First, I have to say, if you don't hold to religious views your thought processes must be quite different from those who do.
As a religious person from a religious family(Christian). From a family, where my father battled cancer for over two years. I can honestly say, I have a pretty good perspective on this. I make some assumptions based on the fact that these people "regularly prayed." They are clearly people who believe prayer is useful as well as find prayer comforting.
Christian beliefs highly regard altruism, where suffering on others account is the 'greatest' form of love. In my case, my father expressed a real desire to not suffer, but he knew that his family was cherishing every last minute of his life. None of us wanted to see him suffer, but none of us wanted him to go sooner than he had to, knowing that in this life we would never see him again.
This quote really shows a total lack of understanding regarding Christian and religious culture; Because they... haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality. Within Christian teaching there is quite nearly an obsession regarding death. If anything, Christians fight death, because they are more aware of their own mortality.
Lastly, Christians are very sensitive about the value of human life. They believe each human is created in the image of God therefor each is precious and worth all the effort in the world to save. It runs completely against the moral grain of a Christian to think that a life could be saved, but it's too expensive or painful to do it. Likewise, Christians value individual lives over money, personal gain or temporary happiness.
Now, before you deride this as hypocritical, keep in mind that these views are not comprehensive(There is more to it) and are also idealistic. Dealing with the imminent death of oneself or a family member brings ones ideals into clear focus. This is only meant to make the picture of the religious mindset a little more clear and hopefully some non-religious persons will learn not to assume such negative views so dogmatically.
In response to people's behavior(failure to take complete course) new types of antibiotics were developed, which my doctor calls "front loading." This means you take the antibiotic for four days, but it maintains effective levels in your body for perhaps the next 10. You can typically read all kinds of information that comes packaged with your prescription, such as describes serum levels per dose vs. time, warning signs for allergic reactions, serous side effects, etc.
"A synthetic molecule called peptide nucleic acid (PNA) combines the information-storage properties of DNA with the chemical stability of a proteinlike backbone."
I see two possible reasons PNA was not selected.
First, as others have said, it's stable. Evolution requires a bit of mutation to move forward. Out of a billion mistakes, maybe 1(or less) will cause an organism to be more 'fit.' So, you have a balancing act between errors and fitness, where too many errors reduce an organisms fitness and two few reduce it's adaptability.
Second, the protien backbone is possibly biologically expensive. There are many who believe advances in human intellegence is linked very closely with the availability of massive amounts of protein provided by cooking our food. So, the availability and neccesity of protein could be limiting factors in evolution. So any process which provides the same function with significantly less biological cost, even if slightly inferior in other ways, may be selected.
I might note, that in some cases you must choose your oppression. Either, you have criminals oppress you without public oversight or you may need to have on occasion the government regulate certain aspects of life to reduce unchecked criminal oppression. I have to agree with the GP crime destroys communities and creates a culture of fear-induced oppression.
Completely free society isn't possible when the members of a society do not regard the rights and freedoms of other members. Therefore, a system may be necessary to maximize freedom, where in some cases it limits the freedom of individuals.
Since I can't mod this insightful consider this a +1 "Preach It Brother."
Here's the problem: We only have two parties to choose from, because if we vote outside of the two blessed parties, we're throwing away our vote.
I think the constitutional method of voting for electorates was intended to accomplish something other than tallying votes and seeing who comes out on top. The way our current voting scheme works, if there are more than two parties it is possible for a very devoted minority to win an election. However, if the electoral college did their job, they would consider voter intent.
For example, suppose there are three parties, "Conservatives," "Liberals" and "Let's take down the bourgeoisie!" Conservatives get 32.5% of the vote, Liberals get 32.5% of the vote, but the "let's destroy them all" group get's 35% of the vote. It's safe to say, 65% of the country does not hate the bourgeoisie and would gladly, desperately wish for any other party to win, but in the US system the intent of the people is not judged, just numbers tallied. So, the Marxists win.
The result is that people are afraid to support a party which best represents their wishes, but does not have enough political momentum to win an election by raw numbers. Thus, third parties will never gain enough momentum to become viable.
