being hungry
Timothy Sutter
i like food, i like to eat, but when i feel
that hungry bit in my stomach, it's like
my body is telling me that it's alive
and it wants something.
and i can tell it "no".
but that's another funny thing, my brain
extends way out beyond just my head.
because i can stick myself in the finger
with a pin, and i'll feel it, so, my brain
goes all throughout my body.
so, it's sort of like my brain is asking
me for something, namely some food,
and i'm telling it "no".
so, where am I?
i get to tell my body, "no" "you can eat later,"
so, _I'm_ not identical to my body, except that
_i_ seem to be with it all the time.
but my body asking me for food is exactly
traceable back to my brain asking me for
food, so, _i_ must be somewhat distinct
from my brain as well, as my brain is just
another part of my body, which wants food,
and _i_ get to tell it "no"
so, where am I?
i must be in here somewhere.
which is another somewhat strange thing.
you can turn off your conscious brain
entirely, and your little brain stem
creature can still walk the earth
without your say so.
and *then* you'd really want to
ask yourself, "where's Tim?"
the little brain stem creature walks,
and can even speak, entirely
without your awareness.
where am i then?
anyway, i just felt like posting something, so i did.
apparently.
--
That's nice Timothy Sutter
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
Gail
We know that if that faster one travels, the slower time progresses for the
traveller. This has been proven as fact.
We also know that the equator travels 24,000 miles in a 24 hour period (1,000
miles per hour). A personnear a pole of the earth traveles a very small
distance in a 24 hour period.
Over the course of a few years, a person on the equator will be younger than a
person near the pole - who was born at the exact same minute as equator person.
Take this a little further.
Someone in Miami experiences time differently than someone in Boston.
Let's say I'm in Boston and I pick up my cell phone to call you in Miami. How
can we possibly communicate? I am living in one time. You are living in
another. It shouldn't be possible. Yet we do.
It seems therefore, that your brain exists well outside of your body, in a
realm that you and I share.
One more example:
A man is a jet pilot. He travels around the world for his entire career. When
he retires, he sits with his wife over coffee. His wife, who never traveled,
lived in Northern Canada her whole life. The husband is living in the wife's
PAST, and the wife is living in the husband's FUTURE, yet they chat as if
nothing is amiss.
How can this be, unless the brain plays only a small part in your
self-identification.
Another example:
This Law of nature became law when a jet plane was sent on a mission to fly
around fast for a while. Two atomic synchronized clocks were used in this
experiment. One was on the plane. One was in the control tower. When the
plane landed, the clocks were no longer synchronized.
The pilot and the air traffic controller came out to shake hands after the
experiment, yet they shook hands through what had just been proven to be two
different times co-existing at the same moment.
You are not your body, it seems.
Gail
Gail
tall-cool-one
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> I like it when i feel hungry in my stomach.
>
> i like food, i like to eat, but when i feel
> that hungry bit in my stomach, it's like
> my body is telling me that it's alive
> and it wants something.
Uh ya, OK. But wouldn't you rather like to know:
why does a God of Love permit good people to suffer from starvation?
tall cool one
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: being hungry
>
> From: tall-cool-one <makewayf...@bigfish.net>
> Reply to: [1] tall-cool-one
> Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 18:54:13 GMT
> Organization: Refresh-Rate
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.timothy.sutter,
> [3] alt.religion.christianity,
> [4] alt.bible.prophecy,
> [5] alt.bible,
> [6] talk.religion.misc,
> [7] alt.actor.dustin-hoffman,
> [8] alt.christnet
> Followup to: [9] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [10] <i'm.hungry.but.i'll.eat...@yahoo.com>
**** we choose all that happens to us ...to learn and to teach
others.
Before you even get into it...yes a little baby chooses starvation. Hard
to believe...perhaps ..but we choose our life and our experiences
pre-embodiment.
My opinion.
That does not mean that if you see someone starving..you just sit there.
You learn to give and share and connect by pure loving another human
being.
Brenda
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > I like it when i feel hungry in my stomach.
> > i like food, i like to eat, but when i feel
> > that hungry bit in my stomach, it's like
> > my body is telling me that it's alive
> > and it wants something.
> Uh ya, OK. But wouldn't you rather like to know:
no, *you* would rather like to know that.
> why does a God of Love permit good people to suffer from starvation?
what "good" people?
show me where they are.
Besq
Why do the people God loves allow Him to suffer from their
disobedience? We are to serve, not have God serve us.
>
>
> tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> tall-cool-one wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > I like it when i feel hungry in my stomach.
>
> > > i like food, i like to eat, but when i feel
> > > that hungry bit in my stomach, it's like
> > > my body is telling me that it's alive
> > > and it wants something.
>
> > Uh ya, OK. But wouldn't you rather like to know:
>
> no, *you* would rather like to know that.
>
> > why does a God of Love permit good people to suffer from starvation?
>
> what "good" people?
>
> show me where they are.
God sees them
NIV - Matthew 5:45
He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
righteous and the unrighteous.
NWT - Matthew 5:45
since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain
upon righteous people and unrighteous
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
Besq wrote:
OK, a God of Love says, "serve me of your own free will and I will "allow"
you to starve simply because you were born in a screwed up location on the
earth. Or did I not get the sense of what you are affirming is God's
current plan and expressed will?
tall cool one
tall-cool-one
"Brenda G. Tataryn" wrote:
Hey, pass that forward. God knows, a baby *can't*
tall cool one
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > tall-cool-one wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > I like it when i feel hungry in my stomach.
> > > > i like food, i like to eat, but when i feel
> > > > that hungry bit in my stomach, it's like
> > > > my body is telling me that it's alive
> > > > and it wants something.
> > > Uh ya, OK. But wouldn't you rather like to know:
> > no, *you* would rather like to know that.
> > > why does a God of Love permit good people to suffer from starvation?
> > what "good" people?
> > show me where they are.
> God sees them
> NIV - Matthew 5:45
> He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the
> righteous and the unrighteous.
and there you have it,
God loves the bad and the good,
i.e. "no respector of persons."
now try defining "love" in God's terms.
for all you know, God may show "love"
by allowing some people to starve and
some people to have their fill.
Timothy Sutter
> tall-cool-one wrote:
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > what "good" people?
the more interesting questions are these;
how come a great big hand doesn't pop out of the
sky and a thunderous voice say, "don't jump" when
some poor soul is standing on the bridge just
about to toss it into the abyss?
how come a hand doesn't reach down and the voice say,
"stop that" just before one person sticks a gun in
another person's face and pulls the trigger?
cheap theatrics, that's what you're looking for.
Gail
writes:
>and there you have it,
>God loves the bad and the good,
>i.e. "no respector of persons.
Any friend of God's is a friend of mine!
Reverend Gail, Universal Life Church
tall-cool-one
Timothy Sutter wrote:
is it?
tall cool one
Brad Quilliam
not be controlled by the desires of the flesh and choose not to give in
to there cravings.
Where most people are lead and controlled by there fleshly cravings but
we are called to deny the passions of the flesh which bring about
unfruitful behaviors.
Timothy Sutter
> Interesting comparison that is the very way in which we can decide to
> not be controlled by the desires of the flesh and choose not to give in
> to there cravings.
> Where most people are lead and controlled by there fleshly cravings but
> we are called to deny the passions of the flesh which bring about
> unfruitful behaviors.
i'd also figure it's not self denial for
the sake of self denial and some sort of
self induced act of piety to earn points
with God but more of a self denial to learn
a self discipline that would be a hedge
against slavery and remove any interference
to a clearer understanding of God.
Brad Quilliam
is what you are enslaved by.
Interesting too is that whenever the early disciples wanted to dedicate
themselves to the Lord for answers they would fast and pray and to fast is
to go without food (abstain) for a time, not that it's a good idea to stop
eating but it is interesting how the way in which the body craves for food
it also craves for fulfilling the passions such as lusts and creed and
jealousy and fits of anger (uncontrolled) Galatains 5 verse 13 - 26.
I'm interested in this comparison because I believe this is what is spoken
by the Lord when he says give up your worldly ways and come follow me. The
ways of this world is to make decisions by your emotions rather than the
Lords wisdom. And if we lived by wisdom and not our emotions we would save
ourselves a lot of heartache and trouble. Because we tend to rush into
things and allow other things of this world rule our minds and take up all
our time, which would be better spent learning the Lords ways.
Timothy Sutter
> Again good point , Jesus says anything in which you are controlled by that
> is what you are enslaved by.
> Interesting too is that whenever the early disciples wanted to dedicate
> themselves to the Lord for answers they would fast and pray and to fast is
> to go without food (abstain) for a time, not that it's a good idea to stop
> eating but it is interesting how the way in which the body craves for food
> it also craves for fulfilling the passions such as lusts and creed and
> jealousy and fits of anger (uncontrolled) Galatains 5 verse 13 - 26.
> I'm interested in this comparison because I believe this is what is spoken
> by the Lord when he says give up your worldly ways and come follow me. The
> ways of this world is to make decisions by your emotions rather than the
> Lords wisdom. And if we lived by wisdom and not our emotions we would save
> ourselves a lot of heartache and trouble. Because we tend to rush into
> things and allow other things of this world rule our minds and take up all
> our time, which would be better spent learning the Lords ways.
i probably wouldn't say this in exactly
the same manner, but if i put it in my own
words it would probably say much the same thing.
and it's also clear that the christian can be
diverted away from that thing on which
the sights should remain focused,
namely, one's salvation, and a maintaining
of the Faith delivered up by Christ.
and the cares of this world are evidently
those things which would tend
to quench the Spirit.
and so, while one seeking the kingdom first,
should be able to rely on God for
certain physical needs,
this aspect of "fasting and prayer" should
enable one to more thoroughly focus on
seeking the kingdom, for a time,
and thereby mitigate walking in Christ's path
when the cares of this world present
themselves for re-inspection.
Timothy Sutter
and that's a somewhat funny thing,
that salvation amounts to one being able
to walk in Christ in a renewed frame of mind,
on one's own. not that God deserts a person, all
of a sudden, but that God would be going about the
task of enabling such a one to walk in Christ
without stumbling and without
...well, something like training wheels.
it's all very strange.
"salvation thru faith and no boasting"
but just what is salvation?
and you'd tend to think that it is
just be as i allude to above.
that one's salvation is becoming more
and more "like Christ" in all ways.
on one's own.
with Christ as a brother and
not many of the useless things
we would have him become.
and Christ was/is/will be humble.
i like the "rule our minds" bit.
becuz "renewal thru Christ" is freedom.
John's alter ego
talking about lust please don't forget that any inordinate desire for
anything is called LUST. That includes a lot of things having no
relationship to sexual immorality, BTW.
--
Now that I've added a webcam and Netmeeting I'm looking for people I can
talk to with video etc.
Brad Quilliam
spirit is the so called "training wheels" which once it has done it's job of
bringing you into perfection there will be no need for it to remain with you
because you will have the ability to behave according to the nature of the Lord.
When would the fulfilling of this take place, I would say in the next age for
those of mankind found worthy to share in it. Now if you know how.
The Holy Spirit will not insist on it's own way it will only act if you allow it
to and it's role is to advice, so we must learn to listen to it's advice or we
could miss out on some helpful revelations.
And we must want to change and choose not to do the wrong things but we will get
help with that as we learn and are taught by the Spirit.
Especially in learning how to overcome the flesh which is not learnt personally
through mankind but through the spirit because the knowledge is spiritual so it's
understanding will come from above not from down here.
1 corinthians 13 verse 8-12
Timothy Sutter
> Even the fact that one day tongues will cease indicates to me that the Holy
> spirit is the so called "training wheels" which once it has done it's job of
> bringing you into perfection there will be no need for it to remain with you
> because you will have the ability to behave according to the nature of the Lord.
that's pretty funny, but then you'd have to wonder if
this "Holy Spirit" is a distinct persona and therefore
"member of the Godhead" or more something of an agency
which proceeds _from_ God and _is_ God.
and, somewhat, if _our_ ultimate being
is entry into the Godhead.
because God is Spirit, and God is a Spirit,
and Christ sends His Spirit, etc.
and so, if your spirit became "Holy" then
how could "The Holy Spirit" ever leave you?
i mean, it's an interesting thing to say,
but I'm not sure what you mean by "The Holy Spirit"
in your view, is Holy Spirit an agency
from God or a distinct Identity of God?
it's a legit question.
and one that could be understood as different
renderings of the same sort of thing without
too much linguistic entanglement.
but yes, that would be sort
of what I was thinking.
but I wasn't thinking in terms
of having the Holy Spirit
distance from me.
but i think maybe you are right, that may
be what i was considering only i wasn't
using that absolute terminology.
Holy Spirit is, in part, sort of an agency that
you receive and are led by, until you can
walk more perfectly on your own.
but then, the apect of "communication" between the
individual and "The Father" or "God" or "The Lord"
or whichever is your naming, probably should never disappear.
but then, the funny thing about the way you say this,
is that "Faith" is that thing which you receive
thru "The Holy Spirit"
and that passage you cite seems to suggest that
"Faith Hope and Love" are the all important, but
seeing that Faith will no longer be entirely necessary
when we see God for who God is, and we will no longer
need Hope for that Hope will be a Hope fulfilled,
then Love is the greatest because it will always
be Present, even in the absolute Presence of God,
which will, somewhat, erase the "need" for Faith and Hope.
and so, though "true Faith" is a Gift
thru and from The Holy Spirit, even that
Faith, will someday be unnecessary in
God's absolute Presence.
excuse the run on, but it was in interesting
way to say that, and I hadn't really
considered it in those exact terms.
> When would the fulfilling of this take place, I would say in the next age for
> those of mankind found worthy to share in it. Now if you know how.
i'd suggest that the aspects of communication
and communal Presence, between God and Man would
probably involve The Holy Spirit all the
way out the door, even if you "knew how"
albeit, that could be just a matter of absolute
linguistic rendering and not so much
a conflicting ideation.
> The Holy Spirit will not insist on it's own way it will only act if you allow it
> to and it's role is to advice, so we must learn to listen to it's advice or we
> could miss out on some helpful revelations.
> And we must want to change and choose not to do the wrong things but we will get
> help with that as we learn and are taught by the Spirit.
well, there's still that aspect of "the Spirit
and the Flesh being in some sort of conflict."
and the idea of crucifying the flesh, even
though the flesh remains alive, as indwelled by Christ.
as in, Christ inhabits your flesh, the flesh dies,
and you are now seated in the heavenly places with God.
and Christ lives in "you" where "you" are your flesh.
and "you" live in the heavenly places
where "you" is your spirit.
so, maybe, you would suggest that God slowly pumps
you back in to your own flesh, but then that you'd
still be abiding in the heavenly places, _and_ here
in the flesh, and it's very funny, because even when
you were just beginning to walk in Christ, you were here
in the flesh and abiding in the heavenly places, so that
which ultimately is transformed is the flesh, but also,
you might suggest that our spirits are transformed into
the Image of God's own Spirit and therefore it's all very funny.
and i don't mean "funny" ha ha.
that was an interesting thing to say.
> Especially in learning how to overcome the flesh which is not learnt personally
> through mankind but through the spirit because the knowledge is spiritual so it's
> understanding will come from above not from down here.
exactly.
> 1 corinthians 13 verse 8-12
--
Brad Quilliam
>
>
> and so, if your spirit became "Holy" then
> how could "The Holy Spirit" ever leave you?
>
> i mean, it's an interesting thing to say,
> but I'm not sure what you mean by "The Holy Spirit"
>
> in your view, is Holy Spirit an agency
> from God or a distinct Identity of God?
>
The Holy Spirit is firstly (Holy = agios (greek) not of this earth, so it's nature
behaves spiritual, doesn't act on it's emotions) while the angels that fell with satan
behave worldly so are not Holy but earthly or worldly.
Spirit = one of the fathers ministering angels , because there is so many they all
have a ministry to fulfill or to put it in common terms they all have a job to do.
Some are messages, some control the elements, some entertain the Father and so on and
,some are given the job to transform an individual into the image of the Father as
long as the individual allows the spirit to do the job (this will take time).
> and that passage you cite seems to suggest that
> "Faith Hope and Love" are the all important, but
> seeing that Faith will no longer be entirely necessary
> when we see God for who God is, and we will no longer
> need Hope for that Hope will be a Hope fulfilled,
> then Love is the greatest because it will always
> be Present, even in the absolute Presence of God,
> which will, somewhat, erase the "need" for Faith and Hope.
>
By being able to walk in love not only gives you the standard of eternal life but
means that while you are focussed on love, true love not the emotional love means that
your mind is fruitful. And your not focussed on doing wrong to yourself or anyone
else. Very hard for mankind to do but not if you choose too( because the spirit will
help you) rather than go along with the way mankind is taught from it's youth to
behave..
Timothy Sutter
> > and so, if your spirit became "Holy" then
> > how could "The Holy Spirit" ever leave you?
> > i mean, it's an interesting thing to say,
> > but I'm not sure what you mean by "The Holy Spirit"
> > in your view, is Holy Spirit an agency
> > from God or a distinct Identity of God?
> The Holy Spirit is firstly (Holy = agios (greek) not of this earth, so it's nature
> behaves spiritual, doesn't act on it's emotions) while the angels that fell with satan
> behave worldly so are not Holy but earthly or worldly.
i'm wondering if your statements lead to this sort of situation;
that these "worldly" spirits are, "the spirit in man"
at least, in part.
but then the maniac of the gadarenes becomes
more of a trouble, in that he seemed to have
more than one of these "spirits" _in_ him.
so, you'd probably suggest that the "spirit in man"
is distinct from those "demonic" spirits?
but that, maybe, those "demonic" spirits attract the attention of,
direct the attention of, and eventually outright oppress and
control the attention of the "spirit in man"?
inasmuch as the human spirit and mind cedes
this attention and control away to
these bad influences?
and these influences are "bad" because, in part,
though spiritual things, "they" are also directly
influenced by this material existance which is grabby
and "decadent" and impure?
and also, that this material existance which
seeks its own death and is dead, is more easily
subject to things that bind to it which facillitate deadness?
and so, being stronger and more wiley than the
"spirit in man" these spirits may be beyond the
control of simple man, and so only with God's
assistance can they be overcome?
and this "set apart" nature of God, which is "alive"
and Life itself, not only enables the simple man
to overcome these "demonic" influences, but also,
breathes Life into a dead flesh?
and this newness in Life sets the simple man
apart as sacred in [his] own right?
essentially giving the spirit in man its first glimpse of Life?
if even a somewhat hazy and blurry visualization
which may become clearer and more pure over a
progression of time but which may never become
as clear and pure as the Life which God possesses
in the Pure state of The Spirit?
but that is our Hope?
to be reconciled completely to God?
> Spirit = one of the fathers ministering angels , because there is so many they all
> have a ministry to fulfill or to put it in common terms they all have a job to do.
> Some are messages, some control the elements, some entertain the Father and so on and
> ,some are given the job to transform an individual into the image of the Father as
> long as the individual allows the spirit to do the job (this will take time).
this is interesting, but we'd need to distinguish this thing
called "The Paraclete" or "Comforter" from the "gifts" Christ
gave to people when he ascended into the heavenly places.
this "paraclete" thing seems to be separate and
distinct from the various "ministering spirits."
but part of what you'd be suggesting is that upon
entry into the household of God, and initial sealing
in the forehead, a person receives gifts from God,
the least of which may be a ministering spirit that
assists in the transformation of "the spirit in man"
in the likeness of Christ. maybe even many ministering spirits.
which is actually a thing i don't dispute.
albeit, i would suggest that this "paraclete"
or "comforter" or "Holy Spirit" is God.
so, the child of God has access to God thru
God and also has assistance in this walk thru
spiritual gifts, given by Christ, which may very
well be heavenly spirits which Christ now
commands as Son of Man.
it's very funny.
i just want to know if i'm reading you correctly.
because i realize that "spirit" and "angel"
and "breath" are basically the same word.
and so, as you would suggest, all the "angels" that maintained
their heavenly dwelling place, and did not "fall" with Lucifer
would be "Holy" in that they are pure and unspotted by
the material existance, and so are "holy spirits."
i would only like to suggest that "The Paraclete" or "Comforter"
or "Holy Spirit" which is God's own Spirit, _is_ God's own Spirit,
and as such, separate and distinct from the "angels" and we
have access to this thru Christ. a direct line to God.
which could be considered "awesome"
even if we never fully attain and realize what has
been placed in our hands and at our disposal.
because, we may still be, somewhat, blurred to our
"Child of God" status by the oppressive "demonic" spirits
around us and also, just resist in making ourselves
completely worthy of God's full Presence in our lives.
because of a lack of Faith.
but this also is somewhat cyclic.
we lack perfect Faith because we aren't entirely
ready for perfect Faith, and we aren't ready
for it because we lack it.
and so, we increase in Faith as we draw
closer to God and God draws closer to us.
but we prove ourselves trustworthy, and faith is given.
i doses, here a little there a little.
with the Hope that we may grow to the full stature of Christ.
and beyond.
> > and that passage you cite seems to suggest that
> > "Faith Hope and Love" are the all important, but
> > seeing that Faith will no longer be entirely necessary
> > when we see God for who God is, and we will no longer
> > need Hope for that Hope will be a Hope fulfilled,
> > then Love is the greatest because it will always
> > be Present, even in the absolute Presence of God,
> > which will, somewhat, erase the "need" for Faith and Hope.
