music2myear's Comments

HillBuzz.org : IDEAS NEEDED: Creating A Graphic for "The Voting Dead" Anti-Voter Fraud Effort

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:48:50 +0000

The graphic has got to have zombies. I think that's the biggest consensus here so far.

iPandora : Christian Compulsion

Thu, 12 Jan 2012 03:23:28 +0000

It's funny you should mention the temperature of a specific and particular season as some sort of "Gotcha!" evidence completely and irrefutably proving a particular idea. It's especially funny that you bring this up when one of the most common responses when those skeptical of anthropogenic global warming bring up the particularly cold winters and summers of just a few years ago was that you could not prove it wasn't happening merely by checking a thermometer. So no, I reject your evidence on its face as spurious and without any merit in proving as factual anthropogenic global warming. Besides, I don't particularly care whether the earth is warming or cooling. Your wisdom should recall that the earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles in the past, some worse than others. Some actually pretty beneficial, in the grand scheme of things. For instance, longer growing seasons resulting from warming immediately preceded the renaissance and the reformation, when surpluses of resources allowed for the accumulation of wealth, which allowed for some people to study their whole lives instead of having to toil in the fields, leading to the philosophical and technological growth of that time. So if the world is warming, more power to it. As a 10 year old, all on my own, I realized the photosynthesis cycle is quite capable of maintaining a balance. And don't throw deforestation in my face as some counter: the US has more acres of forest than was estimated to exist when the pilgrims landed, thanks to our efforts at preventing and controlling forest fires. Continuing efforts to responsibly manage forest-based resource gathering world-wide should be sufficient to keep those numbers going up elsewhere. Finally, whether or not there's warming or cooling going on,the most correlated data points not to Anthros, but to Sol as the chief culprit behind such fluctuation. But all that aside, the chief reason I will never agree with you on Global warming has to do not with whether or not it is occurring, nor whether it is anthropogenic or solagenic, it's that you follow those who would use this to scare people into giving up their rights and freedoms for some fleeting measure of false security, hoping against hope that our benevolent government will swoop in and lower the temperatures 3 degrees or so.

iPandora : Quintessentially American

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:29:07 +0000

Why do you assume that is a function merely of the Right? Are the Left free of the encumbrances of humanity?

HillBuzz.org : QUESTION: What do you do when someone plagiarizes an essay and tries to claim it as his own?

Wed, 7 Sep 2011 04:24:06 +0000

The kid has still got several other scraped articles he's attributed to himself. So he hasn't learned his lesson yet. He's probably just sorry he got caught.

iPandora : Why Jesus Would Not Vote For Obama

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 12:30:35 +0000

Because the Bible proposes that it is the word of God, and maintains it's exclusivity inherent in that claim, in order to consider it worthwhile I must consider it true. If is it not true it is not worthwhile There are be plenty other places I can learn about "ways to live amongst (my) neighbors", and to go to a book I know to be comprised of lies would be the height of foolishness. In reference to context, yes, you did. If Jesus did exist and He said what was in the Bible, which is what we're assuming by nature of this part of our discussion, then you did take him out of context as I pointed out. You are proposing that you, who believe the Bible to be primarily composed of lies, and those parts that are not explicit lies are based on them, have read the Bible and studied it enough to know the primary aspects of Jesus' message. Forgive me for being credulous. Jesus' would indeed have denied healthcare and education and food, if the person refused in any way to perform any form of work they were capable of. This is a very high bar, but something our country seems to have forgotten in their mad rush to social programs and "safety nets". I believe we used to term it the "deserving poor". There are those who are poor against their will and in spite of their efforts, and there are those who are poor because that's what they want or because they are not willing to do what they can (notice my careful terminology and do not accuse me of hard heartedness or callous disregard unnecessarily) to ameliorate their own conditions. Social welfare can be reasonably applied to those who are at least trying. The problem with the Federal government attempting to perform these services is that it is first inefficient, and second, too far removed from the actual source of the problems and therefore cannot know or understand the details of any given situation well enough to make a wise choice in who to support and how to support them. Jesus commanded people to, of their own volition, give to those they encounter who are poor. He did not command us to give to Caesar so that Caesar can give to the poor as he sees fit. It is a personal responsibility in Christ's kingdom, not the government responsibility understood by the socialists. My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 01:22:08 +0000