The problem with the electoral college is that at this point, if they did not vote purely based on the raw numbers there would be cries of "Not fair, not fair!" by whatever party lost due to the electoral college judging voter intent. So, what we actually need is a way for voters to directly express their intent. There are a number of ways to do this, but in the end, voters need to be able to show their support for multiple candidates. For example, this could be done by prioritizing preference for the candidates, or simply voting for as many candidates as they would like, but giving one candidate a preferential vote in the case of very close elections. Whatever method chosen, reinstating electorate sovereignty or a more sophisticated method of voting, almost any system which considered voter intent would be better and would result in greater voter satisfaction than the current system.
As I understand it, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the primary requirement for defining a species. However, in the case of many plants and animals (I.e. orchids of same or similar genus or grizzly bears mating with polar bears.) the species is further defined by the likelihood of sexual reproduction. The cause of speciation(The emergence of two species from one.) can be locality(Galapagos), some sort of behavioral trigger(Male lions not understanding female tigers sexual cues.) or anything which might prevent one segment of a species from mating with another segment of a species long enough for them to become sufficiently different(in a genetic sense). Yes, it's a little subjective, but that doesn't means it's a useless scientific concept.
"Linux is "immune" because installing software that didn't come from the vendor's own repository is basically impossible for normal people. Hell, most users probably couldn't figure out how to make anything they download executable. That will change if/when Linux gets popular - users will demand the ability to use 3rd party programs."
Linux has this capability through a recent innovation called a "package management system." A recently development is RPM, which is less than 20 years old. In fact, most web browsers on Linux will now launch a "package installer" for you, if you download a file with the appropriate ending. So, what's the difference between Microsoft Windows and Linux in this regard? It comes down to one word, "passwords." If a user without appropriate permissions attempts to install 3rd party software in a directory they're not permitted to run in, they're not permitted to install it. However, they are free to install software in their own home folder. This is how I tell users to install their 3rd party apps that I don't want to support. Fortunately, most software written for Linux can easily be installed in it's own context and will run properly. With Microsoft Windows, this is not possible. Almost every app needs full control of the system and full access to the registry. Sure, you can turn some security on, but once it's on, you can't install 3rd party apps at all unless you have access to the source code(e.e. PortableApps.com).
So, in truth, there really is a difference. Two desktop OSes enter, one desktop OS leaves!
Unless they set a bootloader password. I do this on all of my servers. In which case, you've gotta reinstall the boot loader... which may or may not work depending on your 5k1llz!
I agree for the most part except for the following:
they are scratching their bald heads, but many of us are young and are not quite balding yet. in the dark of their moms basement, or at their work desk their boss is not looking.
I might have to disagree with you about Islamic countries being firmly at the bottom of "Science and Technology," due to purely philosophical and theological reasons.
Before I get too far, Iran has some really intelligent scientists and engineers. It is possible that pretty soon the United States will find themselves "on the bottom," as the countries that are now "on the bottom" work really hard to send their kids "to the top" through pushing them towards science and engineering education.
Beliefs about God and the origins of life have zero impact on a persons capacity to manipulate and understand the physical here and now. The past is essentially a black box. There is no way to prove that the universe did not just spring into existence just a moment ago.
Where Islamic countries went wrong was the suppression of freedom. Oppressive atheistic states have seen similar economic hardships. It's as simple as this, where freedom is suppressed, the economy is suppressed.
Not that I love DELL or anything, but I've found their business level systems are very reliable. They tend to be very picky about what they will sell you, because they want to make absolutely sure it will work fine so they don't have to provide support later. In addition I think you'll find DELL upgrades over priced as well, just not nearly as bad as Apple.
I've been a system administrator for about 10 years now and I've never really found snooping to be interesting. I even tend to look away when people type their passwords, open files with their personal finances or other information. I show them how to use encrypted FUSE file systems. In general, I don't care about someones personal files unless they're taking up too much space.
However, I should say, from time to time you stumble across "information that (is) not relevant to (your) role," unintentionally. That can't be helped, but it is possible to not abuse the situation.
I've personally written one medium size project(around 100k). As the project scaled I found there were a few things that really made a difference.
Modularity with high boundaries and simple interfaces between modules. What I mean by this is that as a program grows more complex if you reduce the number of dependencies maintainability increases greatly. Also, if it's possible to use the standard data types(i.e. deque instead of MyReallyCoolIntegerDeque) for communication between modules it's much easier to maintain compatibility between modules.
