The problem is that redistributed wealth doesn't stay redistributed.
It becomes a constant process of moving it from the channels that tend to collect it to those that tend not to.
It is further complicated by the tax channel process that you describe. (At least in the US.) Those who make the laws about such things tend to be those with the cash in the first place, so they either specifically exempt themselves, or generally exempt themselves through loopholes.
Their vested interest in providing opportunities shelter income and assets means that the loopholes will continue to exist. This also opens the door for others to shelter their income, and the intended purpose tends to be thwarted by these normal market forces.
The knee-jerk reaction is to "raise taxes on the rich" who promptly assign their financial planners, accountants, and lawyers to find the new loopholes.
The end result is that the middle class folks who don't believe that they have enough resources to justify hiring those professoinals end up getting the shaft.
I believe that helping the general population achieve a better standard of living tends to be a good thing, but Jesus said "The poor will always be with you" and I believe that He is right about that.
If you have some brilliant ideas about helping people to prosper economically, please share them!
Oops. I guess the midnight system change last night has me pretty groggy this morning.
The point I intended to make is that there are so many people in the world, and almost all of them live at subsistence level or die below that - equal redistribution would likely reduce the net worth of everyone in the first and second world.
Redistribution of wealth seems like a good idea until you find out that you are the one whose wealth is being redistributed....
Since the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the vast vast minority, I would suggest everyne who reads slashdot would see a reduction in net worth if wealth was evenly distributed to all people worldwide.
I'll submit that wealth is unevenly distributed among the peoples of the earth, and that the constituency here on slashdot represents some of the richest people on the planet.
Are you suggesting wealth redistribution? Just curious.
The article seems to indicate that this is a concept - something that may have arisen from brainstorming, and may not be backed up by any data at all!!
This "explanation" is apparently supported by the thinnest of threads in terms of evolutionary history, and hard evidence is not presented to back this claim. This does not stop the Slashdot editors from posting this as "stuff that matters."
Please let the brainstormers check their ideas with research, show correlation, then causation, then present their findings in a way that can be checked by others.
This hypothesis, if you can call it that, is not tested and is perhaps not testable. Why this reflex motion a) exists at all, and b) why it persists, if it descende from the frog may only be fodder for spectulation.
As one of the people who you would call a "religious wacko" I would like to suggest that there's more to the picture that you have protrayed.
We DO live in exciting times. We have the knowledge and tools to learn much about life, genetics, biology, disease, and much much more than you or I can conceive of.
However, the road to curing disease does not necessarily pass through human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The initial attempts at mammalian cloning have been sketchy at best, and it may realistically be decades before we understand enough about this to successfully clone complex mammals or humans.
Adult stem cells show much promise, as do stem cells collected from cord blood after birth. Neither of these lines of research come encumbered with the toying with human lives (creation of new people, or require destruction of existing people - as I believe science demonstrates that abortion does)
I want to see our brilliant scientists cure previously incurable diseases, but I strongly disagree that the best way involves cloning and embryonic stem cells.
Even with our recent (past 500 years) successes, we stand on the shores of an ocean of knowledge and can only wonder in awe about our ignorance. What we do not know dramatically dwarfs what we do know.
Respectfully, Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. He doesn't call you to check your brain at the door, either. If you want to know more, please email me.
If I believe that a law is unjust, then it is my duty to violate it. Not only must I violate it, but I must also have the integrity to publicly stand up and announce that I have violated the law, - and that I have done this on the basis of conscience.
Mitnick did not violate the law publicly, nor was he willing to step up and face the consequences of his actions - not until he had been chased and caught. King did just that - and became a hero with his scrap paper-based "letter from a Birmingham jail."
The essence of civil disobedience is a conviction that the punishment of the law is of lesser consequence than letting an unjust law stand unchallenged.
There's an undeniable difference between including the.sig "the DMCA is wrong" to your emails and actually forming a protest where you violate the law with the intent of overturning it.