As I stated in the comment, Nazism and Russian Communism were underpinned by the ideas and ideals of atheism.

iPandora : Why Jesus Would Not Vote For Obama

Tue, 5 Apr 2011 01:17:46 +0000

Here the man of science and fact either takes something he's heard or something he's read and, either way, takes it out of context in order to make it fit his preconceived notions of how the world ought to work. Very scientific. The consistent message of Christ was that people had to give up what it was that was that would take precedence over himself in their lives. Christ demands that he be the preeminent passion in the lives of his followers, and in the case of the rich young ruler, it was wealth that was in his way. It was not a contradiction in any sense of the word. My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

iPandora : Why Jesus Would Not Vote For Obama

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:13:37 +0000

All that may be true except for the biblical basis for private property, which is the first and best defense against Socialism and all its ills. My recent post Loving God- Loving Each Other

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:12:41 +0000

There cannot be one piece of hard evidence that Jesus existed that you would accept. You may hide behind a veneer of open-mindedness, but let us dispense with this deceit: You are as close-minded as you claim me to be. For all the research and evidence pointing to the biblical writings of the new testament being written and disseminated throughout Asia and Europe and northern Africa within 2 generations of the life of Jesus of Nazareth you reject this. You will not accept my facts and therefore will remain unconvinced except for a change of heart on your part. My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:06:47 +0000

You sound as though you admit there is a God. You may not like Him based on your perception of Him, but I don't think you're an atheist so much as an anti-theist. My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Sun, 3 Apr 2011 22:05:16 +0000

According to the Bible, Israel (Judaism) committed what was essentially genocide and was instructed to do so a few more times than they actually did. They don't get off either. But for all the millions you may claim have been killed in the name of religion (tracing the history of conflicts you find that more often than not religion was co-opted to rationalize the pride of man, cf the entire Crusades) it has been godlessness, institutionalized atheism, that has killed the most by far, and most of that has been in the 20th century, the bloodiest century in the entire history of mankind. The irreligion of Nazism (abetted by shrinking violets in the German church) committed the holocaust. It was the triumph of twisted science and a corrupted scientific mindset that determined Jews were unfit members of the human race, not some sense of religious necessity. It was the entrenched anti-god of the Bolsheviks that enslaved and killed untold millions of eastern Europeans and northwestern Asians, and the mini-me's of atheistic tin-hat despots that communism and socialism fledged have kept killing right along to the current day. You may have been raised in a tradition as "crazy as the rest of them" but you've chosen a tradition that's bloodier than any. My recent post Music ‘Cuz I Feel Like It

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 03:22:25 +0000

It is difficult to prove a negative according to the laws of science and logic, so do you KNOW know that Jesus and God don't exist? Or do you just really hope they don't/didn't? Or do you believe the preponderance of evidence indicates they do not exist? The canard about the book (I assume you are speaking of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life on earth as contained in the bible) being written well after Jesus was dead and by people who hadn't met him is just that, a canard. And a false one at that. None of the gospels mention the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been a direct fulfillment of some of the words of Jesus and thus quite worth noting. This is but one reason there is a high probability all the gospels (and the subsequent book of Acts) were written before AD 70, or within 35 years of Jesus' death. This means a high percentage of people who met and knew Jesus would have still been alive when the gospels were being disseminated to the various churches. To claim that Jesus was not God makes one a skeptic, to claim he did not exist at all makes one a lunatic. My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Thu, 10 Mar 2011 04:11:19 +0000

Regarding the possibility of life somewhere besides earth, do you think that based on personal belief or factual evidence. If factual evidence, what are the strongest points of that evidence? Yes, the commandment is as you state it, and Jesus even upped the ante when he said that to fantasize about committing adultery is the same as actually doing it. However, there are a few problems with your claim. First, you do not believe God exists, and so to your mind God could not possibly have committed adultery with Mary. And if God does not exist, the worst that happened is that Joseph engaged in coitus with Mary a bit before the ceremony that sanctioned such actions socially. So for you to make such a claim of the sin of God is rather, um, laughable. Second, if you presuppose God exists and that the narrative of the Bible is historically accurate, even then it is not sin. While man is made in God's image, it does not follow that God looks like man. God does not have a phallus and does not engage in sex, and yet the relationship of individual Christians and the Church as a whole with God is repeatedly compared to that of marriage, with God as the bridegroom and us as the bride. God, as the creator of all that is, is necessarily outside of the laws of physics and nature. Just as it is necessarily the case that a composer is not part of his composition. And so God is free to act in ways that are not constrained by those laws he created. To God, the act of causing life to form within a human womb simply requires an act of his word carried out by the Holy Spirit, in the same way acts of his word brought about the forms of creation. I would call my definition of intelligence human-centric, but that's just splitting hairs. If you are asking, by what is intelligence, what is that which differentiates between man and beast, or between man and not-man, if you presuppose the differentiation to be mere points upon a continuum of cleverness, the divide can only be defined as man and not-man; if you presuppose the differentiation to be that which God formed from the word of his mouth as opposed to that which he formed with his "hand" and breathed life into, then you can use the division of man and beast. The point being, because we approach the issue from two very different foundations, we end up talking about two very different things while using the same words.

