Kind of puts the democrat party on the spot doesn't it? Either speed up the conversion to socialism and destroy the country, or be destroyed. Just looking at the democrats elected and serving in congress tells you how they will go. Too many outright anti-American cowards are now calling themselves democrats and their brain washed followers have their heads up their a**.

Threaten to mess with the drug companies unnecessarly and they announce a layoff of 10,000 +. Great first two weeks.

drawing from three of the lowest forms of life on earth (leftist activists, union thugs, and trial lawyers)

Heh.

Well, the whole process will be greased along by the truly lowest form of life on earth, fiercely partisan journalists with collectivist agendas (who, by the way, dominate their "industry").

Good last point "Scrapiron" - the "Pelosi" breed of democrat thinks they can force a private business enterprise to set their prices according to government decrees or they get no business. When will these politicians learn that 'free trade' means just that, a business in America is free to set the price for a product based on costs to thier business. (including the preliminary research costs before any profit was seen)

How can government handle the extra cost of Rxs on Medicare without having the pharmaceutical industry negotiate their price standards? They can estimate the annual cost of the Rx plan, then figure out how to run the Rx payment in the most cost effective manner (as any private citizen must figure out how to pay the standard monthly bills - without any luxury of getting the businesses they deal with to negotiate a better price) Individuals cut the frivolous expenses in order to pay for THE NECESSARY expense.

That's how capitalism works.

The only thing that amazes me about this piece is the apparent stupefaction of Addison that there are democrats who might not want to be in the center. This from a writer on a blog that glorifies and exalts the extreme right?

Holy cow, what's next?

This from folks who used to worship the very earth upon which Tom "The Hammer" trod. This from people who may apparently already forgotten the lockstep votes of the republicans in the last congress? This shock and awe from folks who supported the party that kept votes open till the necessary votes were rounded up? This amazement from the folks who supported the man who made open threats on the floor of the House to a congressman who didn't want to vote in lockstep? This from the folks who support the party that had a congressman openly pass out lobbyist checks (bribes) to influence votes?

Me thinks your observations are pretty funny Addison.

Hugh, Testify! But extreme right is too risky a place for most of the Wizgang to be, even if it were true. And left vs right is too relative a term, anyway. That's why I use Paul Mulshine's term BUSH-BOTS. It's the only quick way to describe the full-tilt toadying to W's positions that the Regs perform, no matter how un-American those positions might be. That's the allure of the strawman approach here. It's always the nits that are picked; never a "what would Reagan do?" post. That might wake somebody up. And that would not be good for Bush. p.s. Has anyone seen a Habeas Corpus post lately?

Ba writes;

How can government handle the extra cost of Rxs on Medicare without having the pharmaceutical industry negotiate their price standards?
(...without any luxury of getting the businesses they deal with to negotiate a better price) Individuals cut the frivolous expenses in order to pay for THE NECESSARY expense.

That's how capitalism works.

Jesus, what an ignorant dipshit you are. That's not how capitalism works at all.... God, I'm amazed you said that. Did you sleep through your coursework?

Capitalism... Free markets. Something is worth the intersection of the buyers purchase price and the sellers selling price. Other people enter the market to sell when the price gets too high. Prices drop when demand falls.

OK, so it works like this. I come to you as a widget maker and say, "forget the ten buck price per unit. Give me a million units for 5 bucks each." You get economy of scale, and while you get less per unit, you get a huge guarenteed sale, and your profits go up. That's a negotiation for price.

Why the hell do you think people go to wal-mart? Or Costco? Volume pricing. Free markets. Capitalism.

Now, consider the law passed last year under the Republicans. It PROHIBITED the federal government from using it's volume to negotiate a better price. It REQUIRED the federal government to single source at full retail.

Dumbass, if you don't like the price you get at shop A, you go to shop B. But no, we passed a law to make it illegal to do that.

Dumbass, if you go to a car dealership, are you going to take the first offer and purchase at full sticker price? We had a law that REQUIRED that.

Go back to school, idiot.

John, you sure throw around insults easily enough for someone who apparently can't even understand his own words.

Your explanation of capitalism, while skeletal, isn't unreasonable. But then you betray your own lack of comprehension of what a "free market" is by insisting the government could be a fair partner in "negotiations." That's insane. There is no free market when one party to the "negotiations" controls the laws under which transactions occur, has unlimited legal resources, and possesses nuclear weapons.

Any "negotiation" would amount to the government demanding a price with the threat of legislatively enforcing their demand if it isn't agreed to "voluntarily."

That's price fixing and, to see the inevitable result, one need only look at the pharmaceutical industries in those countries which have already engaged in this sort of "negotiation," including Canada and most of Europe. While those countries once were fully competitive in the new drugs their companies produced, they have fallen far behind. The United States has taken an overwhelming lead in the discovery of new medicines and medical devices largely because of the price controls instituted by other major economies.

Those countries have an edge, though. They are only bidding on "end of run" production. The drugs have been researched, developed, tested, patented, and approved in the USA, which accounts for most of the actual cost of production. The raw materials used in producing almost all drugs are of little relative cost. The next million pills, after all the expensive work has been done, cost little more than the raw materials used to produce them, so companies can meet the arbitrary price demands of other countries and still make a profit - IF they have the patent rights for fourteen years in the US.

Democrats gave cartoonists nearly a century of copyright protection, but resent the fourteen years creations of actual use obtain under patent law.

The problem is, unlike Belgium, France, and Canada, if we start fixing drug prices and kill or cripple OUR industry, there is no one else to develop the new drugs.

Nobody forces any American to pay high prices for patented prescription drugs. In almost every case there are cheaper alternatives - older patented drugs or generics. People DEMAND the newer, more expensive drugs from their doctors, and their doctors prescribe them, because they are more effective. Don't you expect to pay more for something that's better?

THAT's how the free market works. Dry up profits for drug companies, and the investment capital dries up with it.

If the socialist medicine crowd only understood how much research on how many new drugs to save or improve how many more lives has been funded by Viagra profits, for example, they wouldn't go bleating about so.

Thanks Jim. You went into more detail than I wished to. But I do fully understand 'one government body' cannot tell an entire industry what price they will pay. That certainly is not support of free market pricing. I like to look at things simply. When I pay my phone bill each month, I really can't go to the phone company and tell them I want a better price for the service I receive. It is 'for me' the consumer, to prepare my budget so that I can pay for the service.

and capitalism is just that, in America individuals who start and grow thier company, can charge the price that meets their expenses for thier business plus profit. And it's not for me
to question how they divide up thier profit.

Government has no right to regulate ANY business.
period.

Jim,

May I suggest you delete posts with uncivil, ad hominem attacks and/or name-calling? And ban those who continue the ugliness?

If you can't REASON civilly, and you run with your EMOTIONS, perhaps you're angry or frightened and are not acknowledging it, let alone dealing with it.

Rick,

Spot on. I am angry. I'm angry about loss of critical thinking skills, and the culture of ignorance that's become standard over the last decade.

Jim Addison makes a compelling and coherent argument. I do disagree with a few points however.

The government does not have a monopoly on drug purchases, nor should it be assumed that the government cannot or should not negotiate. The government can and does negotiate on a daily basis for everything from cheese for school lunches to B1 bombers. My position is that the government should not have been prohibited by law from being able to negotiate a volume discount. This benefits the drug companies short term. (I'm too much of a cynic to think the government is trying to take the long term, 10 year drug cycle view to protect innovation.)

Anyway, government does not have unlimited power over business. Government does not have unlimited power period, for the children of the Magna Carta. Besides, it's generaly considered unethical to nuke our business leaders, no matter how much they deserve it.

Anyway, so Ba has not only slept through economics, but apparently civics as well... For example, we get this dribble;

Government has no right to regulate ANY business. period.

So, I open a oil change business. I could dispose of my greasy rags and recovered oil, but that costs me. So I dump the rags in back in a pile and have a big smokey fire once a week or so and dump a few hundred gallons of oil in the creek every day.

This makes great economic sense.

The problem is it's pushing my costs (for disposal) off onto the people downstream (who have no drinkable water, no fish resources).

It's cost dumping.

One of the reasons we establish government, Ba is to "Provide for the Common Good".

Get an education.

John, I understood Jim's explanation and you did too obviously. And you know what - I did expect you to say what you just said: 'The government can and does negotiate on a daily basis for everything from cheese for school lunches to B1 bombers.' Yes, after I wrote it out, I knew that would come up. Here's where you are confused. So let's clarify. When 'the government body' is BUYING a service from a 'vendor' that government body could be called 'the consumer' (picture one body' representing 'a person' purchasing a contract with a vendor) That's NOT what MEDICARE is. Government is not the consumer - the citizen is. Government is the provider OF the service which the consumer pays in via deductions from social security. The citizen is the buyer (consumer) of a service government provides. Also, the working years of paying in via payroll taxes - for medicare insurance. It's not free. We pay for this coverage. (Rx insurance)

It is for the CONSUMER buying the medication he needs to find the most cost effective agent to sell him what he needs. He can as Jim suggested, ask his doctor for a generic brand, he can ask for older patented drugs that work as well, he can buy his product from a discount retail store with a pharmacy on premises) Where the consumer goes for what he needs for his Rx budget is his business. The consumer is the first to pay this bill. (yes, the government plan pays a percentage of the overall cost - but that cost is indicative of the where the CONSUMER gets the product filled) And the CONSUMER should be careful where
he purchases, because the service providing him
insurance re-payment is giving him via all taxpayer's $$. Yes, John, we should as consumers look out for 'the common good' - because our benefit comes from 'all the citizen's monies.'