"Free Kevin" bumper stickers and broadcasting your intent to compromise systems on the principle that laws against that action are wrong are totally different activities and require a significantly different personal commitment.
Mitnick is no hero, and he was not motivated by a desire to overturn an unjust law. He broke the law, he did his time, and now he's out. That's all.
Must we make it more than that?
(To all readers, not just the parent poster) If you say yes, what system are you planning to break in to as a part of your civil disobedience? Who are you planning to tell, and when? IF you're working against injustice, call CNN and FoxNews channels and tell them a week in advance - make sure that they have time to get a crew to your house for broadcast of your rebellion. If you're not willing to do that, I question your motivation and commitment.
Respectfully, Anomaly
Why are we helping him build his business?
on
Ask Kevin Mitnick
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Kevin is famous for breaking into systems. In point of fact, he broke the law breaking into systems.
When I was 13 I thought that cracking into systems was "kool." Now that I am an adult, I see that once a system has been compromised - even if it's just so that a smart kid can look around - it costs a fortune to be sure that a) the holes are closed, and b) the kid didn't do any damage.
He broke the law. Should we help him "make up for lost time" by helping him profit on his life experiences? I don't think so.
Let me give an example. Let's say that I am pro legalization of prostitution. (I'm not)
Before the legislators became "enlightened" on this issue (while it is still illegal) someone is convicted of being a pimp - should I make that person a poster-boy? Should I work to build a "how to be a pimp" consulting business, or promote a "pimping for dummies" book?
Kevin broke the law, and did his time. Can't he just get a straight job like the rest of us and move on? Why must he be a hero? Why must/. get behind him?
I don't get it. Let it go. Kevin, please get a regular job and live like an ordinary citizen.
I work in desktop engineering/systems management for a company with tens of thousands of desktops.
I completely agree that if a user is more productive with oddball settings, then in a perfect world they should be allowed. HOWEVER....
We don't live in a perfect world. The customizations of themes/display preferences can cause the applications to behave in unpredictable ways.
On top of that, Windows is susceptible to app/OS failure due to application install-order.
Applications are designed expecting to have complete access to the whole system.
These combine such that locking the OS down for it's own protection can cause the applications to collapse.
For the good of the company, (since we are using this lousy OS and applications that are not coded or tested with alternate themes) - it makes business sense to restrict the users from expressing their preferences on the desktop.
The users don't have to like it, but they expect their applications to run. If I troubleshoot a problem, and it comes down to failure because of "utilities" or customizations that the user made, the theoretical increased productivity disappears.
Don't get me started on "this cool screensaver" or digital picture management software that our users have access to - It's all about the same as those wonderful chain letters and virus hoaxes.
Regards, Anomaly
PS God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
With all due respect, the "engineered by aliens" idea merely re-directs the question of "first cause."
Who engineered the aliens?
From my perspective, it makes a great deal of sense that we were engineered by that "mysterious god who knows and sees everything."
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Acts 17
It's a bit closed-minded to simply dismiss those who question the veracity of this "accepted truth" without hearing what they have to say. The use of the term crackpot is more ad hominem than anything else.
I do believe that the moon landings happened, by the way. I think that the evidence stands overwhelmingly in favor of it - but while some folk are accusing these so-called crackpots of having irrational faith, how do you know what you "know?"
In what is your faith placed? Is it faith in government science documents, or faith in other "believers" who agree with you?
Surely there are people with completely irrational beliefs out there, but if you don't ever listen, you may never hear truth that contradicts conventional wisdom....
I think the framework of Christianity -- the open, loving version -- is beautiful.
Love and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Love is far more than just gushy feelings or niceness. God is Love. He is also completely just. His love is real, but His justice is real as well. A just judge must punish wrong. If He does not, He ceases to be just.
deeply disturbing
While I agree that some people are quite disturbing (some televangelists come to mind - and those who claim that Christ promised universal health and wealth here on earth)
I think that we must recognize that much of life is actually deeply disturbing. The reality of our inability to attain the standard of perfection set by a holy and perfect God is...well...disturbing is probably a mild word to use.
