If all mankind could work together for a single goal, how long would it take to accomplish it?
The answer is "One hell of alot faster than working the way we do now."
Of course the idea is irrationally optimistic and frought with problems both big (organizational) and small (self interest/motivation.) However, this data sharing between interested, relevant parties is a microcosm of the idea as it allows unfetterd collaboration worldwide. The results speak for themselves and give me some small bit of hope that others will follow their example with other issues that continue to plague mankind.
We live in a country where respect for education is propped up and pimped from infancy. Just watch TV for a few examples. Teach your baby to read is the newest craze I have seen, though there are even tapes and headphones designed to make your baby smart in the womb! I have even heard of people getting on waiting lists for preschool 3 years in advance. And yet, once our children reach school age, we seem to somehow suppress our cognitive dissonance and allow our school systems to relentlessly injure our children's development. For instance, we continually dumb down the curriculums, teach to the lowest denominator, and remove reasoning, discernment, and critical thinking skills by standardizing the knowledge base around a state sponsored minimum. To make matters worse, we ignore and actively undermine the future potential of vast numbers of less bookish children by eschewing vocational and apprenticeship training.
Our "respect" for learning and education is nothing more than lip service. At least it's fair though. We punish both the top performers and the bottom performers alike. Those who excel never get to reach their potential because the school system does not teach at their level. Those at the bottom never get a chance to learn the skills they will most likely use in the future.
So you are correct, no one's lives are being destroyed by being required to pass school. However, their lives may still be destroyed even if they pass! For some, their childhood was wasted by educating them in areas where they cannot compete while systematically restricting their access to those areas of knowledge that would allow them to build a more successful future.
Those are all great points, but the greatest benefits I can see for legalization are the reduced costs of fighting the drug war (in dollars and lives) and the ability to interface users and medical personel.
As long as the product is good and the taxes aren't so high that they keep the black market in operation we could see a drastic reduction in violent crimes, gang activity, incarceration costs, and border and law enforcement costs.
Removing the stigma associated with use could also result in treating some users' underlying psychological conditions, possibly leading to a drop in overall usage.
I am sure I will get hell from people for this, but raising a child in the manner you describe is completely irresponsible and tantamount to child abuse.
I will give you my take on these and how I dealt with them as a parent:
people are good
Children must learn that a limited subset of people are good, and even they are not good all the time. The higher the pedestal we put people on, the farther they have to fall. Universal acceptance based on this untruth leads to lack of discernment, and without discernment there is no framework for evaluation of self or others.
there are norms of behavior
Children in a one-color-one-culture-one-religion society can possibly get along ok with this as it stands. However, socializing children with people of diverse backgrounds is preferable. In the process children will have questions. Candidly explaining the differences in cultures and beliefs will allow them to develop a more complete view of the world. The objective is to create fertile ground for acceptance of new and different people and experiences and to choke out the fear-based roots of bigotry and prejudice. there is justice in the world The world is an inherently unfair and unjust place. Sheltering children from this is not only futile but also counterproductive. They will see it sooner than you think, probably at the hands of a teacher or relative. If you haven't been honest with them you not only prove the point they are so harshly learning, but they can begin to see you as untrustworthy and unreliable. Dealing with the unavoidable instances of personal injustice without resorting to inappropriate behavior, unnecessary martyring, or loss of self esteem is difficult if you are a child. It is impossible if your parents allow you to be blindsided by it.
authority figures can be trusted
Distrust of authority will be guaranteed if you follow the sheep creating method so far proscribed by your assumptions. Children should be able to trust their parents as authority figures. Parents can earn that trust daily through respecting their children enough to give them facts, experiential knowledge, and the freedom to test those things they have taken on faith from their parents. Children who see the proper execution of authority at home will recognize the counterfeit versions that plague our schools, churches, bureaucracies, governments, and businesses. Instead of lying to them, show them different methods of dealing with impotent and destructive authority figures. They need to be taught to deal with the frustration and difficulties internally as well as learning how to negotiate and manipulate (YES! I said MANIPULATE!) the situations created by faulty authority. The sooner they know the truth, the sooner they can start practicing the skills they will need and use for the rest of their lives. Keeping them blindly following authority is a recipe for victimization, rebellion, and wastes invaluable teaching moments.