Now, you understand? It's not the third party government agency to find you the right price, it's not the third party government to speak for you at the doctor's office. (you as independent adult can do that for yourself) They trust YOU to look out for EVERYONE'S TAX DOLLARS because after all, YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. (something that many seem to forget) Many really believe that government is different than they the citizen. That government is their negotiator. A 'big parent' finding you the best price. No. Not at all. Government is YOU. (confusing I know)

Yes, John, Common Good. That means, you the consumer are in charge of ensuring that YOU find the best price for your budget and THE GOVERNMENT who 'represents' you and 'all the people' who pay taxes. It's not government's job to tell a business what to charge you if you decide to patronize them. It's not for government to tell those who make the product what price they must sell the product at. It MIGHT BE for the druggist buying from the pharmaceutical rep to negotiate a price BASED ON the quantity of the drug he purchases for his store (which is probably how discount stores can sell drugs at a discount, they
buy IN BULK)

it's NOT the job of this government in a free land who merely represents YOU to find you the right price, tell you where to get your medicine, tell the drug companies they can only sell their medicine at this price. It's not for the vendors
to make the government's budget work. That's why the democrat politicians want price fixing with pharmaceutical companies, they don't have to think about making the budget for the necessities first, they merely have to get the one's they PAY OUT TO give them a price that works for them 'as is'

Again I say - when "I" make a budget - I need to
make the budget based on the expenses as I agreed to them. Necessities first before 'luxury.' I can't keep the fun stuff by telling any business I pay to, your price doesn't work with the budget I have, you should only be charging me this amount and then it will all be ok. Now, on the other hand, if I want to change the quantity or quality of the services I buy from THAT vendor - ie: less services from the phone company, or less time logged into my internet service provider, then while my price is lower, it is not by reason of same quality less price to me, it is because I took something a bit less in quantity and quality of the service this vendor is offering.

Ok? we clear now. (we get mixed up on who is the consumer, who is the vendor with the product, and who is PAYING the consumer a percent back, as a
benefit given to citizens. Rx health insurance coverage. The democrat politicians who want to be the negotiator with a drug companies pricing are in effect saying to all America, WE DON'T TRUST you to handle YOUR MONEY - we'll HANDLE IT ALL FOR YOU (in effect - when someone does what YOU can do for yourself, they've taken YOUR FREEDOM and put themselves IN CHARGE OVER YOU and that is NOT what 'we the people' government is about.

Understand John?

Ba,

It's an interesting technical argument, and well spoken. I must respectfully disagree however.

You make a distinction that is not observed in practice. As I mentioned the government does negotiate volume discounts. The asphalt I drove home on was purchased under a volume contract. Is the government the consumer of this thing?

No.... I consent to be governed and I support the government with my tax dollars in exchange for representation and the expectation that I will receive an equatable exchange in goods and services for the things I put into the bargin.

So, I'm actualy the consumer of that asphalt. And my kids school services, complete with cheese and the B1 bombers that circle overhead keeping both of us safe.

So, when you said;

It's not government's job to tell a business what to charge you if you decide to patronize them.

That's not entirly true, is it? It ignores monopoly law, and anti-price gouging legislation. The government does in fact have the authority to set price limits.

This argument also ignores the way Medicare pays service providers. Medicare does publish a price list for services, does it not? If you get an X-ray, and you go to your local emergency room they may charge you $300. Medicare may well say this service should cost $250, and the service provider must adjust their cost.

Anyway, the thought that government has no right to regulate any business, period is one that is not held by any serious economist, nor is true, nor would it be in the common good. What you're advocating is way too close to anarchy for my liking.

I think sometimes we tend to forget all the benefits we get from our government. A government that creates a level playing field where business can compete. A safe banking and trading system that promotes investment. A system of rules and regulations that make commerce predictable.

Yeah, it's cool to forget all that and say "If government just would butt out, everything would be great".

If you go to parts of the world where government does not work, or is non existant, and those rules and regulations are not in place you'll see environmental destruction, corruption, lack of faith of investors, and economic stagnation.

So the part of all this I still don't understand is... since the government DOES negotiate on behalf of all of us, whether it's with the Soviets or for free cheese...

Why is in your direct best interest to have a law that PREVENTS the government from being able to negotiate a volume discount with a drug company?

The government is not constrained from being able to negotiate a volume discount for any other purchase. (and the drug industry as a whole is not in financial trouble).

Thanks

Need more clarification of the term 'we the people' ARE the government, eh John? Sure, no problem. Your first statement you said:

>As I mentioned the government does negotiate volume discounts. The asphalt I drove home on
was purchased under a volume contract. Is the government the consumer of this thing?

Now, mind you I'm not a government purchasing
agent, but common sense tells me:

Streets belong to the taxpaying citizens. Citizens pay thier municipalities property taxes which go for the care of the municipality. These taxes go to such expenses as support the school system,as well as other agencies that care for the community. For local street repair jobs the Department of Public Works in a community get a certain amount of the tax dollars for their needs.
Hiring of employees to do the small road repairs, trim trees, plow snow. Who pays the DPW employees salary? 'we the people.'/The government agency is not the consumer, the governing agency is 'REPRESENTATIVE' of the citizens whose money they are using. As such, they have an obligation to seek out if using a private contrator for major roadwork, that contractor whose PRICE is reasonable and will do a GOOD JOB. The purchasing agent, puts out the call for bids to do the job.
(low bids and crummy work are not cost effective to the taxpaying consumer) Note: the word seek out the best BID for a job. It's for the private contractor to evaluate the job and give HIS FEE for the job. It is for the governing representative (knowledgeable of road repair) to determine which contractor's bid with
quality of materials to be used, man hour to be taken, reputation of contractor best utilizes the taxpaying citizens money. (and I might add, road repair is in budgets, and the government agent must also consider that budget when choosing a contractor) So, more than likely - your government purchasing agent did not buy the asphalt you road home on, but purchased by contract bid the services of a private contractor who purchased the asphalt.

But, in the case of the DPW buying a large volume of SALT for snow removal, that they themselves will store. mmm. That government agent is the representative of the taxpayer who can't himself order the salt. Technically, that agent for you,
is the 'consumer' SEEKING OUT a vendor to supply
the salt to the community. Said vendors puts in a bid to supply the salt they produce. NEGOTIATION of the vendors price? mmmm. How could they really?
This is the government agent doing business with
a private business. They CHOOSE the vendor with the BEST PRICE (and quality of service) but they
don't TELL the one what this vendor should charge. Sort of ridiculous isn't it in the free trade America is about.

So to my earlier post, which I didn't elaborate on this aspect on: 'the government body' is BUYING A SERVICE from a VENDOR that government body could be called 'the consumer' using of course taxpayer monies. BUYING A SERVICE, does
not mean negotiating with the vendor - it means putting out the need and accepting bids. It is for the vendor after evaluation for the job, to give his price. Looking at all prices, governing body agent makes his selection.

But again, common sense would tell me that there is no NEGOTIATING THE PRICE with the supplier of the salt; or whatever services one is seeking,
but merely finding the SUPPLIER with the best price. If said government purchaser selects that vendor and that vendor's price, "it's a deal."
Can negotiations occur between vendor selected and agent after vendor is selected. Common sense would say? What need would there be to? The needs were put forth, the vendors each explained what they will supply and why it will cost x amt of dollars...NOW...who do you want.

Back to the Medicare statement 'Medicare may well say this service should cost $250, and the service provider must adjust their cost.' No,
you are forgetting - first not all providers of medical services HAVE TO accept Medicare patients. Most do, why would they not. If they do, they enter into an agreement with this government agency, before even submitting their bills, that they will acccept 'assignment' of what this insurance will pay or will not accept assignment. (and they tell their patients before hand, will or will not accept assignment) Patient then decides: do I still want this doctor who will not accept assignment. The doctor has still said his services are worth this much, and he bills for what he believes service is worth. As the provider of service to 'you the citizen' of the insurance using 'your monies' - they will pay the reasonable and customary fee for this service (I assume is an average of what all doctors charge for the service)If you choose a medicare
provider who does not accept assignment, the balance of the doctor's fee is paid by you, THE PATIENT and the consumer who selected his doctor.

Whew...it can be confusing, but I think that's the gist. Jim: if I'm confused on anything, let me know.

I may have got confused when I wrote the government purchasing agent of the road asphalt
is representative of you the citizen they are using and for the snow removal purchase said: they are technically the consumer buying the salt. In both instances, yes, the government agent seeking out the best vendor for asphalt or salt is a consumer seeking services, but with 'we the people's' monies. So, as rep of the many,
he must find the best price; but in America, he
can't TELL the vendor what price to give. He puts out A BID for the service or supply.

I hold firm: government of the people does not tell any 'people' who wish to do work for government what thier price should be. It's their business. Take them or not.

ooops forgot your last question John:
'Why is in your direct best interest to have a law that PREVENTS the government from being able to negotiate a volume discount with a drug company?'

Besides the answer Jim Addison gave ...

I say: Government of the USA is By the People, Of the People and For the People. The citizens of America are that drug company or any other business (why do I want to tell my fellow citizen what he can charge? We are FOR the people) The citizens pay for all services via their taxes, government uses said monies via budgets - budgets actually voted on BY the people (it's already established how the monies will be spent and how much for what service)and lastly we are governed OF the people, ie: we do not need someone TAKING CONTROL OF our monies earned or spent. We TELL our reps...THEY don't tell us.

makes sense, right John? That's why we don't need democrat politicians telling a pharmaceutical company what price to set and regulating business.
Democrats seem to have forgotten WHO is in charge.
"WE THE PEOPLE" ARE...'they' merely represent.
(though I fear some democrats would love to control every aspect of our lives)

Ba writes;

but in America, he can't TELL the vendor what price to give. He puts out A BID for the service or supply.

