morosophos

The book of Exodus contains 613 commandments. There have been pulled out from those 613 commandments ten special ones that seem to summarise the rest. These are referred to as the Ten Commandmentsand true, nowhere else in the Bible does it mention another addition to the Ten Commandments, that's why there're ten of them. The Ten Commandments are an excellent guideline for one's life. However, not all of them can apply to other faiths, such as the First Commandment, "You shall have no graven images and no false gods." Obviously polytheistic faiths are going to have minor discrepencies in moral values here. On your logic, it is presumptuous. You assume that commandments are the only way to measure one's life or "mirror our actions." Perhaps one of the best mirrors is just reflectionto sit back and think about our actions and ponder how we could make ourselves better as a whole. We can even turn to other people as mirrors. We can observe how they act and decide for ourselves which of their actions and traits are ones that are moral based on our own perspectives and act accordingly. As for sin, one only sins when one commits an act against God (which can mean an act against nature or humanity as well, since both are associated with Him) of one's own knowledge and volition. For instance, if I were a two-year-old with very little knowledge of right or wrong, would "stealing" a cookie be a sin? If I don't know the laws, am I guilty and able to be held accountable and judged by them? No. The point I am making is the best guide to making moral decisions is one's conscience. In the case of the two-year-old, his conscience is not fully developed, so he isn't able to look at the situation as one of morality. He just sees cookie. As to how one's conscience is formed, one could easily argue that analysing situations with regard to a set of moral standards (you seem to be quite fond of the Ten Commandments for your moral standard) is the way to go. There are uncounted ways to strengthen and train one's conscience, and that way is as good as any.

There are definitely two distinct creation stories. Why would the Bible go on to mention God creating the earth, plants, and humans all over again? The answer is that these stories were taken from different sources and put together later in the same compilation, the book of Genesis. One may have been written in Juda, the other in Israel (recall the split of Israel in circa 722 BC). The fact in itself that there are two creation stories does not rebuke the idea of literal interpretation of Genesis; the fact that they are somewhat contradictory about details does. As for the argument about tilling soil, God (if He is going to be the direct author) states that "there was no soil for man to till." When did man start tilling soil? After banishment from Eden. The way this is written, however, implies that God created the soil just for mankind to till, as if there were absolutely no escape from sin, which was our "free will" to choose. The Bible makes no mention whatsoever of Adam and Eve having any sort of daughter, therefore there would be no sister for Cain to marry in the first place. As to the Theory of Evolution, humans obviously came from something. You say humans literally came from dirt; I say humans literally came from archaic life (which came from organic molecules, from atoms). But if you were to ask me where the atoms came from, I would have no problem at all with the idea of a higher being or deity. It seems perfectly plausible. As I said before, the Theory of Evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. As for coming from trees, that is unlikely. Although mankind and trees have a common ancestor (far back in historysingle-celled organisms), mankind is not directly decended from trees. Humans also have been proven to have many things in common with other animals; many links have been found. Certainly anyone can see the physical similarities between mankind and chimps and between these chimps and other animals. Believe it or not, one can physically see the succession of evolution. A more concrete link is one that has only come recently, within the most recent decades. DNA analysis reveals similar sequences of nucleotides amongst many creatures; the more recent the evolutionary fork, the more similar the sequence and consequently the more alike they arephysically, functionally, and in respect to lifestyles as well. I have no problem with the Bible being the inspired word of God. The keyword here is inspired. I do not believe that God dictated the words in the Bible, much less wrote it Himself. The direct author of the Bible is humans, humans who were knowledgeable in holy affairs and had the betterment of all creation in mind. Further evidence that humans wrote the Bible is that there was no Bible at the time of Adam. There wasn't even a Bible two thousand years ago at the time of Christ. The first Bible did not appear until the Latin Vulgate in the fifth century A.D. Before then, it was a collection of scholarly writings in various languages. These writings, by the way, were contained with other writings which are not in the modern Bible. Humans had to distinguish what should and should not be part of the canon, which has been revised several times. The only way to decide was to look at the content and decide whether or not the general message of the writing was appropriate in light of God. God doesn't sign "YHWH" in gaudy handwriting all over His manuscripts. The Torah is an assortment of writings in light of the Hebrew/Jewish culture. When Jesus (whom Christians call Christ) came to earth (God incarnate or not), things changedthere became a distinct entity from the current Jewish authority. Laws, culture, people, and doctrine changed. The Bible (the first five booksGenesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomyare actually the Torah) is a reflection on the Christian culture: nothing more, nothing less. Is it indeed the inspired word of God? Sure. But because humans are the direct author, not God, there is apt to be error. When I say error, I do not mean error in respect to message. The message is still there, that is why the writings were chosen to be in the Bible in the first place. Error applies to historical accuracy and bias. Humans aren't impartial creatures, especially in the Old Testament (surely you don't think God would actually condone Jihadthat it was God's will that the Hebrew people massacre benevolent native Canaanitesdo you?). The contradictions found in the Bible are the result of the aforementioned human inaccuracy. There are contradictions, by the way. The Gospels are an excellent example. Read the Gospel of Mark and then read the Gospel of John and tell me if you find anything at all similar apart from: 1. A man named Jesus 2. Disciples 3. Resurrection Trust me, there will be so very little in common. The authors of the Gospels had different purposes, and therefore wrote differently and included different stories. This is not to say that both Gospels are perfectly true, but I am saying that they have human authors and should be taken as suchtranslated contextually. Furthermore, if God is truly the author of the Bible, why are some things revealed to us and other things not? It shouldn't be that way. If you hold that God is perfect, then He is perfectly able to find a way to present information in such a manner as there are no contradictions, no one is left wondering, no one is left "in the dark" as to what some of the phrasing means, and that everything is revealed in such a manner as to be satisfactory to humans. What if there weren't more sons? The problem isn't sons, it's daughters. There are plenty of men to go around. But despite this, if we are going to fill-in information into the Bible that is missing, we might as well add in the verse "And then God created atoms, and saw that they were good. These atoms formed ionic and covalent bonds to form molecules, the basic structure of all things. These molecules formed the cells that are the building blocks of all lifeplant, animal, fungus, bacteria, and archaea, all of which He saw were good. Then, He took His mighty right hand and created the laws of evolution, so that life might beget itself in the wonderful cycle of nature, which was also good."

