss Chicago, and so therefor say that your assumption was correct.. Okay, that was convoluted and complicated and confusing, sorry. On the other hand, evolution has some pretty strong evidence going for it- we’ve discovered fossils, it’s been demonstrated to occur over a period of thirty years in a study of some finches, there have been experiments that show life could have arisen, etc.
4. In favor of gay marrage. Seriously, they can’t help being homosexual any more than I can help being left-handed- there are definant differences in the brain, Japanese researchers have found there is a gene in fruit flys that when turned on or something changes the sexual orientation, etc. Additionally, seperation of church and state is one of the main principles of our country. To deny a group of law-abiding citizens rights because of religious prejudices against them is clearly not seperation of church and state. Neither is having prayers before city council meetings, but that’s another issue.

0

204

MontgomeryGurl

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 11:58

Firstly, creation shouldn’t be taught in the classrooms. You’re right, it isn’t science. But neither is evolution. Neither of them are science, and so neither of them should be in science class.

That scientist who made the stuff that Paul Baker was takling aobut did not make life. He made the building blocks for life. To act like he made anything remotely similar to life would be like acting like a kperson who stacked a few blocks up in their back yard made a sky scraper. And the fact that he made amino acids under highly specialized conditions really has nothing to do with the creation of our world, since all that was not specialized and controlled.

I would like to hear some of htis evidence for evolution. I would like to first off state that the foissil record actuallty doesn’t sup[ort evolution, since if everything got to where it is now by gradual processes, we should be able to see all the steps in the fossil record. As it is things make really long jumps.

Chokithotpinkbunnies is a friend of Ebeth’s. Ebeth has been bugging her for a while to come on here, and she finally did.

It may not make much sense, but God has His reasons for allowing suffering. I just have to accept that He is a lot smarter than I am, and He knows what’s in the future. He knows how this will affect the greater good, and who this will bring to HIm and who this will hurt. We can’t know what would have happend “if”, and maybe it would have been worse than what did happen.

I’ve heard of studies that show homosexuals can change their sexual orientation. I don’t think they’re made that way, but that has to do with religios beliefs. I simply don’t believe God made people that way. But I promise, there are sudies that show people have control over their sexual orientation.

0

205

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 12:15

I disagree, i think religion and evolution should be taught in the classroom. Not as facts, but ideas. Maybe a science class wouldn’t be the right place. But we should learn about other people’s theories and ideas, because we can’t judge until we actually know what we’re talking about.

0

206

Paul Baker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 13:31

OK, just a few small points.
Gaps in the fossil record – we forget just how rare fossils are. When you do get a chance survival, it’s a snapshot of one particular time in one particular place. You just don’t get a broad timespan. There’s also the rather mistaken idea of a continuous evolutionary gradation from one species to another. Generally, one species will live happily in its environmental niche for millennia. As long as nothing changes, the species won’t change either. Look at the crocodile. When the environment changes, evolution responds fairly quickly – not on a human timescale, but usually on something like tens of thousands of years. The chances of finding a clear series of fossils from precisely that transitional period is extrememly remote. It’s not really surprising that the fossil record appears to show only distinct species.

Anyway, I’m going to shut up now, and leave you all to it. I have a symphony to repair and computer games to play. Whatever you believe, be nice.

0

207

Kate

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 14:15

I’m Kate, and I’ve been here before — way back.

And my posts on this thread got out of order somehow
my response to MontgomeryGurl’s comments migrated back several posts earlier than hers (to 190). I was trying to say what Paul Baker said, but he’s said it better so I’ll leave that.

But MG, I just wanted you to know that I read your question/comment to me & thought about it.

0

208

Duncan_Quagmire

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 15:54

A lot of the time, the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart…
–D_Q

0

209

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (Queenie J)

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 16:14

“Religion is the opium of the people.”-Karl Marx
It’s commonly quoted as “opiate”, but that’s wrong and my 3rd edition Oxford Dictionary of Quotations says it’s “opium”. Incidentally, every self-respecting Muser should have a store of quotes to whip out and brandish at people. For appetizers: “He was a man of unbounded stomach.”-Shakespeare. “Ice formed on the butler’s upper slopes.”-P.G. Wodehouse. “Dramatise, dramatise!”-Henry James. “None of your damme punctilio.”-George Meredith. See what I mean? Good.

What was my point here? Ah, yes. Evolution=science. Intelligent design=religion. Religion is not allowed in a public school. Science is. There endeth the debate with the proclamation of Queenie J. Somebody, I think it was MG but I’m not sure, said something about PhDs blending science and religion, and that it all “makes sense to them”. It’s not so much a question of making sense as it is of interpretation. All right, you’re confused, tired, territorial, and a little hurt by my being atheist. But that’s it for tonight, folks.

0

210

Lizzie

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 16:40

It’s 4:30, Juliette- it isn’t exactly “tonight” yet unless you’re in Britain or go to bed really early..

0

211

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 16:52

but why is religion not allowed in a public skool? shouldn’t there be some knowledge of other religions? not like pushing religion or anything but just an objective study. i think that would save a lot of ignorant prejudiced comments. which would save a lot of fights. peace love and joy. and mandatory long hair. ok maybe that’s a bit much…

0

212

MontgomeryGurl

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 17:31

I didn’t say that, and you’re confusing me with someone else. Unless you completely misunderstood what I said.

I’m not prepared to accept the opinion of a man who invented a form of government that has lead to the death of thousands, if not millions, of people.

ID is religion, but evolution isn’t science. Neither of them can be proven, and neither are accepted scientific fact. Evolution is just a theory, with a lot of holes in it, and a lot of people who don’t agree with it. To me, evolution is a religion, with Natural Selection as the god. Evolution requires a great amount of faith, and that, to me, makes it a religion. Even if it isn’t a relgion, it’s not science, and should not be taught in science class. It’s one thing for this to be taught to kids as a theory, but a lot of times it’s taught as fact, which it isn’t.