> By being able to walk in love not only gives you the standard of eternal life but
> means that while you are focussed on love, true love not the emotional love means that
> your mind is fruitful. And your not focussed on doing wrong to yourself or anyone
> else. Very hard for mankind to do but not if you choose too( because the spirit will
> help you) rather than go along with the way mankind is taught from it's youth to
> behave..
yeah, maybe it is, somewhat, like
walking up a strange flight of stairs.
"they" can't exactly walk it for you, but "they"
can offer encouragement and assistance when needed.
which is always, for me.
i'd probably end up just oppressing my self.
this Life is not so simple.
it's easy to walk off into the sunset and
drop in the grave like everyone else.
it's quite much more difficult to choose Life
and maintain the forebearance to reach the top.
"oh God help me"
"oh God never leave me"
"Jesus, save me"
Timothy Sutter
not only suffering the humiliation of the Cross,
but just plain ending his days in the flesh when
he didn't have to die, just so I could be a better person.
he said he had to "go away or else
he couldn't send back his
"little friend"."
his "little friend" being The Paraclete, or Holy Spirit.
and so, sometimes i feel immensely sorrowful
in that I don't live up to the wonderful Gift
that Jesus cut himself off in the
youth of his days to send me.
and so i persist.
is that a good sorrow?
my heart bleeds. my eyes bleed.
i just don't want Jesus' death
in my stead to have been in vain.
maybe I'll go smell the daisies, for Jesus,
cuz he laid down his flesh, for me.
i still want to do more.
"oh Timothy, yer over dramatizing"
"no ma, i'm totally serious"
Timothy Sutter
> Brad Quilliam wrote:
> > > and so, if your spirit became "Holy" then
> > > how could "The Holy Spirit" ever leave you?
> > > i mean, it's an interesting thing to say,
> > > but I'm not sure what you mean by "The Holy Spirit"
> > > in your view, is Holy Spirit an agency
> > > from God or a distinct Identity of God?
> > The Holy Spirit is firstly (Holy = agios (greek)
> > not of this earth, so it's nature behaves spiritual,
> > doesn't act on it's emotions) while the angels that fell with satan
> > behave worldly so are not Holy but earthly or worldly.
and I wanted to address this
piece again to say two things;
the so-called "demonic spirits" who "fell" had done
a thing before entering into the material realm that
pointed out a flaw in their characters that was not
the result of the material influences,
and also, Jesus walked in the material world and saw
no corruption and was not corrupted by it and so,
we can't sit back and blame the material world's
influence for all or of our problems.
Jesus walked in among it, and was not corrupted by it.
the demonic spirits were already corrupted by
their own vanity and merely became fully corrupt
by and in the material realm.
and that's an important distinction.
it's not just the material realm
that is an evil force with which
to be reckoned.
in fact, it was/is a good and lovely creation.
but it, the material realm, lends itself
to a display of fault that, perhaps, cannot be
entirely recognizable outside of its influences.
but Jesus walked in among it and
was not corrupt, nor corruptible.
Brad Quilliam
>
> so, you'd probably suggest that the "spirit in man"
> is distinct from those "demonic" spirits?
yes
>
>
> but that, maybe, those "demonic" spirits attract the attention of,
> direct the attention of, and eventually outright oppress and
> control the attention of the "spirit in man"?
yes
>
>
> inasmuch as the human spirit and mind cedes
> this attention and control away to
> these bad influences?
>
> and these influences are "bad" because, in part,
> though spiritual things, "they" are also directly
> influenced by this material existance which is grabby
> and "decadent" and impure?
yes
>
>
> and also, that this material existance which
> seeks its own death and is dead, is more easily
> subject to things that bind to it which facillitate deadness?
yes
>
>
> and so, being stronger and more wiley than the
> "spirit in man" these spirits may be beyond the
> control of simple man, and so only with God's
> assistance can they be overcome?
provided you want to change and want help and allow God's help
>
>
> and this "set apart" nature of God, which is "alive"
> and Life itself, not only enables the simple man
> to overcome these "demonic" influences, but also,
> breathes Life into a dead flesh?
yes
>
>
> and this newness in Life sets the simple man
> apart as sacred in [his] own right?
by the blood of christ is a man made right and righteous, you are reckoned or counted
righteous before the actual behavior completely changes to righteous, it's like starting
your first day on the job and being given a uniform before you have done anything to
deserve it. The uniform is your righteous covering so the spirit and the Lord can start
work on you. Provided you wear that uniform when you turn up to your job. (daily life).
Once you take it off the work ends so to keep the work going on within you keep the uniform
on which was given to you.
>
>
> essentially giving the spirit in man its first glimpse of Life?
>
> if even a somewhat hazy and blurry visualization
> which may become clearer and more pure over a
> progression of time but which may never become
> as clear and pure as the Life which God possesses
> in the Pure state of The Spirit?
>
> but that is our Hope?
>
> to be reconciled completely to God?
yes
>
>
> and so, we increase in Faith as we draw
> closer to God and God draws closer to us.
yes
>
>
>
>
> with the Hope that we may grow to the full stature of Christ.
>
> and beyond.
hope encourages us to press on, so yes it keeps us on the path
>
>
>
>
> yeah, maybe it is, somewhat, like
> walking up a strange flight of stairs.
yeah ok if you like good analogy
>
>
>
> this Life is not so simple.
because we take the wrong options at time when we should keep our life simple and not
complicate it, striving after vanity.
>
>
> it's easy to walk off into the sunset and
> drop in the grave like everyone else.
>
> it's quite much more difficult to choose Life
> and maintain the forebearance to reach the top.
his way is hard and the gate is narrow that leads to life and few that find it.
>
>
> "oh God help me"
>
> "oh God never leave me"
>
> "Jesus, save me"
humility at it's best, keep relying on him not mankind.
Timothy Sutter
> > so, you'd probably suggest that the "spirit in man"
> > is distinct from those "demonic" spirits?
> yes
i put this is another post, i'm putting it
here again, because i think it
has some relevance;
you wrote this:
> > The Holy Spirit is firstly (Holy = agios (greek)
> > not of this earth, so it's nature behaves spiritual,
> > doesn't act on it's emotions) while the angels that fell with satan
> > behave worldly so are not Holy but earthly or worldly.
and I wanted to address this
piece again to say two things;
the so-called "demonic spirits" who "fell" had done
a thing before entering into the material realm that
pointed out a flaw in their characters that was not
the result of the material influences,
and also, Jesus walked in the material world and saw
no corruption and was not corrupted by it and so,
we can't sit back and blame the material world's
influence for all or of our problems.
Jesus walked in among it, and was not corrupted by it.
the demonic spirits were already corrupted by
their own vanity and merely became fully corrupt
by and in the material realm.
and that's an important distinction.
it's not just the material realm
that is an evil force with which
to be reckoned.
in fact, it was/is a good and lovely creation.
but it, the material realm, lends itself
to a display of fault that, perhaps, cannot be
entirely recognizable outside of its influences.
but Jesus walked in among it and
was not corrupt, nor corruptible.
> > but that, maybe, those "demonic" spirits attract the attention of,
> > direct the attention of, and eventually outright oppress and
> > control the attention of the "spirit in man"?
> yes
> > inasmuch as the human spirit and mind cedes
> > this attention and control away to
> > these bad influences?
> > and these influences are "bad" because, in part,
> > though spiritual things, "they" are also directly
> > influenced by this material existance which is grabby
> > and "decadent" and impure?
> yes
> > and also, that this material existance which
> > seeks its own death and is dead, is more easily
> > subject to things that bind to it which facillitate deadness?
> yes
> > and so, being stronger and more wiley than the
> > "spirit in man" these spirits may be beyond the
> > control of simple man, and so only with God's
> > assistance can they be overcome?
> provided you want to change and want help and allow God's help
we could hope that Christ is that able craftsman
that could accomplish the placing of such
a desire in to one.
being merciful and all, and on occasion, making
one obdurate or hardened against God just
to show that God is God.
not like toys or somesuch, but, ...
a molder of character who puts up with much aggravation
with some who seem destined for a hard time, and even
then could always yank them up and
show mercy on them as well.
and still, nobody can question God and say;
"what are you doing? i thought i was your favorite son,
what's with throwing a party for the guy who tried to
stick a knife to my throat and has
always been such a wastrel?"
and we may even have to carry that
rotten scoundrel's bags for him.
> > and this "set apart" nature of God, which is "alive"
> > and Life itself, not only enables the simple man
> > to overcome these "demonic" influences, but also,
> > breathes Life into a dead flesh?
> yes
> > and this newness in Life sets the simple man
> > apart as sacred in [his] own right?
> by the blood of christ is a man made right and righteous, you are reckoned or counted
> righteous before the actual behavior completely changes to righteous,
> it's like starting your first day on the job and being given a uniform
> before you have done anything to deserve it. The uniform is your
> righteous covering so the spirit and the Lord can start
> work on you. Provided you wear that uniform when you turn
> up to your job. (daily life). Once you take it off the work ends
> so to keep the work going on within you keep the uniform
> on which was given to you.
it couldn't really be otherwise.
> > essentially giving the spirit in man its first glimpse of Life?
> > if even a somewhat hazy and blurry visualization
> > which may become clearer and more pure over a
> > progression of time but which may never become
> > as clear and pure as the Life which God possesses
> > in the Pure state of The Spirit?
> > but that is our Hope?
> > to be reconciled completely to God?
> yes
> > and so, we increase in Faith as we draw
> > closer to God and God draws closer to us.
> yes
> > with the Hope that we may grow to the full stature of Christ.
> > and beyond.
> hope encourages us to press on, so yes it keeps us on the path
they say hope can't disappoint you.
i suppose this is because hope always looks to the future.
> > yeah, maybe it is, somewhat, like
> > walking up a strange flight of stairs.
> yeah ok if you like good analogy
> > this Life is not so simple.
> because we take the wrong options at time when we should keep our life simple and not
> complicate it, striving after vanity.
i suppose you have a point.
> > it's easy to walk off into the sunset and
> > drop in the grave like everyone else.
> > it's quite much more difficult to choose Life
> > and maintain the forebearance to reach the top.
> his way is hard and the gate is narrow that leads to life and few that find it.
that "scoundrel" probably won't come
to grips with the mercy of God.
but still, it's not my place, and probably not
your place, to consider him eternally damned.
> > "oh God help me"
> > "oh God never leave me"
> > "Jesus, save me"
> humility at it's best, keep relying on him not mankind.
good.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
EXCELLENT POST, you have topped yourself !
In spite of our conflicts, we both LOVE Jesus, and what He done for
us.
I too feel as you do about Christ's sacrifice
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
matthew25-jesusjudgment.cityslide.com
Duane Morse
don't forget, Jesus is NOT dead anymore. That only lasted a few days.
Duane
"Glenn (Christian Mystic)" <christi...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3b685628....@news.ev1.net...
Timothy Sutter
> If you follow Jesus and Truth, His death will not have been in vain. And
> don't forget, Jesus is NOT dead anymore. That only lasted a few days.
his flesh and blood existance didn't have to be cut off,
he could have lived forever in the flesh, still be walking
around today, so yes, he did sacrifice his
flesh and blood existance.
it's unclear what he was in the space
between his resurrection
and his ascension.
he said "flesh and bones"
in that period, he said;
"does a spirit have flesh and bones as you se I have?"
this was when he appeareed to the twelve
and such and they thought he was a ghost.
and Jesus' death was *not* in vain, and never will be in vain.
doesn't matter what I do or follow or what sort of chap i am.
Jesus reconciled some things to God and that is a done deal.
nothing i do or say will have the remotest effect on that.
but Jesus did not have to die.
his flesh and blood body was not under the 120 year
alottment and was not subject to corruption.
he laid *that* down, and that is gone.
do you understand that?
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Amen !
Timothy Sutter
no direct evidence of some universe of
material stuff that precedes this
one we're in now.
but wait a minute;
first, maybe this happens;
implosion critical mass?
not an implosion to singlularity but
implosion to critical point whereby,
explosion happens again?
it's just an exercise,
it's not a thing you
can test, really.
but i mean, a universal implosion, not back to
square one and universal nothingness, but an
implosion to some critical spacial orientation
where a total repulsion and explosive force kicks
out everything and prevents a total implosion
back to universal singularity.
aside; there still may have been a "beginning"
and quite probably, yes, there was a beginning,
*but* after _this_ beginning, any total implosion
is physicaly prevented and never is there
a return to universal singularity.
so, if the osciallting universe is to be
maintained as plausible, this criustical
spacial mass must be taken in to consideration.
but, a major consequence of a critical spacial mass
and re-explosion from *not* singularity, is that
each successive "universe" would be of a lesser
_initial_ energy content than the pre-existing universe,
and so, there would be an eventuallity of
heat death in any event.
U1 > U2 > U3 ...> Unth
that's internal energy of Universe 1 is greater that
internal energy of Universe 2,....etc. and there is
an exacting possibilty that the nth universe would not
have sufficient energy content to bring about the
exposion to newness and just some heat dead blob
would ....we don't like that. phooey.
albeit, there are other aspects to be considered.
i still like explosion from "singularity"
whereby pre-formed, intact matter is
spewed forth as discrete already made stuff.
planets and uranium all spew forth
intact directly in the onset.
no gradual progression from
plasma to higher matter necessary.
i like that one, whole planets
spit out right at the beginning.
no reason to suspect fermi labs plasma
resembles anything but an earthbound observation.
anyway, i don't like oscillating universes.
but i do happen to like locallized recycling.
like, a galaxy could implode on itself and on
some "centrallized" "singularity" and then
spew out a fresh new galaxy in situ.
either in the manner described by plasmatic
beginnings or by the spewing in tact
particles from scratch.
etc.
Timothy Sutter
a "Pallidotomy" which electrocuted the part
of the brain affected by parkinson's disease.
then they started trying to insert fetal brain tissue
into this place, substantia nigra or globus etceterae.
it wasn't in favor of this, because it didn't cure
the disease, it was a temporary remedy and would set
up a need for farming of fetal brain tissue to
provide these brain cells.
but they called it "stem cell research"
now, i don't see any great damage to humanity in
generating useful cell tissues from fertillized eggs.
not much more harm than a blood transfusion.
as an aside; from what i get of it, "stem cells"
are simply non-differentiated cells.
that is, they have not as yet been encoded to behave
as specific, heart cells or liver cells or eyeball cells.
they get that encoding when they
get near other cells, sort of.
and adults produce some of these cell types,
but they aren't as good and plentiful as these
fertillized embryo tissue cultures.
all i'm saying is that i wouldn't have
any nightmares over this sort of thing.
Barney Clark gave me some nightmares.
like a corpse on a stretcher being kept
alive with an artificial pump.
but this stuff, isn't that nightmarish.
by the way, i'll always feel that abortion
of fetuses is a terrible choice
for anyone to make.
it's a crappy choice, for reasons
i won't go in to right now.
but i don't equate fertillized egg cultures with a fetus.
that's all.
and they aren't using human fetuses to treat an ailment.
i don't like that much for the reasons i mentioned above.
Timothy Sutter
> years ago, they were doing a thing called
> a "Pallidotomy" which electrocuted the part
> of the brain affected by parkinson's disease.
> then they started trying to insert fetal brain tissue
> into this place, substantia nigra or globus etceterae.
> it wasn't in favor of this, because it didn't cure
> the disease, it was a temporary remedy and would set
> up a need for farming of fetal brain tissue to
> provide these brain cells.
> but they called it "stem cell research"
> now, i don't see any great damage to humanity in
> generating useful cell tissues from fertillized eggs.
> not much more harm than a blood transfusion.
> as an aside; from what i get of it, "stem cells"
> are simply non-differentiated cells.
> that is, they have not as yet been encoded to behave
> as specific, heart cells or liver cells or eyeball cells.
> they get that encoding when they
> get near other cells, sort of.
but, not considering such "research" a federal offense,
is one thing, but when the federal government funds such
research when a segment of the population considers it a
reproach to their morallity and religion could be considered
an affront to religious freedom.
i mean, that you don't consider stem cell
research a federal offfense, is all well and good,
but when taxpayer dollars are used to institute
a thing which some, and a large some, may consider
a barbarism, may step near some sort
of constitutional border.
i would be wholly repelled with some drift towards
a fetus tree whereby the medical arts farms organs
for transplants, and given that no one knows how to
gear these specific cells towards doing what they
want them to do, what would prevent a "researcher"
from merely farming out fetuses with
the appropriate bit they needed?
anyway, is the concern of one segment of the
population enough to warrant some form of mandate?
it has been in all other sorts of things.
i, personally, can deal with this sort of thing
not being considered a federal offense, for the
selfsame reason that I would be opposed
to such federal funding.
making stem cell research a federal offense could be
considered forcing a religious or ethical view on the
population as a whole, while federal funding of such
research is basically the same thing.
forcing a segment to accept a thing
that is morally repugnant to them.
with uncle sam doing the forcing.
good luck.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
"Timothy Sutter" <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B7323CD...@yahoo.com...
That's silly. What if I'm part of a religion that thinks war is evil. Then
is it wrong to use my tax money to pay for the military? What if my
religion believes education for women is evil. My tax money shouldn't be
used for that then either, right?
That's not the way our government or our taxes work. Our government has the
right to collect taxes and use them as they please as long as their use is
not directly against the law. Hence, the government funds both stem cell
research AND abstinence only sex ed which I am strongly against, and yes
with MY tax money.
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote in message...
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
not much of a history buff are you?
there is a large portion of this population
that objects to war and have voiced their
opinions to the effect on many occasions.
most recently, america was "isolationist" before
the first and second world wars and had no
large standing armies before those.
they didn't want to get involved
in those "foreign wars"
but, america was "attacked" in world war II
and the option to remain outside of
that thing was removed entirely.
since that time, believe it or not, it has been
american policy to remove war and warfare from
the rest of the world, by whatever means
is at 'our' disposal.
one of which is not blinking our collective
eyes and expecting the threat to disappear.
do you understand that?
> What if my religion believes education for women is evil.
> My tax money shouldn't be used for that then either, right?
america's religion has not, historically, been against such a thing.
so, you comment here is irrelevant
and just spume from the top of your head.
why not try this, try to make some sort of reasonably
informed and relevant comment as opposed to some sort
of resort to absurdity? how's that? care to try?
oh, by the way, america *has* historically
had religion as part of its make-up.
so, don't tell me otherwise cuz i'll
think you fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
> That's not the way our government or our taxes work.
you mean this isn't a government of
the people by the people and for the people?
you mean the people have no say in
the actions their government takes?
> Our government has the right to collect taxes
> and use them as they please as long as their use is
> not directly against the law.
show me where the US government gets
this "constitutional right" to collect taxes.
show me where the demands of the people are to
be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
to the will of the people but that the people become
the chattle holdings of the government.
i assure you, there are no such provisions
that make the citizenry, the property
of the govenment.
and what this "directly against the law" means, is what?
that the laws of the fathers is binding on the sons?
well, in certain repects, the laws of the father's *are*
binding upon the sons, until and insofar as the sons
repeal and amend them to their satisfaction.
which is why you should be more of a
student of history and less
of an abject screamer.
firstly, the son shouldn't just rush up and say;
"i don't like this law because
it impinges on my freedom"
and then five years down the road, he sees the
usefullness of that law and wants it back
but now he has to fight for it.
> Hence, the government funds both stem cell research
until and unless people decide that
the approach is outweighed by the drawbacks.
if it is viewed as a barbarism that only pretends
to be the cure for all of life's ailments, then
careful consideration should be taken beforehand.
and not tossed on the "pop culture, fad of the moment,
we want it and we always get everything we want"
mentallity that may flash back in our faces someday.
> AND abstinence only sex ed which I am strongly against,
> and yes with MY tax money.
what planet are you from?
anyway, apparently you'd like to think that "sex-education"
should be a primer in the proper methods for indulging a
child's curiosity, with zero regard to the physical
reality and the consequences.
sort of like telling a child, "maryjuana is evil"
and then when he get's his hands on some in high school,
he doesn't see anything "evil" about it and starts
to think all of the laws are equally ill mannered.
you can't just say, "this is bad" or "this is good"
at least not after about elementary school.
at any rate, it is against a large portion of the
population, in the historic frame of mind, to be anti-war,
and therefore not pro-war, but it is accepted as necessary.
it *has* been generally accepted
in america that life is sacred.
and i say *has* because the population, in general,
is slowly drifting towards barbarism, but
that's another story.
but under the view that life is sacred,
why don't you propose that we just waltz in to africa,
steal people's livers and kidneys and dump
the bodies into shallow graves?
after all, we could get what we want that way.
and who cares how we get what we want?
just so long as we get what we want.
they got livers and kidneys,
we need livers and kidneys,
let's just take them.
and let's use government equipment to get the job done.
ok with you?
well, some people may object to this.
and some people may view this
"research" along the same sort of lines.
mind you, *I* have already stated in
this bit that some stem cell research
doesn't give *me* nightmares.
but i can see how it may give
many other people nightmares.
why be rash?
maybe they're right.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
Actually, I am.
> there is a large portion of this population
> that objects to war and have voiced their
> opinions to the effect on many occasions.
>
> most recently, america was "isolationist" before
> the first and second world wars and had no
> large standing armies before those.