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 03:00:42 +0000

And this: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/07/alien-l... My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 02:59:20 +0000

And here it is: http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/2008438/nasa_d... Other NASA scientists say the scientists behind this finding has been on this particular stump a long time. The most damning evidence: "The simplest explanation is that there are microbes in the meteorites; they are Earth microbes. In other words, they are contamination," Pilcher said, adding that since the meteorites studied by Hoover are fell to the Earth's surface between 100 and 200 years ago and had been previously handled by humans, "you would expect to find microbes" within them. My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 23:53:55 +0000

Sin is breaking God's law. In the old testament, prior to Jesus' coming, the law was the 10 commandments plus the various explanations and amplifications throughout the latter books of the Pentateuch. Jesus condense the law from what had become a blizzard of rules and regulations dealing with every aspect of personal, business, and social life into two simple commands: Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. With neighbor being defined as everybody, especially those we don't tend to think of as such (Parable of the Good Samaritan). Jesus explained through his life that keeping this "new law" was, first, not a break from the old as it encapsulated the law and addressed it's true spirit, and second, was not just about acting out compliance but also required a heart attitude and motive of compliance. In this way the "new" law was even more demanding than the old. Not that anything had changed, God had required a willingness of heart above letter of the law perfection since He first gave the law to Moses. The spiritual leaders of Jesus' day had, however, turned a law of the heart into a law of do's and don'ts, and this needed addressing. So sin can be an action that is against the law of God, but is much more frequently a thought that is taken possession of or an idea that is pursued or a motive that is against the law of God. Intelligent life has always been hard for me to define in a scientific sense. My most accurate description right now is "I know it when I see it". Every human being I've met qualifies except one or two of my brothers. Just kidding. While various researchers have found qualities in certain animals that seem to correlate with our ideas of intelligence, a common quality of these findings seems also to be a deep familiarity with the animal subjects. Psychology today has found that deep familiarity and attachment can cause us to project upon even inanimate objects personality and qualities of a human sort. That does tend to throw such findings of intelligence, primarily found in lower mammals, in some doubt. Currently, a ven diagram of humans and intelligent life would show one circle with both labels. My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Today's Interesting Stuff

Sun, 6 Mar 2011 05:05:06 +0000

Wasn't there a big presser called by NASA a month or two ago that had all the infodudes and babes a twitter regarding what it is this big press conference could be about? The speculation tended to center around the idea that NASA had found some sort of proof of extraterrestrial life that may or may have been more substantial than what we've seen previously. And then what happened? It was a wash. http://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+press+confere... A quick Google search brought up the details, see above. It was the beginning of December. The first point is, I'll believe it when I see it. Reading the article you linked, it seems this has as good a chance as any of being legit. The specimens were found only after breaking the meteorite open. This along does not totally preclude the chance these specimens may have originated on earth. After all, considering the size of the various meta-meteor craters we see a points around our globe, it is entirely possible a landing meteor could have both entombed organic matter and cellular life and sent said specimen into the into nearby space. There is also no mention of how long the particular meteorite has been on earth and subject to our own little beasties getting into it. Your real questions, though, have nothing to do with how I may dismiss this finding, and everything to do with how my philosophical and religious sensibilities will react to the finding. Religiously? Jesus died for the human beings here on earth. Homo Sapiens. According to Christian theology and my own observations that bear this out, we're the ones with the sin problem and we're the ones God has chosen to bestow his love upon. Animals are a lesser form of creation which mankind is to tend and manage as part of their responsibility for the care and subjugation of the earth. Short version? All intelligent forms of life require salvation from the consequences of their sin. Salvation from said consequences only happens one way. The act that brought about that salvation could only occur once. If this serious of arguments is correct and an accurate description of reality, there cannot be another intelligent form of life besides human kind. If it were proven there were intelligent forms of life on another planet, I would have to cease believing in the truths of the Bible. Given the freedom of will to choose God or sin, an intelligent life will eventually choose sin, as did man, and as man, be in need of a Savior. There only being one God the Son, and that Son only being sent to die as a substitute, in my place, taking my punishment, and being now risen and alive, cannot have died for the people of another planet, unless they already had observed us and there were some way of their knowing Jesus was here for them too, an altogether unlikely set of circumstances. There could, conceivably, be non-intelligent life forms elsewhere, which would not cause serious troubles with orthodox Christian theology, but given the very narrow set of environments that are conducive to life and the infinitely vast array of probable environments given the possible variables, the probability of there actually being another planet with the correct environment and there actually being life there is remotely remote. My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Selling Their Souls

