Bob_Blaylock

You seem to be arguing a false dichotomy. It is doctrinally very clear—Mary was a virgin at the time she gave birth to Jesus, meaning that she had not, up to the point, engaged in sexual intercourse with anyone. However, this does not mean that Jesus is not literally, biologically, the son of God; I think doctrine is fairly clear on the point that he is. As “Tarnished” has pointed out, we—being far less powerful and advanced than God—have the capability to cause a woman to become pregnant, without her having to engage in sexual intercourse. When we do it, it's called “artificial insemination”. We mortals have this power; why wouldn't God?

A person who puts forth falsehood—especially falsehood that will result in serious harm to people—needs to be challenged. It's easy enough for the one who is thus challenged to accuse his challenger of being “pessimistic” and of “causing contention”, but doing so does nothing to address the underlying dispute. People can be seriously harmed as a result of following ZenMormon's advice. People can die, as a result of following ZenMormon's advice. Real; diseases need real treatment, based on the best of modern science. I am not saying that there is no benefit to herbs, and traditional medicines, but to claim that one should rely exclusively on such, and to avoid modern science-based medicine; is logically the same as claiming that we should all give up automobiles because they are too slow, dangerous and inefficient; and go back to using horses instead. We have modern medicines and techniques that can effectively treat conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer; often increasing the length and quality of life of those afflicted with these conditions. ZenMormon cannot do anything to effectively treat these conditions, and if he claims that he can, then he's a fraud. If exposing a fraud, and calling him for what he truly is, is “pessimistic” or “causing contention”, then so be it.

The posting in question seems to have vanished. In any event, I was making an entirely valid point, here. Both you and ZenMormon have been engaging heavily in the “Appeal to Nature” and “Appeal to Tradition” fallacies, asserting that herbs and “natural medicine” are panaceas that will cure anything and that have no adverse effects whatsoever; at the same time asserting that modern synthetic medicines are entirely harmful, and denying that they are beneficial at all. The link I that posted, and the images that I posted therewith, demonstrate a particular “natural remedy” that proves to be very harmful, and which fails to be effective in treating anything, putting the lie to your claims about how nobody is ever harmed by such. In fact, there are many things that are entirely natural—including some things that have traditionally been used as medicines—that are now known to be very harmful. Cocaine, for example, or opium. In fact, I just now found a great quote on the subject on the page at NCAHF Position Paper on Herbal Remedies: “The fact that most drug-abuse substances are of herbal origin attests to the potential harm of natural substances. The opium poppy is the source of heroin, morphine, and codeine. Coca leaf is the source of cocaine; morning glory seed is the source of the street drug Heavenly Blue. Hemp is the source of marijuana and hashish. The peyote cactus is the source of mescaline. The ephedra plant contains ephedrine often the source of the street drug speed. Psilocybe mexicana is a hallucinogenic mushroom. Even ethanol is associated with the plant world being derived from yeast (fungi) fermentation. Guarana is a potent source of caffeine used to produce the street drug zoom.”

Actually, that was YOUR logic. Since modern drugs sometimes cause adverse side effects, and even lasting harm, your logic is that we should not use them, instead using more primitive forms of drugs, that are actually less consistent, less effective, and less safe than modern drugs. I was simply applying YOUR logic to automobiles vs. horses, to show how absurd it is. Herbs *ARE* drugs. At least any herbs that can have any effect, good or ill. Any chemical—whether it is synthesized in a laboratory, or contained in a natural plant that is ingested—that can alter the body's chemistry, is a drug. And perhaps you haven't seen cases of people being harmed by herbs, but there are more than enough proven cases of such. Your choosing to deny them doesn't make them go away. In the 19th century, our state of knowledge in all forms of science, including medicine, was far less developed than it is now. Did Joseph Smith claim any medical credentials? I'm not aware that he did. He had opinions on the subject that were surely no more or less valid than different opinions held by others of his time. In any event, I am not claiming that herbs are no good. I fully acknowledge the fact that some herbs have proven medical benefits. What I dispute is your unwarranted disparagement of modern, scientifically-proven, evidence-based medicine, and your insistence that only your more primitive, less-proven version is valid.

If automobiles are so safe, then why are tens of thousands of Americans killed in automobile accidents every year? Perhaps we should go back to using horses instead (never mind that horses are much more dangerous than automobiles). Don't worry. You're not sounding like a “free thinker” of any sort. You're sounding like a quack and a fraud who doesn't care who you harm as long as you can make money off of them. …And so, by your own admission, are you. The difference is that the legitimate medical industries, including the pharmaceutical companies, are required to adhere to strict scientific and ethical standards, while you are not. Right. And if the energy-based companies were really in the business of providing energy, we'd all have perpetual-motion machines to provide us with all the energy we needed for free, without consuming fossil fuels or other finite resources, and without producing any pollution.