>
> they didn't want to get involved
> in those "foreign wars"
I know.
>
> but, america was "attacked" in world war II
> and the option to remain outside of
> that thing was removed entirely.
>
> since that time, believe it or not, it has been
> american policy to remove war and warfare from
> the rest of the world, by whatever means
> is at 'our' disposal.
>
> one of which is not blinking our collective
> eyes and expecting the threat to disappear.
>
> do you understand that?
That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying. You are stating that
stem-cell research shouldn't be funded because some of the population
because of their religions object to that. I state that this is not the way
the state works, and that the state has the right to collect money for
purposes deemed necessary, even if some of the citizens disapprove. Hence,
it has every right to fund stem-cell research, or the military, etc.
>
> > What if my religion believes education for women is evil.
> > My tax money shouldn't be used for that then either, right?
>
> america's religion has not,
By definition, America doesn't have a religion. We have many citizens with
many numerous religions, and our government is prohibited from passing
legislation respecting any of them.
> historically, been against such a thing.
>
> so, you comment here is irrelevant
> and just spume from the top of your head.
>
> why not try this, try to make some sort of reasonably
> informed and relevant comment as opposed to some sort
> of resort to absurdity? how's that? care to try?
You're a maroon who isn't remotely reading the post but deciding to reply
anyway.
>
> oh, by the way, america *has* historically
> had religion as part of its make-up.
Yes and no. Depends on what you mean. In the constitution, no. In... wait
a minute, why is alt.actor.dustin-hoffman included in the crosspost?
>
> so, don't tell me otherwise cuz i'll
> think you fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
>
> > That's not the way our government or our taxes work.
>
> you mean this isn't a government of
> the people by the people and for the people?
It is within reason. Our people can't decide we want to kill all Muslims,
or make the US an official Christian nation (without throwing the
constitution out the window)...
>
> you mean the people have no say in
> the actions their government takes?
Sure they do, but its limited. So, the fact that 40% may oppose it won't
save them, 60% support it.
>
> > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > not directly against the law.
>
> show me where the US government gets
> this "constitutional right" to collect taxes.
Sure thing: 16th amendment.
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html
You really are clueless as to what's in the constitution, aren't you?
>
> show me where the demands of the people are to
> be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
> if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
> to the will of the people but that the people become
> the chattle holdings of the government.
The people elect the government, and that's where their power lies in. At
the same time the elected officials have the right to act in the manner they
feel is most beneficial to the state regardless of what the constituency
thinks. However, it they fail to change the citizery's mind they likely
won't get re-elected.
> i assure you, there are no such provisions
> that make the citizenry, the property
> of the govenment.
Who says they are?
>
> and what this "directly against the law" means, is what?
>
> that the laws of the fathers is binding on the sons?
>
> well, in certain repects, the laws of the father's *are*
> binding upon the sons, until and insofar as the sons
> repeal and amend them to their satisfaction.
The Constitution is something rarely amended for good reason.
>
> which is why you should be more of a
> student of history and less
> of an abject screamer.
LOL, what hypocrisy.
>
> firstly, the son shouldn't just rush up and say;
>
> "i don't like this law because
> it impinges on my freedom"
That's what you're stating, not me.
>
> and then five years down the road, he sees the
> usefullness of that law and wants it back
> but now he has to fight for it.
That's what you're going to be doing when you realize stem cell research
really is useful.
>
> > Hence, the government funds both stem cell research
>
> until and unless people decide that
> the approach is outweighed by the drawbacks.
Unlikely.
>
> if it is viewed as a barbarism that only pretends
> to be the cure for all of life's ailments, then
> careful consideration should be taken beforehand.
It has been and rejected.
>
> and not tossed on the "pop culture, fad of the moment,
> we want it and we always get everything we want"
> mentallity that may flash back in our faces someday.
Its approved. Live with it Timmy.
>
> > AND abstinence only sex ed which I am strongly against,
> > and yes with MY tax money.
>
> what planet are you from?
>
> anyway, apparently you'd like to think that "sex-education"
> should be a primer in the proper methods for indulging a
> child's curiosity, with zero regard to the physical
> reality and the consequences.
??? Where did this strawman come from?
I want sex-ed that works and does something, and that doesn't preach. Like
telling them the consequences of sex, and their options. That's what
school's supposed to be about: education.
>
> sort of like telling a child, "maryjuana is evil"
Its spelled marijuana...
> and then when he get's his hands on some in high school,
> he doesn't see anything "evil" about it and starts
> to think all of the laws are equally ill mannered.
>
> you can't just say, "this is bad" or "this is good"
>
> at least not after about elementary school.
Yeah... Then you shouldn't like abstinence only education either... BTW,
its NOT wrong to say that Marijuana is illegal and causes various health
problems... Those are just facts.
> at any rate, it is against a large portion of the
> population, in the historic frame of mind, to be anti-war,
> and therefore not pro-war, but it is accepted as necessary.
That's not my point. My point is that the government collects taxes from
EVERYONE for what it considers necessary. There's no reason why
anti-abortion people shouldn't have to pay for stem-cell research.
>
> it *has* been generally accepted
> in america that life is sacred.
Are you smoking pot by any chance?
Sure, it has. And both sides of the debate accept that. But 2 things to
consider:
1) Many don't consider the embryo to be on the same level as us
2) Our founders believed that choice and liberty was so important, that it
was worth sacrificing life for... I agree with them.
>
> and i say *has* because the population, in general,
> is slowly drifting towards barbarism, but
> that's another story.
Why, 'cause they disagree with you?
>
> but under the view that life is sacred,
>
> why don't you propose that we just waltz in to africa,
> steal people's livers and kidneys and dump
> the bodies into shallow graves?
>
> after all, we could get what we want that way.
>
> and who cares how we get what we want?
>
> just so long as we get what we want.
>
> they got livers and kidneys,
> we need livers and kidneys,
> let's just take them.
>
> and let's use government equipment to get the job done.
>
> ok with you?
>
> well, some people may object to this.
>
> and some people may view this
> "research" along the same sort of lines.
>
> mind you, *I* have already stated in
> this bit that some stem cell research
> doesn't give *me* nightmares.
>
> but i can see how it may give
> many other people nightmares.
Well then you're weird. And war doesn't give people nightmares?
>
> why be rash?
>
Because lives depend on it.
> maybe they're right.
>
No, they most definitely are not, and that's what the government has
decided.
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> > Jeff wrote:
> > there is a large portion of this population
> > that objects to war and have voiced their
> > opinions to the effect on many occasions.
> > most recently, america was "isolationist" before
> > the first and second world wars and had no
> > large standing armies before those.
> > they didn't want to get involved
> > in those "foreign wars"
> > but, america was "attacked" in world war II
> > and the option to remain outside of
> > that thing was removed entirely.
> > since that time, believe it or not, it has been
> > american policy to remove war and warfare from
> > the rest of the world, by whatever means
> > is at 'our' disposal.
> > one of which is not blinking our collective
> > eyes and expecting the threat to disappear.
> > do you understand that?
> That has NOTHING to do with what I am saying.
then don't say it, because it has
everything with what you are saying.
> You are stating that stem-cell research shouldn't be
> funded because some of the population because of their
> religions object to that.
it's not just their religions, it's them.
*they* object to it.
> I state that this is not the way the state works,
it is the way *this* state works.
the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
and the people are not a duchy of the government.
in fact, the state _is_ the people.
> and that the state has the right to collect
> money for purposes deemed necessary,
you can say this but you can't support this.
because the state does not have the
right to dictate policies to the people.
not in *this* state. not in america.
when you decide this upon yourself, you cede
your control away to a set of governors that
don't necessarily have your best interests at heart.
> even if some of the citizens disapprove.
the right to declare war is held by congress.
and congress is, supposedly,
directly accountable to the people.
so, the government has no "rights"
except those granted by the people,
and not the other way around.
*that* is the way *this* state works.
> Hence, it has every right to fund stem-cell
> research, or the military, etc.
no it has no such right inherent in it's make-up.
the right to declare war and prepare
for war is granted by the people,
thru congressional mandate,
and the "right" to fund a particular
sort of research is likewise accountable
to congressional scrutiny.
and so "the people" *should* apprise themselves
of the consequences of any sort of research
in order to make an informed decision as
to the sort of electors they place in office.
the government doesn't have the right to fund a genocide.
and it could be argued that these fertilized
eggs are going in the waste basket anyway,
so, what. that's just numbers.
if it's wrong for one, then
it's wrong for a million.
and some people will see this as if you
are going into a place and harvesting
organs from people and dumping
the corpses in the grave.
just because it's a small one cell,
doesn't remove this aspect.
and some people call this a murder.
and they are represented by the federal government.
> > > What if my religion believes education for women is evil.
> > > My tax money shouldn't be used for that then either, right?
> > america's religion has not,
> By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
sure it does, it always has had a
tie with a deity, even from the onset.
no founder of this nation ever contended
that a totally secular atheist society
was even a plausible alternative.
*that* is a relatively recent offshooot
that seemed to come from abroad.
> We have many citizens with many numerous religions,
exactly, many ties with a deity.
from the onset, that religious
affinity has had a "christian" focus.
yes, no one is demanding new immigrants to cast
aside the religions they ran from to get here,
but neither are they expecting someone or anyone
to pop up and tell them that their "religion"
to be stricken from american life and suddenly
a persona non grata.
meaning, christianity is not to be suddenly taken
as un-american simply because some group of
irreligious folks want to pick on it.
> and our government is prohibited from passing
> legislation respecting any of them.
and most certainly is prohibitted from getting
in the way of such a free expression
of ties to a deity
> > historically, been against such a thing.
> > so, you comment here is irrelevant
> > and just spume from the top of your head.
> > why not try this, try to make some sort of reasonably
> > informed and relevant comment as opposed to some sort
> > of resort to absurdity? how's that? care to try?
> You're a maroon who isn't remotely reading the post
> but deciding to reply anyway.
i read what you wrote and replied in a pointed manner.
> > oh, by the way, america *has* historically
> > had religion as part of its make-up.
> Yes and no. Depends on what you mean.
the founders were not "a-theist" they
were very much believers in God.
this is fact.
americans are *not* a-theist.
never have been.
> In the constitution, no.
yes, they have the right to
freely express that tie to deity.
and the state may not expressly
tell them *how* to express that tie.
> > so, don't tell me otherwise cuz i'll
> > think you fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
> > > That's not the way our government or our taxes work.
> > you mean this isn't a government of
> > the people by the people and for the people?
> It is within reason. Our people can't decide we want to kill all Muslims,
> or make the US an official Christian nation (without throwing the
> constitution out the window)...
no one "religious" even suggests such a thing,
only *you* are suggesting such a thing.
> > you mean the people have no say in
> > the actions their government takes?
> Sure they do, but its limited. So, the fact that 40%
> may oppose it won't save them, 60% support it.
we govern by election, not by popularity poll.
and if it must be known, I don't
like having pennsylvania avenue closed,
but i think this decision is ok.
if there be any "blood" on anyone's hands,
it isn't on Bush's hands.
the eggs that have been destroyed already
are fair game for some sort of research,
but no new destruction is to
be federally funded.
by the way, no one is suggesting that
you can't use a rat to do your
preliminary studies on.
and as of right now, this research
is preliminary, and not de rigeur.
and the president has the responsibility
that when he signs his name to a
document, it becomes law.
and i say that for a reason,
first, he's goot a consider all opinions,
and second,
who needs the waste?
if "science" can demonstrate a legitimate
abilty they should be able to do so with
the numbers they have been allotted.
as opposed to the "i got unlimmitted resources
cuz i'm federally funded to throw out all mistakes"
make it work.
don't just be willy nilly about this,
because it ain't just tossing out
the weeks trash on tuesday.
> > > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > > not directly against the law.
> > show me where the US government gets
> > this "constitutional right" to collect taxes.
> Sure thing: 16th amendment.
> http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html
jump, frog.
the last time you reared up your head,
it wasn't clear if you were even literate.
> You really are clueless as to what's in the constitution, aren't you?
no, i have a constitution in
my possession. and i read it.
did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
> > show me where the demands of the people are to
> > be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
> > if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
> > to the will of the people but that the people become
> > the chattle holdings of the government.
> The people elect the government, and that's where their power lies in.
no, you claim that the government
has the right to do as they please.
you claim the government can spend tax
money in whatever manner they see fit.
> At the same time the elected officials have the right to act in the manner they
> feel is most beneficial to the state regardless of what the constituency
> thinks.
"elected officials" must be citizens.
they *are* the constituency.
> However, it they fail to change the citizery's
> mind they likely won't get re-elected.
they are to represent, not dictate.
> > i assure you, there are no such provisions
> > that make the citizenry, the property
> > of the govenment.
> Who says they are?
you say this:
> > > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > > not directly against the law.
you imply that the "government" is
some disconnected entity that merely
dictates policies to the people.
the govenerment does at it pleases as
long as it doesn't break it's own laws.
it's tour words.
> > and what this "directly against the law" means, is what?
> > that the laws of the fathers is binding on the sons?
> > well, in certain repects, the laws of the father's *are*
> > binding upon the sons, until and insofar as the sons
> > repeal and amend them to their satisfaction.
> The Constitution is something rarely amended for good reason.
this doesn't involve constitutional amendmant.
this is just general legislation.
> > which is why you should be more of a
> > student of history and less
> > of an abject screamer.
> > firstly, the son shouldn't just rush up and say;
> > "i don't like this law because
> > it impinges on my freedom"
> > and then five years down the road, he sees the
> > usefullness of that law and wants it back
> > but now he has to fight for it.
> That's what you're going to be doing when you realize
> stem cell research really is useful.
well, they have 60 cell lines, show me.
no, not anymore than i would suggest that
someone kill a person to get a liver
if i needed a transplant.
to some, this is the same thing.
> > > Hence, the government funds both stem cell research
> > until and unless people decide that
> > the approach is outweighed by the drawbacks.
> > if it is viewed as a barbarism that only pretends
> > to be the cure for all of life's ailments, then
> > careful consideration should be taken beforehand.
> It has been and rejected.
buy whom?
i don't see any rejection.
i see the allowance of federal funding
for cell lines that were "created" before
this administration took office.
if you want me to stand steadfastly
opposed to this research, I will.
maybe you can change my mind from non-nightmarish,
to just total disrespect for anyone who would
even consider destroying a fertillized egg.
i'm beginning to shift in that direction.
given that the infidel would
pick it up as a cause celebe.
makes me think there is something
wholy dirty about the entire enterprise.
> > and not tossed on the "pop culture, fad of the moment,
> > we want it and we always get everything we want"
> > mentallity that may flash back in our faces someday.
> Its approved. Live with it Timmy.
they aren't funding any more than 60 cell lines.
from eggs that were destroyed before
the present administration took office.
> > > AND abstinence only sex ed which I am strongly against,
> > > and yes with MY tax money.
> > what planet are you from?
> > anyway, apparently you'd like to think that "sex-education"
> > should be a primer in the proper methods for indulging a
> > child's curiosity, with zero regard to the physical
> > reality and the consequences.
> > at any rate, it is against a large portion of the
> > population, in the historic frame of mind, to be anti-war,
> > and therefore not pro-war, but it is accepted as necessary.
> That's not my point. My point is that the government collects taxes from
> EVERYONE for what it considers necessary. There's no reason why
> anti-abortion people shouldn't have to pay for stem-cell research.
then they have a say in what
reseach should be payed for by taxes.
> > it *has* been generally accepted
> > in america that life is sacred.
> Sure, it has. And both sides of the debate accept that.
> But 2 things to consider:
> 1) Many don't consider the embryo to be on the same level as us
sounds like you'd be suggesting this;
"many don't consider africans to be human beings."
"therefore, let's just do as we please"
> 2) Our founders believed that choice and liberty was so important,
> that it was worth sacrificing life for... I agree with them.
"ends justifies the means" mentallity
has fallen into disfavor.
> > and i say *has* because the population, in general,
> > is slowly drifting towards barbarism, but
> > that's another story.
> Why, 'cause they disagree with you?
no, cuz they have no regard for human life.
> > but under the view that life is sacred,
> > why don't you propose that we just waltz in to africa,
> > steal people's livers and kidneys and dump
> > the bodies into shallow graves?
> > after all, we could get what we want that way.
> > and who cares how we get what we want?
> > just so long as we get what we want.
> > they got livers and kidneys,
> > we need livers and kidneys,
> > let's just take them.
> > and let's use government equipment to get the job done.
> > ok with you?
> > well, some people may object to this.
> > and some people may view this
> > "research" along the same sort of lines.
> > mind you, *I* have already stated in
> > this bit that some stem cell research
> > doesn't give *me* nightmares.
> > but i can see how it may give
> > many other people nightmares.
> Well then you're weird. And war doesn't give people nightmares?
so you think we should go into china and
harvest livers and kidneys and hearts cuz
we want them?
> > why be rash?
> Because lives depend on it.
no, people's _comfort_ depends on it.
you can live with parkinson's and MS
and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
these people won't live any longer with
these *therapies* they will only have a
more comfortable period before they
go the way of all flesh.
and I say "therapies" because it isn't even
clear what causes some of these problems,
therefore a "cure" isn't what is
promised by this research.
just a remedial therapy.
meaning, no one knows what causes parkinson's.
it may be viral it may be congenital it may
be getting knocked upside the head too many times,
it may be drug use, so, this research is
geared towards a remedial therapy, and not a "cure."
same for MS and alzheimer's.
basically, for MS, if you have this
this and that symptom, you have MS.
but no one really knows
what it is or what causes it.
> > maybe they're right.
> No, they most definitely are not, and that's
> what the government has decided.
well, not exactly, as the president
has not allowed new destruction of eggs.
there are 60 pre-existing cell lines to work with.
as far as federal funding is concerned.
it's not a federal offense to study these things.
but the federal government is not
funding any new destruction.
*that* is the present state of affairs.
Jon...@aol.com
tim_s...@yahoo.com says...
> > > > > but, not considering such "research" a federal offense,
> > > > > is one thing, but when the federal government funds such
> > > > > research when a segment of the population considers it a
> > > > > reproach to their morallity and religion could be considered
> > > > > an affront to religious freedom.
Not at all. You still have the right to "believe" as you
wish. You do not necessarily have the right to act on those
beliefs.
> > > not much of a history buff are you?
He perhaps isn't, but you don't appear to be a political
buff.
<snip>
> > You are stating that stem-cell research shouldn't be
> > funded because some of the population because of their
> > religions object to that.
>
> it's not just their religions, it's them.
>
> *they* object to it.
>
> > I state that this is not the way the state works,
>
> it is the way *this* state works.
>
> the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
> and the people are not a duchy of the government.
>
> in fact, the state _is_ the people.
>
> > and that the state has the right to collect
> > money for purposes deemed necessary,
>
> you can say this but you can't support this.
>
> because the state does not have the
> right to dictate policies to the people.
>
> not in *this* state. not in america.
One could split hairs on the de jure definition of "have
the right", but in U.S.A. the state has and exercises the
de facto right every day. The government can and does
"dictate policies to the people" and fund projects that
offend a sizeable minority of its citizens.
Your idealized concept of the U.S.A. apparently views the
state having no legal right to do something if a minority
disagrees with it - including a religious minority. This is
totally false.
I don't want to take the time to even begin to list
examples of this, but consider 1) integration of southern
schools, 2) not allowing prayer in public schools, 3)
legalizing abortion, 4) drafting men for military service,
5) protecting pornography, etc.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>>>> but, not considering such "research" a federal offense,
>>>>>> is one thing, but when the federal government funds such
>>>>>> research when a segment of the population considers it a
>>>>>> reproach to their morallity and religion could be considered
>>>>>> an affront to religious freedom.
> Not at all. You still have the right to "believe" as you
> wish. You do not necessarily have the right to act on those
> beliefs.
not exactly;
"free exercise thereof"
and "exercise" is not simply
goin' to church on Sundays.
actual religious people "exercise" their
"beliefs" or "faith" thru their actions.
so, the right of free exercise is a right
to _practice_ such deeply held "beliefs"
to suggest otherwise is to eviscerate the right.
> > > > not much of a history buff are you?
> He perhaps isn't, but you don't appear to be a political
> buff.
i know what i need to know.
i'm not a big fan of politics.
it tends to be shabby.
which is why i think Bush made
a not too poor decision,
for a politician.
he basically manages to keep his hands clean.
> <snip>
> > > You are stating that stem-cell research shouldn't be
> > > funded because some of the population because of their
> > > religions object to that.
> > it's not just their religions, it's them.
> > *they* object to it.
> > > I state that this is not the way the state works,
> > it is the way *this* state works.
> > the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
> > and the people are not a duchy of the government.
> > in fact, the state _is_ the people.
> > > and that the state has the right to collect
> > > money for purposes deemed necessary,
> > you can say this but you can't support this.
> > because the state does not have the
> > right to dictate policies to the people.
> > not in *this* state. not in america.
> One could split hairs on the de jure definition of "have
> the right", but in U.S.A. the state has and exercises the
> de facto right every day. The government can and does
> "dictate policies to the people" and fund projects that
> offend a sizeable minority of its citizens.
provide three examples.
and if these examples are presently under contention,
then i'd consider them unresolved issues and
not merely dictatorial policies.
[i see them below, and addresssed them there.]
