legalize perfomance drugs

Average Joe wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough, but it doesn't conflict with mine. I might not use them but I don't see that it is ignoble for others to do so, provided it is acknowledged and out in the open.

------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless of the fact that you don't "see that it is ignoble for others to use drugs" whether you do or don't, I'm of the opinion (and yes, I know you aren't) that it's a basic human responsibility to prevent people from harming themselves whenever it's possible. To legalize drug use in sport and "get it out in the open" condones more than an "even-playing" field because it basically says "You can go ahead and do things that everyone now accepts and recognizes is potentially deadly since we are clear that you are doing it. Awareness is not the same as rightness. If that is the kind of thinking you want to apply to society, then, why not allow people to use drugs whenever and however they want? Sure, you might say...until it's your doctor or your kid's teacher. Then, no, it's not okay cause it might affect you or someone you love. There's always talk about double-standards on this board and even though people say on thing, I seriously doubt they would follow through on it if put to the test.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'll repeat myself: Says you.

The issue of drugs is orthogonal to who a runner is as a person. Whether Geb takes drugs or not, his life is primarily about his ability to run fast. Or it is not. Drugs might make that "fast" even "faster" but they don't change who he is.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. Geb may have become famous as a runner, but, even he admits a budding political career and a large business. To say running is his life would be missing the bigger picture. As for the point that drugs "don't change who he is" I completely and vehemently disagree. Our choices in life represent our character. For someone to try and extend their success in sports by taking a life-threatening risk tells me there's a major character flaw in someone's self. If Geb were to say, "Okay, let's legalize drugs and see how much faster I can go" would be exactly what you are saying. Tell me how that doesn't change who he is (assuming he is not on drugs)?

-----------------------------------------------------------

And suppose they did. Suppose he was nothing but the ability to run fast. Why should that be your decision (or some government's decision) and not his?

------------------------------------------------------------

I never said it was my decision (although I think every individual has some responsibility for other human beings call it the Christian in me) or a government's. However, governments attempt to act on the behalf of its citizen's best interests...ideally. If it were to be a government's decision, I would base in on those grounds.

------------------------------------------------------------I am for allowing the runner to make that determination for himself. For allowing him to decide if he wishes to be "debased" or not. Government is not our mommy and daddy, nor should it be the arbiter of what is moral and what is not. Just because the idea of drugs is distasteful to you does not mean others should be prevented from taking them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

This sounds good. It's a solid attempt to free yourself from blame if something happens to other people. But, as an American, you live in a country composed of people who profess the belief that we are all created equal by one God who has a clear moral system. Our constitution and our citizenship is based on this common belief and most Americans have forgotten that. If, as you government, is not supposed to be the arbiter of morality, who is but the people who exist in that society? If that is the case, it's time for us to go to work and stop letting the bystander effect paralize us all. You said, "Just because the idea of drugs is distasteful to you does not mean others should be prevented from taking them". There may be some truth in that, but, I believe that we treat others as we wish to be treated. I wouldn't consider someone treating me the way you suggest a friend if we were close (and I'm not being contentious or striking out against you as an individual).

Dunes runner wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to see a society headed for self destruction look at the good ol' US of A.

------------------------------------------------------------

That's precisely my point. I couldn't agree with you more. I'm trying to scream loudly enough so people will see exactly what you said and actually get motivated enough to do something other than shrug their shoulders and sluff it off.

------------------------------------------------------------

It's not up to you to impose your false beliefs on the rest of the world.

The USA is the most drugged up country in the world. No one else needs or wants that.

For the most drugged up country in the world to accuse or try to govern everyone else is misplaced indolent extravagant arrogance.

------------------------------------------------------------

What false beliefs? Who are you to judge the truth of my beliefs? Who am I imposing them on? You don't have to accept what I say. Are you too proud to let what I say go if it's falsehood? If it's lies, then, it won't matter in a week, much less in the world of sports. If it's not truth, what then?

As for the USA being the most drugged up country in the world, I don't know that for a fact. I know that Amsterdam is a legalized drug state, so, I would probably question what you are saying...however, in the world of sports, the sheer size of our country, when multiplied by the degree of obsession our people have with athletic success...I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.

Well, the logic of your third statement doesn't make sense if you listen to the last paragraph. Sure, America may have it's problems, but, to say that we can't take any part in dealing with a global problem because of our national issues (drugs in sports) misses the point: we've all got problems. Accept responsiblity, deal with the facts and MAKE SOME CHANGES.