ON EVOLUTION The original post in this thread posed the question along the lines "If organisms evolve in response to environmental changes and surviving better in their biomes, why have humans evolved to so great an extent and other lesser organisms to so little?" The answer is simple?genetic mutation. Darwin's Theory of Evolution states that evolution is simply the greater manifestation of a mutated trait in a population. The progenitor of this thread brilliantly proposed the situation in which humans fundementally evolved from fish. However, why do fish yet exist if they are therefore obsolete? Everyone should agree there are different species of fish, developed due to some form of isolation. This isolation could be geographic or simply the instinct to infest the sea over a greater distance. Because these groups of essentially the same fish are living by themselves, each group developes its own "quirks." Eventually these quirks are magnified to such a degree that the fish can no longer be classified as the same species, for the can no longer copulate with one another. I propose that this is a situation similar to what happened in the creation of land creatures. Only certain populations of fish, living in isolation, developed a mutated gene by happenstance to be able to further develop into amphibians, who ultimately became humans. In shorter terms, fish still exist because the fish that survive today were descendents from the fish that never developed the necessary traits to walk the land. Note that despite the above example, genetic distinction doubtlessly occurred much earlier than the development of fish. Fish have indeed evolved, by the way. The first "fish" were probably similar to todays cnidarians?jellyfish and other simple marine creatures. It took massive amounts of time for fish to become the scaled vertebrates they are today. ON CREATIONISM By Creationism, I mean the literal belief the interpretation of the creation of the world as found in the book of Genesis and the story of the succession of the human race from Adam and Eve. There is already a problem. There are in fact two creation stories found side-by-side in the book of Genesis (Gn 1-2:4a, Gn 2:4b-14). The first one, in which God creates the universe in six days and rests on the seventh, explains man coming as the final creation of God. The second story, which includes the creation of Eden, is a very short story, but a very controversial one to itself (more on that later). It is from this second story that the story of Adam and Eve arises. The first story reads as if many humans were created all at once, whereas the second story mentions only Adam and Eve. But let's abandon discrepencies thus far and continue on, for there is more flawed logic in a literal translation afoot. Let's assume that God created the world as stated in the first creation story, except for the part where He creates humans, wherein we'll believe the second one (cut & paste Bible interpretations... hehe). So we have Adam and Eve, who finally eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree and are exiled from Eden into the land where they are no longer able to comprehend the animals, production results only from manual labour, the woman must bear the pain of childbirth, etc. They have two sons, Cain and Abel. Abel seems to be a meticulous young man and has a very good relationship with God, because he offers the best of his crop as an oblation to Him. Cain gets jealous of Abel because God seems to favour him (Cain apparently hadn't been offering the same level of oblations/sacrifices as his brother). So he decides to off him. And hence we have reached the end of the human race as we know it. If we are indeed to believe that God created the entirety of the human race in Adam and Eve, then we're screwed. Adam and Eve have probably been alive some four hundred years now (Genesis mentions astronomical lifespans), and now one of their only two sons has died. The human population consists of three people: Adam, Eve, and Cain. The Bible only mentions one more child from Adam ("Seth" in Gn 5:3). However, this doesn't solve the problem; the problem, you see, is a lack of females. Neither surviving son is mentioned in the Bible showing Eve their manly chuztpah. So in theory, we don't actually exist. Yet somehow we do. The Bible also mentions Cain having relations with his wife (Gn 4:17a); where did she come from? Then I guess we have to assume that both creation stories are completely true. There is a problem with this, as mentioned earlier?there are discrepencies. One story (the first) mentions the creation of beasts and animals, and the other (the second) does not. There is a verse, however, that causes even more controversy. "... while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil..." (Gn 2:5). The italicised is the problem?tilling the soil. Man did not do manual labour (according to the Bible) until he was banished from Eden. However, God (whom, translating literally, many believe wrote, or at least dictated, the Bible) mentions the soil as something that is going to be inevitably tilled; that the soil's sole purpose is to be worked by the hands of mankind. If God indeed wrote the Bible, he has little faith in humans. ON RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCES If God indeed wrote the Bible. Believing that God Himself wrote the Bible leads to a literal interpretation of the Bible, for God is believed to be infallible?why would one interpret any way other than literally if He wrote it? However, we can clearly see the contradictions in the Bible, and we have only explored so far as the first five chapters of Genesis! I cannot list all the contradictions, there are so many. This means in no way that the Bible is wrong, however. It just means that a literal approach is not the best way. The Bible is a holy work of literature; it has themes, metaphors, and figurative language like any other work. Proper interpretation is the result of analysing all the above. For instance, what is the true message of the creation stories? A recurring verse in the first creation story is "And He saw it was good." This means that creation is inherantly benevolent. The crimes of Cain and the subsequent forgiveness from God show the mercy of God and the imperfection of humanity, which struggles to serve Him. All of these inferences are perfectly compatible in both creation stories and throughout the Bible, as well as with the Theory of Evolution. A contextual interpretation of the Bible means that God inspired the writings found in the Bible. But God did not come down with His almighty Ticonderoga and inscribe the Bible into stone tablets. That's a whole lot of stone, a whole lot of pencil, and a whole lot of date discrepency to account for. The writings found in the Bible are spaced so far apart in respect to their writing chronologically that it suggests many different people wrote the Bible. Carbon-dating of the individual scrolls, a thorough analysis of the Hebrew in which the stories were written, and other methods have found the two creation stories found in Genesis are at least two or three hundred years apart. If God wrote it, why wouldn't he do it all at once? God has no bathroom breaks. Overall, contextual interpretations of Bible stories can be far more wholesome and less erroneous in relating to other sources of knowledge than literal interpretations. Literal interpretations are very narrow in application; they are full of absolutes, which results in a massive population of infidels. When enemy cultures and religions with these strict interpretations of sacred scripture meet, the Crusades, terrorist attacks, and malevolent cults may occur. Religion itself isn't wrong (I myself, though not Christian per se, am religious), but persecution on behalf of God (who is portrayed as the force of good) is silly.