I can't imagine tolerating mankind without patience
Absolutely - God is slow to anger and ready to forgive - since He's already offered the gift to us and all we must do is accept it.
The thing to keep in mind is that there is a deadline for the decision. None of us know how many more days we have here, and in the words of a once-popular rock band "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
I understand that you're being facetious about my rejection of my faith. It is a possibility, although I regard it as a very unlikely one.
I see your point about the a priori commitment to accept faith, but my faith is based on my intellectual assessment of the "facts" that I have gathered through life experience. I put facts in quotes because no one can collect data in a truly objective fashion - if nothing else, we bring the limitations of our pont of observation....I don't perceive that I have predetermined to accept faith.
But to get to your question about selection of religion - it is quite true that we tend to pick the one with which we have the most familiarity.
I submit to you that it is best to select a religion based on it's integrity and truthfulness.
When I refer to integrity I mean - can the followers live in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of the religion? Does the religion contradict itself? If it is possible to live that way, do they? Do some?
When I refer to truthfulness I mean how closely does it match up with what we KNOW to be true? What are the logical outcomes of people folowing that world view to a letter - and what is the outcome for them and society?
How well does it answer the questions: 1) Where did we come from? 2) What went wrong? 3) What can we do to fix it?
Do those answers match reality? Do they provide meaning?
Christianity's answers are: 1) God created us for the purpose of worshiping Him.
2) Man rejected God the creator because in his pride he believed he knew a better way.
3) We can do nothing on our own to fix it. God knew this, and reached down from heaven to reconcile us to Himself.
As far as I know, Christianity is the only world religion that does not depend on some form of works to "save" you.
If you have an a priori commitment to reject faith as a concept, doesn't that prevent you from being open to faith as the most reasonable alternative?
(It is admittedly possible that faith is not the most reasonable alternative, but my point is that if you determine ahead of time what cannot be a possibility, aren't you being a bit closed-minded?)
The elegance of God's story is that we don't have to self-mprove because we simply are unable to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. God reaches down and pulls us out of the muck.
Movies express a world view in story - so it's not surprising to see philosophy there.
Some movies are more worthwhile than others from a philosphical perspective. As an example, the Matrix does a good job of addressing the classic good vs evil constuct - as does LOTR.
If you ever decide that you are interested in learning about why I have faith in Jesus Christ, and believe that I can reconcile intellect and faith in the Christian world view, please drop me a line.
it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof
This may be splitting hairs, but I think that it's a question of how you define proof. I've seen enough evidence of God and His involvement in my life that I believe that I have proof.
Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?
Are we just profoundly missing one another's points? I fear that may be the case.
We agree - we cannot use a time schedule as a test of orthodoxy. Many Christians adhere to an "old earth" creation, and that is consistent with Christianity. Many Christians do not adhere to an "old earth" creation and that is consistent with their world view.
I understood you to assert that a Christian need not believe that God is the creator.
My point was this: If a person believes himself/herself to be a Christian, they must also believe that there is a creator, and that creator is the God of Christianity. If they reject either of those points, I don't believe that it is reasonable to identify themselves as a Christian.
In terms of the timeline, while I subscribe to the "young earth" theory, I recognize that this is merely my opinion. I don't think that within orthodox Christianity one can demand adherence to a specific calendar - the scriptures do not speak definitively on the schedule.
It is also true that I have some difficulty combining current scientific conventional wisdom with my opinion.
This is not specifically problematic for me because as scientific knowledge is quite fungible, it is likely that future dicsoveries will demonstrate that my ideas are in line with the evidence.
Over the last two years, significant discoveries have had dramatic influence on our understanding of cosmology.
Mankind stands on the shore of an ocean of ignorance. Science helps us understand the material universe. It is incompetent to answer the "why" question. That is *not* to say that science has no value - the scientific method provides immense value and I am a big believer in science.
but one with respect to the beliefs of Christians....