I hold firm: government of the people does not tell any 'people' who wish to do work for government what thier price should be. It's their business. Take them or not.

Oh, of course we do. As a purchaser you absolutly can and often do tell your supplier what you're willing to pay. And THEY can take MY business or not. I've spent a lot of time negotiating contracts on both ends, and I can tell you that the great certanty in negotiation is that EVERYTHING is negotiable.

Let's say I'm negotiating for a car. I've got my choice of dealerships, makes and models. The salesperson has something I want, and he wants my business. I name my car, he names my price. We dicker. He comes down. I make conscessions. Nobody is a hostage. At eiether time we could eiether walk away, but we don't because at some point, we'll both find a deal that's in our mutual interest to accept.

I think you assume the government would have the drug manufactures at an unfair advantage, but volume pricing, guarenteed minimums, single point sourcing, etc all have advantages to the seller. It's not allways a bad deal for eiether party, and when done well can be an equatable deal for both parties.

Ba writes;

That's why we don't need democrat politicians telling a pharmaceutical company what price to set and regulating business.

But of course that's not what we're talking about. Nobody is suggesting that the government set a sale price cap for a pharm company's product. We're talking about the government being able to have the ability to a purchase price for a particular deal. The pharm company wants to sell to Wallmart at a differnt price, have at it.

As far as I know, the Medicare Pharm issue is rare in that it ties the federal government's hands and deprives it of it's ability to negotiate with it's suppliers on behalf of it's citizens or clients.

ahh, you understood all I wrote. Not much arguing.

Now you are 'changing your story' a bit..

Now you say: As a purchaser you absolutly can and often do tell your supplier what you're willing to pay.

That's not negotiating. first, government seeks BIDS for work that needs doing. Of course they can tell the vendors they will pay UP TO x amount of dollars. That IS NOT - telling the private business to change his prices. The agent for the government, can I suppose tell what the budget is for this service needing to be done, if someone bids that price and another bids lower and another bids in between the lowest and the most they will pay, that's not negotiating with any individual business and their prices. If there's any negotiating at all, it's on the part of the business that wants the job. I must charge this fee. Government: That's just 'a bit too high for our budget' ...business: Well, look, I know my worth; and you know it also, if I come down to
what you can pay in your budget for this year,
will you allow me to bid on other jobs to
be done by my firm? Please note, all of this involves the MUTUAL agreement process between 2 parties. But it does not at all deal with government regulating prices or price fixing for their one sided benefit. (GOVERNMENT of the people do not tell businesses what they can charge)

I'm glad you see my point on Medicare providers still being able to set thier own fees irregardless of what the insurance will pay for the service.

Jim Addison, help me out here, please

one more point that might be causing John's confusion here. He wrote: 'I consent TO BE GOVERNED and I support the government with my tax dollars.'

I don't know where you got this idea, but "I" never agreed TO BE GOVERNED, by one CENTRAL 'authority' figure over me. The Preamble of the Constitution goes like this:
>>We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the BLESSING OF LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of America.

the definition of governed -
>>To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise SOVEREIGN authority in.
further in the Constitution: >governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

You see John, you left off a few important words there. You consent to be governed, but YOU ("We")
the people are the one's who established that GOVERNMENT. WE are the government-and we give just 'powers' by OUR consent

It works great, when all are of understanding of there is ONE SOVEREIGN SPIRIT over all. GOD!
Whether you see it or not - democrat politicians
are the one's who are trying TO BE THE GOD and PROVIDER to 'we the people' - they'll tell us
we can abort flesh and blood from a supreme creator, we can decide to extend our own fleshly lives with human developing embryos, and finally, they controlling our funds, will decide when 'we' are no longer 'productive' and our fleshly life should end (via euthanasia) They are not for our freedom, they wish to BE THE POWER OVER THE WE THE PEOPLE. (and tell private enterprise how
to run businesses large and small)

YES, now I understand where John is confused.

John, like so many others, does not have FAITH in the GOD that lives within his being, that provides him THE REASON and INTELLECT to handle
all aspects of his life. From deciding for himself how much he wishes to earn, to how to earn that living, and by that reason do the questioning of where and how to spend that which he earned via the abilities and blessings that
SOVEREIGN spirit gave. You can HAVE as much or as little as THE FAITH you have in the GOD who will guide you along in your earthly journey. And no
human authority - has to THINK for YOU. YOU can do it yourself WITH GOD!

Isn't it awesome John? It is in that concept that makes YOU FREE!!! and all of us.

Many a democrat cannot grasp the concept. We need to SHOW THEM we the people know right and wrong from THAT ONE OBJECTIVE SOURCE OF RIGHT AND WRONG and by such choosing WE ENJOY ABUNDANCE!! (blessing)

Ba, that's quite a leap of subjects, but theology may be more interesting than economics or civics.

Thanks for easing my confusion on negotitation strategy. I'm 46 now, but I retired at age 44 two years ago in March. I was able to retire in part because of my negotiation skills but had I know you back in the day, I might have been able to retire a few years earlier. Hopefully, everything is going as well for you.

Regarding God, only recently for modern humans, (say the last 10,000 years or so) has god been God, and then only for a relitivley small group of people.

Perhaps you're a middle American and you look around, and people look like you, and they agree on the same concepts of what god is, and you've come to accept that as normal, and evidence that that is what god really is. (My cousin cannot break out of this mode of thinking.)

This I tell you... For the majority of the people in the world, Your god is not their god. God somehow didn't get the message out to everyone. What a stupid and ineffective god that would be.

For the majority of history, God wasn't god eiether. At times, god was a tree, or a man with an eagles head, or a rock or the wind. At one point in history, it was assumed that the world was carried on the back of a turtle.

As humans, we've allways had creation myths about how we got here. We've allways had a need to explain things... Weather. Death. Birth.

When we are young, we have our stories and foolish beliefs. As we get older we learn that Santa is really just Dad, and the Tooth Fairy that left a quarter is really just Mom.

As we get even older, we realise that there is no long robed, white bearded person living in the sky, looking down on us, managing our lives. It's a creation myth, invented by primitive people, sitting around the camp fire, trying to fend off the unknown spirits just outside the circle of light.

Christianity in particualar has done well because it's such an excellent means of controlling a population. It's got a strong moral code, which generaly helps enforce good behavior, but allows for a bit of killing when required. It has a good/evil paradigm which is very central to human and primate us/them group behavior. It has hierarchy which enforces a rulers legitimacy. It has a wait for your reward in the afterlife clause, which makes people more willing to suffer in this life, say under a king, knowing that they will be rewarded eventualy. Same with dying. It's much harder to convince people to die without promising them something that comes after.

Anyway, to answer your question, no... I don't need a mythical being controlling me so that I can have freedom. I don't need a magical construct to tell me right from wrong. I'm able to do that on my own.

In case you're wondering, I was raised catholic. I was quite religious growing up. I am also a scientist by nature, and a sceptic. I reject the argument that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own, therefore requiring an even more complex (and unexplained) creator. I identify as a Buddhist now, with is to say a secular humanist. I am also an ordained minister as a spiritual humanist, so I'm able to have vigorous arguments with myself about theology.

Anyway, gotta go jump in the shower... I'm happy to continue the discussion.

Best regards.

OK, this is off what the topic has become...anyway...

"to keep Democratic lawmakers from straying on populist issues."

Is it just me or did the leftists rocket straight through 'progressive' to 'populist' from 'liberal' in record time? Conservatives are going to keep calling them liberals and the closer the liberals call themselves to socialists the more the middle will reject them...don't you think? Populist...Socialist...I'm thinking they might want to rethink this one.

Meanwhile us conservatives keep calling ourselves...conservatives...irrespective of the new and improved more rabid left's attempts to call anyone right of Hillary a 'neocon'. Sorry, actually, at least on websites it would be NEOCON!!!

John, the topic of faith, spirit, God and how that spirit IS very real is difficult to put across on a weblog. But, I do see I was correct, the reason you think "a group of humans" should tell another group how to run "their business" is because to you ONE GROUP of humans is BETTER than another. Where did that special authority get given to them? Why is it that the businessman who worked his butt off to build his business from small to large, has to answer for the profit he makes and the prices he sets? Whether you believe in God, spirit of not; America is not called the land of opportunity for nothing. Here's the principle: if one applies oneself - one can achieve anything. ANYTHING. And when that one rises 'in spirit' and family is left, why is it wrong that family cannot enjoy the fruit of a loved one's labor FOR HIS LOVED ONES. Why does one group of politicians believe 'they and they alone' are the answer to poverty. Here's the answer even a secular humanist could not reasonably argue with: Each generation makes life easier for the next generation. How? By work! No one gets rich, by dependence on 'self-inclined' generosity of a political party. It's basic psychology, that there are those who are 'nice' purely for what they will get in return (ie: votes) Ok. nuf to think of there.

John; I know your statement: >>Thanks for easing my confusion on negotitation strategy, John writes. John, I know you are being sarcastic. But, it's true 'we the people' are the government and representatives who use our money for service to community are only representing 'us' - whose money they are handling. They are our representative consumers. They don't tell vendors what to charge, they may generally tell the budget, but then all government business is open for bidding on jobs. The best price with quality, gets the work. (quality a factor in cost effectiveness)

As to your ideas about God, that you are a scientist (Mr. Einstein was also a scientist and he could not deny this HUGE universe where everything in some way connects to something else, could not have just happened. He knew there was A SUPREME GOD, spirit, Creator.) What he couldn't come to understand was that such a GOOD spirit lives 'within' the fleshly human)ie: He could not understand the concept of a personal God. Sometimes, I believe, that has a lot to do with too many 'head' ideas while ignoring 'where the spirit of authentic love resides' --
deee--eep within the flesh one will find that spirit that moves, breathes, has his being.