Hey, you can be an atheist all day, and it won’t hurt me. I wish you weren’t, but it doesn’t offend me. I’ve decided not to end this post with a statement that would make everyone mad and would be percieved as very judgemental, so I’m done.

0

213

Phoenix

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 18:28

yeech. I feel nasty. Had to spend the day with a boy who thinks girls should be uneducated. Instead of being polite and tolerating it, I flaunted. talked about the magnetic feld, black hole physics, and philosophy. I probably gave him mental scars that will last his whole life.

0

214

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 18:36

but it isn’t taught really. some of it is, but nobody ever really gives a detailed explanation, which is why a lot of people misunderstand it.

and nothing is ever a fact in science. there are theories that are pretty close, but you never know. so teaching anything as a fact in science probably isn’t good. except maybe the math bits.

and MG, don’t hold that on darwin. those people just used his ideas for their own purpose. he would probably be just as horrified as you. (probably more so, i mean they were his ideas)

which proves my point that evolution and those ideas should be explained more in skool. especially the history of it and all.

0

215

MontgomeryGurl

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 21:04

I didn’t say I hold them on Darwin. Evolution might should be taught, but kids need to understand that it’s just a theory, and text books need to stop talking about it like it’s proven fact.

I actually think Darwin’s theory, without all the things people have added over the years, was pretty stupid in itself. Natural selection doesn’t make much sense to me, and I could go on and on forever about that, except that I have forgotted all the reasons I once had. But I will say that there are plenty of things in nature that wouldn’t be there if Natural Selection was true. There are many things that don’t really serve a purpose, unless you count beauty as a purpose, and many things that hinder the animal and would never have been written into the genetic code if Natural Selection was true. By the time he came up with evolution, Darwin was not a Christian. In his early life he was, but I’ve heard he turned away by that point.

0

216

randomrohanfreak

in December 3rd, 2005 @ 23:16

The scientific definition of a theory is something like “a statement that has been backed up by much research and scientific evidence: a statement that can be scientifically supported.” Many people misunderstand this and say, because scientists call evolution a theory, it is “just a theory.”

Actually, the whole idea of things in nature not serving a purpose is because they probably came about by random mutation, not design.

Religon isn’t taught in school because of the laws of separation of church and state. If you learn about religion in public school, it’s usually during a history class where that religion is relevant to history, like Christianity when you’re talking about the Middle Ages.

A question for MG: What mechanism for the development of life are you suggesting should be taught in school? So far you’ve said that evolution and ID shouldn’t be, but nothing about what should, unless I missed it.

I’m femisnist and proud. (213) Boys who treat girls like idiots and like we’re incapable of doing anything are the idiots. And teachers who consistently assume the guys in the class are smarter than the girls are also idiots. Most of the time, they make these preconceptions before they even meet the kids. How unfair is that? So, show off for all you’re worth, Phoenix. I’m not a huge fan of everything our country does (but I’m not anti-American. Don’t get started on me about that. Too many people assume that if you don’t agree with everything the govenment does that you’re somehow unpatriotic.), but we are at least making some effort to equalise genders and get rid of “A woman’s place is in the home.” That’s good.

0

217

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 08:46

I think God had a good laugh at the hammer-head shark when He made it. I think most things probably serve a purpose, we just haven’t figured it out yet. Sorry, I take back the other statement.

If the definition of a theory is “a statement that can be backed by much resaerch and support”, evolution isn’t even a theory. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any evidence for evolution that couldn’t go both ways. If you have some, I would be glad to hear it.

Hmm, I guess you’re right that we need something in schools. I don’t think that we should teach either, but since we have to teach somehting, we should teach them both. But not as fact, like evolution is. I get so sick of hearing people say “200 billion yeards ago, we were all fish” when they have no proof of that.

The phrase “separation of church and state” is nowhere in the constitution. All the constitution says about religion is “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. That statement has been taken to mean many things. I think, that when you look back at England and what was going on there, the Framers meant that the government and church should never become one. In England, you couldn’t even tell the difference between the church and the state. I don’t think the Framers meant that the church and state should never touch. There is a big difference. Of course, I’m not a mind reader, but neither is anyone else, so we can’t really know what that phrase means. But it does say congress” and “no law”, it doesn’t say “anybody in the government” and “do anything even remotely backing”, which is what a lot of people act like it says.

So not a feminist. I think it’s stupid to act like girls aren’t worth as much as boys, or like we can’t learn as much, bbut we’re not exactly the same in every way. Men do somethings better, and women do somethings better. I wish people would quit acting like we’re the exact soem in every way, we’re not. But we are equal. As it says in Wrinkle in Time ” ‘same’ and ‘equal’ aren’t the same thing”. Many people don’t understand that, and seem to think that in order for them to be equal, we must pretend like they’re the same. Men were designed to be the protector of the family, to sheild from invading attackers, and to be teh ambassador to other homes. Women were designed to be the nurturing one, the one who kept everything running smoothly inside teh hime. Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that a woman’s place is the home, I am just saying that in a family, when at home, that is what she does. Men aren’t as good at nurturing as women are, and women aren’t as good defenders and men are. But, in the end, it evens out to where they are just as valuable and just as vital as each other.

0

218

Anonymous Coward

in December 4th, 2005 @ 11:02

Actually, 200 billion years ago the earth didn’t even exist.

Sorry. Had to say that.

I believe in God, I’m Christian, and I believe that God started off the remarkable process of evolution somehow, billions of years ago. I think that He wanted life on the earth, but He also wanted to be surprised as to what it was.

There is evidence that land animals evolved from fish. When it got crowded in the water and there was a lot of competition for food, a few lobe-finned fishes wriggled onto land. They had to wriggle back, but eventually their fins evolved into legs, and their swim bladders (I think, correct me if I’m wrong) evolved into lungs. Modern lungfish are an example of this kind of intermediate stage.

Evolution isn’t perfect because of all the holes in the fossil record, but it makes a lot more sense scientifically than the idea that God or someone else designed all of life. We have no evidence of ID other than the Bible and the complexity of life, which can be attributed just as easily to evolution by natural selection.