Also, one thing I can never seem to get across to developers is to write readable code. This means naming functions according to their function and not as some cryptic acronym. It means naming variables what they are, even if their name has to be a sentence(Though, usually a simple and obvious name can be found if you think hard enough.)
Your idea was tried in Zimbabwe and it didn't work well. Zimbabwe which was once "The Breadbasket of Africa" is now suffering what some call "the country's worst humanitarian crisis since independence."
Perhaps something a little less radical would work better? From what I can see, making rapid massive changes to an economy generally result in both the rich and the poor suffering a great deal more than they were. I could imagine a system where the government aids in low income(not race, black or white) individuals purchasing land from the larger land owners at a controlled rate, to be determined by the success of the previous purchasers to produce wealth and manage their land.
Actually, I felt that the message Jesus preaches here is self evident if read honestly and thus didn't really need my commentary. My attempt was simply to provide the context to the somewhat inflammatory grand parent post. As is the case with many knee jerk reactions, it looks a little silly once the whole context is considered.
It is possible to make anyone look crazy or evil if you stitch together tiny pieces of what they've said. To me it seems this is most frequently done in political and religious discussions. So, again, my attempt was merely to provide a more robust context.
Maybe he meant these passages:
Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."
Mark 10:17-31 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
I was under the impression that according to Godwin's law the discussion should end. I guess that is just how many have interpreted it and I was speaking against that interpretation. I think the fact that the world still talks about "the war," is an indication that we're still processing it's implications and discussions about it should be encouraged. This is especially true as new generations learn (or do not learn) about "the war."
First, Godwin's law doesn't exist. My and your ability to reply proves that. I think it's a silly and dangerous idea to forbid talking about WWII, because we're all of the same nature and should heed , process and discuss the horrific warnings of history.
Second, the German aggression towards Jews was simply one manifestation of one culture or people group oppressing another. It's not bombastic to believe genocide and oppression might happen again. The reality is, Britain is trying to control their people with electronic surveillance just as Germans did with informants. It's simply a word of caution and a call to remember and to reason.
Maybe it has something to do with the British government looking more and more like the German government just before WW2 and would like their citizens to forget... Oh, would you like a fresh cup of surveillance with your papers anyone?
On another note if Godwin's law were a law, this entire story would not exist. Thank God it's not a law social or civil.
Thanks for the reference to Spinoza. I did not read the whole entry, but I did read the section "God, or Nature." Very interesting and if Einstein completely agreed with Spinoza, I understand your interpretation to a point. From what I read I don't think Spinoza necessarily thought that the substance of all things is material, but all things deterministically proceed from the Nature of God. The section did not venture to say what things might proceed from the Nature, simply that since they did proceed their proceeding was determined before they proceeded, by the Nature of God.
I am in total agreement with Spinoza regarding the concept that Nature must exist as it is and that God would no longer be God if this nature and all the events of nature up until now did not happen as they have. However, I am not sure how this leads to an impersonal God, simply because there is no will other than the Will that is. A God with only one Will could still have a will for individuals as something which proceeds from the nature of the Divine Will. I am also not sure how this necessarily leads to a God without compassion or a God that does not desire happiness for all of Nature, including God.
You may have realized by now, that I consider happiness to be a(if not the only) fundamental good and also a fundamental aspect of God. God must be happy, because he is happy. Therefore the things that proceed from the nature of God are necessarily tending toward happiness. I believe this is, "the noble truth that is the way leading to the end of suffering." I also believe that the suffering which exists is necessary for the happiness of God and of all things which proceed from God. So, I see that if happiness is an attribute of the nature of God it is possible that all things may be tending toward this goal. Where the goal is not chosen by God, but is part of the Nature of God himself as teeth are part of the nature of lions.
I might also add, that I took the liberty to make a distinction between God and Nature. In that it only seems logical that God is the manifestation, existence and singular instance of the divine nature. Thus, as an oak tree has a nature it is the actual oak tree which is the expression of the nature, which is of course part and in part indistinct of the greater expression of Nature or God.