things happen for reason
From basic discipline to physics this principle is a staple for the instruction of children. Extending the cause and effect relationship from the purely physical realm into the more esoteric realms of interpersonal relationships and their own inner thoughts and attitudes will allow them to learn more from their own failures and successes. In addition, it gives them stable ground from which to launch their transition from dependent childhood to independent adulthood. Teach children that things happen for a reason, and more often than not, they are the source of and have control of that reason. Now, if you mean in the nebulous, cosmic sort of sense, well maybe they do and maybe they don't. However, if you can teach children they need to create meaning in their own life and inspire and empower them to do it, then that is a step in the right direction regardless.
and are overseen by an omnipotent deity
Every religious text I have read or studied states that the current worl
Soooo...Once we have lasers and rail guns, what is next? It seems our hard sci-fi masters have been replaced with gravy training meatheads who can write a good yarn but ain't so good at technological forecasting. In short, who is my next Arthur C. Clarke?
"Changes like that are undeniably due to human excesses, mismanagement, corruption, greed and very little else."
In the case of the reduced tiger population I would think it's more about self preservation, as in "I don't want to get munched by a gigantic fucking cat," than the other terms you state. But yea, other than than, you're spot on.
The people who support (or object to) AGW by chanting an entrenched position over and over, and the people selling us snake oil as a "fix" are NOT helping.
As far as I have seen, every proposal put forth by scientists, concerned environmentalists, and politicians falls short of what is necessary. Scientists and concerned environmental groups (the mainstream ones at least) are recommending methods they hope will reduce the pesky CO2 emissions they feel are key to anthropocentric global warming. Unfortunately, they are missing the point entirely. The government answer has been to foment fear and panic so they can, ostensibly, execute an opportunistic power and money grab. They miss the point as well; drastically so in fact, because they will be diverting vital resources to taxes, their pet projects, and graft generating, nepotism infested cottage industries. This is criminally negligent because those resources could be better spent on the lasting changes necessary to safeguard their countries, and ultimately humanity, from the dangers of climate change.
The fact that we are considering unprecedented changes in the structure of our industry and government in response to an assumed change in climate should be the first indication that we are totally unprepared for any drastic change in climate. I think we need to consider whether putting a brake on our industry and economy by reducing emissions is the best long term solution. In short, taking steps to combat the supposed anthropocentric elements of climate change does absolutely nothing to prepare for the inevitable reality of global climate change which will eventually happen. Our societies are subconsciously built around the assumption of a stable and, by comparison to the known historical record of the Earth, exceptionally favorable climate. When the global temperature begins to fluctuate towards the extremes, as it has since the Earth was formed, it will not matter one little bit if we have eliminated all CO2 emissions from our industries. We will still face insurmountable problems concerning water and food supply destruction (fishing, farming, and livestock), drastic changes in the habitability zones for humans, and huge potential losses of industry, infrastructure, and utilities. Scarcity problems like this can lead to war in the best of times. Under these circumstances, wars, with all their waste of resources, lives, and money, will are sure to happen and will exacerbate the situation to unendurable levels.
The question in my mind is, are we mature enough to make the right decisions and then hold our leaders accountable for carrying them out. Or, will this situation continue as it has: a good crisis that is not being wasted on solutions but on achieving political ascendancy, furthering the political agendas regardless of their impact on society, and establishing a new order that will ultimately weaken our ability to overcome the real and looming obstacles already discussed above.
Heating/burning freon turns it into phosgene. For those of you who don't know, phosgene was used as a chemical weapon in World War 1 and other military engagements around that era.