It is inconsistent to call onesself a Christian and also reject God as creator - regardless of your interpretation of the mechanism or timing of the creation of life.
The Bible is filled with descriptions of God as the creator of the universe. It is not just Genesis 1, or John 1, but virtually every place that lists God's resume' lists Him as creator.
If I claim to believe that aliens have visited the earth, but hold to a belief that rejects the idea of interplanetary travel, I don't actually believe what I say I believe.
Along the same lines, if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian.
Jesus said something similar Himself. (Mt 7:21-23) Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers'
Going to church, maintaining a church membership, or doing good deeds doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.
I agree that there are a large number of people who might identify themselves as Christians in the world who reject God as creator. From a philosophical and logical point of view, I would agree with the previous poster that they are probably not Christians.
The other possibility is that they simply fail to understand the relationship of God as creator and redeemer of mankind to their belief in Christianity.
If a reader of this posting believes himself to be a Christian, and rejects the concept that God is the creator, please email me so that I can help demonstrate the rationale behind the importance of this concept to a Christian worldview.
Of course, improvements were seen until they hit two constraints: a) Physical laws that increase the operational cost of high speed aircraft regardless of the fuselage design (only so much refinement adds value that can be economically extracted)
b) Planes are "good enough" for most of us. We're willing to pay less than $1000 USD to fly anywhere in the US (perhaps anywhere in the world) and tolerate the ~500 M/Hr time cost. It is possible to get all the way across the continental US in an hour and a half, but we are not willing to pay what it costs in dollars - we'd rather pay in terms of time.
The same is true of cars. We are capable of building cars that run at 200 M/Hr but the average person is unwilling to operate a vehicle at that speed, so the manufacturers build scads of them that top out at 100M/Hr.
Computers will likely see the same thing happen - the speed of the home user's system will increase to the point that it is economically feasible, and then they won't get faster, but they will get better - just like airplanes and cars.
It's on two levels: 1) If what they are doing is not working for them, they might change. I did not mention that I make a practice of writing letters to their president (about once a year) to let him know that there are Americans who know what is going on there, and who refuse to buy their goods. Realistically I know that my boycott has virtually no influence, but a large lake is made of drops of water.
2) If I send my money to places where oppression does not happen, those countries will prosper and more businesses will move there.
I can't change them, but I can let them know that I'm not giving them my money unless they change.
Except for the fact that when GM bundles a product with the car, I don't have a separate license agreement with GM's vendor. What these folks are saying is that they don't want to be bound by the license agreement, and in fact want the vendor to unbundle that component.
Using the car analogy, that seems a bit unfair. This is where the car analogy breaks down. In this instance, the component supplier demands that the user agree to either follow the terms of the agreement, or the supplier agrees to not provide that component AND THE CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE VALUE OF THE SUPPLIED PRODUCT!
As a result of the vendor's own terms, the consumer should get what they want.
Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"
Hear Hear! I choose to boycott them because of their religious oppression, human rights abuses, and the fact that the trade imbalance with the US entirely funds the ballistic missiles that they point at us.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find products not made in China. This is particularly true in the areas of children's books/toys and electronics. I recently had to poke through each model of DVD player offered by a chain store to find ONE not manufactured in China. In one case, the display model was made in Japan, but every single unit of that model on the shelf was made in China!
Our culture cares more about getting a cheap DVD player or kid's toy than we are about other humans working as slave labor for an oppressive government. It's sad.
I haven't found a solution other than physically visiting the store and looking carefully for the "made in China" stamp on the box. If you find one, please let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that redistributed wealth doesn't stay redistributed.
It becomes a constant process of moving it from the channels that tend to collect it to those that tend not to.
It is further complicated by the tax channel process that you describe. (At least in the US.) Those who make the laws about such things tend to be those with the cash in the first place, so they either specifically exempt themselves, or generally exempt themselves through loopholes.