You are certainly correct GOD is not a long haired 'old' man in long flowing robe...and heaven is not 'in the clouds' with pearly gates.(and there is a correlation between explaining the spirit of giving to A CHILD MIND in terms of Santa Claus and explaining the abstract notion of God, spirit.) But--if one pays attention, the childish becomes mature in SPIRIT to feel 'the authentically good spirit' at work without having to depict it in ways a child would understand. EXPERIENCES in life can do much to bring us to a deep understanding of that SPIRIT God at work.
That no human can create a sunset. Why an awkward and shy child has a gift for illustration and telling stories. What prompts 'man' to move for the sake of others; ie: jump in to rescue another person on railroad tracks with no thought to self.

For instance: There is no way flesh, bone, and tissue can think and reason. (certainly animals are made of the same - and they DO NOT think or reason, their actions are purely instinct each day. They don't bemoan "Mondays" and jump with glee for "Fridays"/they don't court their beloved. They don't read books and assimilate the information. What differentiates man from beast? A SPIRIT. SPIRIT. SPIRIT. Catholic sunday School lesson 1 - God is SPIRIT. Man is flesh.

Try again 'an experiment' (you're retired, your older now, you have the time and as a scientist, why not try an experiment for TWO MONTHS. Get a Bible. Read the words SLOWLY. DO NOT READ it literally but seek 'the spirit' behind the mere words. (ex: it is written that Adam and Eve ate of the apple - when they were told not to) It's written analgously and the SPIRIT of this is that 'man'/'woman' - were turned 'away from good' and did 'what pleased them' Whether it was an apple, pear, orange is not the point. The Spirit of the word should be when man turned only to eat of his own desires...they saw themselves like never before. While before they could stand 'naked' to each other (naked: unashamedly pure in intention, innocent) when they ate of thier own desire; they LIGHT of THAT RADIANT SPIRIT WAS GONE...and they 'saw their own flesh' and shame overtook them. READ in SPIRIT of understanding their is an authentic GOOD that works for PURE UNCONDITIONAL GOOD (without thought to self getting back)

let go of all HEAD ideas (they come only from you) and read IN SPIRIT...and slowly ONE paragraph a night of the Gospel messages. Start with Luke. One paragraph. and before reading: just silently say: "I'm open, show me the way"
No mortal human one need know. TRY IT.

I also recommend, for someone of your curiousity as a scientist; to watch the cable show EWTN. If you watch only for the THINKING that goes on there. You will enjoy it. Guaranteed. You are right, we do move from the santa and tooth fairy stages of belief in love and sharing and goodness. And if aware, that is GOD prompting our spirit - to go deeper.

Another way of awareness of this SPIRIT OF AUTHENTIC GOOD is 'PEACE' ...authentic deep down peace even while others are losing their head. When you feel 'no anxiety' - write it in a journal. (scientists keep journals don't they)
write down what you were doing when you felt a true peace no one could disturb. Write down how you felt, any words that come.

TWO MONTH experiment...what's there to lose? Unless, you are afraid of being wrong in your own beliefs. In two months, take your findings to the nearest Catholic parish and talk them over with one who can guide further. (we can't blog here forever) So, seek out a theologian and share what you've experienced by Bible reading, and journaling and your adult questions. You will understand what a priest says as the adult you are then when you were a santa believer, because you GREW. (As our Lord in the flesh grew in wisdom and grace) TRY IT.

Hi, Ba.

That was a very nice letter. Thank you.

Just so you understand, I've tried that experiment. Gave it a bit more than two months though. My uncle is a pentecostal minister. Seen all the manefestations of the holy spirit, talking in tongues, etc...

I spent 3 years or so working on air in Christian broadcasting as a teenager. Been to all the concerts, listened to thousands of hours of preaching. Shoot, I remember Amy Grant from like when she was 13...

My step dad, whom I've know for close to 30 years spent about 20 years as a Catholic priest. As I mentioned, I'm ordained so as to be able to perform weddings.

I've read both the old and new testaments multiple times. I've read parts of the Gnostic scriptures, most of the Bhagdava Gita, all of several translations of the writings of The Buddha, etc...

I can quote scripture like the devil himself.

So I did try. And I tell you all of this because I want you to understand that I truly thank you for considering me, and sharing this with me, and that I'm not just lightly blowing you off.

My expiriment ran close to 40 years. My results cannot verify the existence of god. Neither do they directly disprove the existance of god, but experiments aren't really expected to prove a negative...

So, here's a couple of concerns I have about your line of reasoning...

When we talk about head vs. spiritual belief, we are saying in effect - suspend what logic tells you. What the magnificant reasoning machine that eiether god built, or evolution designed, and just ignore what it's telling you. Go with a feeling. You don't need proof or evidence. In fact, if you have no proof, its a virtue... it's even better because you have faith!

I can't buy into that. Wanting something does not make it so. Suspending disbelief does not make it true.

The second concern I have is when we talk about reading the bible literaly, vs in the spirit in which it was intended... You do know that many evangelicals belive that the bible is LITERALY true, down to every last word. Others believe that some of it's true, some parable, some is just flat out wrong. How do you decide when to stop fudging?

For example is it wrong to be gay? Well, Leviticus says it's an abomination. Leviticus also say's it's an abomination to touch a pig skin, eat shellfish and wear mixed fiber clothing. So, what's the story? You know, cause I was planning on having a shrimp platter, and wearing my poly/cotton Bears jersey for Superbowl coming up. You know these are all abominations in the eyes of the lord according to Leviticus. Or would it be better to just say home and go gay? (wife would not be thrilled...)

Anyway, as you probably know there isn't any author named Leviticus anyway. It's a fabrication, attributed to a fictional author.

OK, so here's a thought experiment for you. I hate to do this to you because you seem like a nice person, and if you think about this honestly you might start questioning your core beliefs. If you don't want it, just skip from here on down...

OK.....

A central concept is Heaven and Hell. You will be punished for all of eternity, or rewarded for all eternety based on some criteria. Acceptance of Jesus perhaps, or perhaps it's your works. Or thoughts. All of these are mentioned as being important. Anyway, pick one, or a combination that suits you as your criteria.

Now line up 5 billion people based on your criteria ranked from best to worst. Perhaps Mother Theresa is way over on one side. Adolph Hitler, perhaps is way over on the other side. Most of the 5 BILLION people are somewhere in between. Very very fine graduation of your selected criteria.

Now, some people are going to Heaven. Some to Hell. There is a dividing line that cuts right between two of those 5 BILLION people. Everybody on one side is tormented for all of eternity. Everybody on the other side is rewarded for all of eternity.

Perhaps the only difference between the two adjacent people on each side of that line is that one dipped their sisters pigtails in ink, and one did not. Or one stole a candy bar as a 12 year old... Or whatever your criteria. It's the absolute dividing line that's important here. Two people as identical as two peas in a pod, yet two binary fates....

Hmmmm... Does this make sense? Does God work this way?

No. Not possible. This concept makes no sense. Under this scenario, since heaven is eternal, each sinner will be punished for over one TRILLION years for each minuite they lived on earth, and that will only scratch the surface of eternity.

And we also think that you must accept Jesus to be saved. What if you lived before Jesus? What if you lived after Jesus, but in some part of the world where you didn't get the memo. What if you did get the memo, but it was at the point of a sword, and his mercy just really didn't sound appealing?

So our second thought experiment is do you really think that Gandi, and The Buddah will be burning in hell because they did not accept Jesus, but Jim Baker will be rewarded for all eternity?

Uh... No. God could not possibly work that way. Makes no sense.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts about these two thought experiments. By the way, the "God works in strange and mysterious ways, we can't understand the mind of god" explanation is not an acceptable answer, so please don't advance that argument in any of it's forms. In fact evangelicals claim to know just what God wants on a daily basis because it's all written down and clear to any who will listen.

Thoughts?

Falze,

Actualy, progressives would work as well, but many of us will answer to liberal. We don't normaly use populist, but that shoe fits as well if you believe the polls and election results over the last 6 months.

I like the neocon distinction since I find that many of the "conservative" policies are not conservative, at all. Truly, there are few conservatives left at all. It's a shame. Liberals and true conservatives have much in common.

I could have been more clear...the liberals in charge of the media and the 'message' are turning to the use of 'populist' from 'progressive' which didn't catch on. I point to coverage of the 06 elections as evidence.

Hi again John (hope the website owner isn't bothered by our long threads) By the way, nothing you, as a mortal person will make me lose my understanding of Catholic (big C) theology as the means of drawing we of flesh to an intimate union with our brother, savior Jesus who leads us to the Father, Creator. (and if you are still a 'seeker of truth' and I think you should continue to 'seek' since when curiousity goes, we get bored with our own thoughts and ideas-if you have t.v. and have
cable tune into other person's stories on The Journey Home-Monday nights 8 p.m. (or check EWTN.com - where you can hear audio of people's stories of conversion of the 'heart.' DEEP conversion. It's one avenue you left untouched and
heck...what the harm, EWTN.com, Journey Home, they have the audio stories of real persons and how they came to understand what it means to be
a follower of Christ) TRY IT!!!