Men can be perfectly nurturing, and women can protect the family fine. I’m not saying men and women are the same, because we’re not, I just think that traditional gender roles are not the only things either gender can do. I don’t think that either gender was designed to do anything. Women are the equals of men, or we can be, at least. I don’t think that God wanted any of his people to be denied rights and told they weren’t as good as other people. (This applies to gay rights, too.) That’s what happened and still happens to a lot of women.

I LOVE A Wrinkle in Time. Very good book.

0

219

Lizzie

in December 4th, 2005 @ 11:34

Religious beliefs, etc, can be taught in religion or philosophy or history courses. The supreme court decided in 1987 that “the Biblically based “creation science” is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences.”
Evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. And you might not believe that gravity exists, but it still keeps you firmly pulled down on the planet.
Scientists studying finches on the Galapagos islands found that as the source of food changed over a period of about 30 years, so did the beak shape of the finch. There’s a book written about it called “The Beak of the Finch”. Additionally, bacteria change over time to be resistant to an antibody, for example. If this isn’t evolution, I don’t know what is. Selective breeding also has produced animals with different traits- for example the many different types of dogs.
Evidence from fossils give a record of change over time. Some species had traits that were transitionary between two groups of organisms. Even in humans, there were earlier “versions” of humans (Homo erectus, for example) that died out as the next form developed. Living things also have similar structures and similarities in their genetic makeup that point to a common ancestor. For instance, bats, humans, whales, cats, and some other organisms all have similar arm/wing structures. The chemical compositions are also similar- 99% of the carbohydrates, proteins, fats, and other molecules of living things are made of only 6 of the 92 most common elements; DNA for all of the tens of thousands of living organisms is made from the same 20 amino acids. These similarities in chemical and anatomical structure are most logically accounted for by either everything developing from a common ancestor or by coming into existance as a result of similar natural processes. Geographic distribution also points to evolution. And I have to go eat now so I’ll finish this later.

0

220

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 4th, 2005 @ 11:37

yeah wrinkle in time!

love that book.

ok. i think of separation of church and state as you can’t have a public skool saying “learn about this religion cuz it’s true” I’m not saying teach other religions as facts but i think everybody should have a basic knowledge of all the major religions. and like i said before, it doesn’t have to be in science class. it could be in world studies or something. and i do know of skools that do that, but i think that should be something everybody should know.

separation of church and state is more of a principal that part of the 1st amendment was based on. my dad has an awesome shirt w/the first amendment on it. but that’s random and off-topic.

0

221

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 13:06

Axa: Do you have any evidence to support the claim of fish evolving into land mammals? I’ve heard the claim so many times, but all anyone can seem to come up with is the lungfish, which isn’t really in an intermedaite stage since the lungs are fully developed. When the lungs were only half-way developed, it would be pretty hard for the fish to live. Evolution doesn’t make much sense scientifically, since animals spontaneously making improovements in themselves can’t be proven.

Lizzie: ID is just as much science as Evolution. They should be taught side by side as unproven theories, because there is a lot of evidence for ID and the kids need to know that there is another option. The finches beaks were not an example of Evolution, but of evolution. The beak designs were already built into teh genetic code. The genes didn’t change, a different gene took control. In selective breading the dog didn’t sto being a dog, different traits in the genetic code were brought out. There is a big difference. While DNA may have only a few simple building blocks, the way it is put together is so complex, many people have figured out that the odds on it being formed by chance are literally zero. A lot of those “early versions” of humans have been proven to be false. Like, a lot of scientists think that some of them migh just be people with arthritis. There was one case where scientists found a skull, and called it a missing link because of where the eyes and stuff were placed, and it turned out that there were still people living in Wales who had the same skull. Maybe similarities in animals can be acounted for in the fact that they worked, and so God didn’t try to mess it up. I wish you would expound on the “geographic distrobution” thing, because I want to know specific cases of that.

Ebeth: I wasn’t saying force religion, or teach it as true, but present the idea of ID in the abstract as a possibel theory.

0

222

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 13:07

Oops, sorry, it’s Anonymous Coward, not Axa.

0

223

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 4th, 2005 @ 13:18

no that was at rrf mg. she was talking about separation of church+state and all that good stuff.

0

224

Kricket

in December 4th, 2005 @ 14:08

i still have nothing to say…

0

225

Lizzie

in December 4th, 2005 @ 15:26

MG- How is ID a theory? And evolution is proven, go look up evidence. Basically the geographic distribution is that different animals evolved in different places to fill the same niches. Think tenrecs and hedgehogs. And my head hurts and I’m in the midst of doing homework right now so I’m not going to go into a lengthy rant and I’m sorry if I’m being a bit sharp because MY HEAD HURTS!!!! And no, it is pretty well documented that, while there might not be 10 million different forms of humans, Lucy was a different species, the Neanderthals were either a totally different species or a different form of the species. Additionally, what’s the difference between Evolution and evolution? Genes changing IS what evolution is- different forms arise to fit the environment the best. And DNA being formed by chance didn’t occur bang! right at once. It occured over a period of time. For instance, after the amino acids and purines and pyrimidines lay around for a while, a few got together and had a big orgy and formed RNA. And then a few of the RNAs decided to have another big orgy and DNA was formed. Okay, so maybe I made up the orgys, but I think that’s basically what happened. At least, that’s what Larry Gonick said in the beginning of The Cartoon History of the Universe. And Larry Gonick is my hero.
Okay, so Pete Seeger is my hero, but hey, anyone who draws the muses and does many other cartoon histories as well and MAKES A LIVING OFF OF IT and manages to live in the Bay Area gets major ++hero points.
And my head still hurts.

0

226

Phoenix

in December 4th, 2005 @ 15:57

I won’t enter into this conversation other than to say that Darwinism is a theory. It should be taught, but as a theory. They teach Darwinism and the whole lightning bolt spontaneous generation (pish-tosh, I think, but I’ll leave it at that). None of the parents get mad. I belive in evolution, and I belive that God made the world. For instance, here is proof that the ‘days’ of creation weren’t really solar days– the sun wasn’t created ’till the fourth day! So there is NO WAY the days would have been literal days, because there wasn’t any sun then. This gives time for the dinosaurs. And I belive the Man created on day six was our evolutionary stage of Man, as in there had been, say, Pro-Magnons beforehand. Otherwise how do you explain how Adah and Cila and thier husband?