First, I am trying to make sense of your reply. Are you trying to tell me what you believe or what Einstein believed? I was hoping you would reply and explain how Einstein distinguished between "the natural" and "the spiritual" and yet did not mean the spiritual is not natural.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you associate the pursuit of happiness with materialism.
When you quote scripture you may want to quote the whole context, because in this case the scripture you quoted refutes the concept that the motivation for good works should not be reward:
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:2-4)
"Spiritual life starts when person starts to tackle with the questions above(now quoted below in bold)."
What if things were different? Accepting Jesus, or doing good would result eternal punishment in hell. Doing bad would take you into heaven. What then? Who would follow Jesus?
My simple answer is, no. I try to avoid suffering if possible. Likewise all of Bhuddism is centered toward that goal as stated in the four noble truths:
1. "the noble truth that is suffering"
2. "the noble truth that is the arising of suffering"
3. "the noble truth that is the end of suffering"
4. "the noble truth that is the way leading to the end of suffering"
It seems that your concept of spirituality is centered more around meaningless suffering and would be something like what Thomas Merton described as Promethean theology. I recommend you read the book "The New Man" by Thomas Merton, who is likewise a Christian mystic.
I would also like to know your definition of "spiritual" and your definition of "good."
(his meaning of spiritual don't include belief in supernatural).
If this is true, why does he make a distinction between natural and spiritual? "Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." It is clear here, that he sees that "the spiritual" is something other than "the natural." However, he believes that both can be experienced. If you mean by "super-natural" something that can not be experienced, then very few people believe in a supernatural.
From the article: "Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. 'The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.'"
This letter simply shows that Einstein disagreed with nearly everyone, Athiests, Christians and Jews. He had a simple and rather humble belief system and didn't really like his ideas to be misrepresented by people trying to prove a point.
I'm a Christian and I would have loved for Einstein to say, "Jesus did it all," but he didn't. He also didn't say, "God doesn't exist," or even that religion is childish as the article summary suggests. He simply said that he thought the legends in the bible were childish.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I have to say, if you don't hold to religious views your thought processes must be quite different from those who do.
As a religious person from a religious family(Christian). From a family, where my father battled cancer for over two years. I can honestly say, I have a pretty good perspective on this. I make some assumptions based on the fact that these people "regularly prayed." They are clearly people who believe prayer is useful as well as find prayer comforting.
Christian beliefs highly regard altruism, where suffering on others account is the 'greatest' form of love. In my case, my father expressed a real desire to not suffer, but he knew that his family was cherishing every last minute of his life. None of us wanted to see him suffer, but none of us wanted him to go sooner than he had to, knowing that in this life we would never see him again.
This quote really shows a total lack of understanding regarding Christian and religious culture; Because they ... haven't had time to consider and come to terms with their own mortality. Within Christian teaching there is quite nearly an obsession regarding death. If anything, Christians fight death, because they are more aware of their own mortality.
Lastly, Christians are very sensitive about the value of human life. They believe each human is created in the image of God therefor each is precious and worth all the effort in the world to save. It runs completely against the moral grain of a Christian to think that a life could be saved, but it's too expensive or painful to do it. Likewise, Christians value individual lives over money, personal gain or temporary happiness.
Now, before you deride this as hypocritical, keep in mind that these views are not comprehensive(There is more to it) and are also idealistic. Dealing with the imminent death of oneself or a family member brings ones ideals into clear focus. This is only meant to make the picture of the religious mindset a little more clear and hopefully some non-religious persons will learn not to assume such negative views so dogmatically.
In response to people's behavior(failure to take complete course) new types of antibiotics were developed, which my doctor calls "front loading." This means you take the antibiotic for four days, but it maintains effective levels in your body for perhaps the next 10. You can typically read all kinds of information that comes packaged with your prescription, such as describes serum levels per dose vs. time, warning signs for allergic reactions, serous side effects, etc.
What if you have access to a leaf node?
Just Americans? Why doesn't the rest of the world stand up and do something sometime?
"A synthetic molecule called peptide nucleic acid (PNA) combines the information-storage properties of DNA with the chemical stability of a proteinlike backbone."
I see two possible reasons PNA was not selected.
First, as others have said, it's stable. Evolution requires a bit of mutation to move forward. Out of a billion mistakes, maybe 1(or less) will cause an organism to be more 'fit.' So, you have a balancing act between errors and fitness, where too many errors reduce an organisms fitness and two few reduce it's adaptability.