Homosexuality is a matter of physiology when pertaining to men. As for women, homosexuals and straight women have been shown through extensive study to have no actual diversion?genetic, physiological, hormonal, or otherwise?from each other! Gay men react the same way to masculine pheromones as women. Hence we can see that homosexuality (at least in men) is not something of conscious decision but something of natural origins. This leads one to believe that there is a reason behind homosexuality. Most changes in behaviour or physical appearance or function happen because of changes in the environment, better suiting that changed organism to its day-to-day world. Homosexuality has definitely become more eminent recently, though it has exhibited itself in the past. Therefore, something recent has caused an uptrend in the homosexual lifestyle. Overpopulation may be the factor that has caused?and is causing?this trend. So homosexuality is a good thing. Between homosexuality, forced abortions, mass killings, and realised Logan's Run, homosexuality is surely the most humane. Furthermore, the regulation of homosexuality has followed this trend throughout history. Well-established Greek city-states had no such regulations on sexuality, as their populations were healthy and in no danger of rapid dissappearance. The Hebrews, on the other hand, the desert people who were in constant persecution, would have a need to make sure their ranks weren't entirely annihilated. The solution? Get rid of homosexuality, masturbation, and endorse polygamy to ensure the greatest turnout of offspring in each generation. It is from the Hebrews/Jews that comes the idea that homosexuality would be wrong per se in the first place. After all, it is from the Jewish tradition that all the Christian laws were derived, and it was Christianity, and later Islam, that pervaded the western world. Think about the issue objectively: Is homosexuality a moral issue; why? Most people are born with the sense of right and wrong to know that killing others is a bad thing, but whence does "Homosexuality is bad" come? It is the outdated desert morality seen in the Ancient Hebrews that still survives even in modern industrialised nations. This sort of so-called moral issue is still needed in many third-world nations who have a struggling populace, but there is hardly a need any longer for a ban on homosexuality in nations such as the United States and those found in Europe. If anything, homosexuality should be encouraged, because as the human population closes in on limited resources, the population is going to be reduced one way or another?and I (and doubtlessly many others, I hope) am not too keen on the Orwellian means of population truncation aforementioned.