>I reject the argument that life is too complex to have evolved on it's own.
Forgot to mention this experiment for you. Take an old watch (not running anymore)wrap it up in a
hankerchief, put it on a solid table, extra precaution (this is somewhat dangerous) put some
newspaper over the hankerchief covered watch. Take a hammer and bang on the area the watch is so its parts are all loose and on the table. Now gather the parts into a brown bag. Shake it up really really good. Open bag. See if the watch parts fall back to where they were. (you do understand the point) the finest minute most insignificant items are all interwoven to form this universe (some things man himself has yet to discover) I reject the argument it all 'just happened' and fell into such 'neat order' so as everything really is connected to something.

>My results cannot verify the existence of god. Neither do they directly disprove the existance of god agnostic - GOD's SPIRIT will get to you again. (if in fact there was a mustard seed of faith, as a teen. And then I think, when you were an active teen in Christian broadcasting, what was the motivation? You couldn't know it then, for lack of life experience...now try again to think about those times. REFLECT. I mean, as a teen - really, could you really have understood everything from an adult perspective? Faith in God alone - complete and total TRUST is very difficult. Your teen years were 'a good start' and 'a safe one'
since (I'm assuming) your needs were met by parents/guardian. It's 'easy' to have FAITH when all is smooth. Could it be your teen passion for
Christianity had just a little bit of "I" in it?
That you were not quite giving of your whole self to GOD to provide for you, but merely to show HOW GOOD 'you' were? Your faith more on the 'idea of God' than THE GOD? (more to reflect on) BY FAITH IN HIM ALONE ...do we receive the GRACE of true
understanding. (and that's hard for anyone, much less a teen of 13)

Since you know scripture so well, you've heard this one-Luke chap 15 v 8-10/the woman sweeping the house diligently for one lost coin (though she had 9) Naturally, you know that
refers to GOD who will not stop til He again has you 'safely' with Him again (irregardless of mere
human opinions that "you" can do everything yourself-which by the way, is very closely related to how "Eve" fell away - the serpant striking the EGO.) HUMILITY...another factor in FAITH!

I did receive a deep conversion (surprise!) and nothing will change that. Understanding of 'human nature' has become so much clearer than when I was but a teen. But 'the conversion' is ongoing.
There is always SOMETHING NEW He will show 'to the heart' ... IF WE ACCEPT HIS WORD...and forget the myriad of 'worldly notions' that 'the world' slips into our consciousness. (In effect, a life lived in faith IN GOD ... is a LIFETIME TRANSFORMATION process - that is LIFE transforming. (from mere flesh to Spirit)And that merciful God, he pulls us 'out of the world' nice and slow like...

And I can tell you, these 'ideas' I just wrote down, a Lifetime Transformation ...life transforming...and pulled slowly from the world...
they did not come from my own head. (that's what I mean by head thoughts) head thoughts says: I have to take an umbrella today, I have to pick up..., Got to get the bills together for income tax time/But - when some problem bothers me, and I quiet myself...and ask (just ask) what now?
It takes some time...but a 'thought' just comes and you almost are 'startled' whoa...that's not
'of me' ... PRAY FOR THOSE blankety blank people who upset me at the office? where did that come from? You have to LISTEN HARD in a quiet place
away from distractions for THE SPIRIT to get through. IT'S HIS CONSOLATION alone. There's a lightness within that can't be explained.

One another thing I'm hearing in your words John, all the things YOU DID in the name of FAITH... the 'externals' ... again it's INNER not OUTER
that we find GOD. Again, EWTN.com - Journey Home (or watch it on cable tv if in your area) but you can hear stories, and they are interesting...and give you new ideas OTHER THAN your own. so again, KEEP SEEKING and I'll be praying for you. Nice chatting.

>My results cannot verify the existence of god. Neither do they directly disprove the existance of god John says which would make you an agnostic
not an athiest and that's good, it means you are still able to SEEK and you should keep seeking.

**my words got cut off above John, sorry 'bout that confusion.

Again: summary - of all that thread John, hope you will sincerely reflect (think, meditate) on it: My words: "One other thing I'm hearing in your words John, all the things YOU DID in the name of FAITH-- are 'externals' of John"

Here's your words in list form to me:
> Seen all the manefestations of the holy spirit, talking in tongues > spent 3 years or so working on air in Christian broadcasting as a teenager
> Been to all the concerts > listened to thousands of hours of preaching > read both the old and new testaments multiple times > "stepdad"
was formerly a priest (ahem - no judgements to your stepdad, he had reasons for leaving the vocation he thought he was called to - but take any ideas he has with understanding he too, might not fully comprehend) > finally you speak of how other humans have seen God, how they 'create' myths to help them...bla bla, and well, sounds like you are trying to gain understanding of FAITH IN GOD'S WORD by 'human word' (a mistake I also was almost caught up in)

GOD'S WORD!!! GOD! SUPREME! PERFECT! Is the mortal human PERFECT (faith and experience should answer that) So, if humans are not perfect (but forgiven if asked to be) Why do you listen to
what everyone says? "blessed are they who hear the WORD OF GOD and ACT on IT" (forgetting all
human opinion, and even your own ideas)

Can you, for a moment 'forgetting all else' and 'everything you do' ACCEPT FAITH IN GOD ALONE. "love the Lord your God with WHOLE heart, WHOLE mind, WHOLE strength. GOD. NOT the idea of god, not an interpretation of god, GOD, Father, Son, Holy Spirit - ONE GOD each with a 'mission' to the other. (difficult? yes indeed, Faith is a GIFT...all God requires 'of us' is that WE ACT on WHAT HE SAYS and BELIEVE. (it worked for me, and the eye opener [with other verses to follow] was John Chap. 6 v 47 - 56, then later came Luke Chap 9 verse 23-24. (and no, don't take it Luke 9 literally)reflect on Luke comparing YOUR earthly living [habits] and Jesus, human/divine and of heaven) How closely would we see HIM living within YOUR FLESH. (for real!) your flesh which is ...well, dead due to sin, but 'alive' because of HIS PURE GRACE ...by what God's ONLY begotten son did. (note the word ONLY)

I'm giving too much away, you're going to have to
reflect on all this 'away from all distractions'
and let HIM tell explain the rest.

STAY OPEN ...STAY AWARE "have ears to hear and eyes to see" NOT as the world sees.

Lose 'yourself' ... and He shall COME! (even your stepdad should be able to understand that, having spent much time in theological study)

Nothing against theology, but my stepdad decided he liked ladies better than the monk's existence. It had nothing to do with a lack of faith. (Unfortunaly, the Catholic church won't go along with that.)

I completly understand his feelings in that regard. I was up half the night just marveling at my wife while she slept.

OK, so lots of good stuff in your replies, but you've also failed to respond to my two thought experiments.

I'll give you another, and I'll try to respond to your watch argument later this evening.

We touched on this a bit earlier, but let's take this one on as a thought experiment.

Life is too complex to have arisen on it's own. It implies a creator. In fact, it requires a creator. Now watches don't come from rocks, or from sheep. They come from watchmakers. The watchmaker is a much, much more complex construct than his creation. Following this logic, then a creator should be more complex than it's creation.

OK, since life could not have arisen on it's own without a creator, where did the creator come from? Following this logic, there must therefore be a greater creator. This greater creator must therfore have had a meta creator, and so forth and so on, in an infinate series. This explation therefore resolves nothing, and it does it very well and in great detail (which makes it useless).

So, what is your answer to our logic puzzle number three. For extra points, please don't answer "Well, God allways existed, therefore no creator".

Thoughts?

Falze,

I spent 7 years in "The Media". We didn't have daily meeings, or a secret handshake, or get together to discuss our spin. I'm not convinced that the "liberals" are in charge of "The Media". Actualy, go pull the ownership for News Corp (Fox, Rupert Murdoch). Look at his media holdings. Do you consider him "liberal"? Did you know that National Geographic channel is owned by News Corp? How's Rush's ratings? He's one of the most listened to talk show hosts. How about Fox News? That's got great viewship as well, yes?

So, the myth that "The Media" is run by "Liberals" may not be true. Check it out, and report back.

I can tell you that accelerated media consolidation under the FCC chairman Michael Powell was (and is) a very, very dangerous thing. Let's hope we get a reversal on that...

I don't know much about the populist label in the 06 election coverage, other than to state that it was actualy apparent when the majority of voters approve and elect people pushing particular agendas that those are by default "populist" issues". Again, I personaly prefer progressive, or liberal.

sigh...I believe you are just 'toying' with me now. In your statement: OK, so lots of good stuff in your replies...I take that to mean that YOU will seriously reflect on what your state of FAITH was as a teen of 13 years of age? GOOD.

Your step-dad leaving the church because he met and fell in love with a woman; will be between him and God. He's entitled to leave the church, but not entitled to 'fault' the reasons the church holds to celibacy of those who are 'espoused to' 'the Bride of Christ' - The Church. Church btw, and your step-dad will confirm; means 'body of Christ'/Christ the Head.
Those with authentic call to fully give of themselves (as man and woman are to give of themselves to each other) to serve God and 'the body of Christ' His people; do so with complete faithfulness to THAT commitment. (and it is possible with God--source of all love, in their focus point)

and to answer your question, and I know you won't accept God is omnipotent (though you may be toying with me) But here something for you to reflect on with regards your question: (then, let HIM enlighten you farther; FAITH has already gave me my answer, and only the Holy Spirit can give it to you by grace, when you ACCEPT.) Anyway, reflect on:

God, in His Word and in His incarnation as Jesus Christ, chooses to personally reveal Himself to man. He loves His creation--every man, woman and child--and He wants everyone to know and experience Him. If man visualizes God strictly from "man's concept of man," (exactly what you were doing with your watchmaker theory) which is the "naturalistic worldview," he'll completely miss the mark.