Their vested interest in providing opportunities shelter income and assets means that the loopholes will continue to exist. This also opens the door for others to shelter their income, and the intended purpose tends to be thwarted by these normal market forces.
The knee-jerk reaction is to "raise taxes on the rich" who promptly assign their financial planners, accountants, and lawyers to find the new loopholes.
The end result is that the middle class folks who don't believe that they have enough resources to justify hiring those professoinals end up getting the shaft.
I believe that helping the general population achieve a better standard of living tends to be a good thing, but Jesus said "The poor will always be with you" and I believe that He is right about that.
If you have some brilliant ideas about helping people to prosper economically, please share them!
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Oops. I guess the midnight system change last night has me pretty groggy this morning.
The point I intended to make is that there are so many people in the world, and almost all of them live at subsistence level or die below that - equal redistribution would likely reduce the net worth of everyone in the first and second world.
Redistribution of wealth seems like a good idea until you find out that you are the one whose wealth is being redistributed....
Since the vast majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the vast vast minority, I would suggest everyne who reads slashdot would see a reduction in net worth if wealth was evenly distributed to all people worldwide.
Are you sure that you want to do that?
I'll submit that wealth is unevenly distributed among the peoples of the earth, and that the constituency here on slashdot represents some of the richest people on the planet.
Are you suggesting wealth redistribution? Just curious.
The article seems to indicate that this is a concept - something that may have arisen from brainstorming, and may not be backed up by any data at all!!
This "explanation" is apparently supported by the thinnest of threads in terms of evolutionary history, and hard evidence is not presented to back this claim. This does not stop the Slashdot editors from posting this as "stuff that matters."
Please let the brainstormers check their ideas with research, show correlation, then causation, then present their findings in a way that can be checked by others.
This hypothesis, if you can call it that, is not tested and is perhaps not testable.
Why this reflex motion a) exists at all, and b) why it persists, if it descende from the frog may only be fodder for spectulation.
Science requires more than mere speculation.
Phooey.
Anomaly
My oversight. I usually include it, and people who want to criticize me then post it to porn spammers for their entertainment.
It's mailto:tom_cooper@bigfoot.com
As one of the people who you would call a "religious wacko" I would like to suggest that there's more to the picture that you have protrayed.
We DO live in exciting times. We have the knowledge and tools to learn much about life, genetics, biology, disease, and much much more than you or I can conceive of.
However, the road to curing disease does not necessarily pass through human cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The initial attempts at mammalian cloning have been sketchy at best, and it may realistically be decades before we understand enough about this to successfully clone complex mammals or humans.
Adult stem cells show much promise, as do stem cells collected from cord blood after birth. Neither of these lines of research come encumbered with the toying with human lives (creation of new people, or require destruction of existing people - as I believe science demonstrates that abortion does)
I want to see our brilliant scientists cure previously incurable diseases, but I strongly disagree that the best way involves cloning and embryonic stem cells.
Even with our recent (past 500 years) successes, we stand on the shores of an ocean of knowledge and can only wonder in awe about our ignorance. What we do not know dramatically dwarfs what we do know.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. He doesn't call you to check your brain at the door, either. If you want to know more, please email me.
I don't disagree with this concept.
.sig "the DMCA is wrong" to your emails and actually forming a protest where you violate the law with the intent of overturning it.
If I believe that a law is unjust, then it is my duty to violate it. Not only must I violate it, but I must also have the integrity to publicly stand up and announce that I have violated the law, - and that I have done this on the basis of conscience.
Mitnick did not violate the law publicly, nor was he willing to step up and face the consequences of his actions - not until he had been chased and caught. King did just that - and became a hero with his scrap paper-based "letter from a Birmingham jail."
The essence of civil disobedience is a conviction that the punishment of the law is of lesser consequence than letting an unjust law stand unchallenged.
There's an undeniable difference between including the
"Free Kevin" bumper stickers and broadcasting your intent to compromise systems on the principle that laws against that action are wrong are totally different activities and require a significantly different personal commitment.