Reading your comment reminded me of my novel way of navigationg airports, concerts, sporting events, and public shopping venues in record time. Whenever I see an interminable queue of people ahead I immediately scan left and right of it. Invariably I will find two things. First, the queue is at the entrance to an escalator or elevator. Second, there is a completely unoccupied though servicable staircase immediatley adjacent to the escalator or elevator.
The strangest thing I have noticed are the stares I get from people in the queue. As I mount the stairs and bypass the human logjam I see everyting from amazement and regret to outright anger and rage. Admittedly most are so herdbound the can't be bothered to look up, but those who do are shocked to see someone taking the stairs.
I am all for changing things to ensure the survival and continued progress of mankind. Unfortunately, the political and societal changes proposed by governments and politicans do absolutely nothing to prepare mankind for inevitable climate change.
As soon as the powers that be decide on a logical course of action that increases our chances for survival in the face of global climate extremes they will have my full support. As it is they are just using the threat of climate change to pad their pockets and bolster their political agenda.
Again the argument about global warming rages on and no one is smart enough to realize that it is irrelevant.
Fact 1: We all can agree that the climate has been at extremes, both higher and lower, than the current temperature.
Fact 2: If we were to experience either of these extremes in the next 50 years mankind would be woefully unprepared resulting in massive loss of human life, political and economic instability or collapse, and global societal breakdown unmatched in recent history.
We can assume from fact 1 that the climate will continue to change because it has done so for as long as we have records of it. We can also assume that even if we were to take the most draconian measures put forth by the leaders of the AGW movement and their sympathetic politicians and scientists we would still be susceptible to the negative consequences of Fact 2.
Therefore, arguing about climate change is irrelevant because if tomorrow is like yesterday climate change is going to happen regardless of what we do. We have been coincidentally fortunate that our development over the few last thousands of years has not been hampered or interrupted by climate extremes. However, this temperate climate is not going to last forever. If we want to outlast the next extreme climate shift we need to prepare.
Also, using the fear and uncertainty that the spectre of global climate change engenders to roll back hard won social liberties, increase taxes, cripple the economy, and strengthen centralized political authority is completely irresponsible. It does nothing to avert the coming catastrophie and undermines the ability of people to meet the challenges ahead. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of the attitude that the government should take.
I have read James' epistle. I don't think it means what you think it means, and systematic theology doesn't either. As for murdering people, David (as in Star of) did murder people with impunity (and premeditation and evil intent) and he will be in heaven, so I can't understand where you get your ideas from. It isn't the Bible.
The Bible deals with this subject plainly and simply and yet people still get it mixed up. Temporal discipline for belivers out of fellowship through sin is a major topic throughout the entire text. Even the ultimate punishment for a believer out of fellowship for a prolonged time is discussed and repeatedly demonstrated. This punishment has nothing to do with hell, though. These fully developed concepts run throughout the Bible and are not only repeated in anecdotes, explanation, and instruction, but are the basis for other accepted and easily verifiable doctrines. So you see, it is not just one passage that directly contradicts the ideas you present.
A study of the concept of grace would probably help you understand, though I am beginning to perceive you do not want to understand. I am feeling you would rather publicly bash a strawman than learn what the truth is. Or possibly you would rather spread innacurate information that is easily ridiculed out of some distaste for the Bible. If either is true, and I hope it is not, you are only mocking yourself.
As for me embracing "sin," I have, and to a much greater level than most. It is just like any other addictive habit, fun in small doses but increasingly burdensome when you indulge too much. Eventually it will erode your volition and your enjoyment and all you have left is empty repetition, lacking both pleasure and meaning. From my experience there are much higher pursuits than hedonism, regardless of your disposition towards Christ. Additionally, it is just good practice to avoid mental attitude sins like jealousy, vindictiveness, pride, implacability, and bitterness. They are the direct path to self-induced misery.
I leave you with this: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" Again, salvation discussed yet no mention of sin. In fact, this passage reveals the way in which God approaches all of mankind: through grace. Once you understand the idea that God does all the work necessary for mankind to have salvation, and that He gives this salvation to anyone freely without them having to work for it, then you have the cornerstone of the concept of grace. We, as humans, do nothing to earn or deserve the salvation we have available to us, nor do we have to work to receive or keep that salvation. Christ did everything necessary to remove the barrier of sin and the accompanying condemnation while on the cross. All men need to do is acknowledge that work to receive the fruits of His labor.