Second, the protien backbone is possibly biologically expensive. There are many who believe advances in human intellegence is linked very closely with the availability of massive amounts of protein provided by cooking our food. So, the availability and neccesity of protein could be limiting factors in evolution. So any process which provides the same function with significantly less biological cost, even if slightly inferior in other ways, may be selected.
I might note, that in some cases you must choose your oppression. Either, you have criminals oppress you without public oversight or you may need to have on occasion the government regulate certain aspects of life to reduce unchecked criminal oppression. I have to agree with the GP crime destroys communities and creates a culture of fear-induced oppression.
Completely free society isn't possible when the members of a society do not regard the rights and freedoms of other members. Therefore, a system may be necessary to maximize freedom, where in some cases it limits the freedom of individuals.
Since I can't mod this insightful consider this a +1 "Preach It Brother."
Here's the problem: We only have two parties to choose from, because if we vote outside of the two blessed parties, we're throwing away our vote.
I think the constitutional method of voting for electorates was intended to accomplish something other than tallying votes and seeing who comes out on top. The way our current voting scheme works, if there are more than two parties it is possible for a very devoted minority to win an election. However, if the electoral college did their job, they would consider voter intent.
For example, suppose there are three parties, "Conservatives," "Liberals" and "Let's take down the bourgeoisie!" Conservatives get 32.5% of the vote, Liberals get 32.5% of the vote, but the "let's destroy them all" group get's 35% of the vote. It's safe to say, 65% of the country does not hate the bourgeoisie and would gladly, desperately wish for any other party to win, but in the US system the intent of the people is not judged, just numbers tallied. So, the Marxists win.
The result is that people are afraid to support a party which best represents their wishes, but does not have enough political momentum to win an election by raw numbers. Thus, third parties will never gain enough momentum to become viable.
The problem with the electoral college is that at this point, if they did not vote purely based on the raw numbers there would be cries of "Not fair, not fair!" by whatever party lost due to the electoral college judging voter intent. So, what we actually need is a way for voters to directly express their intent. There are a number of ways to do this, but in the end, voters need to be able to show their support for multiple candidates. For example, this could be done by prioritizing preference for the candidates, or simply voting for as many candidates as they would like, but giving one candidate a preferential vote in the case of very close elections. Whatever method chosen, reinstating electorate sovereignty or a more sophisticated method of voting, almost any system which considered voter intent would be better and would result in greater voter satisfaction than the current system.
As I understand it, the ability to produce fertile offspring is the primary requirement for defining a species. However, in the case of many plants and animals (I.e. orchids of same or similar genus or grizzly bears mating with polar bears.) the species is further defined by the likelihood of sexual reproduction. The cause of speciation(The emergence of two species from one.) can be locality(Galapagos), some sort of behavioral trigger(Male lions not understanding female tigers sexual cues.) or anything which might prevent one segment of a species from mating with another segment of a species long enough for them to become sufficiently different(in a genetic sense). Yes, it's a little subjective, but that doesn't means it's a useless scientific concept.
"Linux is "immune" because installing software that didn't come from the vendor's own repository is basically impossible for normal people. Hell, most users probably couldn't figure out how to make anything they download executable. That will change if/when Linux gets popular - users will demand the ability to use 3rd party programs."
Linux has this capability through a recent innovation called a "package management system." A recently development is RPM, which is less than 20 years old. In fact, most web browsers on Linux will now launch a "package installer" for you, if you download a file with the appropriate ending. So, what's the difference between Microsoft Windows and Linux in this regard? It comes down to one word, "passwords." If a user without appropriate permissions attempts to install 3rd party software in a directory they're not permitted to run in, they're not permitted to install it. However, they are free to install software in their own home folder. This is how I tell users to install their 3rd party apps that I don't want to support. Fortunately, most software written for Linux can easily be installed in it's own context and will run properly. With Microsoft Windows, this is not possible. Almost every app needs full control of the system and full access to the registry. Sure, you can turn some security on, but once it's on, you can't install 3rd party apps at all unless you have access to the source code(e.e. PortableApps.com).
So, in truth, there really is a difference. Two desktop OSes enter, one desktop OS leaves!