Mitnick is no hero, and he was not motivated by a desire to overturn an unjust law. He broke the law, he did his time, and now he's out. That's all.
Must we make it more than that?
(To all readers, not just the parent poster)
If you say yes, what system are you planning to break in to as a part of your civil disobedience? Who are you planning to tell, and when? IF you're working against injustice, call CNN and FoxNews channels and tell them a week in advance - make sure that they have time to get a crew to your house for broadcast of your rebellion. If you're not willing to do that, I question your motivation and commitment.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Kevin is famous for breaking into systems. In point of fact, he broke the law breaking into systems.
/. get behind him?
When I was 13 I thought that cracking into systems was "kool." Now that I am an adult, I see that once a system has been compromised - even if it's just so that a smart kid can look around - it costs a fortune to be sure that a) the holes are closed, and b) the kid didn't do any damage.
He broke the law. Should we help him "make up for lost time" by helping him profit on his life experiences? I don't think so.
Let me give an example. Let's say that I am pro legalization of prostitution. (I'm not)
Before the legislators became "enlightened" on this issue (while it is still illegal) someone is convicted of being a pimp - should I make that person a poster-boy? Should I work to build a "how to be a pimp" consulting business, or promote a "pimping for dummies" book?
Kevin broke the law, and did his time. Can't he just get a straight job like the rest of us and move on? Why must he be a hero? Why must
I don't get it. Let it go. Kevin, please get a regular job and live like an ordinary citizen.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I work in desktop engineering/systems management for a company with tens of thousands of desktops.
I completely agree that if a user is more productive with oddball settings, then in a perfect world they should be allowed. HOWEVER....
We don't live in a perfect world. The customizations of themes/display preferences can cause the applications to behave in unpredictable ways.
On top of that, Windows is susceptible to app/OS failure due to application install-order.
Applications are designed expecting to have complete access to the whole system.
These combine such that locking the OS down for it's own protection can cause the applications to collapse.
For the good of the company, (since we are using this lousy OS and applications that are not coded or tested with alternate themes) - it makes business sense to restrict the users from expressing their preferences on the desktop.
The users don't have to like it, but they expect their applications to run. If I troubleshoot a problem, and it comes down to failure because of "utilities" or customizations that the user made, the theoretical increased productivity disappears.
Don't get me started on "this cool screensaver" or digital picture management software that our users have access to - It's all about the same as those wonderful chain letters and virus hoaxes.
Regards,
Anomaly
PS God loves you and longs for relationship with you.
Good point. It's fun to win, but I think that many dads steal the joy of the whole thing by making a professional racer.
Kids need your time more than anything else. They ultimately don't care about money or things. They want your attention and approval.
Regards,
Anomaly
With all due respect, the "engineered by aliens" idea merely re-directs the question of "first cause."
Who engineered the aliens?
From my perspective, it makes a great deal of sense that we were engineered by that "mysterious god who knows and sees everything."
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Acts 17
It's a bit closed-minded to simply dismiss those who question the veracity of this "accepted truth" without hearing what they have to say. The use of the term crackpot is more ad hominem than anything else.
I do believe that the moon landings happened, by the way. I think that the evidence stands overwhelmingly in favor of it - but while some folk are accusing these so-called crackpots of having irrational faith, how do you know what you "know?"
In what is your faith placed? Is it faith in government science documents, or faith in other "believers" who agree with you?
Surely there are people with completely irrational beliefs out there, but if you don't ever listen, you may never hear truth that contradicts conventional wisdom....
I agree. Nice speaking with you, too. Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Anomaly
I think the framework of Christianity -- the open, loving version -- is beautiful.
Love and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Love is far more than just gushy feelings or niceness. God is Love.
He is also completely just. His love is real, but His justice is real as well.
A just judge must punish wrong. If He does not, He ceases to be just.
deeply disturbing
While I agree that some people are quite disturbing (some televangelists come to mind - and those who claim that Christ promised universal health and wealth here on earth)
I think that we must recognize that much of life is actually deeply disturbing. The reality of our inability to attain the standard of perfection set by a holy and perfect God is...well...disturbing is probably a mild word to use.