First, the sentence you refer to does not say anywhere "if you sin you are going to hell." In fact, no sentence in the Bible says this. So, apparently, the sentence you quote means something different to you than it means to anyone else.
If you want to quote scriptures though, we can do that. Do you remember, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If sinning means you are going to hell then everyone is going to hell. How about the verse every young child has drilled into their heads (if they go to protestant churches that is): "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It does not say "...that whoever stops sinning shall not perish..." More directly, Revelation 20:13 states those not provided salvation by the imputation of the righteousness of God through belief in Christ(written in the book of life) will be judged according to their works. Notice it does not mention sin anywhere in that sentence. It is because sin was removed from the equation purpousely by God through the work of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, there are passages that deal with the ongoing problem of sin and describe the mechanics of how Christians can maintain daily fellowship. For instance: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Notice again that this does not say "...and let us in to heaven" because the problem of sin was resolved once and for all by Christ's spiritual death and propitiatory sacrifice while on the cross.
"any preacher will tell you you can't purposefully keep doing the things your god say you shouldn't and expect to get into heaven."
Any "preacher" who intentionally contradicts the explicit text of the Bible in this way is not a person I would listen to and nor should you.
"You really can't be gay and be a Christian, they're incompatible."
This sentence, and the thoughts behind it, are just plain silly and convey a lack of understanding of Christianity at the most fundamental level.
True, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, but so is gossiping, lying, running people down, feeling jealous, guilty, or bitter, and being implaccable in your personal relationships. None of those sins, or any of the other more "serious" sins like theft, rape, murder, etc. will exclude someone from being a Christian. Far from it.
Christianity is a belief in a God that understands the human condition completely and as a result has found a way, through the work of Christ, to bridge the gulf between Himself, a perfect, sinless diety, and sinful, imperfect mankind. Considering homosexuality, or any sin for that matter, as an insurmountable obstacle between man and God is completely antithetical to the entire message of the Bible.
Now don't take this as me trying to convince you to believe in God or the Bible as the holy word of God. That is up to you to make a determination for yourself, and it seems you have. However, at the very least you should be accurate and informed about the text and the message that is contained within it. It would be good for many Christians to take that same advice as well. For one, it would eliminate all of this commotion about homosexuality immediately.
Anti-gay christians have a serious problem. Namely, they ignore all of the other sins that they and others commit and focus singly on the issue of homosexuality and assign to it a place of prominence above that which the bible intended.
I do not see these same people threateninig, protesting, and ostracizing liars or adulterers in the same way as homosexuals, yet those activities are listed in the same passages with homosexuality. Just remember, most people can't be bothered with actually reading the Bible in a way that conveys real meaning. Besides, it might contradict what they want it to say so completely they would have to face their own hypocracy, and that is never a pleasant thing. Doubly so for the self righteous and convinced.
The mechanics of salvation described in the Bible state explicitly that sin is not a factor in damnation. True, sin is a central issue in the relationship between man and God, however no human is punished in the afterlife or sent to hell because of sin.
Don't worry about misunderstanding this though. Many churches get this wrong too, even though the text is quite specific about the details. With all the false advertising and judgemental self righteous rhetoric promulgated by the most vocal of churches these days it is no wonder the actual text is so maligned, misunderstood, and marginalized.
"This is something that would not happen if they actually used the book to teach and not as a tool of power, because people would actually bother to ensure the consistency of the information."
Many people do just that. In fact, I would say there are probably vastly more than you think. However, sensationalism and controversy draw all the attention. No one pays attention to the scholars and devotees quietly studying and trying to conform themselves to a moral standard that is largely incongrous with modern american life. Furthermore, those individals and congregations avoid political involvement and public controversy by their very nature. They are among a growing number of churches where the offering plate is never passed, hymns and singing are relegated secondary (or tertiary!) status, and the "message" is more like a college class with sentence diagrams of ancient languages, textural criticism, historical studies of the times and places of the people of the bible, and categorical reconciliation of ideas from the entire text of the bible.