Rehabilitation is indeed an important factor in the punishment system. The ultimate goal of punishment is rehabilitation, that criminals might reform themselves to fit into society. This is the very reason why the capital punishment should not be used--it does not allow for rehabilitation. Once you're dead, you're dead. There is no reformation there. Secondly, it scares me how much trouble the government is willing to endure in order to kill people. Defendents' lawyers fight as hard as they can to keep their clients from incurring the death penalty. Soi-disant justice nevertheless stops at nothing to depose these lawyers and do what some would unfortunately call just. Lawmakers in many places give energy to ensuring the death penalty doesn't meet its own untimely end. Just how bloodlusted in the state? It makes me sick. Yet we must analyse lawmakers' motives for keeping the death penalty alive. No doubt it was once used for protection. Prisons not having been perfect at all times, society would have wanted to protect itself; at the time, such protection could only be guaranteed by death. Another viable hypothesis is that religion perpetuates the death penalty. Western religions, which tend to have punishment "Hell" and reward "Heaven," would suggest that evildoers have already condemned themselves, on some level, to Hell, or the respective equivalent. Such actions can be seen during the corrupt periods of the Catholic Church. However, what about modern religion? Didn't Christ state that killing was wrong?--Like people listen to him. Not saying that religion is per se the breeder of the death penalty, but it has surely played a role. As for deterrence, it hasn't worked. If the death penalty truly deterred people from heinous crimes, no one would commit them, or at least a significantly fewer number. However, crimes warranting the death penalty have not shown a downward trend. As an ultimate punishment, life in prison should be used. Society is at risk from the criminal, it costs significantly less (40% less to keep an inmate alive for life than a single execution, 70% less in court costs), and it gives due and proper respect for life.

The Catholic Church says a priest is needed in order to properly relate to the Bible. There are so many allusions to ancient culture, history, and language that people educated in such areas are almost mandatory to do any serious Bible study. The Church also prides itself in apastolic succession: every priest can be traced back through their trainers to the original apostles. So you see, there is reason behind having priests aid in interpreting the Bible. As to Mary, she was not born without sin in the Catholic view. Mary was given absolution after she bore Christ, and she remained sinless thereafter. As to Saints, Catholics do not worship them. They pray to them in order that they might intercede for them to God. The Saints are patrons and patronesses of various things, they understand in particular that of which they are patron. A zookeeper having troubles with his animals, for instance, may pray to St. Francis, who is patron saint of animals so he could better relate his worries to God. In no way do Catholics revere saints in the same way or on the same level as God. Catholics also have sources for belief outside the Bible. They have to be some of the greatest bureaucrats and graphomaniacs ever to have existed, Catholics. Catholics have included in their Bibles books not contained in non-Catholic Bibles (Wisom, Sirach, Baruch, et al.) Catholic docrine also draws on Gnostic sources and writings not contained in any Bible I'm aware of.