Man made Medicine is not safe, 100,000's of people die each year from pharmaseticals [sic]. People don't die when using herbs in their proper usage. For as long as Mankind has existed, people have died of certain various diseases, including, among others, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and so on. They have died of these conditions even while making “proper usage” of your herbs. While I don't deny that there is some limited value to herbal medicine, there has never been any credible evidence that it can effectively cure or treat diabetes, cancer, heart disease, or any of a host of other potentially-deadly conditions. These are real conditions, requiring real treatment. Deny it if you will, but modern pharmaceuticals are developed, manufactured and tested under very strict scientific standards. A new drug doesn't hit the market without being solidly proven to be an effective and safe treatment for some medical condition. It's not perfect, of course. Some people will have developed conditions that are beyond what can effectively be treated even with modern medicine. Some people will have adverse effects that will outweigh the benefit of the treatment. But on the whole, there are many, many people who are alive and healthy, who would not be so if not fort modern medicine; far more than you can truthfully claim with your herbs. Not true. I know, for example, that some traditional herbs have now been proven to have harmful effects. Comfrey, for example, is now known to cause liver damage. Ephedra has been linked to heart damage and strokes. People have died from these. The thing is, any drug (whether it is synthetic or derived from natural sources) that has the ability to have a significant positive effect on the body, also has the potential to cause an adverse effect as well. Homeopathy has no potential for side effects, and is perfectly safe; but that's only because it has no ability to have any effect whatsoever, beyond the placebo effect. At the end of the day, what you are doing is pushing fake treatment at people with real, life-threatening maladies; and advising them to eschew genuine appropriate treatments that might save their lives in favor of fake treatments that will not. This is dangerous and irresponsible, and in most cases, illegal. I helped put someone in jail for doing this, and I'd be glad to do the same for you.

Just because something has been “known” for a very long time, doesn't make it true.* The four-element theory, that holds all matter to be composed of fire, water, earth and air, was “known” for centuries, before we learned about atoms and molecules and the true composition of matter. People “knew” for centuries of years that the Earth was flat.* There are many things that were “known” for centuries, since ancient times, that, with modern science, we now know were false. Can you produce even one credible, peer-reviewed, double-blind study that proves the existence of this “qi”? Of course not. There's no such thing as this “qi”. It's nothing more than an ancient superstition. I do not think that Christ ever said that engaging in fraud and quackery was consistent with doing his will. If you thought you could prove this “qi”, ten surely it'd be worth your time to follow the link that I provided, to claim the million dollars for doing so.

“There is none so blind as he who will not see.” You might as well claim that you've never seen any benefit to using an internal-combustion-engine-powered automobile for transportation, instead of a plain old-fashioned horse. The proof is all around you, but you refuse to see it. This is where your brand of quackery will kill people—substituting a fake treatment for a genuine treatment, for a genuine, life-threatening condition.

If you can actually prove that there is any such thing as this “qi” of which you speak, then I know of someone who will give you a million dollars. You can't of course, because it's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

There is probably some valid basis for some “natural” medicines, but there is a huge amount of quackery in that area as well. Modern “man-made” medicine is based on hard science. There is an incredible standard of scientific proof that is requires, for a drug to be proven to be “safe and effective”, before it is allowed to be sold as such. Science isn't perfect, of course, and mistakes do occasionally happen, but on the whole, it is far ahead of the traditional “natural” approach, which is often based on little or no science at all, and often on theories that have been solidly disproven by science. Homeopathy is a good example. As “alternative medicine” goes, it's relatively harmless, which is why it was so successful at the time it was devised. Much of the traditional medicine of the time turned out to do more harm than good, so a course of treatment that had no effect at all was better than that. Today, we have proven medicines that can successfully treat conditions such as your grandmother's depression, and your grandfather's heart condition. Though homeopathy is not directly harmful, I think the harm is obvious when patients are convinced to follow a course of treatment that will have no effect at all, instead of pursuing a course than will actually help them. The OP is in the process, according to his own statements, of forming a company to profit commercially from the promotion of “medicine” that, at best, borders on quackery, while denigrating genuine, science-based medicine.

With the “upgrade” to the forum software, comes this rather obnoxious “menu bar” at the bottom of the screen, that seems to serve no purpose other than to get in the way. Is there any way to turn it off?