0

227

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 4th, 2005 @ 18:27

The way scientists use the word, a “theory” isn’t a hunch or a hypothesis. It’s more like a story that explains a lot of different facts. For example, Newton’s theory of gravitation, combined with his laws of motion, explains how planets orbit the sun, how the moon orbits the Earth, how cannonballs arc through the air, how pendulums swing, and how objects accelerate as they drop to the ground (that’s where the apple comes in). Lots of different kinds of objects and motions; one unifying theory (ash theory durbatuluk).

So it really doesn’t make sense to say that something is “just a theory,” as if that made it somehow inferior. The theory of gravity is “just a theory.” So is music theory. And that’s fine.

0

228

randomrohanfreak

in December 4th, 2005 @ 21:45

I do not like music theory. I like Cartoon History of the Universe very much.

I don’t think that beak designs were bult into the genetic code of the finches. What happened was that the genes mutated in a few birds so that the beaks changed shape. These birds were better able to survive and get food on their certain island, so more of them lived to reproduce. On different islands, the birds evolved to a different food source. But they all evolved from a common ancestor, even though it took millions of years. That’s how evolution works.

Just because there are still living members of a species with a certain structure doesn’t mean that others like them couldn’t have lived thousands or milllions of years ago. Actually, if they’re in the same place, it’s a good sign that they adapted to their environments. And there are plenty of early human fossils, especially when you consider the holes in the fossil record.

There can never be undoubtable proof for any scientific theory, because the world isn’t all neat and pat like that. But there can be a lot of evidence, like finches or Lucy or tenrecs or things falling down. What evidence is there for ID that can’t also be explained and make a lot more scientific sense by evolution?

0

229

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 21:51

Okay, so theory is the wrong word. I don’t know the right one.

ID is a theory because there is a great deal of evidence to support it. I promise. There are ID scientists, and there wouldn’t be if there wasn’t evidence. Really what ID people want is for the evidence for ID and catastrphism to be taught in schools, side by side with evidence for Evolution. If there isn’t any evidence for ID, then it won’t take long and it won’t make much of an impact on kids and nobody should be afraid of it.

That thing about animals living in different places doesn’t make any sense as support for Evolution. The reasons an animal might have evolved in a certain place would be the same reasons God would put them there. Think about it, if it’s better for a hedghog to live wherever hedgehogs live (momentary brainblock), and that would lead to them evolving there, God would be likely to put them there.

I would be interested to know how many “varieties” of humans scientists would think were alive today if they looked at the bones and didn’t know what time period the people lived in. There are a lot of physical differences and/or abnormalities that just happen as a general rule in nature.

Evolution is a theory about how we all got here, evolution is a process by which things change in everyday life. Evolution would lead to the finches having a new genetic code written to make things better for them, evolution would lead to the finches having a different characteristic in their genetic code brought to the top.

You know, I’ve never understood this thing with Evolution where supposedly things were hard, so the animals started to change. What I don’t understand is how the animals knew what to change to. I mean, with the fish becoming land mammals, how did they know there was something out there to go to? How did they know they would need lungs? How did they know how to develop them? How come when the lungs were in the early stages of development and were just a hindrance, Natural Selection didn’t weed out the ones who were impaired with undeveloped lungs? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

0

230

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 21:55

RRF: What evidence is there for Evolution that couldn’t be explained under ID? I don’t think I’ve ever heard any “evidence” for Evolution that couldn’t go both ways. It’s amazing, whatever you want to hear, all sounds become like that. I don’t think any of us are going to be convinced by anyone else. I’m kind of tired to this. We’re just saying the same things, over and over and over. I know that none of y’all are going to be convinced, and I’m not either, so I’m ready to move on.

0

231

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 4th, 2005 @ 22:11

Something else rarely taught in school but worth thinking about: One characteristic of a good scientific theory is that there are ways to tell if it’s wrong. (The technical terms are “testable” and “falsifiable.”) In other words, you have to be able to imagine something that the theory could NOT explain.

That’s one reason most scientists say that ID is not scientific: because it can explain anything. Whereas evolution as currently understood would run into serious problems if, say, someone were to find a fossil of a modern human being inside a Tyrannosaurus’s stomach.

I’m not taking sides, by the way. Note that by this definition, ID would be unscientific even if it’s true.

0

232

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 22:27

There are many things I could imagine that would be hard to explain with ID. Or, at least they would be a lot easier to explain with Evolution. Actually, Evolution could be adjusted to fit almost any occurence. If a modern human were found in a T-rex, the theory could be adjusted to say that modern humans simply evolved a lot earlier than previously thought, and T-rexes didn’t die out as early as previously thought. I don’t think either of them are scientific, since science involves making observations, making a hypothesis about what caused what was observed, testing the hypothesis, and all that good stuff, but Evolution is about how we got to this point, and since it happened before we were here we can’t make observations. Fossils can go either way, we might be totally misinterpreting what we see in the ground, and there is no way to have definitive tests. I mean, we can’t test how we got here. Just about anything could mean anything, and that’s why I don’t think any theories about how we got here are scientific. A lot of people complain how ID proponents always drag in God and use Him to explain away everything, but I hear a lot of Evolution people (I’m not saying everyone does this, or anyone on here, I just have heard it done) just say “it’s scientific” if you ask them to explain something. It’s like a lot of people just use science as the trump card to make it seem like anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, like some people use God. I just wish this was an open debate between scientists, and there was a debate about how it’s taught to kids, rather than so many peopel who try to make ID people look like they came from the stone age. It’s very frustrating when it happens.

0

233

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 4th, 2005 @ 23:06

Hmm… If modern human fossils were found in 65-million-year-old rocks, below the iridium layer that marks the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, evolutionary biologists would have a very hard time explaining how Homo sapiens could have evolved 45 million years before there were primates.