Sexuality is a deep, personal thing. As for its origin, experiences, genetics, and other things are likely all factors. It was just recently shown that gay men react to other men the same way women do in respect to changes in body chemistry, hormones, and pherimones. That said, we can see that being sexually confused is something not easily effected by something physical. Instead, there has to be a mental component. So if someone is sexually confused, that person has probably convinced, or is attempting to convince, himself or herself that his or her sexual preference is not what it truly is. It seems that this is most common in soi-disant bisexuals, who are truly people just malcontent with themselves and need time to outgrow it.I believe that there are true bisexuals, but these people can be people of discipline and morals--they're not all necessarily the steriotypical philanderers. Being bisexual means members of both genders appeal to one on equal levels, not that the one is an indescriminate ****.

What a mouthful. You quite clearly put a lot of thought into this. However, most of the scripture passages to which you referred mentioned the commandments, rather than the Commandments (difference in capitalisation). Commandments can refer to anything that is decreed. The Commandments, though a lovely and wonderful guide by which Christians may evaluate their lives, are not accepted by people of all faiths. I do not intend to argue that the Ten Commandments are irrelevant to society, for certainly there is meaning in each of the ten that anyone of any faith can apply (excepting the first one, wherein is stated there is one God). However, there are other standards by which one can, and should, measure oneself. What one is actually measuring is one's moral being, which is compared to one's own morality derived from a moral standard, such as the Ten Commandments. Moral standards can be found outside the Bible, for many people acrue their moral standards in peices as they grow from a child and learn right from wrong. This distinction from right and wrong is inveterate in nearly all humans and is called conscience. Therefore, decisions ought to be evaluated by more than just a moral standard such as the Ten Commandments, but also by conscience, which is able to subjectively distinguish right from wrong in a given situation because it is more intimately related to its user. One benefit of many in evaluating actions against a conscience rather than simply a moral standard is something you mentioned: aversion to viewing sacred law as strictly legal. Although Christians are supposed to obey the Ten Commandments and the various sayings of Jesus, such as the two you also mentioned, they are called more than "not to break the law." In Matthew 25, for instance, the Lord judges based on what the sheep and goats have done, rather than not done.

The DaVinci Code was an excellent read--all two or three hours it took to read it. Dan Brown is a very compelling writer, and his blend of fiction with fact is very skilled. I've also read Angels & Demons, but it lacked the controversy and bold character possessed in DaVinci. The book certainly had enough advertisement, what with all the attempts to make it unpopular. "Thank you Rev. So-and-so and Fr. Whats-his-face for feeding the fire you attempt to put out." Heheheh. The primary theme of The DaVinci Code seems to be more along the lines of the maltreatment of women within the Catholic Church than an attempt to discredit Christianity. That was the point behind the feminine holy grail, Dan Brown's multiple allusions to female goddesses, and the entire character of Sophie Neveu, contrasted with the archaic and arcane doctrines, histories, and beliefs of the Catholic Church. The book was set up brilliantly.