But hey, if all you ever see is the pope, poison drinking snakehandlers, and televangelists you wouldn't know that there are places where people actually believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and are truly comitted to understanding it without presumption.
Maybe we should just rename them "Ten things that idiots with an agenda will stil try to intentionally distort and misrepresent even though I made them really simple."
Am am interested in your opinion. It differs widely from my own but that has never stopped me from exploring it in an attempt to understand you and the others you refer to. Do you also feel the same way about killing done in war? What about abortion? Also, what about self defence? I am truly curious.
Sadly, even Verizon's dismal dedication to customer service seems vastly superior to the service I received at the hands of Tmobile.
In particular I refer to an incident where my phone was stolen and, within about 12 hours, used to call Guatemala and Honduras so many times that the bill was over $800. As many of you know, all calls are the responsibility of the person who owns the phone, regardless of whether or not you actually make them or if the phone is stolen. However, in my particular case I had requested international calling be blocked from my phone when I initially set up my service.
My converstaion with them was simple, straighforward, and possibly one of the most insulting displays of arrogance I have ever seen in my life. When I made the call to let them know my phone was stolen the representative said something to the effect of "Hey, we were expecting your call." Apparently it was obvious something was throwing red flags on my account, but they weren't at all interested in letting me know that. I was curious at that statement, but eager to take care of business, so I proceeded to tell them the phone had been stolen the night before. They then revealed the international calls that were made and the accompanying charges. Surprised, I reminded them that I had requested to have international calling disbled on my account and wondered how they could have made international calls with that feature blocked. The representative put me on hold to checked this, confirmed it from account notes and told me so, and then told me I would have to be transferred to a supervisor as they are the only people who can authorize the refund of charges to my account.
As soon as I was transferred it was like I had been teleported to bizarro world customer service. The supervisor immediately told me all calls were my responsibility, told me the full balance of my account (including all the international charges), and listed the ways I could pay them right then and there over the phone. I reminded the supervisor of the converstaion I *just* had with the initial rep, how they had confirmed international calls should have been blocked, the reason I was transferred (for a refund of charges!), and tried to confirm they were talking to the right person. Their response was that they have no records of my request to block international calls, I was lying, and they needed payment right now. Furthermore, the supervisor then accused me of allowing someone to use the phone with full knowledge of the calls, extracting payment for those calls, selling the phone, and then reporting it stolen.
The conversation at that point went downhill pretty fast, though at no time did I curse, become unprofessional, or rage at the insolent pigs I was talking to. After additional unfounded and untrue accusations from supervisors even higher up in Tmobile's friendly customer service team and absolutely no progress in establishing a meaningful dialougue where htey would do anything other than demand immediate payment, I terminated the call. Thinking that cooler heads might prevail, I asked my wife to call the next day. She was in tears after a few moments of dealing with "Mike, another supervisor. He called her a liar, threatened to call the police and have them investigate us for fraud, and demanded payment immediately.
Needless to say I have never, and will never speak to anyone from Tmobile again nor provide them with any payments of any kind. I take that back, if molotov cocktails or pipe bombs become legal currency I will pay them in spades.
I do enjoy watching some sports, however the mind altering effects of having a favorite team often seem on par with the strikingly one-sided maniacal devotion of racism and bigotry. For instance, I have witnessed people deny reality they see with their own eyes even though it is replayed for them in hi-def ultra slow-mo (That ball was IN!). I have seen paranoia and conspiracy theories spring forth spontaneously (The refs really have it in for us today!) from the minds of seemingly rational people. And I have seen unprecedented denigration of people, and by this I mean exceptionally vile, filthy, derogatory comments about players, because of the color of their jersey.