> Your idealized concept of the U.S.A. apparently views the
> state having no legal right to do something if a minority
> disagrees with it - including a religious minority. This is
> totally false.
no, i didn't say that, i said "segment" but i
didn't come right out and say that this
"segemnt" may be in the majority.
i don't suggest that a majority forces
its views on the population
at large either.
which is why fomenting hysterical opinions
on the matter should be avoided.
why not come right out and explain exactly
how this research could "cure" diabetes.
and if you can't give a simple explanation that
even a simple person like me can understand, then
maybe there isn't anything more than a desire to glom
on to the federal dole for reseacrch dollars with
some sleight of hand promises of a panacea.
tell me how this research
will "cure" parkinson's.
or MS or alzheimer's.
and if such an explanation cannot
be properly offered, then 60 cell
lines is plenty.
> I don't want to take the time to even begin to list
> examples of this, but consider 1) integration of southern
> schools, 2) not allowing prayer in public schools, 3)
> legalizing abortion, 4) drafting men for military service,
> 5) protecting pornography, etc.
these are your examples?
(2) and (3) are still contentious issues,
so they have not been entirely resolved.
(2) does not forcibly prevent prayer by individuals,
it merely does not allow state sponsored prayers.
(3) does not force anyone to have abortions.
and there are states, china for example, where
the state mandates abortions for couples
having more than one child.
it's not quite a good example of
state mandate against the
will of the people.
simply because the state does not
force anyone to have abortions.
and it is still a contentious issue,
and federal funding of abortion
clinics is not entirely resolved.
so, it is still under consideration.
(1) is apparently resolved, maybe, but one may suggest
that such segregation was the result of the reconstruction
period after the war beteen the states, and as such, was
a result of government interference, in the first place,
and not entirely the will of the people.
can you understand what I mean by that?
the union government swept in to the south and
mandated several institutions upon what they
percieved to be a defeated renegade force.
and then swept in later "fixing"
a problem they instituted.
if you don't understand, i could elaborate.
(4) is no longer an issue, though it
was one of contention for a time.
there is no longer mandatory conscription,
and so, that has been settled.
(5) appears to be enforcing the first amendmant.
and *that* is the will of the people.
any *real* examples of the government forcibly
mandating a thing against the will of the people?
Jon...@aol.com
tim_s...@yahoo.com says...
> Jon...@aol.com wrote:
> > Not at all. You still have the right to "believe" as you
> > wish. You do not necessarily have the right to act on those
> > beliefs.
>
> not exactly;
>
> "free exercise thereof"
>
> and "exercise" is not simply
> goin' to church on Sundays.
>
> actual religious people "exercise" their
> "beliefs" or "faith" thru their actions.
> so, the right of free exercise is a right
> to _practice_ such deeply held "beliefs"
>
> to suggest otherwise is to eviscerate the right.
Then you best check with a number of court decisions (even
Supreme Court) where the right to "exercise" religious
belief is definitely curtailed. Think Mormons' view on
polygamy, Native Americans on Peyote, Haitians on killing
chickens, etc.
> > He perhaps isn't, but you don't appear to be a political
> > buff.
>
> i know what i need to know.
>
> i'm not a big fan of politics.
>
> it tends to be shabby.
Which is, of course irrelevant to whether or not you know
enough.
> provide three examples.
>
> and if these examples are presently under contention,
> then i'd consider them unresolved issues and
> not merely dictatorial policies.
The fact that since the 1950's the government has forced
southerners to integrate their schools - federal troops in
Arkansas and Alabama doesn't seem like forcing its will on
a segment of the population? Surely you don't mean to say
that the fact the issues are "unresolved" means that the
segment wasn't forced.
> [i see them below, and addresssed them there.]
>
> > Your idealized concept of the U.S.A. apparently views the
> > state having no legal right to do something if a minority
> > disagrees with it - including a religious minority. This is
> > totally false.
>
> no, i didn't say that, i said "segment" but i
> didn't come right out and say that this
> "segemnt" may be in the majority.
>
> i don't suggest that a majority forces
> its views on the population
> at large either.
>
> which is why fomenting hysterical opinions
> on the matter should be avoided.
>
> why not come right out and explain exactly
> how this research could "cure" diabetes.
This question and your discussion is irrelevant to the
question of whether or not the gov. can force its will on
any segment of the population.
> > I don't want to take the time to even begin to list
> > examples of this, but consider 1) integration of southern
> > schools, 2) not allowing prayer in public schools, 3)
> > legalizing abortion, 4) drafting men for military service,
> > 5) protecting pornography, etc.
>
> these are your examples?
>
> (2) and (3) are still contentious issues,
> so they have not been entirely resolved.
As noted above, the fact the issue hasn't been resolved is
irrelevant to whether or not a population segment was
forced to do something by the government.
> any *real* examples of the government forcibly
> mandating a thing against the will of the people?
Already provided.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
I thought the basis of your argument was the protection of people's
religious freedom? In terms of doing things a minority just doesn't like,
that happens all the time.
>
> > I state that this is not the way the state works,
>
> it is the way *this* state works.
No its not Timmy.
>
> the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
Only insofar as it has to have elections. Other than that, the citizenry's
choices are limited.
> and the people are not a duchy of the government.
>
> in fact, the state _is_ the people.
No, the people and the state are 2 seperate entities. Sorry. The people
choose our officials and "the state" but, those officials are free to
dictate within constitutional boundaries to the people.
>
> > and that the state has the right to collect
> > money for purposes deemed necessary,
>
> you can say this but you can't support this.
??? What? Its true.
>
> because the state does not have the
> right to dictate policies to the people.
Yes, it absolutely does. Bush could have (and still could) raised taxes
just as quickly as he lowered them. And YOU would have to pay them whether
you like to or not. Jonjonz@aol also gave you some examples.
> not in *this* state. not in america.
Definitely in this state, definitely in America. Try not to pay your taxes.
>
> when you decide this upon yourself, you cede
> your control away to a set of governors that
> don't necessarily have your best interests at heart.
Yep, and that's the way it works. Such is the nature of government. But we
have no alternative.
>
> > even if some of the citizens disapprove.
>
> the right to declare war is held by congress.
>
> and congress is, supposedly,
> directly accountable to the people.
Supposedly and in theory. In reality, its only indirectly so. Before the
Yugoslavia bombing it was shown that over 50% of the people opposed it. So
what? Went ahead anyway. In general, it doesn't matter what the people
think, until the election. Even then the people have only 2 real choices,
and its a package deal. I'm both pro-choice and pro gun rights. I was
screwed last presidential election.
> so, the government has no "rights"
> except those granted by the people,
> and not the other way around.
Totally incorrect. The government has the rights granted by the
constitution. The people have only the rights granted by that same
document, and those granted by the government. But here's the catch, the
government can CHANGE both the constitution and the people's rights. Its
done this many times.
>
> *that* is the way *this* state works.
Only in your head Timmy.
>
> > Hence, it has every right to fund stem-cell
> > research, or the military, etc.
>
> no it has no such right inherent in it's make-up.
Fine, then feel free to take that to court and get laughed out. I'd love to
watch.
>
> the right to declare war and prepare
> for war is granted by the people,
> thru congressional mandate,
>
> and the "right" to fund a particular
> sort of research is likewise accountable
> to congressional scrutiny.
But the point is that congress can decide whatever the hell it wants.
>
> and so "the people" *should* apprise themselves
> of the consequences of any sort of research
> in order to make an informed decision as
> to the sort of electors they place in office.
>
> the government doesn't have the right to fund a genocide.
We funded Saddam Hussien, the Taliban, and many others. In reality, we have
the right to fund whatever we want. Oh, except organized religion in our
borders, and descriminatory agencies.
>
> and it could be argued that these fertilized
> eggs are going in the waste basket anyway,
>
> so, what. that's just numbers.
That makes no sense.
> if it's wrong for one, then
> it's wrong for a million.
Its not wrong for any Timmy. But again, you're entitled to your silly
beliefs.
>
> and some people will see this as if you
> are going into a place and harvesting
> organs from people and dumping
> the corpses in the grave.
People are alive and sentient Timmy...
>
> just because it's a small one cell,
> doesn't remove this aspect.
Then don't masterbate or have sex Timmy. Sperm are people too...
>
> and some people call this a murder.
>
Yep, masturbation is murder.
> and they are represented by the federal government.
Yep. And they are a minority. And the government is under no compulsion to
give a rats ass.
>
> > > > What if my religion believes education for women is evil.
> > > > My tax money shouldn't be used for that then either, right?
>
> > > america's religion has not,
>
> > By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
>
> sure it does, it always has had a
> tie with a deity, even from the onset.
Really? Then perhaps you'd care to show me the mention of God in our
constitution, the nation's ruling document, the basis for all of our nation.
>
> no founder of this nation ever contended
> that a totally secular atheist society
> was even a plausible alternative.
Its not the governments job to promote any sort of religious view or lack
thereof in our society.
>
> *that* is a relatively recent offshooot
> that seemed to come from abroad.
???
>
> > We have many citizens with many numerous religions,
>
> exactly, many ties with a deity.
Many deities, actually. Some are polytheists you know.
>
> from the onset, that religious
> affinity has had a "christian" focus.
Not according to our constitution. Our government makes laws respecting NO
religion. If you don't like it, then I'm afraid that's too bad.
>
> yes, no one is demanding new immigrants to cast
> aside the religions they ran from to get here,
> but neither are they expecting someone or anyone
> to pop up and tell them that their "religion"
> to be stricken from american life and suddenly
> a persona non grata.
No, religion was always supposed to be seperate from the state. Has nothing
to do with immigrants like your fore-fathers Timmy.
> meaning, christianity is not to be suddenly taken
> as un-american simply because some group of
> irreligious folks want to pick on it.
Timmy, you're no more American than anyone else who was born of immigrants,
because you see, you were too.
>
> > and our government is prohibited from passing
> > legislation respecting any of them.
>
> and most certainly is prohibitted from getting
> in the way of such a free expression
> of ties to a deity
Within reason... But a teacher still can't affirm her love for Jeezus
during school hours.
>
> > > historically, been against such a thing.
> > > so, you comment here is irrelevant
> > > and just spume from the top of your head.
> > > why not try this, try to make some sort of reasonably
> > > informed and relevant comment as opposed to some sort
> > > of resort to absurdity? how's that? care to try?
>
> > You're a maroon who isn't remotely reading the post
> > but deciding to reply anyway.
>
> i read what you wrote and replied in a pointed manner.
Timmy, you're as sharp as bowling ball.
>
> > > oh, by the way, america *has* historically
> > > had religion as part of its make-up.
>
> > Yes and no. Depends on what you mean.
>
> the founders were not "a-theist" they
> were very much believers in God.
Many were deist actually, but that's neither here nor there.
>
> this is fact.
>
> americans are *not* a-theist.
Some are, some aren't Timmy. Actually, the governor of the state I live in
is atheist. Imagine that.
>
> never have been.
No, there have always been American atheists. Next -->
>
> > In the constitution, no.
>
> yes, they have the right to
> freely express that tie to deity.
>
> and the state may not expressly
> tell them *how* to express that tie.
But it does... Try to sacrifice a goat in public.
>
> > > so, don't tell me otherwise cuz i'll
> > > think you fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
>
> > > > That's not the way our government or our taxes work.
>
> > > you mean this isn't a government of
> > > the people by the people and for the people?
>
> > It is within reason. Our people can't decide we want to kill all
Muslims,
> > or make the US an official Christian nation (without throwing the
> > constitution out the window)...
>
> no one "religious" even suggests such a thing,
> only *you* are suggesting such a thing.
??? No, its been suggested to make the US an officially Christian nation.
Some uneducated people even think that legally it already is. Hah, silly
people... I don't see you laughing Timmy.
>
> > > you mean the people have no say in
> > > the actions their government takes?
>
> > Sure they do, but its limited. So, the fact that 40%
> > may oppose it won't save them, 60% support it.
>
> we govern by election, not by popularity poll.
Exactly my point.
>
> and if it must be known, I don't
> like having pennsylvania avenue closed,
> but i think this decision is ok.
And if you didn't it wouldn't matter.
>
> if there be any "blood" on anyone's hands,
> it isn't on Bush's hands.
>
> the eggs that have been destroyed already
> are fair game for some sort of research,
> but no new destruction is to
> be federally funded.
And the fetuses which were aborted were also already destroyed.
You silly little hypocrite...
>
> > You really are clueless as to what's in the constitution, aren't you?
>
> no, i have a constitution in
> my possession. and i read it.
Timmy, either you didn't read it, you tried to read it and failed (and hence
are illiterate), or can't comprehend it (are retarded). Which one is it? I
suspect its all 3.
>
> did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
LMAO, uh-huh... Until you get caught and sent to federal prison. Tell you
what Timmy, do YOU pay your taxes? If not, I'll gladly forward a nice tip
to some people at the IRS who will be interested in discussing this point
with you... You know, as a good citizen of our wonderful country.
>
> > > show me where the demands of the people are to
> > > be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
> > > if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
> > > to the will of the people but that the people become
> > > the chattle holdings of the government.
>
> > The people elect the government, and that's where their power lies in.
>
> no, you claim that the government
> has the right to do as they please.
Within the boundaries of the constitution.
>
> you claim the government can spend tax
> money in whatever manner they see fit.
Yep. They can. The people will vote others in if they're too offended, but
that takes A LOT. Generally, the government has an enourmous amount of
freedom to do what it wants. Far moreso than you.
>
> > At the same time the elected officials have the right to act in the
manner they
> > feel is most beneficial to the state regardless of what the constituency
> > thinks.
>
> "elected officials" must be citizens.
>
> they *are* the constituency.
They are but a few members of the constituency. BTW, some are felons so
they aren't really...
>
> > However, it they fail to change the citizery's
> > mind they likely won't get re-elected.
>
> they are to represent, not dictate.
But they do dictate, AND they represent. Funny how that works, isn't it?
>
> > > i assure you, there are no such provisions
> > > that make the citizenry, the property
> > > of the govenment.
>
> > Who says they are?
>
> you say this:
> > > > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > > > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > > > not directly against the law.
>
> you imply that the "government" is
> some disconnected entity that merely
> dictates policies to the people.
Stop trying to read my mind, you're bad at it.
I'm saying that the government has a great deal of freedom to do what it
wants, regardless of what the people feel. The people are still obliged to
follow the nations laws.
>
> the govenerment does at it pleases as
> long as it doesn't break it's own laws.
>
Yep. The great thing is that it can often change its own laws.
> it's tour words.
>
> > > and what this "directly against the law" means, is what?
> > > that the laws of the fathers is binding on the sons?
> > > well, in certain repects, the laws of the father's *are*
> > > binding upon the sons, until and insofar as the sons
> > > repeal and amend them to their satisfaction.
>
> > The Constitution is something rarely amended for good reason.
>
> this doesn't involve constitutional amendmant.
> this is just general legislation.
General legislation isn't added to the constitution. General laws are
sometimes changed, sometimes not. Until they are, everyone is bound to
them.
>
> > > which is why you should be more of a
> > > student of history and less
> > > of an abject screamer.
> > > firstly, the son shouldn't just rush up and say;
>
> > > "i don't like this law because
> > > it impinges on my freedom"
>
> > > and then five years down the road, he sees the
> > > usefullness of that law and wants it back
> > > but now he has to fight for it.
>
> > That's what you're going to be doing when you realize
> > stem cell research really is useful.
>
> well, they have 60 cell lines, show me.
I have no time to help you get your GED...
>
> no, not anymore than i would suggest that
> someone kill a person to get a liver
> if i needed a transplant.
>
> to some, this is the same thing.
Well, some people also think the world is flat. What can I say?
>
> > > > Hence, the government funds both stem cell research
>
> > > until and unless people decide that
> > > the approach is outweighed by the drawbacks.
> > > if it is viewed as a barbarism that only pretends
> > > to be the cure for all of life's ailments, then
> > > careful consideration should be taken beforehand.
>
> > It has been and rejected.
>
> buy whom?
>
> i don't see any rejection.
>
> i see the allowance of federal funding
> for cell lines that were "created" before
> this administration took office.
>
> if you want me to stand steadfastly
> opposed to this research, I will.
Go for it. Its people like you who will convince those on the fence (and
even some who initially oppose it) to change over...
>
> maybe you can change my mind from non-nightmarish,
> to just total disrespect for anyone who would
> even consider destroying a fertillized egg.
I'd like that.
They're all like me Timmy. Evil and out to corrupt society. They don't
respect the Living God Timmy, nor His Word. They don't rely on Him, but
rely on Man and Satan to fill their needs. Even these atheists, they only
say they're atheists Timmy, but in reality they're in league with Satan.
RUN TIMMY RUN! RUN UNDER THOSE COVERS BEFORE THEY FIND YOU!
How was that?
>
> i'm beginning to shift in that direction.
Good.
>
> given that the infidel would
> pick it up as a cause celebe.
Yep.
>
> makes me think there is something
> wholy dirty about the entire enterprise.
Oh, there is Timmy, there is... Its Satan Timmy, its part of his plan...
>
> > > and not tossed on the "pop culture, fad of the moment,
> > > we want it and we always get everything we want"
> > > mentallity that may flash back in our faces someday.
>
> > Its approved. Live with it Timmy.
>
> they aren't funding any more than 60 cell lines.
>
For now.
> from eggs that were destroyed before
> the present administration took office.
They'll be enough for now. In 2002 there will be a shift in the house, and
then it'll be reconsidered.
>
> > > > AND abstinence only sex ed which I am strongly against,
> > > > and yes with MY tax money.
>
> > > what planet are you from?
>
> > > anyway, apparently you'd like to think that "sex-education"
> > > should be a primer in the proper methods for indulging a
> > > child's curiosity, with zero regard to the physical
> > > reality and the consequences.
>
> > > at any rate, it is against a large portion of the
> > > population, in the historic frame of mind, to be anti-war,
> > > and therefore not pro-war, but it is accepted as necessary.
>
> > That's not my point. My point is that the government collects taxes
from
> > EVERYONE for what it considers necessary. There's no reason why
> > anti-abortion people shouldn't have to pay for stem-cell research.
>
> then they have a say in what
> reseach should be payed for by taxes.
Well, insofar as their vote. Past that, they have to live with whatever
congress passes. Feel free to try to get stem cell research banned Timmy.
>
> > > it *has* been generally accepted
> > > in america that life is sacred.
>
> > Sure, it has. And both sides of the debate accept that.
> > But 2 things to consider:
> > 1) Many don't consider the embryo to be on the same level as us
>
> sounds like you'd be suggesting this;
>
> "many don't consider africans to be human beings."
??? Actually, once upon a time we really didn't. That's why we had
slaverly...
>
> "therefore, let's just do as we please"
We're past that phase. Now we're simply logical. Well, some of us anyhow.
>
> > 2) Our founders believed that choice and liberty was so important,
> > that it was worth sacrificing life for... I agree with them.
>
> "ends justifies the means" mentallity
>
> has fallen into disfavor.
Really? With whom?
Amd do I take it you are against our founding fathers?
> > > and i say *has* because the population, in general,
> > > is slowly drifting towards barbarism, but
> > > that's another story.
>
> > Why, 'cause they disagree with you?
>
> no, cuz they have no regard for human life.
LOL, judging from past conversations they care for life far more than you
do.
>
> > > but under the view that life is sacred,
>
> > > why don't you propose that we just waltz in to africa,
> > > steal people's livers and kidneys and dump
> > > the bodies into shallow graves?
> > > after all, we could get what we want that way.
> > > and who cares how we get what we want?
> > > just so long as we get what we want.
> > > they got livers and kidneys,
> > > we need livers and kidneys,
> > > let's just take them.
> > > and let's use government equipment to get the job done.
> > > ok with you?
> > > well, some people may object to this.
>
> > > and some people may view this
> > > "research" along the same sort of lines.
> > > mind you, *I* have already stated in
> > > this bit that some stem cell research
> > > doesn't give *me* nightmares.
> > > but i can see how it may give
> > > many other people nightmares.
>
> > Well then you're weird. And war doesn't give people nightmares?
>
> so you think we should go into china and
> harvest livers and kidneys and hearts cuz
> we want them?
??? What does this have to do with anything? Embryos aren't sentient,
Chinese people are.
>
> > > why be rash?
>
> > Because lives depend on it.
>
> no, people's _comfort_ depends on it.
No, people's lives.
>
> you can live with parkinson's and MS
> and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
A) You obviously don't have one of those diseases. I have a sister with MS.
She has the weakest form of MS out there, and yet its already derailed her
life. Don't give me your bullshit Timmy, you're as ignorant as the day you
were born.
B) Two words: organ donors. Its the goal that one day, combined with
theraputic cloning we'll be able to grow organs to replace our old ones.
>
> these people won't live any longer with
> these *therapies* they will only have a
> more comfortable period before they
> go the way of all flesh.
Can you go there a little sooner Timmy? I mean, you die sooner or later,
why not make it sooner?
>
> and I say "therapies" because it isn't even
> clear what causes some of these problems,
We know what's going on to some degree. But
> therefore a "cure" isn't what is
> promised by this research.
>
> just a remedial therapy.
If it can do what genetically engineered insulin has done for diabetics,
I'll take it.
>
> meaning, no one knows what causes parkinson's.
