Death Records Now

Firstly, I want to say this is NOT going to be a, "we can burn the Koran if they burn the American flag, etc" post. I am interested in hearing opinions and getting a true discussion of the matter at hand.

Firstly, there is a issue (largely seen on Yahoo Answers) of people equating burning the Quran to burning the American flag. To put it simply, this is in my mind, ridiculous. The American Flag is a symbol of ideology. And while ideology is often misguided, in this case it works. One of our greatest freedoms (regardless of religious faith) is "Freedom of Speech".

You may not like the fact that people have a right, as stated in the Constitution / Bill of Rights, to burn the American Flag, and in fact, the Quran as well (we will address that later). yes, it does hurt many to see the symbol of freedom burning in some sort of protest. Whether you find that protest misguided or not, a flag is but a symbol of our rights and freedoms. You can burn 100 flags, but the American spirit will live on.

Here is a quote from the "Daily Record" in Gainesville, Florida, "This is a quote from the "Daily Record" in Florida, "The leader of a small Florida church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy said Wednesday he was determined to go through with his plan to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, despite pressure from the White House, religious leaders and others to call it off".

A lot of people say this is reprehensible. However everyone has to realize that just as a American Flag burner has a right to do so, so does this gentleman. You may not like it. You may hate it/him. But you can not deny him the right to do it. It is his right. What then, is the TRUE issue behind all the governments and the Vatican, etc denouncement of his RIGHT to do this?

General Petraeous denounces it due to the potential of harm towards American troops in Afghanistan / Middle East. I believe we will see a increase in violence towards Americans if this happens. My only issue with this is that violence is never-ending in any of these war/peace zones. This burning will not cause a fire, only add fuel to it.

Now, a lot of people online say burning the Quran is the same as a flag. This is simply not the case. The Flag is a symbol of ideology. The Quran is a religion. This is deeper then simply a symbol of government. Some people may argue the Quran is simple a book of hate towards non-Muslims. While I have not read the Quran, I find this hard to believe. And to put simply, the Bible (and mot likely all other religious texts) have semblance of violence throughout their texts.

There seems to be a underlying fear of violence to burning the Quran. and this is most likely true. As stated earlier, this will most likely lead to violence overseas. And as stated in many articles, the preacher in Florida (Terry Jones) has himself received numerous death threats. However, in both cases, it’s not the majority or entirety of a population causing violence. Extremists are everywhere for every cause. You can’t condemn a whole people or population because a select few take it upon themselves to represent everyone in matters of violence. To do so, would put you on a level equal to that of the very people you are condemning.

A lot of people are wondering, "then what is the solution to this problem"? I think the first step is to not view this as a "problem that needs solving". This is a opportunity to educate the world on different religions and test one’s faith on proclaimed rights. Read the Quran to REALLY understand what it’s about. Talk to people with the preacher’s view to find out WHY they feel the way they do. What’s most important is to do both with a FREE AND CLEAR MIND. To do otherwise would tarnish pretty much everything you say and/or hear. You can be angry at something once you understand it. But try not to hate, even if you think you have a right to. Hatred eats away at you and in the end, you end up suffering, not the ones you’re directing your feelings towards.

I think burning the Quran is an unchristian thing to do.

Finally, all of you, be of one mind, sympathetic, loving toward one another, compassionate, humble. Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing. (1 Peter 3:8-9)

I acknowledge that this "Christian" has the legal right to burn the Quran in protest of a few Muslim extremists. This right is protected by his Freedom of Speech.

But I think that doing so is a moral wrong. He will intentionally or unintentionally insult and send the wrong message to over 1.5 billionmainstream Muslims with whom he has no complaint. These Muslims are our neighbors whom Jesus Christ has commanded us to love.

We don’t burn the U.S. flag to protest the small groups of far right extremists or far left extremists because it would insult and send the wrong message to over 300 million mainstream Americans.