------------------------------------------------------------

HELL NO.

It's not your decision to tell other people how to live their lives.

Try and take care of yourself, if you can manage to do that.

And when you do you won't be so worried about what someone much better than you is doing on the other side of the world.

------------------------------------------------------------

This part of your remark bothers me. I truly worry for you as a person...and no, that's not sarcasm or meanness. Do you realize that when you said, "It's not your decision to tell other people how to live their lives." you are making a decision that affects me. You are proving yourself wrong with your very actions. Now, how am I supposed to take what you say seriously if you don't even live up to what you proclaim?

I do manage to take care of myself quite well. Sure, it's not easy helping others, but, to suggest that my decisions don't affect others, therefore, I shouldn't impose my desire to help is dangerous. What happens when you become the person who needs help but doesn't know it?

you are right. We need to worry about people right here and right now in our lives. I am not talking about changing the world in Africa. I am trying to change the minds and perspectives of you and people who I believe who are so cynical they refuse to even accept the possibilty of a change for the better.

------------------------------------------------------------No one gives a shit what you think -- least of all me.

Haven't you killed enough innocent women and children already.

------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, if no one cares...why did you respond? Sounds like you are just trying to kill my spirit. Perhaps you really do care? So, if you do, what are you doing with that energy?

As for the whole killing people...I haven't seen myself on the most wanted list lately. God bless, Will

Exactly. As long as it's only deadly to you then of course you can. I think that's a perfect compromise.

Poor analogy. Drugs like EPO, are not addictive nor will do not cause bodily to anyone other than those that take them. We were only talking about drugs that might cause you to harm yourself. Let's stay on that topic, shall we? Otherwise this thread will never end.

Look, in this society, you are allowed to be do things that are dangerous and even self-destructive. You should be allowed to do them. It is a good thing that you are allowed to do them.

Don't agree? Well then, in that case, no more dangerous activities for you, my friend. No football. No skydiving. You're not allowed to eat Big Macs anymore either. And any other activity I decide that's dangerous. You don't like that? Tough. As you said, "it's a basic human responsibility to prevent people from harming themselves whenever it's possible". I'm just living up to my responsibility. From now on, you live in a climate controlled room and eat only celery.

Have I fallen down the slippery slope? Of course, no question. That's the problem with government. It is a built in slippery slope with legislative and enforcement powers. That's why there should be as little of it as possible. And why I don't want it to have "you must do this because it's good for you" powers.

Ok, "that doesn't change who he is." There I said it.

No seriously. He makes the choice because of who he is. Not the other way around. Do you know how many people have taken life-threatening risks to participate in sports? Race car drivers, football players, etc etc. You might consider it a character flaw, but many consider it brave. I think it's probably a bit of both. But I still don't see how it's up to you "allow" someone to do that. Who do you think you are? It is the height of arrogance to believe that one's moral system gives one the right to make such decisions for anyone other than children.

Nope. I am already free of blame. If you decide to drink yourself to death tomorrow and I do nothing to stop you, you are 100% to blame. Not me. I am not your keeper, nor should I be.

Your idea is to prevent people from taking what risks they wish with their own bodies sounds good too, in a paternal, condescending sort of way. In reality, it is a reflection of the arrogant notion that you know what's best for someone, better than they know themselves. And that since you know what's best, you have the right to impose that upon them. God save us from the Christians.

Nope. That's your fantasy land. The Declaration of Independence (written by a bunch of old, religious white men) says this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Yup, it sure mentions a "creator". It also mentions the "pursuit of happiness". Who are you to decide what happiness is for me? Decide it for yourself. But as long as I'm not driving your subway car while drunk, I'll decide on my own, thanks. And even those old, religious white men were smart enough to know that they didn't know everything. So they wrote the first Amendment.

As for the "clear moral system", you cannot possibly be serious. This is a country of more varying moral systems than any on the planet. No amount of wishful thinking can homogenize them. Not everybody has got 2.5 kids, an SUV and goes to Church on Sundays. That's why Churches and Catholic schools are closing up all over the place.

As for me, I was raised Catholic, but I feel much better now, thanks.