I can't imagine tolerating mankind without patience
Absolutely - God is slow to anger and ready to forgive - since He's already offered the gift to us and all we must do is accept it.
The thing to keep in mind is that there is a deadline for the decision. None of us know how many more days we have here, and in the words of a once-popular rock band "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I understand that you're being facetious about my rejection of my faith. It is a possibility, although I regard it as a very unlikely one.
I see your point about the a priori commitment to accept faith, but my faith is based on my intellectual assessment of the "facts" that I have gathered through life experience. I put facts in quotes because no one can collect data in a truly objective fashion - if nothing else, we bring the limitations of our pont of observation....I don't perceive that I have predetermined to accept faith.
But to get to your question about selection of religion - it is quite true that we tend to pick the one with which we have the most familiarity.
I submit to you that it is best to select a religion based on it's integrity and truthfulness.
When I refer to integrity I mean - can the followers live in a manner that is consistent with the teachings of the religion? Does the religion contradict itself? If it is possible to live that way, do they? Do some?
When I refer to truthfulness I mean how closely does it match up with what we KNOW to be true? What are the logical outcomes of people folowing that world view to a letter - and what is the outcome for them and society?
How well does it answer the questions:
1) Where did we come from?
2) What went wrong?
3) What can we do to fix it?
Do those answers match reality? Do they provide meaning?
Christianity's answers are:
1) God created us for the purpose of worshiping Him.
2) Man rejected God the creator because in his pride he believed he knew a better way.
3) We can do nothing on our own to fix it. God knew this, and reached down from heaven to reconcile us to Himself.
As far as I know, Christianity is the only world religion that does not depend on some form of works to "save" you.
If you have an a priori commitment to reject faith as a concept, doesn't that prevent you from being open to faith as the most reasonable alternative?
(It is admittedly possible that faith is not the most reasonable alternative, but my point is that if you determine ahead of time what cannot be a possibility, aren't you being a bit closed-minded?)
The elegance of God's story is that we don't have to self-mprove because we simply are unable to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. God reaches down and pulls us out of the muck.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Movies express a world view in story - so it's not surprising to see philosophy there.
Some movies are more worthwhile than others from a philosphical perspective. As an example, the Matrix does a good job of addressing the classic good vs evil constuct - as does LOTR.
If you ever decide that you are interested in learning about why I have faith in Jesus Christ, and believe that I can reconcile intellect and faith in the Christian world view, please drop me a line.
Regards,
Anomaly
it would be hard to believe in God in the first place if one insists on proof
This may be splitting hairs, but I think that it's a question of how you define proof. I've seen enough evidence of God and His involvement in my life that I believe that I have proof.
Just curious...What evidence would be sufficient to prove to you that God exists?
Are we just profoundly missing one another's points? I fear that may be the case.
We agree - we cannot use a time schedule as a test of orthodoxy. Many Christians adhere to an "old earth" creation, and that is consistent with Christianity. Many Christians do not adhere to an "old earth" creation and that is consistent with their world view.
I understood you to assert that a Christian need not believe that God is the creator.
My point was this:
If a person believes himself/herself to be a Christian, they must also believe that there is a creator, and that creator is the God of Christianity. If they reject either of those points, I don't believe that it is reasonable to identify themselves as a Christian.
In terms of the timeline, while I subscribe to the "young earth" theory, I recognize that this is merely my opinion. I don't think that within orthodox Christianity one can demand adherence to a specific calendar - the scriptures do not speak definitively on the schedule.
It is also true that I have some difficulty combining current scientific conventional wisdom with my opinion.
This is not specifically problematic for me because as scientific knowledge is quite fungible, it is likely that future dicsoveries will demonstrate that my ideas are in line with the evidence.
Over the last two years, significant discoveries have had dramatic influence on our understanding of cosmology.