Anti-terrorism has clearly become a focal issue in many governments. I live in America, where the September 11 attacks brought such change as I have never seen in my lifetime. Americans reacted with patriotism, or so it was viewed at the time. Muslim citizens and residents almost immediately were confronted with an uneasy air. It wasn't long before politicians siezed the opportunity to blame each other, particularly bullied was the intelligence branch. Of course, no bureaucracy or otherwise government organisation is going to stand idly by as it is politically disassembled, so the government stepped swiftly into action. In the blink of an eye, American troops were in the Middle East--on the hunt for key members of Al Qaeda. But where can we find these people? Who knows? Clearly the government doesn't. Not that it mattered; too many Americans at that point still identified the Middle East as Paki-something and Whatsthe-stan. It was nearly a year before the majority of Americans realised the little-to-no connection between Bin Laden and Iraq. This was not the only thing that came about from our "War against evil," however. The government wants to make sure that such an attack would never happen again, at any cost. This is where my question comes in. Is America, or any other nation for that matter, excessively curbing freedom in the name of counter-terrorism? My personal view dictates "Yes." These people are, after all, terrorists. Causing terror is what they do. That is their goal--terror. Here's the heavy question, though. What is the point to the terror? Apart from the obvious "to cause fear," further thought needs to be put into their motives. Once we discover their motives, then we can know how to retaliate. Could it be that such blunt destruction and terrorism serves a purpose more sublime? I believe that the purpose of all this is paranoia, in which case the last thing we want to do is allow ourselves to become overly protective in the name of defence and start arbitrarily annexing countries. What is the problem with pulling out? Loosing face? Appearing cowardly to our fanatical enemies? I can see it now: Mohammed: So, how 'bout them Americans, Abby? Abdel: Heheh. Little chickens, Mo. Mohammed: We sure scared them. Who would have thought they'd have pulled out so fast? Abdel: Yup. Wait... what about jihad? Weren't we going to teach them a lesson; weren't we going to show them infidels their maker? I mean, it's rather hard to do now that they're exactly where they were before any of this started. Did we really effect anything? Mohammed: Shut up. You're depressing me. Contrary to that logic, our government has become nearly despotic. What is this Patriot Act crap? You mean, they get to spy on me now? Oh wait, never mind, Bush is already doing that illegally. It was all over the news. How dare someone leak that information! (What is that?!?! When people are more concerned over the fact that information was leaked over the fact that the president and friends have been watching their ant farm a little too closely?) Airports are silly. It took me an entire day to get through American customs from peace-loving Japan. America needs to re-evaluate itself and decide whether or not all this counter-terrorism is really worth it, or even having positive effects in the overall view of the situation.

The Democrats and others have generally done a fair enough job in defaming Bush (not saying that he doesn't deserve such treatment or even saying that he didn't do most of the work himself) that it is rather unlikely another Republican will directly succeed Bush. I predict a Democrat for the next American president unless Bush does something mighty saintly in the next couple years. He just renewed the Patriot Act, which is met with general reluctance on both sides of the American political spectrum, no matter who says how much it is needed, so he is not fairing so well as of yet. He still has this Iraq situation, and in his most recent State of the Union Address, he mentioned bringing democracy to the Middle East, not just Iraq. Oh goodie. >.<Again, I would be thrilled if a viable third-party candidate came along and stole the office from both Democrats and Republicans, and I think most other Americans would enjoy the change as well. But we seem to be caught in a cycle: no one thinks a third-party can win, so we all primarily vote Republican or Democrat, though many of us likely think the best person for the job belongs to neither party.

Social status is silly when it is effected by wealth. You have to ask yourself "What is the point to social status?" My personal answer is acceptance; I want to be accepted and cared about by others. This is where social status determined exclusively by wealth is ridiculous. If others claim to care and accept you based on your wealth, is that really the sort of care and acceptance you want? It certainly is not for me. It saddens me that society, particularly in the western world, looks up to those who have amassed obscene quantities of money.Money is almost humourous at the level it is anymore. Whereas money was once backed up by gold (and sometimes silver) in many nations, it is now exclusively the trust and consensus of the people. Therefore, the money many of us use is literally worthless slips of paper--it has no alternate tangible value. While gold did aid to some extent in controlling inflation and deflation of the currency, the populace was able to withdraw gold at any point in time, which could cause (and did cause) economic panics, such as the Great Depression in America. It makes me almost miss the old bartering economies, if they weren't so ineffecient. You really can't have inflation with sheep... but you can't exactly carry them around in your pocket or make change with them for that matter.

American political races generally suck, but I have to say the 2004 presidential election really trumped everything else. On the global political scale, Bush and Kerry weren't too far apart from each other. It saddens me when either candidate seeks to make government larger. Call me an anarchist, but my personal opinion is that government needs to be significantly downsized. In the end, the choice narrowed down to Kerry with his bureaucracy and a potential economic mess or Bush and his police-state and eminent economic mess. So it's like a choice between Brazil and 1984. This is how I saw the issue, anyway. A third-party candidate would be better suited for the job.

My site (cpanel @ http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/) has been suspended for reasons unbeknownst to me. My hosting credits number between six and seven, and I haven't broken any rules of which I am aware. Is it possible that the site may have been removed accidentally by a script? If there is anything on my site that is against the regulations, please inform me and I can change it.

My site is suspended (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/). My hosting credits number somewhere around seven. I don't believe I am violating any terms of service. Am I not seeing something, or am I being bullied by a script of some sort?