Nobody is. As long as my morality doesn't cause harm to others, nobody is supposed to be the arbiter of morality. Satan worshipers can have all the rites and ceremonies they want. They're allowed. But go kill a pregnant Sharon Tate and they go to jail. Murder isn't bad because God doesn't want you to do it. It's bad because it screws up the security that society is supposed to provide.

Well you could have fooled me in a few places, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, while I believe I have answered you in kind, you might not like my tone either. If I did not consider your points seriously, I would not have bothered to write up such a detailed response.

Average_Joe wrote:

Nobody is. As long as my morality doesn't cause harm to others, nobody is supposed to be the arbiter of morality. Satan worshipers can have all the rites and ceremonies they want. They're allowed. But go kill a pregnant Sharon Tate and they go to jail. Murder isn't bad because God doesn't want you to do it. It's bad because it screws up the security that society is supposed to provide.

How can you say that "screwing up the security that society is supposed to provide" is a bad thing? Don't impose your societally based morals on me.

Average_Joe wrote:

Nobody is. As long as my morality doesn't cause harm to others, nobody is supposed to be the arbiter of morality. Satan worshipers can have all the rites and ceremonies they want. They're allowed. But go kill a pregnant Sharon Tate and they go to jail. Murder isn't bad because God doesn't want you to do it. It's bad because it screws up the security that society is supposed to provide.

Well, let's murder your mom. Why not? It won't screw up the security that 'society is supposed to provide'? Who says society is supposed to provide security? If it isn't bad except for the reason you listed, and the reason you listed is nonsense, I say freight train the old ho'.

Average Joe gets the award for the most idiotic post ever.

SUPER CHIEF wrote:

Well, let's murder your mom. Why not? It won't screw up the security that 'society is supposed to provide'?

Actually it will. If society allows you to be murdered and there is no retribution, that kinda defeats the purpose, don't you think? We don't barter anymore, we don't have clan battles for food or crops. We work at peaceful jobs and use money which is supposed to represent value. If anyone is free to murder anyone else, then that system breaks down. Without that security, the benefits of banding together in "peaceful" society are lessened.

Who says society is supposed to provide security?

I do. So does the Declaration of Independence, in its own way. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". What did you think that meant?

Average Joe gets the award for the most idiotic post ever.

Well I wasn't trying to set a record, but thanks.

Mike_McCready wrote:

How can you say that "screwing up the security that society is supposed to provide" is a bad thing? .

Because we're talking about law, not morality. Or rather I'm trying to argue against someone writing laws to suit their particular idea of what is "moral". My point is that basic laws (like the one against murder) do not need to be based on morality, merely pragmatism.

At the most basic level, murder isn't illegal because people think God told them not to do it. Take a bunch of atheists and put them out in the desert and have them form a society. Even they will outlaw murder and theft. The society isn't going to work very well without such laws.

[quote]Average_Joe wrote:

Who says society is supposed to provide security?

I do. So does the Declaration of Independence, in its own way. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". What did you think that meant?

[quote]

"Society is supposed to provide security." That isn't what the document means. If you had the reading comprehension of even a four year old, you would know that. These guys are right. You're below average. You're an idiot who arbitrarily assigns meaning.

Avg_Joe, I used to like you. Now you're just another asshole in the same class of Flagpole Willy.

History teacher wrote:

"Society is supposed to provide security." That isn't what the document means. If you had the reading comprehension of even a four year old, you would know that. These guys are right. You're below average. You're an idiot who arbitrarily assigns meaning.

Well, let's look a little more at the document itself:

...and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Even I, lacking the reading comprehension of a four year old, know what "safety" means.

Pistol Pete wrote:

Avg_Joe, I used to like you. Now you're just another asshole in the same class of Flagpole Willy.

Sorry Pete. I really wasn't trying to piss anybody off. I had no idea that making this point was going set half the board on me. I've taken quite a few personal attacks here without retaliating, though admittedly I answered "Will" in the same tone he answered me.

I thought I made a pretty reasonable point. I'm not trying to shoot down anybody's religion. Just trying to keep people wary of laws that are made "for your own good".

But if someone will actually debate me without trying to run over my mother or call me a 4 year old I'll be happy to argue the points.

Hey Average, show where it deems society is responsible. He is right. You're an idiot. Re-read the excerpt you posted. Moral relativist indeed.

Average_Joe wrote:

But if someone will actually debate me without trying to run over my mother or call me a 4 year old I'll be happy to argue the points.

Lol------I didn't go that far.