Mankind stands on the shore of an ocean of ignorance. Science helps us understand the material universe. It is incompetent to answer the "why" question. That is *not* to say that science has no value - the scientific method provides immense value and I am a big believer in science.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Regards,
Anomaly
but one with respect to the beliefs of Christians....
It is inconsistent to call onesself a Christian and also reject God as creator - regardless of your interpretation of the mechanism or timing of the creation of life.
The Bible is filled with descriptions of God as the creator of the universe. It is not just Genesis 1, or John 1, but virtually every place that lists God's resume' lists Him as creator.
If I claim to believe that aliens have visited the earth, but hold to a belief that rejects the idea of interplanetary travel, I don't actually believe what I say I believe.
Along the same lines, if I call myself a Christian and reject God as creator, I am not really a Christian.
Jesus said something similar Himself. (Mt 7:21-23)
Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers'
Going to church, maintaining a church membership, or doing good deeds doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.
I agree that there are a large number of people who might identify themselves as Christians in the world who reject God as creator. From a philosophical and logical point of view, I would agree with the previous poster that they are probably not Christians.
The other possibility is that they simply fail to understand the relationship of God as creator and redeemer of mankind to their belief in Christianity.
If a reader of this posting believes himself to be a Christian, and rejects the concept that God is the creator, please email me so that I can help demonstrate the rationale behind the importance of this concept to a Christian worldview.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Of course, improvements were seen until they hit two constraints:
a) Physical laws that increase the operational cost of high speed aircraft regardless of the fuselage design (only so much refinement adds value that can be economically extracted)
b) Planes are "good enough" for most of us. We're willing to pay less than $1000 USD to fly anywhere in the US (perhaps anywhere in the world) and tolerate the ~500 M/Hr time cost. It is possible to get all the way across the continental US in an hour and a half, but we are not willing to pay what it costs in dollars - we'd rather pay in terms of time.
The same is true of cars. We are capable of building cars that run at 200 M/Hr but the average person is unwilling to operate a vehicle at that speed, so the manufacturers build scads of them that top out at 100M/Hr.
Computers will likely see the same thing happen - the speed of the home user's system will increase to the point that it is economically feasible, and then they won't get faster, but they will get better - just like airplanes and cars.
It's on two levels:
1) If what they are doing is not working for them, they might change. I did not mention that I make a practice of writing letters to their president (about once a year) to let him know that there are Americans who know what is going on there, and who refuse to buy their goods. Realistically I know that my boycott has virtually no influence, but a large lake is made of drops of water.
2) If I send my money to places where oppression does not happen, those countries will prosper and more businesses will move there.
I can't change them, but I can let them know that I'm not giving them my money unless they change.
Except for the fact that when GM bundles a product with the car, I don't have a separate license agreement with GM's vendor. What these folks are saying is that they don't want to be bound by the license agreement, and in fact want the vendor to unbundle that component.
Using the car analogy, that seems a bit unfair. This is where the car analogy breaks down. In this instance, the component supplier demands that the user agree to either follow the terms of the agreement, or the supplier agrees to not provide that component AND THE CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE VALUE OF THE SUPPLIED PRODUCT!
As a result of the vendor's own terms, the consumer should get what they want.
Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"
It's a shakedown.
Hope this sheds some light on their perspective.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
Hear Hear! I choose to boycott them because of their religious oppression, human rights abuses, and the fact that the trade imbalance with the US entirely funds the ballistic missiles that they point at us.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find products not made in China. This is particularly true in the areas of children's books/toys and electronics. I recently had to poke through each model of DVD player offered by a chain store to find ONE not manufactured in China. In one case, the display model was made in Japan, but every single unit of that model on the shelf was made in China!
Our culture cares more about getting a cheap DVD player or kid's toy than we are about other humans working as slave labor for an oppressive government. It's sad.
I haven't found a solution other than physically visiting the store and looking carefully for the "made in China" stamp on the box. If you find one, please let me know.
Regards,
Anomaly