If it wasn't for that part of team oriented sports I might have a bigger desire to watch them. Usually I end up watching the people watching the game because, to me, it is an inordinately emotional overblown train wreck. Call me morbid, but I just can't look away from the carnage. It also makes me feel a little left out at times though, like I really don't get to expereince the highs and lows like everyone else does, like I can't really understand what it is all about. Then my rational mind kicks in again and reminds me this is just a microcosm of all the grotesquely screwed up things I hate about politics, same-race relations, and religious wars. Then I feel better. Kind of...
I hate to sound so punitive, but are you really that stupid? The analogy isn't hard to understand, though to be fair I get the feeling you are just trying to find a way to support your own opinions and vent them.
If Apple is the grocer, then their devices are the grocery store where you buy things. As the grocer, Apple gets to determine what is sold in their store in an attempt to provide an experience that is unique for their clients. And, with brick and mortar establishments, it is easy for a customer to choose which place they want to go based on what experience they want and what they want to buy.
I liken the Apple approach to Whole Foods. They both have an ethic and a viewpoint that differentiate them from other retailers and appeal to a certain part of the market. Asking Apple to sell whatever you want would be like asking Whole Foods to sell pesticide and hormone ridden foods. They won't because its a violation of their chosen brand identity. If you don't like it go down the street to another retailer.
Always got the feeling Manson was trying way too hard to be something he was not. Gaga on the other hand, seem to legitamately express her inner strangeness. Subjective it may be, but easily arguable from anyone who has seen them both.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh right, it's Asian porn. I wonder how 30' tall pixel mosaics look in 3D?
I had a thought once (yes I had one thought!):
If all mankind could work together for a single goal, how long would it take to accomplish it?
The answer is "One hell of alot faster than working the way we do now."
Of course the idea is irrationally optimistic and frought with problems both big (organizational) and small (self interest/motivation.) However, this data sharing between interested, relevant parties is a microcosm of the idea as it allows unfetterd collaboration worldwide. The results speak for themselves and give me some small bit of hope that others will follow their example with other issues that continue to plague mankind.
A circle? Oh thats soooo easy! You just fill it in using a #2 pencil.
We live in a country where respect for education is propped up and pimped from infancy. Just watch TV for a few examples. Teach your baby to read is the newest craze I have seen, though there are even tapes and headphones designed to make your baby smart in the womb! I have even heard of people getting on waiting lists for preschool 3 years in advance. And yet, once our children reach school age, we seem to somehow suppress our cognitive dissonance and allow our school systems to relentlessly injure our children's development. For instance, we continually dumb down the curriculums, teach to the lowest denominator, and remove reasoning, discernment, and critical thinking skills by standardizing the knowledge base around a state sponsored minimum. To make matters worse, we ignore and actively undermine the future potential of vast numbers of less bookish children by eschewing vocational and apprenticeship training.
Our "respect" for learning and education is nothing more than lip service. At least it's fair though. We punish both the top performers and the bottom performers alike. Those who excel never get to reach their potential because the school system does not teach at their level. Those at the bottom never get a chance to learn the skills they will most likely use in the future.
So you are correct, no one's lives are being destroyed by being required to pass school. However, their lives may still be destroyed even if they pass! For some, their childhood was wasted by educating them in areas where they cannot compete while systematically restricting their access to those areas of knowledge that would allow them to build a more successful future.
Those are all great points, but the greatest benefits I can see for legalization are the reduced costs of fighting the drug war (in dollars and lives) and the ability to interface users and medical personel.
As long as the product is good and the taxes aren't so high that they keep the black market in operation we could see a drastic reduction in violent crimes, gang activity, incarceration costs, and border and law enforcement costs.
Removing the stigma associated with use could also result in treating some users' underlying psychological conditions, possibly leading to a drop in overall usage.
I am sure I will get hell from people for this, but raising a child in the manner you describe is completely irresponsible and tantamount to child abuse.