Sexual preference is a matter so personal that others' views bare little or no gravity. What makes homosexuality or bisexuality wrong? Come to think of it, what makes anything wrong? In this case, it seems to be wrong in the sense of against society. The problem arises in trying to find exactly which society that is--the state or some sort of subculture, like a religion.

Perhaps there is no one love. There are surely many different facets of love. There is love on the primitive and physical level (the erotic level), love in generosity (selflessness towards another), and love as friendship. The latter two seem to be love on a more emotional level, whereas the first is more physical than anything else. It would seem to me that erotic love has managed to manifest itself in modern society more than the other two, at least insomuch as the western media has demonstrated. But nevertheless, all three are needed in successful intimate relationships (assuming that's what we're talking about). Love's definition really depends on the situation and the relationship betwixt the two "lovers."

My website, http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ doesn't work as http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/. Why is this? I can no longer use 99% of the functions on cpanel, and wordpress (which I installed) is also no longer working correctly. Does anyone know why this is happening? Notice from BuffaloHELP: Topic title and description are very important. Editing.

General John Pershing had an interesting approach when it came to dealing with guerilla warfare in the Phillipines. Muslim warriors had been causing problems similar to those of the terrorists in Iraq (less the bombs, of course). Having captured roughly a hundred of them, he shot each of them with a bullet soaked in swine's blood (thereby condemning those shot to Hell). He left one alive to tell the rest what happened there. Of course, no one could possibly hope to effect something like that today. The world would freak. As if America weren't unpopular enough already. Instead, perhaps there is a better, more logical way of dealing with terrorism, and that is defeating its very principal, terror. Perhaps the best way of dealing with terrorists is completely to ignore them. They want to cause fear, so if no one allows them this fear, then they really won't be doing much good. While it may seem ridiculous to outright not acknowledge attacks and to furthermore not retaliate, it does seem to make the most logical sense. If the terrorists fail to accomplish anything, what is the point in persistence?

A-Ha! A lovely topic. I believe right and wrong must first be devided into two subcatagories: intrinsic and extrinsic. Extrinsic right and wrong apply to absolute, objective right and wrong. For instance, it would be extrinsically wrong to murder. Intrinsic right and wrong applies to conscientious, subjective right and wrong. In these cases, right and wrong conform to your own personal morality, and the deed is wrong in itself. Take this for instance: Say I were a starving man with a family to feed, and I spotted a large, successful bakery across the street. I break in during the night, and abscond a few loaves of bread to sustain me and my family. This action would be extrinsically wrong, because stealing is objectively wrong, however, this action is intrisically justified, because I felt it was the right thing to do in my situation. Extrinsic right and wrong usually apply to law. In America, where drivers stay to the right side of the road as opposed to the left, driving on the left side is extrinsically wrong because it's against the law. But is it intrinsically wrong? Out of context, driving on one side of the street to the other doesn't weigh on my conscience, so no, it is not. Ideally, both extrinsic and intrinsic right and wrong are the same things. However, this is terribly unlikely ever to happen. Not to say that there haven't been attempts. That's what many modern religions do. Christianity tries to conform its followers to one moral standard, that is, the ones found within the Bible. Though a worthy and noble cause, it is probably a lost one. Not until all people can come to a perfect consensus about extrinsic and intrinsic right and wrong is there any hope to unite intrinsic and extrinsic. There are also other problems that lead out of uniting intrinsic and extrinsic. This follows from the question, "Do we strive to do what is just, and what is just?" If extrinsic is morality as it applies to objectivity and the law, then this is of great concern to everyone. I won't even presume to be able to define what is just, but for further reading, you might try Plato's The Republic. But for now, the point I want to make is the law may or may not be just. And if it isn't just, and we strive for justice in morality, then the question isn't Can we unite the intrinsic and extrinsic? but rather Should we unite them? I strongly suggest Plato's The Republic for reading.

Although what the girl says could possibly be true, this does sound too much like another emo-poser sort of situation. Emo is no fun. I could go on about subcultures (let's all be nonconformist by conforming to a subculture! Who's in?), but I really won't. The reason she's fabricating these stories is likely due to her being antisocial. She's probably feeling outcast. If she had friends, she may not feel compelled to effect sympathy.