> it may be viral it may be congenital it may
> be getting knocked upside the head too many times,
> it may be drug use, so, this research is
> geared towards a remedial therapy, and not a "cure."
>
> same for MS and alzheimer's.
>
> basically, for MS, if you have this
> this and that symptom, you have MS.
You don't have to tell me about MS, I know about the symptoms.
>
> but no one really knows
> what it is or what causes it.
We know what it is, we don't know what causes it. We have suspicions, but
little more than that.
>
> > > maybe they're right.
>
> > No, they most definitely are not, and that's
> > what the government has decided.
>
> well, not exactly, as the president
> has not allowed new destruction of eggs.
>
> there are 60 pre-existing cell lines to work with.
>
> as far as federal funding is concerned.
Yep, and for now.
>
> it's not a federal offense to study these things.
>
> but the federal government is not
> funding any new destruction.
>
> *that* is the present state of affairs.
Yep. But aren't you mad Timmy? They're still funding this evil heathen
research Timmy...
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> > Jon...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Not at all. You still have the right to "believe" as you
> > > wish. You do not necessarily have the right to act on those
> > > beliefs.
> > not exactly;
> > "free exercise thereof"
> > and "exercise" is not simply
> > goin' to church on Sundays.
> > actual religious people "exercise" their
> > "beliefs" or "faith" thru their actions.
> > so, the right of free exercise is a right
> > to _practice_ such deeply held "beliefs"
> > to suggest otherwise is to eviscerate the right.
> Then you best check with a number of court decisions (even
> Supreme Court) where the right to "exercise" religious
> belief is definitely curtailed. Think Mormons' view on
> polygamy, Native Americans on Peyote, Haitians on killing
> chickens, etc.
then why don't you fight for their rights?
and the Mormons have an
inter-sectarian strife
about polygamy.
they seem to be fighting amongst
themselves over polygamy.
indigenous people's have only recently been
given citizenship status and peyote is a
controlled substance under title 1, probably.
they'll have to provide some sort of hard
evidence that such a substance is a necessary
part of their religious practice, and that
its restriction violtaes their rights.
aside from that, it appears as if drug
abusing americans are more interested
in this "right" than they are.
and not every little aberration is
acceptible as a religious practice.
we won't likely be encouraging
immolating children to Molech
anytime soon.
some common sense has to be employed.
but murder is murder and will not
likely be upheld as a virtue anytime soon,
and it hasn't been sufficiently established
as to what constitutes a murder in the case
of the willful destruction of human embryos.
and should this "research" prove fruitful,
chances are, the willful destruction of
human embryos will be necessary.
meaning, it may be necessary to seek these
embryos from places other than fertillity
clinics with an excess of fertillizeed eggs.
and *if* it remains unclear as to whether or
not this is a murder, then perhaps the US government
should err on the side of restraint.
> > > He perhaps isn't, but you don't appear to be a political
> > > buff.
> > i know what i need to know.
> > i'm not a big fan of politics.
> > it tends to be shabby.
> Which is, of course irrelevant to whether or not you know
> enough.
but it does answer your comment.
> > provide three examples.
> > and if these examples are presently under contention,
> > then i'd consider them unresolved issues and
> > not merely dictatorial policies.
> The fact that since the 1950's the government has forced
> southerners to integrate their schools - federal troops in
> Arkansas and Alabama doesn't seem like forcing its will on
> a segment of the population? Surely you don't mean to say
> that the fact the issues are "unresolved" means that the
> segment wasn't forced.
you cut this from the previous post and didn't
address it there, so you can address it now, if you wish;
_______
you mentioned:
1) integration of southern schools,
I wrote this:
(1) is apparently resolved, maybe, but one may suggest
that such segregation was the result of the reconstruction
period after the war beteen the states, and as such, was
a result of government interference, in the first place,
and not entirely the will of the people.
can you understand what I mean by that?
the union government swept in to the south and
mandated several institutions upon what they
percieved to be a defeated renegade force.
and then swept in later "fixing"
a problem they instituted.
if you don't understand, i could elaborate.
___________
address this comment first.
> > [i see them below, and addresssed them there.]
> > > Your idealized concept of the U.S.A. apparently views the
> > > state having no legal right to do something if a minority
> > > disagrees with it - including a religious minority. This is
> > > totally false.
> > no, i didn't say that, i said "segment" but i
> > didn't come right out and say that this
> > "segemnt" may be in the majority.
> > i don't suggest that a majority forces
> > its views on the population
> > at large either.
> > which is why fomenting hysterical opinions
> > on the matter should be avoided.
> > why not come right out and explain exactly
> > how this research could "cure" diabetes.
> This question and your discussion is irrelevant to the
> question of whether or not the gov. can force its will on
> any segment of the population.
it does, however, address the topic at hand.
and if by enforcing the law, you would suggest
that the government is exerting undue force
over the population, i would suggest
that maybe you need to re-read your
version of the Constitution.
law enforcement is not un-Constitutional.
maybe you are having trouble distinguishing
between legislative enactment and law enforcement.
*but* even during prohibition, some alcohol was
permitted for the performance of certain
religious duties and practices.
but at that time, by duly a enacted legislative
process, consumption of alcohol, in general,
was against the law.
and so, "the people" gave the government
the right to prevent this consumption.
until its repeal.
this is called "due process"
but right now, you can't exactly say that the
government is forcing its authority over
people who would like to shoot heroin.
sometimes, even adults need
to submit to a proper authority.
when the govenemnt enforces laws against highway robbery,
they aren't forcing the government's will upon the robbers,
they are upholding the "people's" desire not to be robbed.
and the same sort of argument can
be applied to all of your "examples"
> > > I don't want to take the time to even begin to list
> > > examples of this, but consider 1) integration of southern
> > > schools, 2) not allowing prayer in public schools, 3)
> > > legalizing abortion, 4) drafting men for military service,
> > > 5) protecting pornography, etc.
> > these are your examples?
> > (2) and (3) are still contentious issues,
> > so they have not been entirely resolved.
> As noted above, the fact the issue hasn't been resolved is
> irrelevant to whether or not a population segment was
> forced to do something by the government.
if you don't intend to address
my comments, don't reply at all.
here they are again.
_____________
(2) does not forcibly prevent prayer by individuals,
it merely does not allow state sponsored prayers.
(3) does not force anyone to have abortions.
and there are states, china for example, where
the state mandates abortions for couples
having more than one child.
it's not quite a good example of
state mandate against the
will of the people.
simply because the state does not
force anyone to have abortions.
and it is still a contentious issue,
and federal funding of abortion
clinics is not entirely resolved.
so, it is still under consideration.
_________________
address the comments, or don't.
they certainly contradict your view.
> > any *real* examples of the government forcibly
> > mandating a thing against the will of the people?
> Already provided.
actually not.
you've only demonstrated that you cannot
distinguish between legislative enactment
and law enforcement.
encacting legislation is an argumentative process
whereby representatives hash out concerns, maybe for years,
until they construct some sort of reasonable architecture.
law enforcement is an on the spot enterprise.
meaning, once a law or set of laws is on the books,
a duly authorized official has the duty to see
to their adherence.
this is not the government forcing
*its* will upon society, but enforcing
the people's will in a "civilized" manner.
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > > You are stating that stem-cell research shouldn't be
> > > funded because some of the population because of their
> > > religions object to that.
> > it's not just their religions, it's them.
> > *they* object to it.
> I thought the basis of your argument was the protection of people's
> religious freedom?
actually, it is not firmly established
as to the nature of the destruction
of these embryos, and a rather large portion
of the population seems to feel that
it borders on murder.
whether you allow yourself to see this is irrelevant.
if it is a murder, then the state
already has laws against such acts.
and as far as "sentience" goes, there
are people in vegetative states that
are actually protected by the same sort
of laws against murder even though
they are unaware of such a protection.
so, "sentience" is not a firm
enough establishment of "life"
> In terms of doing things a minority just doesn't like,
> that happens all the time.
i didn't say people opposed to
embryo destruction were a minority.
and i know that laws against
murder are not subject to question.
so, fundamentally, a clear decision
must be made as to the nature of human life.
and your concerns that "sentience"
defines human life are unfounded
for the reason outlined above.
vegetative and unaware human beings
are still considered alive
and protected by the law.
> > the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
> Only insofar as it has to have elections.
and that the elected officials *must* be citizens.
> Other than that, the citizenry's
> choices are limited.
*must* be citizens.
> > and the people are not a duchy of the government.
> > in fact, the state _is_ the people.
> No, the people and the state are 2 seperate entities. Sorry. The people
> choose our officials and "the state" but, those officials are free to
> dictate within constitutional boundaries to the people.
no, these representatives are citizens,
and as such are accountable to
the laws they enact.
> > > and that the state has the right to collect
> > > money for purposes deemed necessary,
> > you can say this but you can't support this.
> ??? What? Its true.
> > because the state does not have the
> > right to dictate policies to the people.
> Yes, it absolutely does. Bush could have (and still could) raised taxes
> just as quickly as he lowered them. And YOU would have to pay them whether
> you like to or not. Jonjonz@aol also gave you some examples.
then you have the same problem of not
being able to distinguish between legislative
enactment and law enforcement.
when you get that straight,
then, you'll have it straight.
> > not in *this* state. not in america.
> Definitely in this state, definitely in America. Try not to pay your taxes.
you people are still having this trouble
distinguishing between legislative
enactment and law enforecement.
law enforecement is an enforcing
of the will of the people, and not
a willful displacement of that will.
> > > even if some of the citizens disapprove.
> > the right to declare war is held by congress.
> > and congress is, supposedly,
> > directly accountable to the people.
> Supposedly and in theory. In reality, its only indirectly so.
congress is accountable to the people.
and they *are* "the people"
you also have trouble distinguishing these little
"police actions" from an actual declaration of war.
the executuve branch has a limited authority
to command troops for certain aspects
of national security.
> > so, the government has no "rights"
> > except those granted by the people,
> > and not the other way around.
> Totally incorrect. The government has the rights granted by the
> constitution.
preamble to that document says this;
"we the people..."
totally correct.
you stand corrected.
> The people have only the rights granted by that same
> document,
that same document which takes
it's authority from "we the people"
> and those granted by the government. But here's the catch, the
> government can CHANGE both the constitution and the people's rights. Its
> done this many times.
that's no catch, it's duly authorized by "we the people"
> > the right to declare war and prepare
> > for war is granted by the people,
> > thru congressional mandate,
> > and the "right" to fund a particular
> > sort of research is likewise accountable
> > to congressional scrutiny.
> But the point is that congress can decide whatever the hell it wants.
congress is made up of citizens, by definition.
they are accountable to the laws they enact.
try considering that.
> > and so "the people" *should* apprise themselves
> > of the consequences of any sort of research
> > in order to make an informed decision as
> > to the sort of electors they place in office.
> > the government doesn't have the right to fund a genocide.
> We funded Saddam Hussien, the Taliban, and many others. In reality, we have
> the right to fund whatever we want.
which is why there are people looking over their shoulders.
> Oh, except organized religion in our
> borders, and descriminatory agencies.
organized religion doesn't want their funding.
> > and they are represented by the federal government.
> Yep. And they are a minority.
who? religious people?
i doubt this.
> > > By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
> > sure it does, it always has had a
> > tie with a deity, even from the onset.
> Really? Then perhaps you'd care to show me the mention of God in our
> constitution, the nation's ruling document, the basis for all of our nation.
that's what "religion" means,
a "tie with a deity"
that should be sufficient.
> > no founder of this nation ever contended
> > that a totally secular atheist society
> > was even a plausible alternative.
> Its not the governments job to promote any sort of religious view or lack
> thereof in our society.
nobody is asking the state to promote religion.
> > > and our government is prohibited from passing
> > > legislation respecting any of them.
> > and most certainly is prohibitted from getting
> > in the way of such a free expression
> > of ties to a deity
> Within reason... But a teacher still can't affirm her love for Jeezus
> during school hours.
she can wear a cross if she wants.
> > > In the constitution, no.
> > yes, they have the right to
> > freely express that tie to deity.
> > and the state may not expressly
> > tell them *how* to express that tie.
> But it does... Try to sacrifice a goat in public.
i'll get my butcher to do this for me.
> > did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
> LMAO, uh-huh... Until you get caught and sent to federal prison.
no, actually taxes are voluntary.
plain and simply the truth.
Capone didn't get it for failing to
file a return, he filed false returns.
filing false returns is a federal offense.
it's called a voluntary tax.
> > > > show me where the demands of the people are to
> > > > be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
> > > > if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
> > > > to the will of the people but that the people become
> > > > the chattle holdings of the government.
> > > The people elect the government, and that's where their power lies in.
> > no, you claim that the government
> > has the right to do as they please.
> Within the boundaries of the constitution.
so now there are boundaries.
this makes "whatever they please" a wrong statement.
> > you claim the government can spend tax
> > money in whatever manner they see fit.
> Yep. They can. The people will vote others in if they're too offended, but
> that takes A LOT. Generally, the government has an enourmous amount of
> freedom to do what it wants. Far moreso than you.
they are american citizens.
hasn't that dawned on you yet?
> > > At the same time the elected officials have the right to act in the manner they
> > > feel is most beneficial to the state regardless of what the constituency
> > > thinks.
> > "elected officials" must be citizens.
> > they *are* the constituency.
> They are but a few members of the constituency.
they are citizens, and as such subject
to the same laws as everyone else.
they are not handing down edicts from
on high to which they do not pay proper tribute.
> > > However, it they fail to change the citizery's
> > > mind they likely won't get re-elected.
> > they are to represent, not dictate.
> But they do dictate, AND they represent. Funny how that works, isn't it?
"they" are citizens of the country.
and as such, are accountable to the laws themselves.
therefore, it is *not* a dictatorial enterprise
whereby an elite ruling class enacts legislation
that said class then stands above.
> > > > i assure you, there are no such provisions
> > > > that make the citizenry, the property
> > > > of the govenment.
> > > Who says they are?
> > you say this:
> > > > > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > > > > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > > > > not directly against the law.
> > you imply that the "government" is
> > some disconnected entity that merely
> > dictates policies to the people.
> I'm saying that the government has a great deal of freedom to do what it
> wants,
a "great deal of freedom" is not
the same as "can do whatever it pleases"
you are equivocating now.
i won't go so far as to say you are
in direct contradiction of previous
statements, but you are close.
well, actually, "a great deal of freedom"
is *not* "can do whatever it pleases"
so, let's just say, you contradict yourself here.
> regardless of what the people feel. The people are still obliged to
> follow the nations laws.
these laws _are_ "the will of the people"
> > this doesn't involve constitutional amendmant.
> > this is just general legislation.
> General legislation isn't added to the constitution. General laws are
> sometimes changed, sometimes not. Until they are, everyone is bound to
> them.
i'm glad you understand that.
> > > That's not my point. My point is that the government collects taxes from
> > > EVERYONE for what it considers necessary. There's no reason why
> > > anti-abortion people shouldn't have to pay for stem-cell research.
> > then they have a say in what
> > reseach should be payed for by taxes.
> Well, insofar as their vote. Past that, they have to live with whatever
> congress passes. Feel free to try to get stem cell research banned Timmy.
feel free to read what I wrote and reply to that.
not a federal offense and not federally funded.
those are somewhat mutally exclusive.
so, i have already stated that i have
no desire to see such "research"
made a federal offense.
in fcat, if you read what I wrote,
you'd see those exact words.
which only makes me wonder
why i waste much breath on you.
> > > > it *has* been generally accepted
> > > > in america that life is sacred.
> > > Sure, it has. And both sides of the debate accept that.
> > > But 2 things to consider:
> > > 1) Many don't consider the embryo to be on the same level as us
> > sounds like you'd be suggesting this;
> > "many don't consider africans to be human beings."
> ??? Actually, once upon a time we really didn't. That's why we had
> slaverly...
QED
> > "therefore, let's just do as we please"
> > > 2) Our founders believed that choice and liberty was so important,
> > > that it was worth sacrificing life for... I agree with them.
> > "ends justifies the means" mentallity
> > has fallen into disfavor.
> Really? With whom?
people with ethics.
> > > > and some people may view this
> > > > "research" along the same sort of lines.
> > > > mind you, *I* have already stated in
> > > > this bit that some stem cell research
> > > > doesn't give *me* nightmares.
> > > > but i can see how it may give
> > > > many other people nightmares.
> > > Well then you're weird. And war doesn't give people nightmares?
> > so you think we should go into china and
> > harvest livers and kidneys and hearts cuz
> > we want them?
> ??? What does this have to do with anything? Embryos aren't sentient,
> Chinese people are.
sentience doesn't define human life.
you can't murder an a-cephalous baby.
that's a baby born with no brain.
it doesn't even know you exist,
but it is still protected
under the law.
> > > > why be rash?
> > > Because lives depend on it.
> > no, people's _comfort_ depends on it.
> No, people's lives.
no, their comfort level.
> > you can live with parkinson's and MS
> > and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
> A) You obviously don't have one of those diseases. I have a sister with MS.
> She has the weakest form of MS out there, and yet its already derailed her
> life. Don't give me your bullshit Timmy, you're as ignorant as the day you
> were born.
and as yet, it hasn't been clearly
established what constitutes the taking
of a human life in regards to human embryos.
and not by you, but by people with some
modicum of standards and ethics, it is hoped.
so, you may end upe suggesting that
one murder is a suitable option to
re-invigorate the life of another.
> B) Two words: organ donors. Its the goal that one day, combined with
> theraputic cloning we'll be able to grow organs to replace our old ones.
study rats.
if you can demonstrate this sort of
thing with rats, that would be a place
to start, and if you can never demonstrate
this with rats, then it ain't gunna happen anyway.
maybe by the time the rat work is
accomplished, stem cells from places
other than human embryos will be more
suitable than they seem to be at this time.
i.e. placentas and adult stem cells.
> > therefore a "cure" isn't what is
> > promised by this research.
> > just a remedial therapy.
> If it can do what genetically engineered insulin has done for diabetics,
> I'll take it.
study a rat first.
show me some mice studies.
*that* is the general progression of medical reseach.
Timothy Sutter
> Jeff wrote:
> > > > and that the state has the right to collect
> > > > money for purposes deemed necessary,
> > > you can say this but you can't support this.
> > ??? What? Its true.
no, and you already contradict yourself on this;
first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
the two are not the same, and basically
settles that issue from where i stand.
they can't simply do whatever they please.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > Jeff wrote:
>
> > > > > and that the state has the right to collect
> > > > > money for purposes deemed necessary,
>
> > > > you can say this but you can't support this.
>
> > > ??? What? Its true.
>
> no, and you already contradict yourself on this;
>
> first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
>
> and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
>
> the two are not the same, and basically
> settles that issue from where i stand.
>
> they can't simply do whatever they please.
I never said they could, I said within constitutional restraints.
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
> > and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
> > the two are not the same, and basically
> > settles that issue from where i stand.
> > they can't simply do whatever they please.
> I never said they could, I said within constitutional restraints.
you said; "can do whatever it pleases"
and then you said; "has a great deal of freedom"
so, if you agree, as should be obvious,
that "within constitutional restraints" is
tantamount to "according to the will of the people"
then that particular issue is clear.
Jon...@aol.com
tim_s...@yahoo.com says...
> > Then you best check with a number of court decisions (even
> > Supreme Court) where the right to "exercise" religious
> > belief is definitely curtailed. Think Mormons' view on
> > polygamy, Native Americans on Peyote, Haitians on killing
> > chickens, etc.
>
> then why don't you fight for their rights?
Sigh, one last time. You keep trying avoiding the question
by diverting attention to yet another irrelevant area.
The statement I originally challenged was:
"because the state does not have the right to dictate
policies to the people.
not in *this* state. not in america."
I have given you logic and examples of the state
"dictating" policies to large segments of the people." You
want to tackle everything but that. Even insisting I answer
your irrelevant questions before you tackle this one simple
one.
<snip>
> > > any *real* examples of the government forcibly
> > > mandating a thing against the will of the people?
>
> > Already provided.
>
> actually not.
>
> you've only demonstrated that you cannot
> distinguish between legislative enactment
> and law enforcement.
>
> encacting legislation is an argumentative process
> whereby representatives hash out concerns, maybe for years,
> until they construct some sort of reasonable architecture.
>
> law enforcement is an on the spot enterprise.
>
> meaning, once a law or set of laws is on the books,
> a duly authorized official has the duty to see
> to their adherence.
>
> this is not the government forcing
> *its* will upon society, but enforcing
> the people's will in a "civilized" manner.
Right, and that process of putting a law on the books never
results in a law that forces a segment of the population -
dictates a policy - to do something it doesn't want -
right?
One more time. Whether or not something is contentious or
unsettled is irrelevant, whether or not the legislature or
the enforcement arm is involved is irrelevant - people were
still forced by the government.
Did the Clinton administration provide federal funding for
abortions? Was that spending tax money on something a
segment of the population found offensive and did not want?
If so, it is directly contrary to your statement.
And, just to keep the record straight, Roe v Wade, and
Brown v Board of Education were not acts of the
legislature.
So, just deal with one issue: Can the government assert its
will on "the people" and was your original statement in
error. Don't try to be disingenuous and be willfully
ignorant.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter
> > > Then you best check with a number of court decisions (even
> > > Supreme Court) where the right to "exercise" religious
> > > belief is definitely curtailed. Think Mormons' view on
> > > polygamy, Native Americans on Peyote, Haitians on killing
> > > chickens, etc.