Unless they set a bootloader password. I do this on all of my servers. In which case, you've gotta reinstall the boot loader... which may or may not work depending on your 5k1llz!
I agree for the most part except for the following: they are scratching their bald heads, but many of us are young and are not quite balding yet. in the dark of their moms basement, or at their work desk their boss is not looking.
I might have to disagree with you about Islamic countries being firmly at the bottom of "Science and Technology," due to purely philosophical and theological reasons.
Before I get too far, Iran has some really intelligent scientists and engineers. It is possible that pretty soon the United States will find themselves "on the bottom," as the countries that are now "on the bottom" work really hard to send their kids "to the top" through pushing them towards science and engineering education.
Beliefs about God and the origins of life have zero impact on a persons capacity to manipulate and understand the physical here and now. The past is essentially a black box. There is no way to prove that the universe did not just spring into existence just a moment ago.
Where Islamic countries went wrong was the suppression of freedom. Oppressive atheistic states have seen similar economic hardships. It's as simple as this, where freedom is suppressed, the economy is suppressed.
Not that I love DELL or anything, but I've found their business level systems are very reliable. They tend to be very picky about what they will sell you, because they want to make absolutely sure it will work fine so they don't have to provide support later. In addition I think you'll find DELL upgrades over priced as well, just not nearly as bad as Apple.
I've been a system administrator for about 10 years now and I've never really found snooping to be interesting. I even tend to look away when people type their passwords, open files with their personal finances or other information. I show them how to use encrypted FUSE file systems. In general, I don't care about someones personal files unless they're taking up too much space.
However, I should say, from time to time you stumble across "information that (is) not relevant to (your) role," unintentionally. That can't be helped, but it is possible to not abuse the situation.
I've personally written one medium size project(around 100k). As the project scaled I found there were a few things that really made a difference. Modularity with high boundaries and simple interfaces between modules. What I mean by this is that as a program grows more complex if you reduce the number of dependencies maintainability increases greatly. Also, if it's possible to use the standard data types(i.e. deque instead of MyReallyCoolIntegerDeque) for communication between modules it's much easier to maintain compatibility between modules. Also, one thing I can never seem to get across to developers is to write readable code. This means naming functions according to their function and not as some cryptic acronym. It means naming variables what they are, even if their name has to be a sentence(Though, usually a simple and obvious name can be found if you think hard enough.)
Your idea was tried in Zimbabwe and it didn't work well. Zimbabwe which was once "The Breadbasket of Africa" is now suffering what some call "the country's worst humanitarian crisis since independence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Decline
Perhaps something a little less radical would work better? From what I can see, making rapid massive changes to an economy generally result in both the rich and the poor suffering a great deal more than they were. I could imagine a system where the government aids in low income(not race, black or white) individuals purchasing land from the larger land owners at a controlled rate, to be determined by the success of the previous purchasers to produce wealth and manage their land.
Actually, I felt that the message Jesus preaches here is self evident if read honestly and thus didn't really need my commentary. My attempt was simply to provide the context to the somewhat inflammatory grand parent post. As is the case with many knee jerk reactions, it looks a little silly once the whole context is considered.
It is possible to make anyone look crazy or evil if you stitch together tiny pieces of what they've said. To me it seems this is most frequently done in political and religious discussions. So, again, my attempt was merely to provide a more robust context.
Maybe he meant these passages:
Luke 14:26
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his own life-he cannot be my disciple."
Mark 10:17-31
As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
I was under the impression that according to Godwin's law the discussion should end. I guess that is just how many have interpreted it and I was speaking against that interpretation. I think the fact that the world still talks about "the war," is an indication that we're still processing it's implications and discussions about it should be encouraged. This is especially true as new generations learn (or do not learn) about "the war."
First, Godwin's law doesn't exist. My and your ability to reply proves that. I think it's a silly and dangerous idea to forbid talking about WWII, because we're all of the same nature and should heed , process and discuss the horrific warnings of history.
Second, the German aggression towards Jews was simply one manifestation of one culture or people group oppressing another. It's not bombastic to believe genocide and oppression might happen again. The reality is, Britain is trying to control their people with electronic surveillance just as Germans did with informants. It's simply a word of caution and a call to remember and to reason.