But that’s neither here nor there. The MAP is going to bed. “Night, all.

0

234

MontgomeryGurl

in December 4th, 2005 @ 23:22

Hey, you started using my abreviation!!! Very cool.

First off, they don’t really know how old the fossils are. I heard that once the machines that date rock dated brand new rock, newly formed from a volcanic eruption, as several million years old. You can’t know for certain if the methods of dating are accurate, since we don’t know what all affects it.

They could explain it, but it would take some radical reshaping. They would have to say that everything happened a lot earlier than they thought, and pri-mates really were around 17 billion years (or something like that, I’m not trying to be accurate) ago, and the earth is a lot older than they thought at first and all that stuff. It might take some serious reshuffling, but it could all be adjusted to accomodate. Because nobody was there, there can’t be directly conflicting evidence. The lack of fossils from that early on wouldn’t be proof, since the fossil record is often described as splotchy.

Anyway, this topic is annoying, since we all believe what we want to, and aren’t going to be persuaded other wise. To me, this topic is just personal beliefs, and if you disagree with that statement, I would say that’s just your personal beliefs. We don’t know what happened, and we can’t know, and different imformation is interpreted differently, so there can be no answer. I don’t like talking about things that have no ending. The whole Evolution vs. ID conflict is like a big circle to me (I don’t know why, since no one else seems to see it that way), and it bugs me to death.

0

235

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 5th, 2005 @ 10:29

MG,

Your skepticism, lack of awe of authority, and willingness to stand up for your beliefs are thoroughly Muselike.

I do hope you get a chance to learn about some of the fascinating geoscience and paleontology out there. There’s a lot of it, and it’s not all just a matter of opinion. Oil companies, for example, have loads of money at stake in hiring geologists who can tell them how old rocks are, what order they appeared in, what processes created and changed them, and what the fossils in them mean. A lot of people have worked hard for decades figuring all that out. It’s too bad schools don’t teach earth sciences very well.

But then, if schools were good at teaching how interesting the world is, we wouldn’t need Muse, would we? So maybe it’s all for the best.

–Robert

0

236

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 5th, 2005 @ 11:49

how about muse just starts a skool and then we can all go there and be interested?

Call it “The Skool of Muse and Interesting Stuff” and have CHOKLIT for lunch every day.

0

237

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 5th, 2005 @ 12:16

Dark or milk?

Whoops, sorry, guess this belongs on the “Food” thread. Though I suppose it could be a hot topic, depending on how strongly people feel about it…

0

238

Duncan_Quagmire

in December 5th, 2005 @ 14:35

Psh… both! I thought it was obvious…

0

239

MontgomeryGurl

in December 5th, 2005 @ 15:39

Milk!!!!! Milk, milk, milk!!!!!! All of my religious beliefs are based on the concept that milk choklit is vastly superior to dark choklit!!!!! It is a sin to consume the evil dark choklit, which is the spawn of Satan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you so much as look upon dark choklit with a desiring eye, you will be sent to eternal damnation, unless you throw yourself at the mercy of the choklit gods and beg forgivenes. And if you actually eat the stuff, well, that’s another matter.

0

240

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 5th, 2005 @ 15:43

Well ok it seems like Darwin’s slowed down a bit…who votes new topic? saaaay…erm…

ooh! here’s one-what about the whole christmas thing? like how it’s this huuuuge holiday that people celebrate even if they aren’t christian and stuff (well…skipping the church thing and all…)

Cuz it seems to me christmas isn’t really a religious holiday anymore. I mean it is to some people, but that’s different. Christmas like santa and trees and all-that’s like it’s own separate thing now. What do you guys think?

0

241

MontgomeryGurl

in December 5th, 2005 @ 16:15

I think everyone should stop being so terrified of religion, to the point of being afraid to say “Christmas”. I am sooooo sick of hearing “Happy Holidays” and hearing Christmas Trees reffered to as “Holiday Trees”. It’s fine if people don’t want to celebrate it as a religious holiday, but the name is Christmas, and people are just so hypersensitive to anything even remotely connected with Christianity, it’s sad. It bothers me a lot, and I like to go around telling everyone “Merry Christmas” as often as possible, just to go against the flow. This is probably totally unrelated to what Ebeth was talking about, but it has been bothering me for the last few years, and I just wanted to rant. Carry on.

0

242

Phoenix

in December 5th, 2005 @ 17:22

I don’t celebrate Cristmas. the only non-religious holidays I celebrate are Yom Ha’atzmaut (Israeli Independace Day), fourth of July, and Thanksgiving.

0

243

randomrohanfreak

in December 5th, 2005 @ 21:45

DARK CHOKLIT!!!! DARK CHOKLIT RULES!!!

Why does it seem like me and MG always disagree? Even on choklit issues?

I celebrate Christmas, but more as a winter holiday than anything else. I pretty much understand the religious significance, but I think that people are within their rights to say “Happy Holidays.” After all, you can’t tell by looking at a person whether they celebrate Christmas or not. But I do think that calling Christmas trees “Holiday Trees” is a bit extreme. I mean, they’re for Christmas. Not every holiday.

0

244

MontgomeryGurl

in December 5th, 2005 @ 21:58

Yes, I understand that not everyone celebrates “Chirstmas”, and that’s well within their rights and I’m fine with it, it’s this intense fear of anything related to the word “Christmas” that drives me batty. I mean, all the sales and stuff wouldn’t be happening if it wasn’t for Christmas, so why not just go ahead and admit that? There’s nothing wrong with “Happy Holidays”, I just get so sick of everyone thinking through all the people that could possibly, remotely, maybe be offended if we use the name of the holiday we’re celebrating. It’s like people are afraid of “Christmas”.

0

245

Axa

in December 6th, 2005 @ 00:13

Prepare yourselves for Axa’s Daily Random Japan Fact!