Man knows for certain only four dimensions, length, height, width and time; although, science now believes that a number of other dimensions (approximately 10) exist. Using only known dimensions, man will see God having limited capacity. He, in effect, will be placing God in a box (of limitations), which is equivalent to making and worshipping an "image." God warns against corrupting His nature, which is idolatry.
From Scripture: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. (Deuteronomy 4:15-19)

And THAT'S THAT...no more questions, I leave you to your own discernment...as for I, I FULLY understand - all of course by GRACE for my FAITH in GOD'S WORD and though experiential living of FAITH IN GOD - not merely following any and any human ideas. I'll say a prayer for you, that you stay open at least, should that 'still' whisper from deep within come to you and tell you "Here I am, why are you persecuting me?" Not unlike what occurred with Paul on the road to Damascus.

You may have the last word, but I've explained as much as 'human I' can...now it's between you and the Spirit to 'go at it' - Pax et Bonum to you.
(Peace and Blessings)

Ba,

No, I'm not toying with you. In fact, I owe you a heart felt appology for my initial exchanges with you, which were cruel and uncalled for. I was having a bad wizbang day with a couple of the local wiztrolls, none of which was your fault, and my mood is soley my responsibility, and no one else's. I've been planning saying this for a couple of days, but was holding off until we had exchanged thoughts a bit more, because I didn't want you to think I was being sarcastic, or "toying with you".

Hey, no... we're cool with the whole hetrosexual ex-priest thing. No worries there. He'd love to be back. Someday, perhaps. I think I a few hundred years or so. I mean, we are now starting to clear some of the people we burned at the stake. Even Galileo got exonorated just a few years back. Sure it took 400 years, but just because a glacier is slow, does not mean it does not move...

Soooo... I didn't just say it was lots of good stuff, to make fun of you. It was honestly nice things, and I believe you mean well.

Anyway, don't feel sorry for me. I'm very happy and comfortable with my beliefs. Hey, someday I'll die. The pattern that is me will cease to exist. It's a loss, but the universe will continue without me. I don't go anywhere. I'm just dead. I don't go to heaven, I don't pass go, I don't collect $200.00.... On the other hand, I don't go to hell. It's quite a liberating thought... Shoot, I would have loved to tour the universe as a non-corporial entity for eternity, but I'd also like to be a lottery winner. Wishing does not make it so.

So... You did not perform my three experiments, and that's fine. I recommended that you do not, back before the first one. I have a few more, but I don't think you'll want them eiether.

Thank you for your blessing, Pax et Bonum. I might have translated that as peace and goodness, but peace and blessing fits just as well. I accept it in the spirit in which it was given and I wish that I had entered our conversation in the same spirit.

Last year, I was blogging a bit on the subject of God. I had some stuff, that I was just looking at. This one seems to be true. In fact, this sums it up for me. I don't remember the source. Evaluate...

People who 'believe' in science, simply believe this is the best explanation we have to date, and that it will be replaced when we know more. They know they're wrong, just not as wrong as the guy before them. They're open to thinking about it, or at least that other people are thinking about it.

People who 'believe' in religion, believe they're right, and will deny facts that drop on their heads like a ton of bricks. They're open to thinking 'of' it, and want everyone to think 'of' it, but not about it.

Anyway, back in the day when I was writing on God related stuff, I was writing from the perspective of God (but with better spelling than usual). Here is one example. Comments welcome.

Warmest regards;

John

Angry God, Jealous God.

If I were an angry god, my wrath would not be for the reasons you might suspect... Sloth, ignorance, and waste, however ARE my hot buttons, but that's for another conversation...

Children, today I want to talk to you about something you may have learned - You may have been taught that I am an angry God. A jealous God. Oh, my child... The truth is so much different than you were told.

I will speak first about anger, then about jealousy.

Angry God - if one cannot get what one wants, and becomes frustrated, or one's desires are not fulfilled, or one is assaulted, one becomes angry.

Do you still believe that I could be an angry God? Really??? Under what circumstances would the creator of the universe not be able to get what he wants? When do you think I might be frustrated? The universe is 14 billion years old (yes BILLION). I've been knocking about for quite a bit longer than that, but I don't feel like discussing my age right now.

According to your incomplete understand of me, I've been hanging around for the last 14 billion years or so, waiting until you showed up. So after that extraordinary act of patience, exactly what do you think would be likely to frustrate me? I've had 14 billion years to develop hobbies, and I'm fully capable of entertaining myself. You children run off and play, but be back in time for dinner...

Jealous God - When you think about jealousy, what comes to mind? The feeling of outrage at unfair treatment, perhaps at the hand of a rival? Hostility toward someone perceived as having an unfair advantage over you? Seeing someone possess what you feel you rightly deserve?

How could I be treated unfairly? What rival could I possibly have? Who might have an advantage over me? What might someone possess that I do not already have, or could not make for myself?

What is it then? Is it your love? Your faithfulness? Do you think I might be angered because you do not love me? Do you loath and reject your children because they dislike their dinner, bath, bed time, or removal of their favorite toy? You make allowances for your children because of their limited understanding, do you not? Your score of seasons gives you perspective and maturity. Now have you considered what wisdom might come with uncountable billions of years of experience?

I want to tell you something and I know it will be hard for you to understand and believe, but I'm going to tell you anyway. My dear child, 3 billion years ago, you were a slimy, ugly film of scum with no organization or form, living off sulfur and heat, just trying to get by. When you were aspiring to be pond scum, or perhaps in your wildest slimy dreams to be lichen someday, I was already infinitely old, and had already done some of my best work.

Anger and Jealousy are animal passion. Unlike you, I am not, nor have I ever been an animal. You may have heard that I made you in my image. My child, nothing could be further from the truth. Do you think I've been floating around in space with a flowing white beard, two hands, two feet, and a head for all of eternity? Do I have a navel? An anus? A penis or vagina? Do I suffer from hunger or thirst, heat or cold? No my dear, I am nothing at all like you. If you truly believe that I am the creator without beginning or end, than you must understand why we have less in common than you do to the mold growing on the leftovers at the back of your refrigerator.

I'm sorry, my dear child. I don't mean offense, and this is a hard lesson to take in one sitting. Back to the original topic, do you still think I could be an angry God, or a jealous God? Anger and jealousy are your words, not mine. I have over ten thousand names for compassion, joy, and love of various types and an entire symphony of emotions that you at best are dimly aware of. Jealousy and anger? I had no name for it, until you mentioned it.

After all the gifts I've given to you, after all you've done to use and abuse them, perhaps you'd best not think of me as a god of anger and jealousy. I am a saddened God, and embarrassed for you, but I still love you.

Love, God

You're an agnosic or an athiest. And you aren't seeking anything. You have it all figured out for yourself. good for you. That's your choice in America. Just don't trample on my faith, or the free exercise of my faith practice. I won't bother yours. --You got what you were leading up to, to mock and degrade my thoughts. OH HAPPY DAY for you. As to whether you will keep me from this commentary website; I will be back for other topics of a political nature. (but I am changing ISP's so it won't be for awhile - which will make you happy also. Bye bye. "see you in church" someday.

It's getting a bit off-topic here - but I want to add that I don't mind you chaps taking off a bit on each other. We are talking about serious issues at a critical time in our nation, and passions are expected. Try to keep it as civil as possible, and I won't go about deleting comments.

I do object to foul language. The occasional expletive is expected - stuff happens, after all. Let's try to remember that our readers include many who would prefer not to be exposed to vulgar tirades, and some who shouldn't be exposed. Gratuitous use of profanity may be edited - although I tend to let the visiting moonbats from the infrequent leftist blog link spew on, figuring they are only exposing their own lack of depth.

As to insults, I plead guilty, too. But I don't mind taking it in return, either. And I'm as guilty of "thread drift" as anyone, too.

There is good news on that, though. Kevin is nearly finished with the long-anticipated redesign of the site, and from what I've seen in previews, we're all going to like it a lot. It includes a forum where we can take these off topic - but interesting in their own right - discussions, and, as I understand it, readers will be able to submit news links as new topics, although they will have to be approved by the section editor before going up.

The entire issue of pharms deserves a full discussion of its own, and we will get to that. I can only add to the above that the federal government is not the typical negotiating partner. Their long history of addressing funding problems in Medicare and Medicaid by shafting providers belies any optimism they would treat Big Pharm differently. Reduced pharm profit on drugs they develop means fewer new drugs developed.

The Euro-Canadian example of how they dealt a near-death blow to their own industries' ability to produce new drugs, and how they "negotiate" with our companies on price, is very telling and very discouraging to any hope for such schemes in America.

Ba,

I'm an atheist. Or an agnostic. Didn't they say there will never be atheists, so long as their are algebra tests?....

Seriously, I thought I did not decieve you in this. I thought I had been clear in my beliefs (or as you might say, lack of beliefs.)

I have not mocked you, or degraded you since we've discussed theology.

My essay on "Angry God, Jealous God" was not intended to be a joke. It's part of a series of essays I wrote on a topic. Do you disagree with it's content or message? It's thrust is that the mind of God cannot be understood in human terms. You made that point, yourself in your last post. I sent this, not to mock you, but to show that I do in fact agree with you on that point.

I was very cruel to you at the top of this thread. I want you to know that I am sincere in my apology. I am not asking for you to accept my apology as that would imply that somehow I expect the right to ask anything of you.

I hope you ARE back soon, and when you are, I know we will not allways agree, but I promise to treat you with respect and dignity.

Regards

Apology accepted John. webblogs are not the ideal way to discuss a topic about faith and beliefs.
Written words lack the tone and inflection of the verbal...and things can be read many ways.