I will give you my take on these and how I dealt with them as a parent:
people are good
Children must learn that a limited subset of people are good, and even they are not good all the time. The higher the pedestal we put people on, the farther they have to fall. Universal acceptance based on this untruth leads to lack of discernment, and without discernment there is no framework for evaluation of self or others.
there are norms of behavior
Children in a one-color-one-culture-one-religion society can possibly get along ok with this as it stands. However, socializing children with people of diverse backgrounds is preferable. In the process children will have questions. Candidly explaining the differences in cultures and beliefs will allow them to develop a more complete view of the world. The objective is to create fertile ground for acceptance of new and different people and experiences and to choke out the fear-based roots of bigotry and prejudice.
there is justice in the world
The world is an inherently unfair and unjust place. Sheltering children from this is not only futile but also counterproductive. They will see it sooner than you think, probably at the hands of a teacher or relative. If you haven't been honest with them you not only prove the point they are so harshly learning, but they can begin to see you as untrustworthy and unreliable. Dealing with the unavoidable instances of personal injustice without resorting to inappropriate behavior, unnecessary martyring, or loss of self esteem is difficult if you are a child. It is impossible if your parents allow you to be blindsided by it.
authority figures can be trusted
Distrust of authority will be guaranteed if you follow the sheep creating method so far proscribed by your assumptions. Children should be able to trust their parents as authority figures. Parents can earn that trust daily through respecting their children enough to give them facts, experiential knowledge, and the freedom to test those things they have taken on faith from their parents. Children who see the proper execution of authority at home will recognize the counterfeit versions that plague our schools, churches, bureaucracies, governments, and businesses. Instead of lying to them, show them different methods of dealing with impotent and destructive authority figures. They need to be taught to deal with the frustration and difficulties internally as well as learning how to negotiate and manipulate (YES! I said MANIPULATE!) the situations created by faulty authority. The sooner they know the truth, the sooner they can start practicing the skills they will need and use for the rest of their lives. Keeping them blindly following authority is a recipe for victimization, rebellion, and wastes invaluable teaching moments.
things happen for reason
From basic discipline to physics this principle is a staple for the instruction of children. Extending the cause and effect relationship from the purely physical realm into the more esoteric realms of interpersonal relationships and their own inner thoughts and attitudes will allow them to learn more from their own failures and successes. In addition, it gives them stable ground from which to launch their transition from dependent childhood to independent adulthood. Teach children that things happen for a reason, and more often than not, they are the source of and have control of that reason. Now, if you mean in the nebulous, cosmic sort of sense, well maybe they do and maybe they don't. However, if you can teach children they need to create meaning in their own life and inspire and empower them to do it, then that is a step in the right direction regardless.
and are overseen by an omnipotent deity
Every religious text I have read or studied states that the current worl
Soooo...Once we have lasers and rail guns, what is next? It seems our hard sci-fi masters have been replaced with gravy training meatheads who can write a good yarn but ain't so good at technological forecasting. In short, who is my next Arthur C. Clarke?
"Changes like that are undeniably due to human excesses, mismanagement, corruption, greed and very little else."
In the case of the reduced tiger population I would think it's more about self preservation, as in "I don't want to get munched by a gigantic fucking cat," than the other terms you state. But yea, other than than, you're spot on.
The people who support (or object to) AGW by chanting an entrenched position over and over, and the people selling us snake oil as a "fix" are NOT helping.
As far as I have seen, every proposal put forth by scientists, concerned environmentalists, and politicians falls short of what is necessary. Scientists and concerned environmental groups (the mainstream ones at least) are recommending methods they hope will reduce the pesky CO2 emissions they feel are key to anthropocentric global warming. Unfortunately, they are missing the point entirely. The government answer has been to foment fear and panic so they can, ostensibly, execute an opportunistic power and money grab. They miss the point as well; drastically so in fact, because they will be diverting vital resources to taxes, their pet projects, and graft generating, nepotism infested cottage industries. This is criminally negligent because those resources could be better spent on the lasting changes necessary to safeguard their countries, and ultimately humanity, from the dangers of climate change.