There is no such thing as a “safe” abortion.* Every successful abortion results in the death of an innocent human being.

That's my biggest objection to the entire scam. A reliable car, in good running condition, is a valuable asset, representing a significant amount of wealth. This scam requires that “clunkers” be destroyed. Further, it requires that this destruction take place in a manner which prevents any major powertrain components from being made available to repair other cars. I do not care what crazy claims and excuses are made to support this scam; you cannot help the economy by destroying wealth. Every “clunker” that is destroyed makes the economy as a whole poorer by the value of that car. What government is doing, under this scam, is buying up valuable assets, and destroying them. This is government wastefulness in its purest form.

I was thinking, a few days ago, about the “Cash for Clunkers” scam. It seems to me that there is a very obvious, fatal flaw in it, as far as the idea that it can help the economy. The idea is to get people to buy new cars, thus spurring the manufacture and sale of these new cars. More cars being manufactured creates more wealth, and that's good for the economy. But to get people to buy new cars, older cars that are still perfectly fine are being bought up and DESTROYED. Think about what this means. A car that is reliable, and in good running condition, is a valuable asset, representing a significant amount of wealth. For many people, their car is the most valuable single asset that they own. When a car is destroyed, IT IS WEALTH THAT IS BEING DESTROYED, and that is bad for the economy. In fact, I bet that the wealth that is being thus destroyed in the form of these cars is greater than the wealth that is being created in the process of manufacturing and selling new cars to replace them.

This is all based on a horrendous misconception, that somehow, no matter how bad the economy may become, government will always manage to have a bottomless pile of money at hand, to pay for whatever we demand that government to to us. Here in California, we've lately been getting a very vivid demonstration of just how false this belief is. We've passed all sorts of laws, over the years, requiring California to provide minimum levels of funding to various programs, and now we are finding that the state simply cannot afford to meet these obligations — it doesn't have the money to do so; and we are already overtaxed to the point that raising any taxes further only suppresses the economy further, reducing rather than increasing the revenue that is thus brought in. The thing that I find frightening, at the federal level, is an abject lack of common sense. In tight economic times, many of us cannot afford to spend as freely as we'd like. We have to observe stricter discipline in how we spend out money. Yet, at the federal level, we've got a government that seems to think that the way to cope with this economy is to spend spend spend like a gang of drunken sailors, with no restraint or discipline at all. What would it to to any of us as individuals to take that approach with our own finances?

There are two approaches to this “duty”. The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик approach — the way that you seem to advocate — was for government to provide you with what it thinks you need, and to take from you as much as it takes to pay for it. Hence, the famous Karl Marx quote, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” The American way is for government to let you keep as much as possible of what you have rightfully earned, and for you to be responsible for spending your own money, as you best see fit, to buy the things that you need. In this nation, it is not the government's responsibility to provide you with food and housing and clothing and transportation and whatever else it thinks you need. It's your own responsibility to earn an honest living, and to use the wages that you thus earn to buy for yourself that which you think you need. Yes, our way is more challenging. It's more challenging to live as a free person, responsible for one's own needs, than to live as a slave, depending on one's master to provide for one's needs. What you advocate is selling ourselves into slavery.

It prohibits the federal government from claiming or exercising any powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. Nowhere, in the Constitution, is the federal government authorized to Sovietize the health care industry. Of course, about 99% of what the federal government now does to is us equally a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Actually, that's the Tenth Amendment, not the Fourteenth. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The American way: “A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.” —Thomas Jefferson— The Союз Советских Социалистических Республик way: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” —Karl Marx— O course, we've just recently elected a President whose philosophies would be more in place in the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик than here in the United States.

Of course you think that. I see that you're a supporter of The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist movement, which are basically Marxism, modernized and rebranded. It makes perfect sense, that you would support something that would be perceived as bringing us closer to Marxism, such as the Sovietization of the health care industry.

Here's a big part of the problem, right here. Much of the American population has become so ignorant that they think that government programs, such as education, and the proposed health scare scam, are “free”.

It'd be very simple, actually. Just include enough metal in all the walls, and the roof, all connected together and grounded, so that the building acts as a Faraday cage.

No, that's his second mistake. The first mistake is using a Windows-based system to access the Internet, instead of using either MacOS X or some variant on Linux or Unix.

It's no longer Politically Correct to say so, but someone needs to say it: There is also a huge difference between a man and a woman engaging in public displays of affection, and a same-sex couple doing the same thing. Homosexuality is wrong, period. And expressing it on church grounds is inappropriate in a way that a similar expression of heterosexuality is not.