Christmas, in Japan, is a purely commercial holiday. And I mean purely. About 1% of Japan is Christian ( They have Aabloody past with the missionaries in the 1600’s, when Japan was still freaked out be outsiders, that is, the government was… Because of this, Christianity was all but stamped out.) so rarely is it celebrated for religious reasons.

Understand, Japan has a strange love for all things American. If you listen to Japanese music, there’s a surprising amount o English, though not usually said right. ( Ex: Reflection sounds like friction, “ns” are barely pronounced) So of course they’d adapt holidays.

Anyway. Christmas is a HUGE couples holiday. It’s when you have a dinner and junk with your boyfriend/girlfriend. And so ends my speech, which I doubt anyone will read/understand.

0

246

Phoenix

in December 6th, 2005 @ 05:53

I read it, it was cool. And yes, MG, I hate people who beat around the bush. Somtimes you have to be blunt.

0

247

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 6th, 2005 @ 09:44

wow axa. that’s interesting.

are you japanese? or do you just like japan?

0

248

randomrohanfreak

in December 7th, 2005 @ 20:37

Christmas doesn’t seem to be much of a hot topic…

New one, anyone?

0

249

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (Queenie J)

in December 8th, 2005 @ 18:16

Dark. Milk tastes like hyena offel.

Holidays? I hate the regular ones. I have the annoying habits of picking out important dates (birthdays, anniversaries, etc.) in somebody’s life and celebrating them. Get your calendars out, Musers:
Oct. 27-Oscar Wilde’s birthday
Jan 3.-J.R.R. Tolkien’s birthday
Aug. 6-Andy Warhol’s birthday
March 11-Douglas Adams’s birthday (!!!!!)
July 22-Gregor Mendel’s birthday
in no particular order. Anyone who wants to add to the list is welcome and encouraged to do so.

OK, here’s my hot topic. Ready? George Bush. I personally spare him no pain, and regularly lampoon him in both conversation, thought, and pretty much everything else.

0

250

Zyviva

in December 9th, 2005 @ 09:30

i think that politics are weird because
1) politisions have to do stupid things that are wrong/they don’t agree with to get elected
2) power corrpts people

but i still like democracy. It means we et to pick wich lunitic makes our laws instead of some lunitic picking for us/ some lunitic born in the right family/ some lunitic who conquered/ some lunitic with enough soilders to rule

0

251

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (Queenie J)

in December 10th, 2005 @ 16:17

Christmas is a huge, amped-up, corporate, consumer dynamo “holiday”, and if the US would admit that we’d be much happier. “…and would probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.”-IOBE, Oscar Wilde

Yesterday my pocketknife fell out of my back pocket at school and a couple strags made a HUGE deal out of it. OK, it didn’t exactly fall out, a certain strag picked it out of my back jeans pocket and I took him apart for it. Anyway, I don’t think it’s a huge thing. I didn’t threaten anyone with it (“I can resist anything except temptation”-Lord Goring, Oscar Wilde, you name the play) I just open stuff with it and file my nails with it.

0

252

Kricket

in December 10th, 2005 @ 16:44

i like milk choklit and dark choklit, but if i had to choose the, i’d pick milk. ohohohohoh!!!!!!!! the choklit i like best is the milk choklit dove ones with carmel inside!!!!!!!!! i absolutely looooooooooooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeee carmel!!!!!!!! it’s sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo delicious!!!!!!!!!!! yumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyumyummy!!!!!!! i have a big bruise on my head from running into the fence while sleding….. ouch. we have got to have an injuries thread where we can talk about all the injuries we got that day or the different types of injuries/diseases/doctory stuff for all you medical fanatics out there (not me of course i get sick when i look at a needle! blech)…… who seconds that?

0

253

Phoenix

in December 10th, 2005 @ 17:08

Boy Zyv, you have simple acceptance of life, huh? Wish we could carry penknives.
You know, just because I warn people who really bug me (*coughDGthejubgibbencough*) that I am not afraid to hit but I don’t want to hurt them, I have been accused of being suspicious and violent. And YOU are the one who, if I, your BEST FRIEND, reaches out to stick your chopstick (why do you carry that thing around, anyway?) back into it’s place, you put up a defensive motion? You don’t have to act tough around me, I already KNOW you are. Boy that was off topic.

Anyway, wanna go on a ‘knights are ijits’ rant? I can copy our knight article if you want.

0

254

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 10th, 2005 @ 17:14

ran into a fence?

steer kricket steer

running into fences is generally thought of as not a good thing to do.

injuries thread?? erm…i say nah. but then i’m not the GAPA.

medical stuff confuses me.

0

255

Zyviva

in December 10th, 2005 @ 17:47

phoenix, lets just say that i have trained myself to do that since i have the most idiotic annoying stupid brother. fyi, most of the time i go into position before my brain regesters that you are the one who touched it.
and just for that annoying statement “look at me i’m the king of new york….”
actually i don’t live in new york. i just wrote that line to bug phoenix because she just bugged me about the same issue for the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000th time, give ore take a few octillions

0

256

Zyviva

in December 10th, 2005 @ 17:49

oh, and i wear a chopstick to keep the hair off my neck. it is quite effefctive really.

0

257

MontgomeryGurl

in December 10th, 2005 @ 18:01

An injuries thread wouldn’t ve just confusing, it would be incredibly exclusive and boring.

All politicians aren’t corrupt. They would be, but some of them live by a higher standard than what will be good for them, and those are the ones that make good politicians. Power does corrupt people, but if they have a sheild, in the form of a higher moral standard. The reason some politicians aren’t corrupt is the same reason some people are nice and unselfish.

*coughbobcough* That was random, and I don’t think most of you will get it. It had nothing to do with Hot Topics, and was intended just jfor one person. Don’t worry about it.

0

258

Phoenix

in December 10th, 2005 @ 19:47

It’s okay. Lets just continiue our little dicussion with Zyviva…
here is what I say to the ‘instinctive defense motion’ thing: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAsnortsnorglechokehackcoughHAHAHA.

ANYway, knights, especially PC, are jerks. blah blah blah.