I allow you your beliefs, I'm glad you at least understand mine. Stay at the point you are if you like or seek further (ewtn.com Journey Home)

You respect me, I'll respect you. And ok, no hard feelings. Now let' get back to topic as Jim said,
that easy topic POLITICS! (heh heh)

Thanks. I took a look at the EWTN site tonight, and bookmarked it for future reference.

Regarding politics, I'm reading the latest book by best selling author and Jeffersonian scholar Thom Hartmann "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against The Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."

He writes on a wide variety of subjects including politics, psychology and spirituality. He was invited in 1999 to spend a week with the Dali Lama after he read his book, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight.

As a result of his book on spirituality, The Prophet's Way, he was invited in 1998 to meet Pope John Paul II.

Here's a Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thom_Hartmann

And his site - http://www.thomhartmann.com/

I recommend his radio show as well. It's my daily 9 to noon routine out here (PST). Reminds me of listening to some of my better polysci or psych professors lecture.

Check him out, if you like. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll look forward to chatting with you later.

Best Regards,

John

Nice of you to bookmark EWTN site John. (I haven't checked it recently, I hope I was right that the audio stories from The Journey Home are still there) It's amazing to me how people are led from one idea to another til FINALLY the light goes on. (It's nothing that can come from 'head thoughts' but that special 'grace' that opens the eyes of faith to 'hear' deep within the being) Ok OK...let's not start again.

I read the online review of 'The Prophet's Way'
**Hartmann concludes that the Earth is endangered because modern humans have lost their connection to "the heartbeat of the world," and that humanity is endangered because people have lost their connection to inner divinity.**

INNER divinity...now where did I hear that? ; )

Of course, all human words must be weighed to
the OBJECTIVE TRUTH who we honor first. It would not be this author I worship, or his mere words, but to weigh those human words to THE WORD. Objective not just subjective truths. (something the nation and world got away from)

"the heartbeat of the world" is a nice polically correct way to avoid the word God. But it's ok, the author has yet to be fully convinced it's ok to say it. I understand. Sounds like the author is another seeking person.

I may get this book to see what this author has to say, on the subject of global warming, and his ideas on spirituality; but I found that the closer one gets to understanding of THE truth, the less one has to read what others think of spirituality. (or analogically: if in a darkened room, the closer one get to the source of real light; the window where the Sun shines through, the less one needs to rely on the man-made flashlights and candles) As one grows in wisdom and grace, it becomes more a living THE WORD rather than spending time with the subjective
ideas of others. We can listen respectfully of course, but when we understand real truth, real understanding of the others words/ways are easier. We don't get confused or mis-led when we
are fully in understanding of the objective truth to living. (it's hard to change other adults in their ways; by telling them to do such and such.) (parental authority the exception naturally, they are assumed to be mature of SPIRIT and must lead their little one's in the same right spiritual direction) Which is why, a 'we the people' self governing nation of mature adults do not accept some political reps TELLING private business persons; and fellow citizens, what prices they must charge. It is up to the adult people to make our own decisions on how we earn income, and who we patronize when we spend it, and question accordingly to spend it wisely. (any business may of course, charge what 'he' wishes, because of what he feels he needs to charge) That's freedom for all.

Whew...got back to topic...

Yes, Journey Home (EWTN.com) audio stories are found under the menu titled library than audio, then type in the name of the series (where asked) and you will see a list of topics from various persons who tell their stories)

Hi, Ba.

OK, so you said...

Which is why, a 'we the people' self governing nation of mature adults do not accept some political reps TELLING private business persons; and fellow citizens, what prices they must charge. It is up to the adult people to make our own decisions on how we earn income, and who we patronize when we spend it, and question accordingly to spend it wisely. (any business may of course, charge what 'he' wishes, because of what he feels he needs to charge) That's freedom for all.

So the political reps, are in fact our employees. This is why I don't like the term "leaders". We don't have leaders. We have public servants. They SHOULD be representing our collective best interest. (The role of money and how to obtain it during the election cycles does not help this process, and campaign finance reform should be supported, IMHO).

Under this assumption, We The People direct Our Public Servents to protect our interests, one of which is to protect the Commons (clean air, clean water, etc).

Back in the Reagan era when deregulation became popular, he and his followers failed to understand that a business will not allways do what is best for society. A business's goals are to maximize profits and assets and (here's the key) externalize costs and liabilities.

Government MUST therefore regulate business to insure that it is not endangering the public welfare. For example, currently the government is recommending that you limit the amount of fish you eat due to contamination. Dumping toxins is a way businesses externalize costs. Now you may say, "well, perhaps a wise person shouldn't eat any canned tuna fish when pregnant", but really, how would an individual know that? Well, we really don't want to experiment on our children to find out...

So.... We know what happens because we've tried it for a couple hundrend years. Without regulation, business does what it is intended to. Maximize profit, externalize cost. That's good for business. That MAY be good for you as well. You may have lower prices. If you are an owner, you may have take away profit. On the other hand, for about a hundered different other reasons, it MAY NOT be good for you.

When I used to live in Southern Illinois, I loved going to Little Grassy lake, do some boating and some fishing. Can't eat them though. Used to be a transformer factory nearby, and for decades they dumped PCB's into the lake. It was cheaper to dump their old transformers into the lake. Out of site, out of mind. It was all done for immediate profit - to make the next quarters profit numbers. That's what businesses do. You can't eat anything that comes out of the lake now... This was not good for me, or the other people that lived nearby. Too late to get that stuff out now. It's long-lived. That part of the Commons is lost, used at no cost to the business, but at a terrible price to "We The People".

We do not only need to regulate business behavior, but also business price. Consider the branch of law relating to monopoly pricing. Right now, something like 20 percent of Americans get their household water from non-public (private supplies).

So, you assume if you don't like a supplier, you can just pick another one. It's a free market. But you don't have multiple companies running water lines to your door... So if you are one of those folks that have privitized water, and your company all of a sudden decides to charge you ten times the going rate, what is a consumer to do? Now, you'll probably say, well that won't happen, but the reason it won't happen is because those businesses are covered under fair pricing laws if they are monopolies.

Recall that a couple of years back, Enron was engaging in market manipulation for the purpose of artificaly driving up energy prices, and millions of customers and dozens of utility companies paid huge overcharges - in some cases dozens of times the normal short term going rate which caused the "California energy crisis". It's as if gas suddenly became not $2.00 per gallon, but $350.00 per gallon.

Now, understand that that entire crisis was completly artifical. It was market manipulation. Which is what businesses are supposed to do for their own benefit.

So we have laws to protect The Commons. And the public interest.

By the way, to tie this together, one of the future visions for the Enron board before their downfall was to have branched out into water delivery systems for municipalities. The idea was to come in with a lower price or acquire the systems, then maximize profits through higher pricing.

You can't live that long without water. You don't want the boot of Enron, or the next people like them at your throat.

That's why the government (which is to say us - We The People), can and do, and rightly so, regulate business to protect our common interests, and provide a legacy for our childern so they may prosper as well.

ahhh, John...whew...isn't it good we're back on topic (politics and government) Bet Jim is happy.

Nice to see we start off with some agreement.
>the political reps, are in fact our
employees

Now to some of your statements - which on surface first look sound ok. 'Business will not always do what is best for society' and so, generally, the democrat political side feels they must REGULATE their every action; to get them to do the 'right thing' by thier standard of morality. (of course, thier ideas on laws to do what is right, falls short when Roe v Wade comes up for discussion. Then they give the argument that 'you can't make a law to get people to do the right thing' people
have a RIGHT TO CHOOSE. (is that a one-sided subjective right to choose, when to thier benefit to say it) Do as I say, the democrat rep is saying. I know what is best for you. Don't think for yourself.

Where is the: I will live in a 'relationship' to objective truth (God's spirit leading) of right and wrong actions, and make civil laws as part of this self governing nation that apply to OBJECTIVE principles of right and wrong across the board. Laws only when it becomes necessary; to uphold said objective truths to living. (If 'money' is the aim of business, let's be honest here, it's the aim of the democrat political party who wishes to 'hold the purse strings' of the 'we the people' government; allowing weak individuals (not businesses per say) but weak individuals to 'do their own thing' ... abort if convenient, kill an embryo for your own good, live without commitment, or 'marry even if it goes against all natural truths'-- do whatever you want; if it makes you feel good is the subjective truths the democrat
party says...but changes when that subjective
truth of CHOICE ...is not to THIER LIKING.

Rather contradictory isn't it? The Liberal Left want to tell business what is right to do, but fail to humbly admit that thier own personal ideas and values, which they are supposed to be
showing in the LEADERSHIP role they are in, Yes,
if elected to serve as public servant for the best interest of all, they are supposed to have acquired understanding of what brings good living.
OBJECTIVE TRUTH...RIGHT AND WRONG across the board. Not, you have the right to choose what's best for you BUT YOU Mr. Businessman, do not.
Because 'in truth' I don't want to
represent you, and I don't want to exhibit in personal action my understanding of common good,
I want to LAW you to death...not having any understanding of why there is a law, except to
CONTROL you...and make 'YOU' my servant. You
cannot make and keep all your earnings, by my decree; Mr. Businessman, you must hand back to me a major portion so that I can tell the one who won't work (not talking of those who can't) that I will provide for them (disadvantaged as they are) [Maybe, just maybe, if the businessman saw
some right laws passed, like life matters and so
we in this nation 'as a whole' will not condone the aborting of ANY unborn child, we will not
kill the beginnings of new life to save an old life, we will honor those NATURAL unions that create life, anything a human 'head idea' comes up with - do what you want behind closed doors, but we as a society do not condone the ACTION.