We don’t burn the Bible to protest a small group of Christian extremists because it would insult and send the wrong message to over 2 billion mainstream Christians all over the world.

We don’t burn the Torah to protest a small group of Jewish extremists because it would insult and send the wrong message to mainstream Jews all over the world.

We shouldn’t burn the Quran to protest a small group of Muslim extremists because it would insult and send the wrong message to over 1.5 billion mainstream Muslims all over the world.

Should you speak sharply to a friend, fear not, you can be reconciled. But a contemptuous insult, a confidence broken, or a treacherous attack will drive away any friend. (Sirach 22:22)

Jesus Christ taught us to build bridges between people, not burn them.

With love in Christ.

For example the notion that Cholesterol is a good thing. This article I am about to post is very scientific yet another website called quack calls them stupid and pesduo scientist. They didnt debunk any of their points or any of their science theyt just classified them a pesdo science. Can you debunk their points ?
_________________________________________________________
ople with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.1 Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis. To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease. This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question.2 Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either.

Now consider that more than 90 % of all cardiovascular disease is seen in people above age 60 also and that almost all studies have found that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women.2 This means that high cholesterol is only a risk factor for less than 5 % of those who die from a heart attack.

But there is more comfort for those who have high cholesterol; six of the studies found that total mortality was inversely associated with either total or LDL-cholesterol, or both. This means that it is actually much better to have high than to have low cholesterol if you want to live to be very old.
Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol. For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.3

Most gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases have an infectious origin. Therefore, a relevant question is whether it is the infection that lowers cholesterol or the low cholesterol that predisposes to infection? To answer this question Professor Jacobs and his group, together with Dr. Carlos Iribarren, followed more than 100,000 healthy individuals in the San Francisco area for fifteen years. At the end of the study those who had low cholesterol at the start of the study had more often been admitted to the hospital because of an infectious disease.4,5 This finding cannot be explained away with the argument that the infection had caused cholesterol to go down, because how could low cholesterol, recorded when these people were without any evidence of infection, be caused by a disease they had not yet encountered? Isn´t it more likely that low cholesterol in some way made them more vulnerable to infection, or that high cholesterol protected those who did not become infected? Much evidence exists to support that interpretation.Most studies of young and middle-aged men have found high cholesterol to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease, seemingly a contradiction to the idea that high cholesterol is protective. Why is high cholesterol a risk factor in young and middle-aged men? A likely explanation is that men of that age are often in the midst of their professional career. High cholesterol may therefore reflect mental stress, a well-known cause of high cholesterol and also a risk factor for heart disease. Again, high cholesterol is not necessarily the direct cause but may only be a marker. High cholesterol in young and middle-aged men could, for instance, reflect the body’s need for more cholesterol because cholesterol is the building material of many stress hormones. Any possible protective effect of high cholesterol may therefore be counteracted by the negative influence of a stressful life on the vascular system.
English isnt my first language .

This quote is from Ravskov’s article The Benefits of High Cholesterol & his book ‘Cholesterol Myths’ promoting a single persons view point. This is not from a refereed journal so can say what ever the author chooses. Most of the criticism is that the author makes claims and bases the results on partial evidence. The data is cherry picked to support a view point.
Here are some sites rebutting this book.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80854
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Cherry picking data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Data biases and fallacies
http://info-pollution.com/evidence.htm

All new theories that attempt to explain how the world works must agree with all observed facts and explain how the events produce the known results. Many new theories fly in the face of accepted ideas because they are based on a small body of very new evidence that falsifies the previous explanation of facts. In peer review the evidence is obtainable by others using the same methods so it is verified as repeatable. Then the logic of the new theory is assessed by other scientists that specialize in this area ie they are peers capable of understanding the new evidence compared to the earlier smaller body of evidence. In this way if a single researcher made an error it will be caught by others knowledgeable in the specialty. If there is no error the knowledge is shared pushing others along in their efforts.