> > then why don't you fight for their rights?
> Sigh, one last time. You keep trying avoiding the question
> by diverting attention to yet another irrelevant area.
no, you are attempting to blur
an issue you don't rightly understand.
> The statement I originally challenged was:
> "because the state does not have the right to dictate
> policies to the people.
> not in *this* state. not in america."
and you haven't addressed it properly.
the government does not dictate
policy to an unwilling populace.
the government enacts legislation
based on the demands of the population.
this enacted legislation then becomes
the will of the people until further amended.
that is not a dictation of policy.
that is not an entity separate and distinct
from the population as a whole dictating enactments
to which the membership of said entity
is not fully accountable.
> I have given you logic and examples of the state
> "dictating" policies to large segments of the people."
no you haven't, you have given examples
of the law of the land legitimately enforced.
meaning, the people's will enforced by the government.
and I showed you how these were
not examples of a dictation of policy.
you failed to address those
statements, evidently you cannot.
> You want to tackle everything but that.
I have "tackled" that and then some.
you want to pretend law enforcement is un-Constitutional.
> Even insisting I answer your irrelevant questions
> before you tackle this one simple one.
no, I suggest that you answer how those
examples you provided do not support
your contention. for the reasons I provided.
you have yet to address those replies to your
examples and failing to do so, suggests that
you have failed to fully support your concerns.
> <snip>
> > > > any *real* examples of the government forcibly
> > > > mandating a thing against the will of the people?
> > > Already provided.
> > actually not.
> > you've only demonstrated that you cannot
> > distinguish between legislative enactment
> > and law enforcement.
> > encacting legislation is an argumentative process
> > whereby representatives hash out concerns, maybe for years,
> > until they construct some sort of reasonable architecture.
> > law enforcement is an on the spot enterprise.
> > meaning, once a law or set of laws is on the books,
> > a duly authorized official has the duty to see
> > to their adherence.
> > this is not the government forcing
> > *its* will upon society, but enforcing
> > the people's will in a "civilized" manner.
> Right, and that process of putting a law on the books never
> results in a law that forces a segment of the population -
> dictates a policy - to do something it doesn't want -
> right?
no, it does not dictate a policy, it provides
the most comprehensive set of guidelines available
to suit the majority of the population.
i.e. "the will of the people"
and *its* authority comes from these same people.
they do not wield an authority they
placed upon themselves.
it's called "democratic action"
not and never, "dictatorial tyranny"
> One more time. Whether or not something is contentious or
> unsettled is irrelevant,
no it is not irrelevant, if a matter is not settled
and poeople still suggest changes, thgen they work
until a final agreement is reached.
this is *not* a dictation of policy.
> whether or not the legislature or the enforcement arm
> is involved is irrelevant - people were
> still forced by the government.
no, it's not irrelevant, when the legislation
is enacted into law, then following the
law takes precedence over any other concern.
and this law must be followed until
or unless the law is changed or repealed.
but you are still free to suggest
and fight for these changes.
the law, in this case is not set
down unapprachable forever.
*that* is not a doctation of policy.
that is freedom under the law.
big difference.
> Did the Clinton administration provide federal funding for
> abortions? Was that spending tax money on something a
> segment of the population found offensive and did not want?
> If so, it is directly contrary to your statement.
no, it is still a contentious issue,
and as such, is not settled, and that
same segment has the right to seek
a redress of grievances.
they are not compelled to sit
on their hands and accept
that ruling as final.
*that* would be a dictation of policy.
> And, just to keep the record straight, Roe v Wade, and
> Brown v Board of Education were not acts of the
> legislature.
no, it is considered a "legislation from
the bench," and as such, remains a contentious
issue on various separation of powers concerns.
> So, just deal with one issue: Can the government assert its
> will on "the people" and was your original statement in
> error.
no, because the law of the
land *is* the "will of the people"
and so, enforcing the law of the
land is protecting the will of the people.
so, absolutely not, the governemt does
*not* assert *its* authority over the people's will.
the people are to provide input
and tell the legislatures what to do.
never the other way around.
you are just plain wrong.
> Don't try to be disingenuous and be willfully ignorant.
no, i suggest that you try addressing the
concerns and not your own fantasic
version of reality.
Jon...@aol.com
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> *plonk*
anytime you want to defend your case, feel free to try.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
> Jon...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > *plonk*
>
> anytime you want to defend your case, feel free to try.
Its hard to defend one's case to an IDIOT who can't follow your logic.
Jeff
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
>
> > > first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
> > > and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
>
> > > the two are not the same, and basically
> > > settles that issue from where i stand.
> > > they can't simply do whatever they please.
>
> > I never said they could, I said within constitutional restraints.
>
> you said; "can do whatever it pleases"
> and then you said; "has a great deal of freedom"
>
> so, if you agree, as should be obvious,
> that "within constitutional restraints" is
> tantamount to "according to the will of the people"
> then that particular issue is clear.
No I do not agree on that because that is just plain wrong. Within
constitutional restraints means that there are only certain decisions they
can adopt. Realistically, Bush could have banned fed funds for stem cell
research despite the fact that a vast majority support it and for the time
being there's nothing anyone could do about it.
Jeff
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
>
> > > Jeff wrote:
>
> > > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
>
> > > > You are stating that stem-cell research shouldn't be
> > > > funded because some of the population because of their
> > > > religions object to that.
>
> > > it's not just their religions, it's them.
> > > *they* object to it.
>
> > I thought the basis of your argument was the protection of people's
> > religious freedom?
>
> actually, it is not firmly established
> as to the nature of the destruction
> of these embryos, and a rather large portion
> of the population seems to feel that
> it borders on murder.
So what?
>
> whether you allow yourself to see this is irrelevant.
>
> if it is a murder, then the state
> already has laws against such acts.
But it doesn't you ninny... Otherwise you could mount a legal challenge,
which you can't.
> and as far as "sentience" goes, there
> are people in vegetative states that
> are actually protected by the same sort
> of laws against murder even though
> they are unaware of such a protection.
Actually, the family can choose to disconnect them at any point.
>
> so, "sentience" is not a firm
> enough establishment of "life"
Yes it is. Otherwise, one is at the mercy of the family or the state.
>
> > In terms of doing things a minority just doesn't like,
> > that happens all the time.
>
> i didn't say people opposed to
> embryo destruction were a minority.
But they are.
>
> and i know that laws against
> murder are not subject to question.
Muder is illegal killing. Destroying embryos and fetuses is not illegal.
PERIOD. So don't give me this BS unless you can PROVE that it is illegal.
>
> so, fundamentally, a clear decision
> must be made as to the nature of human life.
>
> and your concerns that "sentience"
> defines human life are unfounded
> for the reason outlined above.
>
> vegetative and unaware human beings
> are still considered alive
> and protected by the law.
Fetuses, embryo, sperm, egg are not and are not.
>
> > > the "state" is accountable to the citizenry,
>
> > Only insofar as it has to have elections.
>
> and that the elected officials *must* be citizens.
So what?
>
> > Other than that, the citizenry's
> > choices are limited.
>
> *must* be citizens.
>
> > > and the people are not a duchy of the government.
>
> > > in fact, the state _is_ the people.
>
> > No, the people and the state are 2 seperate entities. Sorry. The
people
> > choose our officials and "the state" but, those officials are free to
> > dictate within constitutional boundaries to the people.
>
> no, these representatives are citizens,
> and as such are accountable to
> the laws they enact.
??? What BS argument is this? So they're citizens. They have the power to
enforce their rules on the other citizens.
>
> > > > and that the state has the right to collect
> > > > money for purposes deemed necessary,
>
> > > you can say this but you can't support this.
>
> > ??? What? Its true.
>
>
>
> > > because the state does not have the
> > > right to dictate policies to the people.
>
> > Yes, it absolutely does. Bush could have (and still could) raised taxes
> > just as quickly as he lowered them. And YOU would have to pay them
whether
> > you like to or not. Jonjonz@aol also gave you some examples.
>
> then you have the same problem of not
> being able to distinguish between legislative
> enactment and law enforcement.
??? Have you ever gone to a "special school?"
>
> when you get that straight,
> then, you'll have it straight.
>
> > > not in *this* state. not in america.
>
> > Definitely in this state, definitely in America. Try not to pay your
taxes.
>
> you people are still having this trouble
> distinguishing between legislative
> enactment and law enforecement.
>
> law enforecement is an enforcing
> of the will of the people,
No you ninny, law enforcement is enforcing laws that are passed. Otherwise
many KKK marchers would be gunned down by law enforcement rather than
protected by them.
> and not
> a willful displacement of that will.
>
> > > > even if some of the citizens disapprove.
>
> > > the right to declare war is held by congress.
>
> > > and congress is, supposedly,
> > > directly accountable to the people.
>
> > Supposedly and in theory. In reality, its only indirectly so.
>
> congress is accountable to the people.
> and they *are* "the people"
You bet they are, and the rest of the people have to obey the rules they
set. Even you Timmy.
>
> you also have trouble distinguishing these little
> "police actions" from an actual declaration of war.
???
>
> the executuve branch has a limited authority
> to command troops for certain aspects
> of national security.
Like Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, Panama, and Yugoslavia?!
>
> > > so, the government has no "rights"
> > > except those granted by the people,
> > > and not the other way around.
>
> > Totally incorrect. The government has the rights granted by the
> > constitution.
>
> preamble to that document says this;
>
> "we the people..."
>
> totally correct.
>
> you stand corrected.
You stand a buffoon. Try taking that to a court challenge.
> > The people have only the rights granted by that same
> > document,
>
> that same document which takes
> it's authority from "we the people"
In theory. In practice they dictate laws to the people.
>
> > and those granted by the government. But here's the catch, the
> > government can CHANGE both the constitution and the people's rights.
Its
> > done this many times.
>
> that's no catch, it's duly authorized by "we the people"
Insofar as there are elections. Other than that...
>
> > > the right to declare war and prepare
> > > for war is granted by the people,
> > > thru congressional mandate,
>
> > > and the "right" to fund a particular
> > > sort of research is likewise accountable
> > > to congressional scrutiny.
>
> > But the point is that congress can decide whatever the hell it wants.
>
> congress is made up of citizens, by definition.
> they are accountable to the laws they enact.
So what? They pass laws that YOU have to obey. If you don't obey THEIR
laws you get thrown in prison. Enjoy!
>
> try considering that.
>
> > > and so "the people" *should* apprise themselves
> > > of the consequences of any sort of research
> > > in order to make an informed decision as
> > > to the sort of electors they place in office.
>
> > > the government doesn't have the right to fund a genocide.
>
> > We funded Saddam Hussien, the Taliban, and many others. In reality, we
have
> > the right to fund whatever we want.
>
> which is why there are people looking over their shoulders.
Whose?
>
> > Oh, except organized religion in our
> > borders, and descriminatory agencies.
>
> organized religion doesn't want their funding.
Yes they do.
>
> > > and they are represented by the federal government.
>
> > Yep. And they are a minority.
>
> who? religious people?
Nope, fundies. Most religious people are of the lukewarm variety. As in,
think you're an unsalted nut.
>
> i doubt this.
Doubt whatever you like. Won't change fact.
>
>
> > > > By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
>
> > > sure it does, it always has had a
> > > tie with a deity, even from the onset.
>
> > Really? Then perhaps you'd care to show me the mention of God in our
> > constitution, the nation's ruling document, the basis for all of our
nation.
>
> that's what "religion" means,
>
> a "tie with a deity"
>
> that should be sufficient.
>
Since its not in our constitution its not near sufficient Timmy.
> > > no founder of this nation ever contended
> > > that a totally secular atheist society
> > > was even a plausible alternative.
>
> > Its not the governments job to promote any sort of religious view or
lack
> > thereof in our society.
>
> nobody is asking the state to promote religion.
That's a lie. No one wants to ban abortion, porn, sex-ed, etc.? No one
wants abstinence only sex ed, the restriction of birth control to married
couples (I kid you not), prayer in school, etc.?
>
> > > > and our government is prohibited from passing
> > > > legislation respecting any of them.
>
> > > and most certainly is prohibitted from getting
> > > in the way of such a free expression
> > > of ties to a deity
>
> > Within reason... But a teacher still can't affirm her love for Jeezus
> > during school hours.
>
> she can wear a cross if she wants.
Within reason. There's a point where it becomes "inappropriate."
>
> > > > In the constitution, no.
>
> > > yes, they have the right to
> > > freely express that tie to deity.
> > > and the state may not expressly
> > > tell them *how* to express that tie.
>
> > But it does... Try to sacrifice a goat in public.
>
> i'll get my butcher to do this for me.
That's not a real sacrifice.
>
> > > did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
>
> > LMAO, uh-huh... Until you get caught and sent to federal prison.
>
> no, actually taxes are voluntary.
> plain and simply the truth.
Go ahead and tell me then. Have you ever not paid your taxes?
>
> Capone didn't get it for failing to
> file a return, he filed false returns.
>
> filing false returns is a federal offense.
>
> it's called a voluntary tax.
So, have you ever not paid your "voluntary tax?"
And BTW, you ever hear of the charge of "tax evasion?"
> > > > > show me where the demands of the people are to
> > > > > be overridden at the govenment's discretion as
> > > > > if the government itself is not only -not beholden-
> > > > > to the will of the people but that the people become
> > > > > the chattle holdings of the government.
>
> > > > The people elect the government, and that's where their power lies
in.
>
> > > no, you claim that the government
> > > has the right to do as they please.
>
> > Within the boundaries of the constitution.
>
> so now there are boundaries.
>
> this makes "whatever they please" a wrong statement.
No, its whatever they please within boundaries.
>
> > > you claim the government can spend tax
> > > money in whatever manner they see fit.
>
> > Yep. They can. The people will vote others in if they're too offended,
but
> > that takes A LOT. Generally, the government has an enourmous amount of
> > freedom to do what it wants. Far moreso than you.
>
> they are american citizens.
>
> hasn't that dawned on you yet?
Sure. But so what?
>
> > > > At the same time the elected officials have the right to act in the
manner they
> > > > feel is most beneficial to the state regardless of what the
constituency
> > > > thinks.
>
> > > "elected officials" must be citizens.
>
> > > they *are* the constituency.
>
> > They are but a few members of the constituency.
>
> they are citizens, and as such subject
> to the same laws as everyone else.
>
> they are not handing down edicts from
> on high to which they do not pay proper tribute.
So what? But they can raise YOUR taxes. They can remove YOUR protections.
They can pass all sorts of laws which hurt YOU 100X worse than them.
> > > > However, it they fail to change the citizery's
> > > > mind they likely won't get re-elected.
>
> > > they are to represent, not dictate.
>
> > But they do dictate, AND they represent. Funny how that works, isn't
it?
>
> "they" are citizens of the country.
> and as such, are accountable to the laws themselves.
>
> therefore, it is *not* a dictatorial enterprise
> whereby an elite ruling class enacts legislation
> that said class then stands above.
Yes and no. They could stand gas prices at $4.00 a gallon. They get
reimbursed for it anyway. They can ban guns for you, they still have body
guards. They can send you to war, they won't have to go fight.
>
> > > > > i assure you, there are no such provisions
> > > > > that make the citizenry, the property
> > > > > of the govenment.
>
> > > > Who says they are?
>
> > > you say this:
> > > > > > Our government has the right to collect taxes
> > > > > > and use them as they please as long as their use is
> > > > > > not directly against the law.
>
> > > you imply that the "government" is
> > > some disconnected entity that merely
> > > dictates policies to the people.
>
> > I'm saying that the government has a great deal of freedom to do what it
> > wants,
>
> a "great deal of freedom" is not
> the same as "can do whatever it pleases"
Alright, I've said it before, I'll say it again: it can do whatever it
pleases within constitutional boundaries.
>
> you are equivocating now.
>
> i won't go so far as to say you are
> in direct contradiction of previous
> statements, but you are close.
>
> well, actually, "a great deal of freedom"
> is *not* "can do whatever it pleases"
>
> so, let's just say, you contradict yourself here.
Speaking of contradictions: <<i won't go so far as to say you are in
direct contradiction >> followed by <<so, let's just say, you contradict
yourself>>
>
> > regardless of what the people feel. The people are still obliged to
> > follow the nations laws.
>
> these laws _are_ "the will of the people"
Even if the majority disapprove?
As I see it you have far inferior ethics to mine. You think the opposite is
true. Can you prove who is right? Ethics are subjective and change over
time.
> > > > > and some people may view this
> > > > > "research" along the same sort of lines.
> > > > > mind you, *I* have already stated in
> > > > > this bit that some stem cell research
> > > > > doesn't give *me* nightmares.
> > > > > but i can see how it may give
> > > > > many other people nightmares.
>
> > > > Well then you're weird. And war doesn't give people nightmares?
>
> > > so you think we should go into china and
> > > harvest livers and kidneys and hearts cuz
> > > we want them?
>
> > ??? What does this have to do with anything? Embryos aren't sentient,
> > Chinese people are.
>
> sentience doesn't define human life.
Proof?
>
> you can't murder an a-cephalous baby.
>
> that's a baby born with no brain.
> it doesn't even know you exist,
> but it is still protected
> under the law.
How so? Once something is brain-dead its fair game.
>
> > > > > why be rash?
>
> > > > Because lives depend on it.
>
> > > no, people's _comfort_ depends on it.
>
> > No, people's lives.
>
> no, their comfort level.
What, people dying because there's no organ transplant available?
>
> > > you can live with parkinson's and MS
> > > and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
>
> > A) You obviously don't have one of those diseases. I have a sister with
MS.
> > She has the weakest form of MS out there, and yet its already derailed
her
> > life. Don't give me your bullshit Timmy, you're as ignorant as the day
you
> > were born.
>
> and as yet, it hasn't been clearly
> established what constitutes the taking
> of a human life in regards to human embryos.
Sure it has. Its legal to kill a human embryo. My wife and I could make a
hobby of getting pregnant and having abortions.
>
> and not by you, but by people with some
> modicum of standards and ethics, it is hoped.
Timmy, you're no ethical authority. You're just a little pissant who
doesn't know crap about the country or world that his mother had the
misfortune of bringing him into.
>
> so, you may end upe suggesting that
> one murder is a suitable option to
> re-invigorate the life of another.
>
That statement proves yet another time that you are in fact an idiot.
>
> > B) Two words: organ donors. Its the goal that one day, combined with
> > theraputic cloning we'll be able to grow organs to replace our old ones.
>
> study rats.
>
> if you can demonstrate this sort of
> thing with rats, that would be a place
> to start, and if you can never demonstrate
> this with rats, then it ain't gunna happen anyway.
A) Israeli researchers just recently had stem cells turn into cardiac cells
B) How can they demonstrate on rats if they have little access to stem
cells?
> maybe by the time the rat work is
> accomplished, stem cells from places
> other than human embryos will be more
> suitable than they seem to be at this time.
>
> i.e. placentas and adult stem cells.
Out of fascination, and what would that do? So, embryos and fetuses will be
THROWN IN THE TRASH rather than used for stem cells. How would this help
anyone?
<snip>
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > Jon...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > *plonk*
> > anytime you want to defend your case, feel free to try.
> Its hard to defend one's case to an IDIOT who can't follow your logic.
then you show him how.
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > > > first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
> > > > and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
> > > > the two are not the same, and basically
> > > > settles that issue from where i stand.
> > > > they can't simply do whatever they please.
> > > I never said they could, I said within constitutional restraints.
> > you said; "can do whatever it pleases"
> > and then you said; "has a great deal of freedom"
> > so, if you agree, as should be obvious,
> > that "within constitutional restraints" is
> > tantamount to "according to the will of the people"
> > then that particular issue is clear.
> No I do not agree on that because that is just plain wrong. Within
> constitutional restraints means that there are only certain decisions they
> can adopt.
then they can't do "whatever they please"
and you agree that you are wrong to say so.
"only certain decisions" is *not* "whatever they please."
try not contradicting yourself
and claiming that you aren't.
your pals will laugh at you behind your back.
i'll do it to you to your face.
ha ha.
> Realistically, Bush could have banned fed funds for stem cell
> research despite the fact that a vast majority support it and for the time
> being there's nothing anyone could do about it.
a vast majority is against making
rash decisions concerning this.
this action is not even remotely
representative of a dictatorial authority.
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote in message...
> > > I thought the basis of your argument was the protection of people's
> > > religious freedom?
> > actually, it is not firmly established
> > as to the nature of the destruction
> > of these embryos, and a rather large portion
> > of the population seems to feel that
> > it borders on murder.
> So what?
wait, friends of jeff, he gets better later.
> > whether you allow yourself to see this is irrelevant.
> > if it is a murder, then the state
> > already has laws against such acts.
> But it doesn't you ninny... Otherwise you could mount a legal challenge,
> which you can't.
don't *ever* say that someone
cannot mount a legal challenge.
you'll get at least half a dozen lawyers crawling
out of the woodwork just to prove you wrong.
i promise you this.
> > and as far as "sentience" goes, there
> > are people in vegetative states that
> > are actually protected by the same sort
> > of laws against murder even though
> > they are unaware of such a protection.
> Actually, the family can choose to disconnect them at any point.
and if you walk up and kick out the plug,
you will be charged with murder
in the first degree.
they don't know you exist and
yet they still have rights.