LMFAO wrote:

Hey Average, show where it deems society is responsible. He is right. You're an idiot. Re-read the excerpt you posted.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Show where it deems society is responsible for... what exactly? Security?

You people have latched on to something I said offhand and taken to an extreme. Look, I am aware that the Declaration of Independence is not merely about the security of the society. I am also aware that providing security is not the sole function of a society. But it IS a necessary function. That's one of the main reasons people banded together in the first place. Security. Like it or not, a society has to provide security for it's citizens or it won't work.

Moral relativist indeed

Is that how I come across? As a moral relativist? I've understood that to mean someone who thinks that all moralities are A-OK and we must not judge them. Of course I don't believe that.

What "Will" wrote implied that since so many of this nations founders were White Christian men, our laws came from Christianity and Christian morals. Therefore it was our duty as good Christians to make new laws to keep people from doing things that are bad for them, like taking EPO.

I tried to point out that laws against murder and theft were not invented by the Christians, Muslims, Hebrews, Buddhists, etc. They are not based on religion but rather on common sense. That's all.

So, while Christians are the clear majority in this country, we should not be making laws against because "our Christian morality tells us to". My Christian morality also tells me to go to Church every Sunday. I don't want a law compelling me (or some Jewish American) to have to go. Do you?

That's as clearly as I can state it.

will wrote:

Do you realize that when you said, "It's not your decision to tell other people how to live their lives." you are making a decision that affects me. You are proving yourself wrong with your very actions. Now, how am I supposed to take what you say seriously if you don't even live up to what you proclaim?

No, you are wrong but too dumb to see it.

I'm not trying to be right, but since I am right, and you are wrong, you COULD say that I'm right, if that's the only context in which you look at things, kind of like someone saying only a man with two kids is a man or some other braindead hogwash like that.

Anyway, I'm not telling you how to live YOUR life, but that you have no business trying to tell others how to live THEIR lives.

I am proud of the Kenyans and Chinese and Moroccans and Japanese and all the other great runners around the world who RUN RUN RUN -- who are fine upstanding citizens of the world -- and who don't waste their energy trying to disparage or pull down others who are hard working and dedicated to their lives.

Obviously you have nothing to live for, so you try to live by controlling people who ARE living.

But you see, that never works.

The only answer is for you to get a life of your own.

Again I'm sure this is falling on a dead brain but whatever.

So, if we take what you are saying as being true, then, I\'m an idot. Instead we\'ll use as the example...so far you\'ve called me a murder, dumb, lifeless, braindead and controlling in one post. How exactly do any of these lashings help to build somebody up? The point I was making was about drugs and the effects some people\'s beliefs have on society at large. How you go from what I said to me being a \"murderous, dumb, lifeless, braindead controlling\" poster strikes me as quite amazing. I live for Jesus Christ. Is that clear enough? I think condoning drug use to be a better athlete is wrong. If someone if born to excel in sport, they will because of their natural design. to try and alter nature to achieve success in man-made competitions misses the bigger picture in life.

I think my point is real simple. I\'m not putting the spotlight on you cause I dislike you. My anger lies in the fact that you refuse to actually listen to what I say and simply throw out lies to detract and distract from the truth I offer. You may feel comfortable in your moral stupor, but, I\'m not going to pretend it\'s okay to say that\'s okay with me. It\'s not. Call me whatever you like. I care enough to confront people who I think are missing out on some key points in life. To say that drugs are okay to boost physical performance means you are not seeing the eternal scheme of things. I stand by that.

AJ wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly. As long as it's only deadly to you then of course you can. I think that's a perfect compromise.

------------------------------------------------------------

I stand on the other side of the fence. That's not compromise to me...that's sacrifice. You know the first line reminds me of an old argument...you know all things are possible, but, not all things are good. All things are understandable, but, not all things should be understood. For a person to believe that sacrificing one's life for sports is a worthy belief system scares me because the society that allows that type of thinking is cursed.

------------------------------------------------------------

Poor analogy. Drugs like EPO, are not addictive nor will do not cause bodily to anyone other than those that take them. We were only talking about drugs that might cause you to harm yourself. Let's stay on that topic, shall we? Otherwise this thread will never end.