Mon, 21 Feb 2011 03:32:17 +0000

You cannot win this argument by fiat. First, I do not subscribe to any theory of human behavior that equates us with animals in the sense of an inability to control our desires or actions. Because of this I do not accept "they're going to have sex anyways" as a valid line of reasoning supporting abortion. Second, in the same way you do not accept that an infant pre-birth or pre-some arbitrary point of time during the pregnancy is human, I do not accept that is the case. Brain waves are measured as early as 10 days after conception and ultrasounds of procedures performed upon infants in utero clearly indicated actions that do not correspond to the pro-aborts descriptions of stages of human development. Oh, and I believe you meant "bear", not "bare". My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Epic Fail: Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:28:31 +0000

I know of no "bible beaters" who have slowed the advance of Adult Stem Cell Research (ACSR). Like you I agree completely and wholeheartedly that ASCR has been enormously successful. Perhaps some of the reason it has not advanced quite so much as it should have or could have is for all the media pressure brought to bear in support of ESCR (Embryonic Stem Cell Research). Private companies have been the main investors in ACSR, while the government has been pressured (and politicized) into funding ESCR (one of President Obama's early actions). Perhaps if the government got out of the business of supporting any form of this altogether, the attention would end up where it ought to and we'd get to hear all the amazing stories of lives saved and improved through the application of adipose (fat) or marrow derived ASCR. My recent post Protecting Privilege

iPandora : Selling Their Souls

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:21:44 +0000

In the same way that erasing the result of rape by killing the child does not equal a moral good, killing people who operate under a mistaken and incorrect system of values does not make things right. There is one entity set up on earth that can justifiably deny the right to life under defined circumstances, and that is the government, and in our country that first requires significant and extraordinary amounts of due process. The article, however, is no factual paradise and does itself little credit with its frequent use of straw men, false comparisons, broad assertions, and general imbalance. The two laws are amending self-defense statutes and, as I read them, can be applied only when either your own person or the person of someone closely connected to you is in grave danger. Given the laxity with which the judicial system applies the laws the article describes as such: "Fetal homicide statutes have been on some state law books since the early seventies, according to Stateline.org, but many did not stipulate when a fetus became a person and potential crime victim, leaving courts to decide whether the death of an early-term fetus constituted a separate crime in maternal murder cases. But states more recently began using "cookie-cutter language in fetal homicide laws, assigning legal rights to fetuses at any gestational age,” Sondra Goldschein, state strategies director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told Stateline.org in 2006. " I find it highly unlikely they will be accepting of the wanton murder of abortion-practicing medical staff as falling under justifiable homicide. There is no way I can pretend to know exactly what Jesus would say about this. Suffice to say He would likely be much better able to parse the nuances than I. However, as you have clearly and repeatedly stated that you don't believe Jesus to have been a historical figure, I believe your question is moot. From what the Bible does say, and clearly, we can be very clear that Jesus is, has been, and so long as the practice continues will be grieved by the practice of killing children because they are "unwanted" or "untenable". That latter reason we know to be a false shield, accounting for such small percentages as to be statistically insignificant and therefore without merit for basing public policy and law upon. The former reason is only a mark of our own selfish ambition, that we would sacrifice at the altar of our own pride and fleeting happiness those children who would result from that for which we had a choice. My recent post Protecting Privilege