> > so, "sentience" is not a firm
> > enough establishment of "life"
> Yes it is. Otherwise, one is at the mercy of the family or the state.
vegetative human beings are
considered alive and human,
they have rights.
you are wrong.
> > > In terms of doing things a minority just doesn't like,
> > > that happens all the time.
> > i didn't say people opposed to
> > embryo destruction were a minority.
> But they are.
cuz you say so
> > and i know that laws against
> > murder are not subject to question.
> Muder is illegal killing. Destroying embryos and fetuses is not illegal.
> PERIOD. So don't give me this BS unless you can PROVE that it is illegal.
you will suggest later that "ethics"
and "laws" have ways of changing.
there are people that consider your examples murder.
should they exert a strong voice, the laws may change.
that was part of the original statement of the problem.
the government is not a dictatorial authority
and the people have a right to redress of grievances.
and in that respect, the issue
is not "settled forever" just yet.
may never be.
> > so, fundamentally, a clear decision
> > must be made as to the nature of human life.
> > and your concerns that "sentience"
> > defines human life are unfounded
> > for the reason outlined above.
> > vegetative and unaware human beings
> > are still considered alive
> > and protected by the law.
> Fetuses, embryo, sperm, egg are not and are not.
you may hang yourself, as it
can be demonstrated that fetuses
are, in fact, "sentient".
they are aware of their
surroundings and respond
to stimuli.
now, define human life.
you have defined human life as "sentient life"
human fetuses are, in fact, sentient and
respond to stimuli, and therefore the
premature taking of that life is
the same as a murder.
in your opinion.
> > no, these representatives are citizens,
> > and as such are accountable to
> > the laws they enact.
> ??? What BS argument is this? So they're citizens. They have the power to
> enforce their rules on the other citizens.
they are given authority buy the people,
they do not possess dictatorial power.
plain and simple.
> > > Yes, it absolutely does. Bush could have (and still could) raised taxes
> > > just as quickly as he lowered them. And YOU would have to pay them whether
> > > you like to or not. Jonjonz@aol also gave you some examples.
> > then you have the same problem of not
> > being able to distinguish between legislative
> > enactment and law enforcement.
> ??? Have you ever gone to a "special school?"
as is true of most of your statements,
they are not properly formulated arguments,
and represent the bluster of an infantile
mentallity palming itself off as a would be logician.
i generally won't waste my time
pointing this out, but on occasion,
i will.
> > you people are still having this trouble
> > distinguishing between legislative
> > enactment and law enforecement.
> > law enforecement is an enforcing
> > of the will of the people,
> No you ninny, law enforcement is enforcing laws that are passed.
and these laws represent the will of the people.
QED
> Otherwise many KKK marchers would be gunned down
> by law enforcement rather than protected by them.
it isn't the will of the people to have
the police gunning down people who are
not presenting a threat to life and limb.
i.e. it is not the will of the people to
murder people who have unpopular points
of view or skin colors or religions
or who happen to wear funny clothes.
go ahead, make my day.
you show yourself in error
with your own, [tuh] "arguments".
> > > Supposedly and in theory. In reality, its only indirectly so.
> > congress is accountable to the people.
> > and they *are* "the people"
> You bet they are, and the rest of the people have to obey the rules they
> set. Even you Timmy.
so, then, i'm right, good for
you to see that clearly.
and "they" get governing authority
thru the "consent of the governed."
in any case, i'm not going to be the
source of any aborted fetuses whether
or not the governemt says they will
turn their faces the other way
if i want to do so.
it's a terrible choice in birth control
and a major league poor choice
in general conduct.
but what is at issue here, is a majority
of near majority opinion that the destruction
of human embryos is immoral and unethical.
*not* the views of some fringe minority.
> > the executuve branch has a limited authority
> > to command troops for certain aspects
> > of national security.
> Like Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, Panama, and Yugoslavia?!
you can read, hooray for you.
yes, exactly like those.
> > > > so, the government has no "rights"
> > > > except those granted by the people,
> > > > and not the other way around.
> > > Totally incorrect. The government has the rights granted by the
> > > constitution.
> > preamble to that document says this;
> > "we the people..."
> > totally correct.
> > you stand corrected.
> You stand a buffoon. Try taking that to a court challenge.
so, you bluster more in lieu of a simple
acceptance that the constitution which you
call the law of the land and the authority
whereby the governors derive their consent to govern,
is "the will of the people"
and you insert this "buffoon" comment
instead of an actual argument.
good for you, show that
aptitude to your pals.
> > > The people have only the rights granted by that same
> > > document,
> > that same document which takes
> > it's authority from "we the people"
> In theory. In practice they dictate laws to the people.
come to washington, follow a page around,
maybe you'll learn a thing or two.
cuz you definitely didn't pick
that up in civics class.
you know absolutely nothing of party machinery
or anything else concerning the process
of american governance.
> > > and those granted by the government. But here's the catch, the
> > > government can CHANGE both the constitution and the people's rights. Its
> > > done this many times.
> > that's no catch, it's duly authorized by "we the people"
> Insofar as there are elections. Other than that...
good lord, do you read yourself?
look, one of the main things senators
and representaives like to do, is guess what?
they just *love* to get an appropriation
of funding for civil projects in
their home states.
or did you think they really just line
their big d.c. mansions with $100 bills?
they are always on the phone to "home"
doing stuff that will benefit "home"
i.e. they "represent" ..... "home"
they don't just come to d.c. and
spend all their times having duck dinners.
you are incredibly misinformed.
> > > But the point is that congress can decide whatever the hell it wants.
> > congress is made up of citizens, by definition.
> > they are accountable to the laws they enact.
> So what? They pass laws that YOU have to obey.
and more often than not, they are proposing
bills that people in their home districts ask of them.
and bills that will benefit the people
in their home districts and people in general.
> If you don't obey THEIR
> laws you get thrown in prison. Enjoy!
*their* laws are *our* laws.
> > > We funded Saddam Hussien, the Taliban, and many others. In reality, we have
> > > the right to fund whatever we want.
> > which is why there are people looking over their shoulders.
> Whose?
wow, you really need a civics lesson.
ever hear of "freedom of the press?"
guess why this is a guaranteed right of the people.
the press is not out their to exclusively
bring you the latest sports statistics,
the press is out there to look
over the government's shoulders for *you*
*that* is their primary function in american society.
e----gad.
> > > Oh, except organized religion in our
> > > borders, and descriminatory agencies.
> > organized religion doesn't want their funding.
> Yes they do.
no they don't.
the most adamant proponents of the
the governemnt staying out of the
church's hair is the church.
to suggest otherwise simply is a further
demonstration of your mind bogglingly
maladjusted attitudes on american society.
> > > > and they are represented by the federal government.
> > > Yep. And they are a minority.
> > who? religious people?
> Nope, fundies. Most religious people are of the lukewarm variety. As in,
> think you're an unsalted nut.
God is my life.
not ashamed to admit that nor will i
be the one to deny the Christ publicly.
> > i doubt this.
> Doubt whatever you like. Won't change fact.
i think *your* statements on demographics,
are a fiction of your own creation.
in fact, i'm sure of it.
> > > > > By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
> > > > sure it does, it always has had a
> > > > tie with a deity, even from the onset.
> > > Really? Then perhaps you'd care to show me the mention of God in our
> > > constitution, the nation's ruling document, the basis for all of our nation.
> > that's what "religion" means,
> > a "tie with a deity"
> > that should be sufficient.
> Since its not in our constitution its not near sufficient Timmy.
"the congress shall make no laws
concerning the free exercise of religion"
that is taken from the constitution.
> > > > no founder of this nation ever contended
> > > > that a totally secular atheist society
> > > > was even a plausible alternative.
> > > Its not the governments job to promote any sort of religious view or lack
> > > thereof in our society.
> > nobody is asking the state to promote religion.
> That's a lie. No one wants to ban abortion, porn, sex-ed, etc.?
these things are viewed as destructive to society.
it's not a promotion of any particular
religion or even religion in general.
> No one wants abstinence only sex ed,
i'll bet you can find some atheists who
don't particularly want the public schools
teaching their children how to
perform various sex acts.
an understanding of the sexual apparatus
is quite sufficient without ever encouraging
children to experiemnt with sex prematurely.
> the restriction of birth control to married couples (I kid you not),
and is the federal government running to take action on this?
> prayer in school, etc.?
it has never been illlegal for a child to pray in school.
> > > Within reason... But a teacher still can't affirm her love for Jeezus
> > > during school hours.
> > she can wear a cross if she wants.
> Within reason. There's a point where it becomes "inappropriate."
she can wear a cross if she wants.
> > > > > In the constitution, no.
> > > > yes, they have the right to
> > > > freely express that tie to deity.
> > > > and the state may not expressly
> > > > tell them *how* to express that tie.
> > > But it does... Try to sacrifice a goat in public.
> > i'll get my butcher to do this for me.
> That's not a real sacrifice.
it most certainly is.
priests generally took care of this sort of thing.
not just anyone who had an urgent desire to hack up a goat.
my butcher, my preist, same difference.
you look sort of like a goat,
do you enjoy being sacrificed
on the altar of your lax mentallity?
> > > > did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
> > > LMAO, uh-huh... Until you get caught and sent to federal prison.
> > no, actually taxes are voluntary.
> > plain and simply the truth.
> Go ahead and tell me then. Have you ever not paid your taxes?
i'm poor.
i don't owe any taxes.
> > so now there are boundaries.
> > this makes "whatever they please" a wrong statement.
> No, its whatever they please within boundaries.
this is a self contradictory statement.
"whatever they please" speaks of no boundaries.
"within boundaries" speaks of boundaries.
self contradiction.
sorry charlie.
> > > > you claim the government can spend tax
> > > > money in whatever manner they see fit.
> > > Yep. They can. The people will vote others in if they're too offended, but
> > > that takes A LOT. Generally, the government has an enourmous amount of
> > > freedom to do what it wants. Far moreso than you.
> > they are american citizens.
> > hasn't that dawned on you yet?
> > to the same laws as everyone else.
> > they are not handing down edicts from
> > on high to which they do not pay proper tribute.
> So what? But they can raise YOUR taxes. They can remove YOUR protections.
> They can pass all sorts of laws which hurt YOU 100X worse than them.
they take an oath to preserve and protect the constitution.
do you suggest that they take such an oath in vain?
speaks poorly of *your* ethics.
wouldn;'t want *you* as a senator.
> > therefore, it is *not* a dictatorial enterprise
> > whereby an elite ruling class enacts legislation
> > that said class then stands above.
> Yes and no. They could stand gas prices at $4.00 a gallon. They get
> reimbursed for it anyway.
*they* get paid all of 120 grand a year,
for a job that any CEO in the private sector
would be getting millions and fringe benefits as well.
so, when you say, "they will get reimbursed for it"
you imply they spend their days
lining their pockets with taxpayer money.
not exactly, they spend their days
lining the home constituencies with taxpayer money.
and seeing the the home constituency
pays sizable bits of tax, that's
probably where it should go.
with *some* reapportionment of funds to the poorer states.
but to make a decent and consistent
highway system, federal oversight
makes perfectly good sense.
otherwise you get good highways in
california and crappy ones in missisippi
and truck can't push their merchandise
across state boundaries without troublesome antics.
learning anything about your governemnt?
i realize you have a thick skull,
but i bet some of this seeps in.
> They can ban guns for you, they still have body guards.
you mean the Capitol police department?
some people think the Capitol is a sacred place.
maybe you would too if you took your head out of the sand.
> They can send you to war, they won't have to go fight.
it's a volunteer army.
> > > I'm saying that the government has a great deal of freedom to do what it
> > > wants,
> > a "great deal of freedom" is not
> > the same as "can do whatever it pleases"
> Alright, I've said it before, I'll say it again: it can do whatever it
> pleases within constitutional boundaries.
that's a nonsense statement with zero meaning.
good for you, show your aptitude off to your own crowd.
these "boundaries" are a checkerboard,
not a big circle they can goof off inside of.
given constitutional boundaries,
they exactly and specifically can *not*
do whatever it is that pleases them.
that is a pure nonsense statement.
say it adozen times, it will be
nonsense each time you reinvent it.
> > you are equivocating now.
> > i won't go so far as to say you are
> > in direct contradiction of previous
> > statements, but you are close.
> > well, actually, "a great deal of freedom"
> > is *not* "can do whatever it pleases"
> > so, let's just say, you contradict yourself here.
> Speaking of contradictions: <<i won't go so far as to say you are in
> direct contradiction >> followed by <<so, let's just say, you contradict
> yourself>>
i was being kind, at first, and then i decided
to show you how much of an inconsistent person you are.
doesn't speak well of your ethical standards either.
> > > > so you think we should go into china and
> > > > harvest livers and kidneys and hearts cuz
> > > > we want them?
> > > ??? What does this have to do with anything? Embryos aren't sentient,
> > > Chinese people are.
> > sentience doesn't define human life.
> Proof?
comatose people are not sentient, yet they are
alive and they are human, therefore sentience
does not define human life.
*but* a human fetus, in the womb, *is* sentient.
so, now, redefine human life or
agree that abortion is a murder.
> > you can't murder an a-cephalous baby.
> > that's a baby born with no brain.
> > it doesn't even know you exist,
> > but it is still protected
> > under the law.
> How so? Once something is brain-dead its fair game.
no, this is an a-cephalous child, it has no cortex,
it is functionally vegetative and yet it
is protected as any human being.
it doesn't know you exist, therefore
not "sentient" and yet is a human life.
> > > > > > why be rash?
> > > > > Because lives depend on it.
> > > > no, people's _comfort_ depends on it.
> > > No, people's lives.
> > no, their comfort level.
> What, people dying because there's no organ transplant available?
this is no promise of stem cell research.
no one will ever grow a heart in a jar.
if you think that is a remote possibility,
you are misguided.
> > > > you can live with parkinson's and MS
> > > > and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
> > > A) You obviously don't have one of those diseases. I have a sister with MS.
> > > She has the weakest form of MS out there, and yet its already derailed her
> > > life. Don't give me your bullshit Timmy, you're as ignorant as the day you
> > > were born.
> > and as yet, it hasn't been clearly
> > established what constitutes the taking
> > of a human life in regards to human embryos.
> Sure it has. Its legal to kill a human embryo. My wife and I could make a
> hobby of getting pregnant and having abortions.
that's a privacy concern, the government
merely chooses to look the other way.
butm that could change.
and should definitely be changed to
prevent people like you from doing
a grave disservice to yourself,
and disrespecting yourselves so utterly
that you seem to wish to cede away your
own right to make selfish decisions.
abortion is *not* some little game that is a big joke.
i can see a very small percentage of cases
where this action is warranted, life
of the mother is one,
but otherwise, as a method of birth contol,
it is a wholly reprehensible and despicably
abominable crime against humanity.
> > and not by you, but by people with some
> > modicum of standards and ethics, it is hoped.
> Timmy, you're no ethical authority. You're just a little pissant who
> doesn't know crap about the country or world that his mother had the
> misfortune of bringing him into.
this isn't a well formulated argument.
in fact, it's fallacious reasoning.
but it *is* a good and apt
demonstration of your aptitude.
a very poor display, in deed and in truth.
> > so, you may end upe suggesting that
> > one murder is a suitable option to
> > re-invigorate the life of another.
> That statement proves yet another time that you are in fact an idiot.
this is not a well formulated argument.
this is more bluster from a
purveyor of irrational ideations.
> > > B) Two words: organ donors. Its the goal that one day, combined with
> > > theraputic cloning we'll be able to grow organs to replace our old ones.
> > study rats.
> > if you can demonstrate this sort of
> > thing with rats, that would be a place
> > to start, and if you can never demonstrate
> > this with rats, then it ain't gunna happen anyway.
> A) Israeli researchers just recently had stem cells turn into cardiac cells
they aren't growing hearts in jars.
*but* things don't just "turn in to" something they are not.
it must have been a purposefully initiated experimental procedure.
you make it sound like a magic.
par for you, as you have already thoroughly
demonstrated your lack of rigorous mental accuity.
> B) How can they demonstrate on rats if they have little access to stem
> cells?
<cough> look, person named jeff,
rats have embryos too, or hadn't you suspected that?
you can make a fertillized rat embryo,
and study the workings of rat stem cells.
*that* is the general progression.
if "they" can cure a rat with diabetes,
with rat stem cells, or a rat with parkinson's
with rat stem cells, then they may be able
to make a better case for the use of human
stem cells to cure human disease.
ok charlie?
*that* would be a careful non-hasty
way of approaching this thing.
> > maybe by the time the rat work is
> > accomplished, stem cells from places
> > other than human embryos will be more
> > suitable than they seem to be at this time.
> > i.e. placentas and adult stem cells.
> Out of fascination, and what would that do?
these are common cells and you wouldn't have
to step on the toes of people who find
embryo destruction a horrid practice.
it would be called something like a compromise.
or hadn't that ever dawed on your either?
cuz as it appears, the only interest you have
in the entire enterprise is the fact that this
*may* be able to make some christians unhappy.
and you are all for anything that may make christians unhappy.
> So, embryos and fetuses will be THROWN IN THE TRASH
> rather than used for stem cells. How would this help
> anyone?
well, it's all very nice how you show your
callous disregard a sentient life being
thrown in the waste basket.
remember, "sentience" is your definition
of human life, and human fetuses are quite
sentient and respond to all manner of stimuli.
*you* advocate a murder according
to your very own criterion.
as far as frozen embryos are concerned,
no one is suggesting that they ever be tossed in the trash.
liquid nitrogen isn't that expensive
and maintaing this sort of apparatus.
some people might want to give
them a decent burial, who knows?
believe me, i realize that spontaeous
early term abortions occur all the time.
but that isn't someone willfully flushing
a potential human down the toilet,
it just happens naturally sometimes.
and some people, in fact, a lot of
people do actually care about this,
and for you to sit there in your
easy chair and say their concerns
are to be pushed aside because you
hate christians, is an
utterly bogus attitude.
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
>
> > > Jeff wrote:
>
> > > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
>
> > > > > first you say, "government can do whatever it pleases"
> > > > > and then you say, "government has a great deal of freedon"
>
> > > > > the two are not the same, and basically
> > > > > settles that issue from where i stand.
> > > > > they can't simply do whatever they please.
>
> > > > I never said they could, I said within constitutional restraints.
>
> > > you said; "can do whatever it pleases"
> > > and then you said; "has a great deal of freedom"
>
> > > so, if you agree, as should be obvious,
> > > that "within constitutional restraints" is
> > > tantamount to "according to the will of the people"
> > > then that particular issue is clear.
>
> > No I do not agree on that because that is just plain wrong. Within
> > constitutional restraints means that there are only certain decisions
they
> > can adopt.
>
> then they can't do "whatever they please"
> and you agree that you are wrong to say so.
I said AGAIN whatever they please within constitutional boundaries. That
doesn't equal to that which the people want.
>
> "only certain decisions" is *not* "whatever they please."
>
> try not contradicting yourself
> and claiming that you aren't.
>
> your pals will laugh at you behind your back.
>
> i'll do it to you to your face.
>
> ha ha.
>
> > Realistically, Bush could have banned fed funds for stem cell
> > research despite the fact that a vast majority support it and for the
time
> > being there's nothing anyone could do about it.
>
> a vast majority is against making
> rash decisions concerning this.
>
> this action is not even remotely
> representative of a dictatorial authority.
My point is that he could have decided exactly the opposite and you STILL
would have to live with it.
Jeff
Jeff®¤(accept no substitutions)¤
"Timothy Sutter" <tim_s...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3B75CF84...@yahoo.com...
> Jeff wrote:
<snip>
> > > if it is a murder, then the state
> > > already has laws against such acts.
>
> > But it doesn't you ninny... Otherwise you could mount a legal
challenge,
> > which you can't.
>
> don't *ever* say that someone
> cannot mount a legal challenge.
>
> you'll get at least half a dozen lawyers crawling
> out of the woodwork just to prove you wrong.
>
> i promise you this.
>
So prove me wrong.
> > > and as far as "sentience" goes, there
> > > are people in vegetative states that
> > > are actually protected by the same sort
> > > of laws against murder even though
> > > they are unaware of such a protection.
>
> > Actually, the family can choose to disconnect them at any point.
>
> and if you walk up and kick out the plug,
> you will be charged with murder
> in the first degree.
Perhaps, but realize that this is only because we arbitrarily choose in
those circumstances when we declare someone dead. The person can be killed
at any moment by doctors, but not by an unauthorized stranger.
> they don't know you exist and
> yet they still have rights.
Which can be terminated at any moment by the decision of another.
> > > so, "sentience" is not a firm
> > > enough establishment of "life"
>
> > Yes it is. Otherwise, one is at the mercy of the family or the state.
>
> vegetative human beings are
> considered alive and human,
> they have rights.
Not really. The family at any moment can shut them off. A person's family
can't otherwise just kill them.
>
> you are wrong.
No I'm not.
> > > > In terms of doing things a minority just doesn't like,
> > > > that happens all the time.
>
> > > i didn't say people opposed to
> > > embryo destruction were a minority.
>
> > But they are.
>
> cuz you say so
Polls say so.
>
> > > and i know that laws against
> > > murder are not subject to question.