Aristotle worried about this very thing. He rebuked democracy because he feared (or rather, knew) that the people would use their new power for selfish reasons and a corrupt redistribution of wealth. It really isn't to anyone's advantage when all candidates for election have only their own interests in mind, at which point there is no true difference between the candidates and you might as well vote at random.On capitalism... usually only a good idea if there is an unselfish people and not a great amount of poverty. So simply overthrowing a communist regime is not a good idea. You need more than that. And according to Marx, capitalism inevitably leads to socialism. Already in the United States, we are experiencing a growing rift between the rich and the poor. Then again, "western nations" are also becoming more socialist, so is this rift caused by socialism, or is socialism being caused by the rift? Perhaps the only way to discover the answer is observation as time progresses.

I myself am a grammar *BLEEP* through-and-through (that's not going to make it through censors, is it?). There's really no other way to describe it. However, few are the people who use entirely correct grammar. Can anyone here tell me the difference between may, might, and would? There are differences. Some of the most common errors are spelling and usage errors. There and their and they're, for example. However, this error is only expressed in writing. Spoken English has myriad problems of its own (don't even get me started). What we need to realise, however, is that these "errors" won't be errors, in time. Eventually, they will become so commonplace that they will be considered proper. Split infinitives used to be improper grammar, but now they are acceptable (though this still doesn't quell my contempt for them). Abbreviations are also natural occurences in language. Take the Romans. They abbreviated left and right in their Latin. SPQR, anyone? AVQC? (Senatus PopulusQue Romanus and Arma VirumQue Cano, respectively). If someone were to invent a time machine and we travel to Elizabethan or Victorian England, how would the locals view our speech, even in its most correct form? They would doubtlessly view our language as vulgar and crude. The fact is, language naturally evolves, often through misuse.

English is without a doubt changing. Not necessarily decaying, but rather evolving. It's natural for just about any language to do this. Take a look at Spenser or Shakespeare, some of the most eminent writers when Modern English was coming into use. No one speaks like that anymore. Pronouns have changed ("thou, thy, and thee" to "you, your, and you" respectively) and we've also killed our subjunctive mood in verbs (when was the last time you thought about the differences between may, might, and would?). There have also been many other changes. As slang takes a firmer grasp and become more commonplace in English as well as other languages, the languages change. The swift evolution in communication technology has sped up the process as well by blending the grammar, syntax, and slang of various languages (Spanish is everywhere in American English, for example).

Homosexuality has been around for a long time. It was very apparent in ancient Greece, where in some city-states, men were forbidden from having intercourse with women until coming of age (largely due to the pejoritive Ancient Greek view on women). The ancient world was pervaded by homosexuality, and that was absolutely fine with everyone. The "straight prudence" thing really didn't occurr until the Byzantines. My point is homosexuality isn't a new thing. Further, the public opinion on homosexuality changes as time progresses. Whereas it was percectly acceptable 2500 years ago, many homosexuals were afraid to "come out of the closet" in America fifty years ago continuing into today. In my opinion, the legalisation of *happy* marriage is going to be inevitable. We're already seeing the liberalisation of many nations throughout the world--a revolution back to the culture of the Greeks and Romans; it's just a matter of time. As to the homophobia inherent in many Christian sects, it really is quite ridiculous. It is absolutely true that intercourse between two (or more) members of the same gender is censured in the Bible. So is approaching an alter by someone with "blemishes" (eyeglasses, bald spots, etc.). You're also supposed to be doing the whole "sacrifice the bull of the village sins" and "oblations as peace offerings" and whatnot. Who decided to free you from Levitican code? I mean, if you're going to get all fussy about *happy* marriage, why not start ritual sacrifice again? I mean, God must be pretty pissed about the lack of attention at this point. Christians in general really need to get a move on. Furthermore, whatever happend to the witch hunts? Doesn't it say in Exodus "You shall not allow a sorceress to live?" (Ex 23:18) Slackers. The logical solution to this problem is deciding which of the laws are no longer pertinent to society. Some laws like "Thou shalt not kill" are clearly important, while "spending seven days outside the camp for committing the sin of Onan" are not. So it boils down to this: Why would a ban on *happy* marriage be useful to Christianity or humanity in general? Honestly, I think the legalisation would be more helpful. The world is already facing overpopulation, and as far as I know, two men/two women are incapable of reproducing by themselves. And look at it this way: the straight men have less competition for the women. So have at it, go ahead.