0

259

Zyviva

in December 11th, 2005 @ 08:33

Prince Charming isn’t a knight. he isn’t even that good with a a sword, do you know how many YEARS it took him to learn one end of the sword from the other.

and don’t insult my instintctive defence motion. it really is true. just because youd on’t do it doesn’t mean other people don’t.

back to Prince Charming (PC) he is a jerk………….
phoenix, can you post the ules of chivalry with your comments? i can’t find it.

0

260

Lizzie

in December 11th, 2005 @ 12:12

Okay, what’s the topic?

MG- the sad thing is that those politicians don’t get elected to the higher offices. And the people best suited for those offices in the first place are usually too sane to want to have them…

0

261

MontgomeryGurl

in December 11th, 2005 @ 13:53

Oh, but actually quite a lot of them do. The thing is you never hear about them, and people have different definitions of what that person will look like, so it’s hard to know exactly which ones have been elected.

0

262

Kricket

in December 11th, 2005 @ 14:14

i would have steered but that IDIOT MEGAN GIRL JUMPED ON MY BACK AND I DROPPED THE STRINGS!!!! IDIOT GIRL…..

0

263

Phoenix

in December 11th, 2005 @ 14:38

It isn’t on this computer. Sorry.
Kricket, did you bail out?

0

264

Whatever She's Calling Herself Today

in December 14th, 2005 @ 17:31

No! What happened to my happy little debate corner? Admittedly, I almost never posted here, but lurking and watching the debates unfoooooold waaaaaaas fuuuuuuun (wiiiiiith maaaaanyy reeeepeeeaaateeed vooooooowels becaaaaaaauuuuuseeeeee IIIIIIII feeeeeeeeeeeeel liiiiiiiikeeeeee iiiiiiiiiit.) YYAAAAAAAAAAAAAYY!
Thaaaaaaat waaaaaaaas raaaaaandooooom.

0

265

Ebeth the Lurker

in December 14th, 2005 @ 17:55

your happy little debaters finished their topic and dwindled off into technical discussions about the mechanics of sleds and the importance of steering…

0

266

Lizzie

in December 14th, 2005 @ 19:09

Oh. I see. You all need me around to take the controversial topics and run with them, is that it?
*end of egocentric moment*
Anyway, MG- I was thinking of your comment about how you weren’t a femanist and how you believed that men were designed to protect the house and women were designed as nurturing beings, or something like that that you posted a long while ago as I was studying for finals today, and I realized that really, what femanists, or at least my particular brand of them, are saying isn’t that they were made totally equal in all respects, John Doe==Jane Doe, but that, while, on average , men might be more likely to get into fights and protect the home and all that good stuff, and women might be more likely on average to nurture the kiddies, women shouldn’t be discouraged or banned from protecting the home and men shouldn’t be discouraged or banned from nurturing the future generation. In other words, Julie Jill shouldn’t be discouraged from taking the hard science courses/going into a career in engineering just because Sally Sue and ~~Tigger Too~~ Ashley Ann aren’t good at it, and if Bobby Joe is totally into English and wants to spend a lifetime analyzing Shakespeare, good for him. And if Suzie is very very good at her job, better than anyone else, sure, why not promote her to CEO? In other words, gender shouldn’t prevent anyone from leading the life they want to lead.
At least, I think that that’s what I was thinking. I’m not that good at putting my thoughts into words…

0

267

MontgomeryGurl

in December 14th, 2005 @ 20:01

I don’t think that, I just think that on average, on the whole, men and women have different strenghts and weaknesses. I’m just tired of people acting like men and women are the exact same, and that if a man can do it, then any women can do it.

0

268

Phoenix

in December 14th, 2005 @ 20:23

Yes! Females, as a gender, are more peaceful, emotional, and nurturing. Males, as a gender, are jerks. But if you are the exception it dosn’t matter.

0

269

Phoenix

in December 14th, 2005 @ 20:24

Even though teenage boys are always jerks. Heck, even MUSE boys are at least a bit jerky.

0

270

MontgomeryGurl

in December 14th, 2005 @ 21:34

How many Muse boys are there on here? I can only think of Grant O. and D_Q. Anyway, it’s not true that all teenage guys are jerks, there are several in my speech club who are pretty nice. I’ve met some of the politest people on the face of the earth there.

0

271

Phoebe

in December 14th, 2005 @ 22:08

Yeah, I’m with Lizzie here. Well said, well said. *applaud.*

0

272

Artemis Fowl II

in December 15th, 2005 @ 06:04

I’m with Lizzie also.
Not all teenage boys I have met are jerks, and many girls are extremely obnoxious and immature, too. (coughcougheopleinmyschool)

0

273

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 15th, 2005 @ 09:20

people in general are jerks, but girls are sneakier about it. So if you can find a guy that’s just a little bit of a jerk, he’s probably a better friend than a girl. The problem is, most guys are way more obviously jerky.

humans aren’t perfect. life would be very boring if they were…

0

274

Queen Julietaini the Flamablamablous of Kiador (Queenie J)

in December 15th, 2005 @ 15:52

Oh, come off it. Be open-minded, and relax. OK, we aren’t perfect. Didn’t Oscar Wilde say something about women loving men for their faults and all? The differences you’ve mentioned are more biologically, Darwinishly engineered than anything. Stop with the pattering about how girls can have so much drama and how men are jerks, OK?

Chopsticks…hmmm. A friend of mine picking me out in a crowd said it was easy. “How many talking baboons do you meet on the average Thursday?”-type thing. I gave up years ago and just stick my dead follicle cells out of the way when I need to.

0

275

Phoenix

in December 15th, 2005 @ 16:41

Today we were talking about WW1 in S.S. class, and how the women took over men’s’ jobs. And some jerky teenage boy in my class started chanting, “Back to the kitchen! Back to the kitchen! Make me a sandwich…” He only got that far, though, because Zyviva, who was sitting next to him, wacked him on the head with her assignment planner.

0

276

randomrohanfreak

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 12:48

I use chopsticks to EAT, which is what I’ve done since I was a baby. If you ask me, sticking forks in your hair is weird (although I’ve done it, just to confuse people), so why should chopsticks be any different. It just feels kinda weird. But yeah. Hair chopsticks are not a hot topic.