>
> > Muder is illegal killing. Destroying embryos and fetuses is not
illegal.
> > PERIOD. So don't give me this BS unless you can PROVE that it is
illegal.
>
> you will suggest later that "ethics"
> and "laws" have ways of changing.
I've stated that before.
>
> there are people that consider your examples murder.
> should they exert a strong voice, the laws may change.
Murder is illegal killing. People can feel something should be murder, but
until the killing has been outlawed its not murder.
>
> that was part of the original statement of the problem.
>
> the government is not a dictatorial authority
> and the people have a right to redress of grievances.
Through the electoral process, nothing more.
>
> and in that respect, the issue
> is not "settled forever" just yet.
>
> may never be.
>
> > > so, fundamentally, a clear decision
> > > must be made as to the nature of human life.
>
> > > and your concerns that "sentience"
> > > defines human life are unfounded
> > > for the reason outlined above.
>
> > > vegetative and unaware human beings
> > > are still considered alive
> > > and protected by the law.
>
> > Fetuses, embryo, sperm, egg are not and are not.
>
> you may hang yourself, as it
> can be demonstrated that fetuses
> are, in fact, "sentient".
>
> they are aware of their
> surroundings and respond
> to stimuli.
Aware in a concious manner, in a human manner? An ant has basic sentience,
but we're talking about human sentience. Human rights require that the
person be a person, not an ant or on the level thereof.
>
> now, define human life.
>
> you have defined human life as "sentient life"
No I haven't. Ants have a level of sentience as well.
> human fetuses are, in fact, sentient and
> respond to stimuli, and therefore the
> premature taking of that life is
> the same as a murder.
>
> in your opinion.
<*sigh*> don't presume to tell me my opinion Timmy.
>
> > > no, these representatives are citizens,
> > > and as such are accountable to
> > > the laws they enact.
>
> > ??? What BS argument is this? So they're citizens. They have the
power to
> > enforce their rules on the other citizens.
>
> they are given authority buy the people,
> they do not possess dictatorial power.
>
> plain and simple.
At the same time they may even pass unpopular decrees and people will have
to obey them.
>
> > > > Yes, it absolutely does. Bush could have (and still could) raised
taxes
> > > > just as quickly as he lowered them. And YOU would have to pay them
whether
> > > > you like to or not. Jonjonz@aol also gave you some examples.
>
> > > then you have the same problem of not
> > > being able to distinguish between legislative
> > > enactment and law enforcement.
>
> > ??? Have you ever gone to a "special school?"
>
> as is true of most of your statements,
> they are not properly formulated arguments,
> and represent the bluster of an infantile
> mentallity palming itself off as a would be logician.
>
> i generally won't waste my time
> pointing this out, but on occasion,
> i will
Whatever makes you happy Timmy...
.
>
> > > you people are still having this trouble
> > > distinguishing between legislative
> > > enactment and law enforecement.
>
> > > law enforecement is an enforcing
> > > of the will of the people,
>
> > No you ninny, law enforcement is enforcing laws that are passed.
>
> and these laws represent the will of the people.
To some indirect extent.
>
> QED
>
> > Otherwise many KKK marchers would be gunned down
> > by law enforcement rather than protected by them.
>
> it isn't the will of the people to have
> the police gunning down people who are
> not presenting a threat to life and limb.
>
> i.e. it is not the will of the people to
> murder people who have unpopular points
> of view or skin colors or religions
> or who happen to wear funny clothes.
And if it were? So what?
>
> go ahead, make my day.
>
> you show yourself in error
> with your own, [tuh] "arguments".
>
> > > > Supposedly and in theory. In reality, its only indirectly so.
>
> > > congress is accountable to the people.
> > > and they *are* "the people"
>
> > You bet they are, and the rest of the people have to obey the rules they
> > set. Even you Timmy.
>
> so, then, i'm right, good for
> you to see that clearly.
>
> and "they" get governing authority
> thru the "consent of the governed."
>
> in any case, i'm not going to be the
> source of any aborted fetuses
That's the woman's choice, not yours. Any woman you're with can abort, and
there's nothing you can do about it.
And your money may well be spent in that direction. In fact, it already
is...
> whether
> or not the governemt says they will
> turn their faces the other way
> if i want to do so.
>
> it's a terrible choice in birth control
> and a major league poor choice
> in general conduct.
>
> but what is at issue here, is a majority
> of near majority opinion that the destruction
> of human embryos is immoral and unethical.
>
> *not* the views of some fringe minority.
Sure it is Timmy. Most people prefer less restrictions for the research
Timmy, not more.
> > > the executuve branch has a limited authority
> > > to command troops for certain aspects
> > > of national security.
>
> > Like Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War, Panama, and Yugoslavia?!
>
> you can read, hooray for you.
> yes, exactly like those.
If those are limited then I'm not sure what isn't...
A in AP government actually.
>
> you know absolutely nothing of party machinery
> or anything else concerning the process
> of american governance.
Yes I do, which is why you won't see me making such niave statements.
>
> > > > and those granted by the government. But here's the catch, the
> > > > government can CHANGE both the constitution and the people's rights.
Its
> > > > done this many times.
>
> > > that's no catch, it's duly authorized by "we the people"
>
> > Insofar as there are elections. Other than that...
>
> good lord, do you read yourself?
>
> look, one of the main things senators
> and representaives like to do, is guess what?
>
> they just *love* to get an appropriation
> of funding for civil projects in
> their home states.
>
> or did you think they really just line
> their big d.c. mansions with $100 bills?
>
> they are always on the phone to "home"
> doing stuff that will benefit "home"
>
> i.e. they "represent" ..... "home"
Yeah, and hence they work to get reelected. But on the issues they can vote
completely opposite to what the people of their home believe in. Generally,
they don't so much that they won't get reelected, but... In general, the
democrats tend to vote more liberal than their voting districts, the
republicans more conservative. People have only 2 choices, so...
>
> they don't just come to d.c. and
> spend all their times having duck dinners.
>
> you are incredibly misinformed.
>
> > > > But the point is that congress can decide whatever the hell it
wants.
>
> > > congress is made up of citizens, by definition.
> > > they are accountable to the laws they enact.
>
> > So what? They pass laws that YOU have to obey.
>
> and more often than not, they are proposing
> bills that people in their home districts ask of them.
>
> and bills that will benefit the people
> in their home districts and people in general.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes their bills will destroy the freedom
of others.
>
> > If you don't obey THEIR
> > laws you get thrown in prison. Enjoy!
>
> *their* laws are *our* laws.
>
> > > > We funded Saddam Hussien, the Taliban, and many others. In reality,
we have
> > > > the right to fund whatever we want.
>
> > > which is why there are people looking over their shoulders.
>
> > Whose?
>
> wow, you really need a civics lesson.
>
> ever hear of "freedom of the press?"
This is there whether we give them money or not.
> guess why this is a guaranteed right of the people.
>
> the press is not out their to exclusively
> bring you the latest sports statistics,
>
> the press is out there to look
> over the government's shoulders for *you*
Actually, no, the press is self serving as well. They're out there to sell
papers. This is why Monica Lewinsky and OJ Simpson consistently made front
page while "minor" things like international politics took a back burner.
>
> *that* is their primary function in american society.
>
> e----gad.
>
> > > > Oh, except organized religion in our
> > > > borders, and descriminatory agencies.
>
> > > organized religion doesn't want their funding.
>
> > Yes they do.
>
> no they don't.
>
> the most adamant proponents of the
> the governemnt staying out of the
> church's hair is the church.
>
> to suggest otherwise simply is a further
> demonstration of your mind bogglingly
> maladjusted attitudes on american society.
LMAO, so why aren't they fighting Bush's faith based initiative?
> > > > > and they are represented by the federal government.
>
> > > > Yep. And they are a minority.
>
> > > who? religious people?
>
> > Nope, fundies. Most religious people are of the lukewarm variety. As
in,
> > think you're an unsalted nut.
>
> God is my life.
Unsalted nut.
>
> not ashamed to admit that nor will i
> be the one to deny the Christ publicly.
No one is asking you to.
>
> > > i doubt this.
>
> > Doubt whatever you like. Won't change fact.
>
> i think *your* statements on demographics,
> are a fiction of your own creation.
>
> in fact, i'm sure of it.
No they aren't. I'm sure of it.
>
> > > > > > By definition, America doesn't have a religion.
>
> > > > > sure it does, it always has had a
> > > > > tie with a deity, even from the onset.
>
> > > > Really? Then perhaps you'd care to show me the mention of God in
our
> > > > constitution, the nation's ruling document, the basis for all of our
nation.
>
> > > that's what "religion" means,
>
> > > a "tie with a deity"
>
> > > that should be sufficient.
>
> > Since its not in our constitution its not near sufficient Timmy.
>
> "the congress shall make no laws
> concerning the free exercise of religion"
>
> that is taken from the constitution.
No it isn't. You're paraphrasing. Here's the actual quote: <<Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof;>>
Before you challenge me on that, here's the link:
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
#amendmenti
>
> > > > > no founder of this nation ever contended
> > > > > that a totally secular atheist society
> > > > > was even a plausible alternative.
>
> > > > Its not the governments job to promote any sort of religious view or
lack
> > > > thereof in our society.
>
> > > nobody is asking the state to promote religion.
>
> > That's a lie. No one wants to ban abortion, porn, sex-ed, etc.?
>
> these things are viewed as destructive to society.
>
Insofar as they are against people's religion.
> it's not a promotion of any particular
> religion or even religion in general.
Sure it is. Religion is the principle reason why these things are seen as
evil, and banning them is essentially a reinforcement of religion in
America. If Islam was the main religion here the "religious right" would be
actively working to ban pork and alcohol, also because its "harmful" to our
society.
>
> > No one wants abstinence only sex ed,
>
> i'll bet you can find some atheists who
> don't particularly want the public schools
> teaching their children how to
> perform various sex acts.
This is an interesting sex ed class. Did I miss that day?
>
> an understanding of the sexual apparatus
> is quite sufficient without ever encouraging
> children to experiemnt with sex prematurely.
Abstinence only education does NOT teach about birth control, it teaches
that ONLY abstinence is acceptable. Period. The push for this is almost
exclusively religious.
>
> > the restriction of birth control to married couples (I kid you not),
>
> and is the federal government running to take action on this?
Not YET.
>
> > prayer in school, etc.?
>
> it has never been illlegal for a child to pray in school.
True, but I'm referring to "student led" prayer over the loudspeaker every
morning. Posting the 10 commandments. Etc.
>
> > > > Within reason... But a teacher still can't affirm her love for
Jeezus
> > > > during school hours.
>
> > > she can wear a cross if she wants.
>
> > Within reason. There's a point where it becomes "inappropriate."
>
> she can wear a cross if she wants.
See above.
>
> > > > > > In the constitution, no.
>
> > > > > yes, they have the right to
> > > > > freely express that tie to deity.
> > > > > and the state may not expressly
> > > > > tell them *how* to express that tie.
>
> > > > But it does... Try to sacrifice a goat in public.
>
> > > i'll get my butcher to do this for me.
>
> > That's not a real sacrifice.
>
> it most certainly is.
>
> priests generally took care of this sort of thing.
>
> not just anyone who had an urgent desire to hack up a goat.
>
> my butcher, my preist, same difference.
>
> you look sort of like a goat,
> do you enjoy being sacrificed
> on the altar of your lax mentallity?
>
You missed my point and are likely incapable of understanding it.
> > > > > did you know taxes are *voluntary*?
>
> > > > LMAO, uh-huh... Until you get caught and sent to federal prison.
>
> > > no, actually taxes are voluntary.
> > > plain and simply the truth.
>
> > Go ahead and tell me then. Have you ever not paid your taxes?
>
> i'm poor.
>
> i don't owe any taxes.
Fair enough. But you pay sales tax. Try refusing to pay your sales tax.
>
> > > so now there are boundaries.
> > > this makes "whatever they please" a wrong statement.
>
> > No, its whatever they please within boundaries.
>
> this is a self contradictory statement.
>
> "whatever they please" speaks of no boundaries.
> "within boundaries" speaks of boundaries.
>
> self contradiction.
> sorry charlie.
I'm sorry if you can't grasp this simple concept.
>
> > > > > you claim the government can spend tax
> > > > > money in whatever manner they see fit.
>
> > > > Yep. They can. The people will vote others in if they're too
offended, but
> > > > that takes A LOT. Generally, the government has an enourmous amount
of
> > > > freedom to do what it wants. Far moreso than you.
>
> > > they are american citizens.
> > > hasn't that dawned on you yet?
>
> > > to the same laws as everyone else.
>
> > > they are not handing down edicts from
> > > on high to which they do not pay proper tribute.
>
> > So what? But they can raise YOUR taxes. They can remove YOUR
protections.
> > They can pass all sorts of laws which hurt YOU 100X worse than them.
>
> they take an oath to preserve and protect the constitution.
> do you suggest that they take such an oath in vain?
Some do, some don't.
>
> speaks poorly of *your* ethics.
How so?
>
> wouldn;'t want *you* as a senator.
>
> > > therefore, it is *not* a dictatorial enterprise
> > > whereby an elite ruling class enacts legislation
> > > that said class then stands above.
>
> > Yes and no. They could stand gas prices at $4.00 a gallon. They get
> > reimbursed for it anyway.
>
> *they* get paid all of 120 grand a year,
> for a job that any CEO in the private sector
> would be getting millions and fringe benefits as well.
>
> so, when you say, "they will get reimbursed for it"
>
> you imply they spend their days
> lining their pockets with taxpayer money.
No, I don't. I said what I said, which is that they can pass laws that hurt
you far more than them. Period. For example, if they removed tax exemption
for the poor that would hurt you more than them.
<snip a bunch>
> > > > > you can live with parkinson's and MS
> > > > > and diabetes and a broken back alzheimer's.
>
> > > > A) You obviously don't have one of those diseases. I have a sister
with MS.
> > > > She has the weakest form of MS out there, and yet its already
derailed her
> > > > life. Don't give me your bullshit Timmy, you're as ignorant as the
day you
> > > > were born.
>
> > > and as yet, it hasn't been clearly
> > > established what constitutes the taking
> > > of a human life in regards to human embryos.
>
> > Sure it has. Its legal to kill a human embryo. My wife and I could
make a
> > hobby of getting pregnant and having abortions.
>
> that's a privacy concern, the government
> merely chooses to look the other way.
No, the govenment could look and too bad... Nothing they could do. Embryos
are not protected. Period.
>
> butm that could change.
>
> and should definitely be changed to
> prevent people like you from doing
> a grave disservice to yourself,
> and disrespecting yourselves so utterly
> that you seem to wish to cede away your
> own right to make selfish decisions.
???
> abortion is *not* some little game that is a big joke.
>
> i can see a very small percentage of cases
> where this action is warranted, life
> of the mother is one,
>
> but otherwise, as a method of birth contol,
> it is a wholly reprehensible and despicably
> abominable crime against humanity.
LOL! Sure Timmy.
>
> > > and not by you, but by people with some
> > > modicum of standards and ethics, it is hoped.
>
> > Timmy, you're no ethical authority. You're just a little pissant who
> > doesn't know crap about the country or world that his mother had the
> > misfortune of bringing him into.
>
> this isn't a well formulated argument.
> in fact, it's fallacious reasoning.
How so?
LOL, this from a person who believes in a big magical being in the sky that
created everything?
>
> > B) How can they demonstrate on rats if they have little access to stem
> > cells?
>
> <cough> look, person named jeff,
>
> rats have embryos too, or hadn't you suspected that?
>
> you can make a fertillized rat embryo,
> and study the workings of rat stem cells.
>
> *that* is the general progression.
>
> if "they" can cure a rat with diabetes,
> with rat stem cells, or a rat with parkinson's
> with rat stem cells, then they may be able
> to make a better case for the use of human
> stem cells to cure human disease.
>
> ok charlie?
Its been found that many things that easily work in rats don't in humans.
>
> *that* would be a careful non-hasty
> way of approaching this thing.
>
> > > maybe by the time the rat work is
> > > accomplished, stem cells from places
> > > other than human embryos will be more
> > > suitable than they seem to be at this time.
>
> > > i.e. placentas and adult stem cells.
>
> > Out of fascination, and what would that do?
>
> these are common cells and you wouldn't have
> to step on the toes of people who find
> embryo destruction a horrid practice.
>
> it would be called something like a compromise.
>
> or hadn't that ever dawed on your either?
>
> cuz as it appears, the only interest you have
> in the entire enterprise is the fact that this
> *may* be able to make some christians unhappy.
>
> and you are all for anything that may make christians unhappy.
>
> > So, embryos and fetuses will be THROWN IN THE TRASH
> > rather than used for stem cells. How would this help
> > anyone?
>
> well, it's all very nice how you show your
> callous disregard a sentient life being
> thrown in the waste basket.
This is neither here nor there. The fetuses/embryos are DEAD and gone.
What happens to the remains is the question here.
>
> remember, "sentience" is your definition
> of human life, and human fetuses are quite
> sentient and respond to all manner of stimuli.
>
> *you* advocate a murder according
> to your very own criterion.
>
> as far as frozen embryos are concerned,
>
> no one is suggesting that they ever be tossed in the trash.
>
> liquid nitrogen isn't that expensive
> and maintaing this sort of apparatus.
>
> some people might want to give
> them a decent burial, who knows?
>
> believe me, i realize that spontaeous
> early term abortions occur all the time.
>
> but that isn't someone willfully flushing
> a potential human down the toilet,
> it just happens naturally sometimes.
>
> and some people, in fact, a lot of
> people do actually care about this,
> and for you to sit there in your
> easy chair and say their concerns
> are to be pushed aside because you
> hate christians, is an
> utterly bogus attitude.
Who ever said I hate Christians? I just don't like nuts of any religion. I
don't even like atheist nuts.
Jeff
Timothy Sutter
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > > > Jeff wrote:
> > > > > "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
oh, now they aren't "people".
they grow these governors on a special planet
and they aren';t human beings and they aren't
from america and their sole purpose in life is
to exert dictatorial authority over the american population.
come on comedy relief, say something else stoopid.
> > "only certain decisions" is *not* "whatever they please."
> > try not contradicting yourself
> > and claiming that you aren't.
> > your pals will laugh at you behind your back.
> > i'll do it to you to your face.
> > ha ha.
> > > Realistically, Bush could have banned fed funds for stem cell
> > > research despite the fact that a vast majority support it and for the time
> > > being there's nothing anyone could do about it.
> > a vast majority is against making
> > rash decisions concerning this.
> > this action is not even remotely
> > representative of a dictatorial authority.
> My point is that he could have decided exactly the opposite and you STILL
> would have to live with it.
your "point" is that you are a blustery ignoramus
and don't mind demonstrating this in public.
Timothy Sutter
> Brief answers only, I've wasted enough time on you...
aside: this "jeff" person is tired of speaking
from beyond its depth and looking foolish to
anyone who happens to pass this way.
and look what it says about rats showing
it's bredth of knowledge on medical researech.
> "Timothy Sutter" wrote:
> > > B) How can they demonstrate on rats if they have little access to stem
> > > cells?
> > <cough> look, person named jeff,
> > rats have embryos too, or hadn't you suspected that?
> > you can make a fertillized rat embryo,
> > and study the workings of rat stem cells.
> > *that* is the general progression.
> > if "they" can cure a rat with diabetes,
> > with rat stem cells, or a rat with parkinson's
> > with rat stem cells, then they may be able
> > to make a better case for the use of human
> > stem cells to cure human disease.
> > ok charlie?
> Its been found that many things that easily work in rats don't in humans.
QED
aside: this "jeff" person is stooopid and
has no business discussing stem cell research,
or any other sort of sciemtific
discovery for that matter.
this "jeff" person is a blustery ignoramus.
done.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Look in your dictionary, there are MANY meanings for the word "murder"
and not all of them are attached to legality.
Thus the argument that murder is murder only if it is illegal, is both
FALSE, and PISS POOR
Even worse are the knot-heads, like yourself who allow themselves to
be buffaloed by the argument.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
matthew25-jesusjudgment.cityslide.com
Timothy Sutter
> Look in your dictionary, there are MANY meanings for the word "murder"
> and not all of them are attached to legality.
> Thus the argument that murder is murder only if it is illegal, is both
> FALSE, and PISS POOR
--- the word "murder" means more than "illegal killing" ---
--- therefore "all murder is not illegal." ---
this isn't an argument, it's a poorly proposed game.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
<tsu...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Glenn (Christian Mystic) wrote:
>
>> Look in your dictionary, there are MANY meanings for the word "murder"
>> and not all of them are attached to legality.
>
>> Thus the argument that murder is murder only if it is illegal, is both
>> FALSE, and PISS POOR
>
>--- the word "murder" means more than "illegal killing" ---
>--- therefore "all murder is not illegal." ---
>
>this isn't an argument, it's a poorly proposed game.
The idea that in order for a killing to be murder, it must be an
illegal act, is EQUALLY a "poorly proposed game".
For any killing even BELIEVED to be "wrong" is a "murder" in the eyes
of the person believing it to be so.
Only an idiot would let the person claiming that murder "must be taken
as purely a 'legal term'" get away with it. Too bad you are this kind
of loser.
>--
>
> That's nice Timothy Sutter
> http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftBank/2307
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
matthew25-jesusjudgment.cityslide.com