------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't an analogy. And, I have a question, what drugs do people NOT take that aren't addictive. You are assuming that addiction is the only danger drug abuse offers. Although physically, EPO may not be addictive, the imbalanced longing for success in sport may be the mental mechanism that triggers the addiction with EPO...most athletes who are taking it are not taking it for physical ailments to begin with...it's about a mental and physical edge. Someone in that position is already at risk because of the situation they are in.

------------------------------------------------------------

Look, in this society, you are allowed to be do things that are dangerous and even self-destructive. You should be allowed to do them. It is a good thing that you are allowed to do them.

------------------------------------------------------------

I disagree. Freedom comes with an inherent responsibility. Sure, it's a good thing that you are allowed freedom, but, it's not a good thing to abuse that freedom. Remember, the three-points: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To focus on any one of those at the expense of the other means you have lost sight of the key American values.

------------------------------------------------------------

Don't agree? Well then, in that case, no more dangerous activities for you, my friend. No football.

------------------------------------------------------------

Don't play football...sorry.

------------------------------------------------------------

No skydiving.

------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, don't do that either.

------------------------------------------------------------

You're not allowed to eat Big Macs anymore either.

------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're stretching it.

------------------------------------------------------------

And any other activity I decide that's dangerous. You don't like that? Tough. As you said, "it's a basic human responsibility to prevent people from harming themselves whenever it's possible". I'm just living up to my responsibility. From now on, you live in a climate controlled room and eat only celery.

------------------------------------------------------------

You're twisting what I said into a cynical retort. Can we stick with the subject at hand.

------------------------------------------------------------

Have I fallen down the slippery slope? Of course, no question. That's the problem with government. It is a built in slippery slope with legislative and enforcement powers. That's why there should be as little of it as possible. And why I don't want it to have "you must do this because it's good for you" powers.

------------------------------------------------------------

When I mentioned goverment, I recognize the inherent flaws in manmade systems. That's undeniable. But, like all flawed things, they do serve their purpose. I think there is too much government today...yeah. Who doesn't. However, I don't agree that government has necessarily been built with a slippery slope. But, I don't really want to chase that rabbit. If our government were so bad, it would have been replaced by now. Remember the whole Independence Day thing?

------------------------------------------------------------Do you know how many people have taken life-threatening risks to participate in sports? Race car drivers, football players, etc etc. You might consider it a character flaw, but many consider it brave. I think it's probably a bit of both. But I still don't see how it's up to you "allow" someone to do that. Who do you think you are? It is the height of arrogance to believe that one's moral system gives one the right to make such decisions for anyone other than children.

------------------------------------------------------------

There's a difference between "You might get hurt" and "You are ingesting an unnatural substance that will kill you in due time". Comparing drugs and car racing doesn't fit the arugment.

As for me, I think I am a child of God who has been shown certain truths about life in this world by Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. You may call that arrogance, but, I call it trusting in what God tells me. Faith and arrogance can be mistaken for the same thing. I believe my moral system gives me the right to tell others when I see them behaving wrongly. I am not making decisions...God did that already. I'm informing people of the decisions God made a long time ago. So, take that up with God...not me. I'm just a messenger.

------------------------------------------------------------Nope. I am already free of blame. If you decide to drink yourself to death tomorrow and I do nothing to stop you, you are 100% to blame. Not me. I am not your keeper, nor should I be.

------------------------------------------------------------

You just identified yourself...the spirit of Cain. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

------------------------------------------------------------

Your idea is to prevent people from taking what risks they wish with their own bodies sounds good too, in a paternal, condescending sort of way. In reality, it is a reflection of the arrogant notion that you know what's best for someone, better than they know themselves. And that since you know what's best, you have the right to impose that upon them. God save us from the Christians.

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you made one mistake here. Our bodies are not our own. They belong to God. We are merely using them. That's a fundamental mistake you have made. Would you suggest that your boss' kids take drugs to be better students? Probably not. Well, suggesting athletes take drugs to run faster is not much different. You are suggesting that something over which you do not have final responsibility be acted upon in a certain way. Your body is not yours, you just don't know it yet.

------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. That's your fantasy land. The Declaration of Independence (written by a bunch of old, religious white men) says this:

------------------------------------------------------------

Because of those old religious white men, you live in the best country in the world. Do you really want to make that much fun of what they believed in? It obviously had some value to it.