0

277

Lizzie

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 14:02

Would anyone like to explain how there supposedly is a “War on Christmas”? I don’t really get how changing the greatings in stores to include the many non-Christians around is that threatening..

Also, isn’t it lovely how we have people in power who respect our basic constitutional rights so much they invade people’s privacy without warrents?

0

278

Lizzie

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 14:03

Sorry, I’m feeling a bit bitter today. I think it’s because I have a cold.

0

279

Em

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 14:32

okay, so nobody goes here very often.

so here’s my hot topic: There was this girl who was at my house and loved my rabbits and then the next day at school she said that she wanted to eat them. And then everybody else started saying it, too. Is it now cool to say things like that and make people feel bad?

0

280

MontgomeryGurl

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 14:42

No, because “cool” implies a passing fad that has recently become the fashion. Unfortunately, people’s desire to hurt others has always happened, and probably always will. It’s especially rampant in children, because they haven’t learned what’s okay to say and what’s not. They haven’t learned how to curtail ideas that come into their heads. Sometimes adults do it, but they’re generally sneaky about it.

0

281

Lizzie

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 15:06

Yeah, and what I don’t get is how we give our children violent video games in which they’re blowing up everyone else, show them violent TV shows, leave guns lying around loaded, and then wonder why in the world the kids brought the guns to school and shot people.

I do think that the popular culture is in part guilty of causing this say-whatever-comes-into-your-head-insult-each-other culture- TV shows, music, etc. And for some reason it’s also “cool” to not only insult each other, but to insult each other’s parents, relatives, friends, clothes, etc..

0

282

Em

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 15:06

but dont people say things that make them seem superior because it makes them feel good? like correcting people when they mess up or implieing that they are tough and dont care about rabbits?

0

283

Em

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 15:48

oh look, we posted at the same time! or at least in the same minute.

0

284

Lizzie

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 15:48

I suppose it could be fun to be nasty.. you’d get a nice adrenaline rush… but don’t believe everything they tell you about self-esteem.

0

285

Axa

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 18:09

Because this is suited better here, not at Holidays, where I was originally going to post.

What bothers me about Mormons is Polygamy. Admittedly, not all Mormons practice it, but…it’s freaky I saw something on the Discovery channel about it. Ugh. Really, I think Christianityâ€™s real message has been skewed and distorted several times over through time, and that everyone needs to wake up and re- analyze what theyâ€™re doing.

0

286

Phoenix

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 19:13

has anyone read The Wave? About how this school put in an experiment and made everything like a croos between Nazi Germany and the USSR? Ishmael just read it, and she and I were talking on the bus about what would happen if they did that in our school. We both didn’t think many in our classes would fall for it, b/c we are Jews and know EVERYTHING about Hitler and his politics and Socialism and all that so we would be more resistant, but we agreed that, while niether of us would fall for it personally, we wouldn’t be able to do what we wanted, stage a revolution, b/c everything would be like “1984” and you wouldn’t know who to trust.

0

287

Axa

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 20:41

Ooooh I saw that at the library, must pick it up.

0

288

Ishmael

in December 22nd, 2005 @ 20:42

Actually, it was fascisism and communism.

0

289

Em

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 11:50

i don’t get it. how did they do that?

0

290

Lizzie

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 12:33

Oh yeah, my history teacher told us about it last year. Didn’t they sort of form an elite clique and it sort of spread from there?

0

291

Phoenix

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 13:20

Yeah. Scary, especially since it’s true.

0

292

Sphinx

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 14:16

I son’t think I’d fall for it. I’d act like the whole thing was an inside joke. Which means I pprobably would fall for it, but would never go so far. I dunno. Now that I think of it, maybe I would. I’d take it like an inside joke, and maybe I’d start looking down on the people who weren’t in on the joke. It’s scary, when I think how i actually would have fallen for it.

0

293

Phoenix

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 14:24

I’ve never been very social. I might fall for it, but I doubt it. I would never have put anyone down, though, ever.

0

294

Em

in December 23rd, 2005 @ 15:41

i still don’t get it. someone please explain?

0

295

Lizzie

in December 25th, 2005 @ 11:57

MG-
This is changing the topic, but you mentioned a long time ago here that you’d be interested in reading a debate between scientists for evolution and scientists for ID. I’ve been reading the judge’s summation for the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, and it’s highly confusing, but I thought you might find it interesting. I’m only on page 19 (of 139), but what I can understand has been interesting.. You can download it at http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/ . It’s very slow going, though- I mean, “It is essential to our analysis that we now provide a more expansive account of the extensive and complicated federal jurisprudential legal landscape etc etc “..

0

296

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in December 25th, 2005 @ 12:00

Sounds like Paul Baker!

0

297

Ebeth The Lurker

in December 25th, 2005 @ 12:35

I read the wave during english last year…it was more interesting than my spelling worksheet that took about five minutes. boo teer.

i don’t think i’d fall for that kind of thing though. i’m not big on doing what other people do, especially since a lot of the people i know are idiots. no offense to anybody i know who might be on here. chances are, if you got this far down the hot topics you’re not an idiot. go you.

aaah pain!!! *covers ears* like my mom. when she would read and re-read all her skool papers out loud to dad…and she’d say what did you think? and i’d say i think i have no idea what that means. and that would set her off in a rant to me explaining whatever the paper was about. usually about skools.

aaaah i g2g now. so sad. g2 put a mini bookshelf together cuz my big one’s full. of course that’s cuz i just cleaned my room-in another couple of days they’ll be all over the floor and i won’t need it. but oh well…

0

298

Ishmael

in December 25th, 2005 @ 13:14

The plot was rather underdeveloped. It was real life, and I find that it isn’t quite as exciting.

The book did convey the message it was trying to send, in my opnion, and I really knew how the characters felt.

0

MuseBlog

MB Calendar is Back!

Looking for Something?

Log in Here!

REALLY Random

Recent Comments

Categories

Our Places