Maybe if as a whole we got back to objective truth leading US (GOD'S SPIRIT) and the democrats allowed businesses to keep most of thier profit, rather than fork it over to them, the GOOD BUSINESSMAN would not feel the need to do what is most cost effective (dumping un-necessarily) Maybe 'the heart' would kick in when he has the extra to dispose of as he should. No regulating required...

Honor the businessman for how he did build a business and HELP HIM to run it 'from the heart'
teach by example why one should not...and allow him, his own funds to do what is right. (businesses pay lots of taxes under the old democrat system of governing...which impedes their growth because all people are taxed, democrat government is OVER ALL holding the monies, that could go for doing right, and the
human person falls for the - look if that one can do that, I can do this...what's the big deal?
If they think so little of life that they would abort an unborn child, why is so important to care for 'an environment' - TAKE CARE OF NUMERO UNO...(hey, don't we teach each other eh John?)

p.s. John (and all reading) Here's another experiment, go to your Bibles - and wherever you see the word PHARISEE, feel free to put in the word DEMOCRAT POLITICIAN, the sentence will still make sense (even more so for modern times)

Pharisee: "they lay heavy burdens upon the people but lift not a finger to help them" (law upon law upon "human" law...with no understanding of why law is...to uphold OBJECTIVE TRUTH...if the heart
does not understand 'naturally'...

For those in the truth of course, the law is
un-necessary...ahem: the truth 'set them free' of
human law...(that means when living the truth, we don't need to be told do this, don't do that, do this now, don't do..etc)

So John is their hope for all? Of course, 'we the people' must uphold ALL OBJECTIVE TRUTH in our own hearts...humbly recognize ALL SIN and fall short when we 'seek to do our own thing' whatever it might be, and the reason we are divided as a nation, is because some elect those politicians that tell us "it's ok to abort your own flesh and blood, if it's MONETARILY CONVENIENT for you."
(hey, some of 'we the people say' - this one accepts me as I am, he's got my vote) Not at all thinking OBJECTIVE TRUTH to thier own actions and righting themselves first is it? Then, to appease that 'conscience' that's gnawing at them for their personal actions, they 'point at' another's fault - and say LOOK HOW THEY RUIN OUR ENVIRONMENT - HOW DARE THAT RICH GREEDY BUSINESSMAN...(sure an easy way to feel better huh John? No personal growth, but an easy way to feel subjectively better -- to change someone else instead of SELF first) Right John?

ahhh...TRUTH...it comes from 'inner divinity'

Oh p.s. John in your opening statement, >We have public servants. They SHOULD be representing our collective best interest.Under this assumption, We The People direct Our Public Servents to protect our interests, one of which is to protect the Commons (clean air, clean water, etc).

Well, John, while it's true those fellow citizens
of a self governing nation OF the people, FOR the people and BY the people, choose to work FOR thier fellow "peoples" as their reps, I would stop short of saying WE "direct" them because they are our 'public servants"

They work FOR us, but they also work for themselves because 'they' are a part of US. (confusing, ain't it?) since 'they' are also part OF 'we the people'/we work together of one SPIRIT - EACH looking out not for his own interests but also EVERYONE for those of OTHERS. (Of one mind OF TRUTH)
-- Philippians Chap 2 v 3 --

looking out for the public COMMONS (I assume you mean COMMON GOOD)Remember I said government can't direct a fellow citizen in how he operates his private business? Good News: that idea is reciprocal! 'We the people' cannot really direct, once we have freely chosen by our vote to put someone to work in a civil service capacity.

Which is why it is crucial 'we the people' do come together TO KNOW OBJECTIVE TRUTH again,
and work together for a common good. (hint: we have to know who is SUPREME and honor the ways of you-know-who again) With such understanding in our own hearts of what is true, we can vote those in who reflect those same ideals and thus fully represent THE MAJORITY of that spirit of authentic 'unselfish' GOOD ACTION. "ears to hear and eyes to see" not as 'the world sees'...the
leftist liberal voice gives themselves away all the time...in their words...listen with HIS Spirit and you will 'laugh' at what you hear these folks espousing in the name of 'good.'

We are called to SERVE one another...as is mentioned in THE WORD...have amongst yourselves the same attitude that is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, but he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave (aka servant) and found in human appearance humbled himself [for the sake of others]
--Philippians Chap. 2, v 5-11.

There is all kinds of service and gifts but one spirit over all...above all gifts, put on LOVE...
LOVE (in SPIRIT) does not seek it's own interest.
(for other attributes of love 1 Corinthians Chap. 13.) Love 'corrects with a gentle spirit'
(any who say 'do whatever you feel like, does not have your interest in mind but strictly his own)

Democrats do not control the freedoms...telling one they can do what they wish and telling another group they can't do...a CENTERED person understands right and wrong action and leads others to understand it also. (before worrying about the environment to leave 'our children' let's ensure that WE HAVE A NEW GROUP OF
CHILDREN for the environment) Put the priorities in proper order and the 'environment concern' will come back...because 'we the people' turned back from selfISH living to selfLESS living.

Follow all that...if not reflect on it...

Any elected officials not working for a common good cause (defense of others in other nations who are pursued by evil), working to promote a 'culture of death' because of their personal values put forth of right/wrong, seeking to rule over free business practice, for thier own aim...are not working for a COMMON GOOD with a COMMON SET OF VALUES...

Hi, Ba...

Lots of stuff up above. I was busy this weekend, but let me try to cover some of this. I won't have time to go point to point, so let me cover some of your broad themes and questions about definitions.

You asked about The Commons. No, it's not a reference to the common good. It is the property and assets held in common for the people of this nation. It includes but is not limited to costal and interior waters, national parks, airspace, radio spectrum, mineral and geological resources including petroleum, public buildings and spaces, etc... It's our common legacy as Americans and we our government was established to manage it for the common good.

I don't like the substitution of Pharisee for Democratic Politician. Pharisees were xenophobic isolationists that rejected any other influence that undermined their sacred religion and their divine law, which they felt should run all state, public and political relations. What you're talking about here is THEOCRACY, not DEMOCRACY. It just doesn't fit. Particulary since Jesus was a Liberal. When I read Matthew 23, I don't see the Seven Woes as being about politics, so much as hyprocracy.

You took a bit of a swerve onto Roe V. Wade, which was not really part of our prior discussion, but you brought up an interesting term - The Culture of Death. Do you know we use the same term as well? So you talked about abortion, but how do you feel about the death penalty? How do you feel about our militiary spending? The US spends more on it's death machine than any other country. The US spends as much on it's military than all the other nations COMBINED... http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
The US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and we used them against civilian targets. We made more of them than any other country. We still own more of them than any other country, and we are continuing to design more of them, particuarly the smaller tactical nukes. We make and use napalm and white phosphorus which sticks to your skin as it burns it off. We make nasty little cluster bombs which fling out bomblets that spread the death more effectivly. We sell them to our friends, who use them in unethical ways (as if there was an ethical way to murder people). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16870496/

We are the worlds largest supplier of arms and weapons systems. WE do more to spread death and destruction all around the world than any other country. Do YOU ever get as upset about THAT as you do about abortion? If so, what are you doing about it?

So we also talked about the role of business vs the public good. Yes, it would be great if everyone would practice Christian values, but that's not how business works. Business has a fiduciary role to it's owners or shareholders. Not it's employees. Not it's community. It's responsible to maximize profits and externalize costs. Historicaly, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, this has allways been true. Unregulated business exploits its workers, fouls it's environment, and ruthlessly consumes it's resources and competition. It would be nice if that were not true, but it is, and its out there as history for those who care to look.

Finaly, much of your arguments hinge on "Objective Truth". Objective means to be free of bias and based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions. When you talk about belief being spirit and not mind, you're talking about Subjective Truth. Your objective truth is not mine.

In fact, your objective truth is not shared by the majority of the people in the world.

Furthermore, in the recorded history of the world, say 9,000 years, your objective truth has not been the truth anywhere at any time, except for the last 2,000 of those years, and then in a rather small area until about 500 years ago.

So, anyway... It's not just me. Most of the people in the world for most of history don't agree with your assertion that it's objective truth. It may in fact be true, but we don't know, and we arent' in agreement, and that makes it a horrible model for governing a diverse society...

Regards,

John

Wow...John...I do believe I 'touched a nerve' that you don't want to deal with really.

You don't want to see the correlation between a political party that sets the moral standard: CHOICE...IT'S YOUR CHOICE...abort if it's monetarily convenient FOR YOU...and your assertion that business dumps toxins in lakes for 'monetary convenience' ... in fact, it's very
related. This is not business people only but the very individuals who might be listening to and hearing their own party say "if it feels good, do it" (in a word - it's selfish action through and through)

You don't understand objective truth or you are in denial...and so our conversation ends here (but the prayers remain, whether you believe or not)

And my 'jest' of saying a pharisee of old and the ways of SOME democrats are very similar (even in fact by your definition) is just an observation of faith. I'm not being literal here, I am oberving the actions of humans of old and humans now.

I know you have no explanation as to why it is a good thing to abort a new life, or stick a scalpel in the neck of a partially delivered infant, and not call THAT a most atrocious 'death penalty' OF THE MOST INNOCENT. Truthfully John, the numbers sent to 'the chair' last year was the lowest ever, while EACH DAY some 4,000 unborn persons are aborted. (please justify that for me, objectively by your objective standards)

NO...don't bother...you don't have the eyes to see or the ears to hear what is GOOD...

and as I hear you, you don't support the military of our nation...when there is an enemy practically ready to come up on your front steps, if they were not fighting FOR YOU.

John, our conversations ARE OVER...

I do feel sorry for you.

OK.

It's been interesting.