Maybe it has something to do with the British government looking more and more like the German government just before WW2 and would like their citizens to forget... Oh, would you like a fresh cup of surveillance with your papers anyone?
On another note if Godwin's law were a law, this entire story would not exist. Thank God it's not a law social or civil.
Thanks for the reference to Spinoza. I did not read the whole entry, but I did read the section "God, or Nature." Very interesting and if Einstein completely agreed with Spinoza, I understand your interpretation to a point. From what I read I don't think Spinoza necessarily thought that the substance of all things is material, but all things deterministically proceed from the Nature of God. The section did not venture to say what things might proceed from the Nature, simply that since they did proceed their proceeding was determined before they proceeded, by the Nature of God.
I am in total agreement with Spinoza regarding the concept that Nature must exist as it is and that God would no longer be God if this nature and all the events of nature up until now did not happen as they have. However, I am not sure how this leads to an impersonal God, simply because there is no will other than the Will that is. A God with only one Will could still have a will for individuals as something which proceeds from the nature of the Divine Will. I am also not sure how this necessarily leads to a God without compassion or a God that does not desire happiness for all of Nature, including God.
You may have realized by now, that I consider happiness to be a(if not the only) fundamental good and also a fundamental aspect of God. God must be happy, because he is happy. Therefore the things that proceed from the nature of God are necessarily tending toward happiness. I believe this is, "the noble truth that is the way leading to the end of suffering." I also believe that the suffering which exists is necessary for the happiness of God and of all things which proceed from God. So, I see that if happiness is an attribute of the nature of God it is possible that all things may be tending toward this goal. Where the goal is not chosen by God, but is part of the Nature of God himself as teeth are part of the nature of lions.
I might also add, that I took the liberty to make a distinction between God and Nature. In that it only seems logical that God is the manifestation, existence and singular instance of the divine nature. Thus, as an oak tree has a nature it is the actual oak tree which is the expression of the nature, which is of course part and in part indistinct of the greater expression of Nature or God.
First, I am trying to make sense of your reply. Are you trying to tell me what you believe or what Einstein believed? I was hoping you would reply and explain how Einstein distinguished between "the natural" and "the spiritual" and yet did not mean the spiritual is not natural.
Secondly, I'm not sure how you associate the pursuit of happiness with materialism.
When you quote scripture you may want to quote the whole context, because in this case the scripture you quoted refutes the concept that the motivation for good works should not be reward:
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:2-4)
"Spiritual life starts when person starts to tackle with the questions above(now quoted below in bold)."
What if things were different? Accepting Jesus, or doing good would result eternal punishment in hell. Doing bad would take you into heaven. What then? Who would follow Jesus?
My simple answer is, no. I try to avoid suffering if possible. Likewise all of Bhuddism is centered toward that goal as stated in the four noble truths:
1. "the noble truth that is suffering"
2. "the noble truth that is the arising of suffering"
3. "the noble truth that is the end of suffering"
4. "the noble truth that is the way leading to the end of suffering"
It seems that your concept of spirituality is centered more around meaningless suffering and would be something like what Thomas Merton described as Promethean theology. I recommend you read the book "The New Man" by Thomas Merton, who is likewise a Christian mystic.
I would also like to know your definition of "spiritual" and your definition of "good."
If this is true, why does he make a distinction between natural and spiritual? "Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity." It is clear here, that he sees that "the spiritual" is something other than "the natural." However, he believes that both can be experienced. If you mean by "super-natural" something that can not be experienced, then very few people believe in a supernatural.
From the article: "Despite his categorical rejection of conventional religion, Brooke said that Einstein became angry when his views were appropriated by evangelists for atheism. He was offended by their lack of humility and once wrote. 'The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility.'"
This letter simply shows that Einstein disagreed with nearly everyone, Athiests, Christians and Jews. He had a simple and rather humble belief system and didn't really like his ideas to be misrepresented by people trying to prove a point.
I'm a Christian and I would have loved for Einstein to say, "Jesus did it all," but he didn't. He also didn't say, "God doesn't exist," or even that religion is childish as the article summary suggests. He simply said that he thought the legends in the bible were childish.
Hey, are you really suggesting religion bashers aren't always 100% accurate?