------------------------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Yup, it sure mentions a "creator". It also mentions the "pursuit of happiness". Who are you to decide what happiness is for me? Decide it for yourself. But as long as I'm not driving your subway car while drunk, I'll decide on my own, thanks. And even those old, religious white men were smart enough to know that they didn't know everything. So they wrote the first Amendment.

------------------------------------------------------------

I know who your creator is. You can deny it if you like. But, that's up to you. Happiness, however, is never mentioned in the bible. We are to find joy in the Lord. Not, in the pursuit of fleeting things. Why would I seek happiness in the world when I know I can find it in God? As for your concept of the first amendment, I'm not gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for the "clear moral system", you cannot possibly be serious. This is a country of more varying moral systems than any on the planet. No amount of wishful thinking can homogenize them. Not everybody has got 2.5 kids, an SUV and goes to Church on Sundays. That's why Churches and Catholic schools are closing up all over the place.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not trying to homogenize anything. I'm promoting the true moral system of the God that created the universe and offers salvation to all of humanity. No, I don't rely on wishful thinking but persistant hope in the Lord God. As for all these churches closing up, the last time I looked, mine was growing. Perhaps you could consider a new church.

------------------------------------------------------------

As for me, I was raised Catholic, but I feel much better now, thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------

Me too. I feel a lot better that I have a living relationship with Jesus Christ. Try it out. It's a breath of fresh life.

------------------------------------------------------------

Nobody is. As long as my morality doesn't cause harm to others, nobody is supposed to be the arbiter of morality. Satan worshipers can have all the rites and ceremonies they want. They're allowed. But go kill a pregnant Sharon Tate and they go to jail. Murder isn't bad because God doesn't want you to do it. It's bad because it screws up the security that society is supposed to provide.

------------------------------------------------------------

The conditional clause of your statement, "as long as", is where your logic falters. I don't rely on a moral system that requires conditions. Love never fails. As for religion-which is what you are talking about-I prefer relation with God.

As for murder, it's bad cause God says so. But, the key is not the rule, but, who said it: God. God also told the Hebrews to kill people. Had they not done that, they would have been destroyed by their very creator. If God told you to break one of his commandments, what would you choose, the will of one who made the law or the law? I go with the one who has the power.

I hope that what truth God has placed in what I said resonates within your spirit. And I'm dead serious about that. I know that I'm not perfect and I do come across as arrogant at times. I apologize. I just get worked up when people don't know about some of the things I think are absolutely critical in life. Faith in Jesus Christ is one of those things. What God says in the Word is another. I have drawn a lot of my own conclusions, but, if you were to read the word, I believe you would draw a lot of the same conclusions. I hope this finds you well.

Average_Joe, I should like to say my respect for your intellect has grown at the same rate others disrespect has. Should I have a screen name such as yours, it is after all my true name, maybe the respect level I'd get would be a bit higher as well and my endorsement might carry some weight, though at present it clearly won't.

Anyhow, I'd like to add that many people keep talking about health risks that come along with taking drugs. That is exactly why they should be legalized. People are putting hormones into their bodies, and they will continue to do so whether it be legal/illegal or ethical/unethical, without educated supervision. It's truly a shame because disastrous results do occur.

What should be kept in mind is that multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies are producing these hormone AND conducting extensive research on them. Could this research be applied to a healthy athlete, it is reasonable to assume that a very high percentage of the athletes would continue on with a healthy lifestyle when their athletic careers were over. Why is it that we should think that some of the healthiest and most vibrant people on all of Earth would suffer catastrophic health consequences under proper supervision and administration when their exact opposites, those who have death whispering in their ear, get healthier through educated supervision and administration?

Someone else pointed out the USA has more people on drugs than any other country, and I certainly must agree, as it's probably the only nation that can afford to have everybody on synthetics.

For the Bible preachers, you might want to keep doing research on that book you hold so high. There are many gospels that were withheld from the Bible when it was canonized. I believe that process took place at the council of Nicea, among men of Constantine, not God, however you wish to describe Him/It. What of the gospel of Mary, that one that could be so damaging as to describe Jesus' true relations with her. Why sex is demonized by the church is really beyond a lot of people. Well, i'm out of my league when it comes to the background of the Bible, but I do know that I trust the word of God to be upheld by the sweet song a river plays, which sounds just as it did in the time Jesus walked, as opposed to a book that possesses great political power and has been translated dozens of times into languages that do not always dovetail with the original.

Legalizeit wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it that we should think that some of the healthiest and most vibrant people on all of Earth would suffer catastrophic health consequences under proper supervision and administration when their exact opposites, those who have death whispering in their ear, get healthier through educated supervision and administration?

------------------------------------------------------------

I don't disagree with you. I also think you have a great point about the fact that a controlled program (with medical monitoring and supervision) would theoretically make the drug culture a little safer for users. However, I'm not looking at it from a medical standpoint. My

question is not can we, but, should we. My answers no.

------------------------------------------------------------

For the Bible preachers,

------------------------------------------------------------

You mean me? I think I'm the only one.

------------------------------------------------------------

you might want to keep doing research on that book you hold so high.

------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. That's what I do every day.

------------------------------------------------------------

There are many gospels that were withheld from the Bible when it was canonized.

------------------------------------------------------------

True.

------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that process took place at the council of Nicea, among men of Constantine, not God, however you wish to describe Him/It.

------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it did. But, there were many other councils before and after that. That's just the historical watermark. As for your point about the human element of this process (and mankind's implied fallability) we diverge in our opinions. If God created the universe with all its order, then, what makes you think God could not have orchestrated the events leading up to that council so perfectly that what God wanted in the Bible ended up in the Bible? Sure, there are other books out there, but, the essential attributes of Christianity are contained in the books of the Bible. If you were to try and contain every book ever written about Jesus, there would be more books than anyone could ever read. Not to mention the fact that some books that were excluded could be good old fashioned disinformation. In that case, what would be the point of collecting scriptures that contradict each other for future generations? God has one identity and it is revealed through his word. There are also many counterfeits out there. Why risk accepting lies when the truth is in one single book. It's really quite simple.

------------------------------------------------------------

What of the gospel of Mary, that one that could be so damaging as to describe Jesus' true relations with her.

------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know it's true? Were you there? Let's play a hypothetical game. If the Bible is true, then Satan exists and is real. If Satan is real, then, as per his job description in the Bible (to kill, steal and destroy) would fit quite nicely with what you are describing...a book that damages (destroys) credibility in Jesus' character as the perfect, sinless son of God. That book has been around since shortly after Jesus' lifetime. The gospel of Mary however was discovered somewhere (notice the non-specific origins) in the middle east and contains things that are never confirmed anywhere else except within its own pages. In that case, we could use the same thing and apply it to anyone. That's character assasination.

------------------------------------------------------------

Why sex is demonized by the church is really beyond a lot of people.

------------------------------------------------------------

Sex is not demonized by the entire church. Some individuals in the church who have been hurt, abused and grown up with distorted ideas of what sex is helps confuse the matter. However, the last time I checked it was people outside of the church demonizing it.

Ever read the Song of Songs? That's a pretty intimate book if you understand what it's saying. There's no demonization of sex in there. Within the word (which I always defer to as the source of truth) there are lots of guidelines and examples for how to act (and its rewards) and how not to act (and its consequences).

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, i'm out of my league when it comes to the background of the Bible...

------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's pretty funny that you throw out a bunch of things, then, say, I don't really know what I'm talking about. If you don't know what you are talking about, why try to discredit something you admit you don't understand? It's that sort of thing that I have a problem with regarding Christianity.

------------------------------------------------------------

but I do know that I trust the word of God to be upheld by the sweet song a river plays...

------------------------------------------------------------

What?

------------------------------------------------------------

...which sounds just as it did in the time Jesus walked, as opposed to a book that possesses great political power and has been translated dozens of times into languages that do not always dovetail with the original.

------------------------------------------------------------

You're throwing two arguments into one sentance as if they are the same consequence of one force. The political power you refer to is not God's doing. That is the abuse of power mankind has performed in order to try and control God's goodness. I disagree with that greatly.

As for the translation issue I'm not trying to be condescending, but, rather share some valuable info. The Bible is referred to as the Word of God. However, in the Gospel of John, Jesus is called the Word (logos in Greek). When people talk about the power in the Word, they are referring to Jesus Christ...not the book. The book is just a book. The power is in God the father, Jesus Christ the son and the Holy Spirit. Sure, there are contradictions between the book (as a thing) and the Word (as a living person). That's why I am pushing so hard to show that there is a difference between the two. Don't mistake the hand pointing at the moon for the moon itself. The Bible is called within itself "God-inspired" (theopneustos). The point you raise is valid, but, God himself answers you. It's just a matter of digging.