The fact that we are considering unprecedented changes in the structure of our industry and government in response to an assumed change in climate should be the first indication that we are totally unprepared for any drastic change in climate. I think we need to consider whether putting a brake on our industry and economy by reducing emissions is the best long term solution. In short, taking steps to combat the supposed anthropocentric elements of climate change does absolutely nothing to prepare for the inevitable reality of global climate change which will eventually happen. Our societies are subconsciously built around the assumption of a stable and, by comparison to the known historical record of the Earth, exceptionally favorable climate. When the global temperature begins to fluctuate towards the extremes, as it has since the Earth was formed, it will not matter one little bit if we have eliminated all CO2 emissions from our industries. We will still face insurmountable problems concerning water and food supply destruction (fishing, farming, and livestock), drastic changes in the habitability zones for humans, and huge potential losses of industry, infrastructure, and utilities. Scarcity problems like this can lead to war in the best of times. Under these circumstances, wars, with all their waste of resources, lives, and money, will are sure to happen and will exacerbate the situation to unendurable levels.
The question in my mind is, are we mature enough to make the right decisions and then hold our leaders accountable for carrying them out. Or, will this situation continue as it has: a good crisis that is not being wasted on solutions but on achieving political ascendancy, furthering the political agendas regardless of their impact on society, and establishing a new order that will ultimately weaken our ability to overcome the real and looming obstacles already discussed above.
Heating/burning freon turns it into phosgene. For those of you who don't know, phosgene was used as a chemical weapon in World War 1 and other military engagements around that era.
Reading your comment reminded me of my novel way of navigationg airports, concerts, sporting events, and public shopping venues in record time. Whenever I see an interminable queue of people ahead I immediately scan left and right of it. Invariably I will find two things. First, the queue is at the entrance to an escalator or elevator. Second, there is a completely unoccupied though servicable staircase immediatley adjacent to the escalator or elevator.
The strangest thing I have noticed are the stares I get from people in the queue. As I mount the stairs and bypass the human logjam I see everyting from amazement and regret to outright anger and rage. Admittedly most are so herdbound the can't be bothered to look up, but those who do are shocked to see someone taking the stairs.
I am all for changing things to ensure the survival and continued progress of mankind. Unfortunately, the political and societal changes proposed by governments and politicans do absolutely nothing to prepare mankind for inevitable climate change.
As soon as the powers that be decide on a logical course of action that increases our chances for survival in the face of global climate extremes they will have my full support. As it is they are just using the threat of climate change to pad their pockets and bolster their political agenda.
Again the argument about global warming rages on and no one is smart enough to realize that it is irrelevant.
Fact 1: We all can agree that the climate has been at extremes, both higher and lower, than the current temperature.
Fact 2: If we were to experience either of these extremes in the next 50 years mankind would be woefully unprepared resulting in massive loss of human life, political and economic instability or collapse, and global societal breakdown unmatched in recent history.
We can assume from fact 1 that the climate will continue to change because it has done so for as long as we have records of it. We can also assume that even if we were to take the most draconian measures put forth by the leaders of the AGW movement and their sympathetic politicians and scientists we would still be susceptible to the negative consequences of Fact 2.
Therefore, arguing about climate change is irrelevant because if tomorrow is like yesterday climate change is going to happen regardless of what we do. We have been coincidentally fortunate that our development over the few last thousands of years has not been hampered or interrupted by climate extremes. However, this temperate climate is not going to last forever. If we want to outlast the next extreme climate shift we need to prepare.
Also, using the fear and uncertainty that the spectre of global climate change engenders to roll back hard won social liberties, increase taxes, cripple the economy, and strengthen centralized political authority is completely irresponsible. It does nothing to avert the coming catastrophie and undermines the ability of people to meet the challenges ahead. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of the attitude that the government should take.
I have read James' epistle. I don't think it means what you think it means, and systematic theology doesn't either. As for murdering people, David (as in Star of) did murder people with impunity (and premeditation and evil intent) and he will be in heaven, so I can't understand where you get your ideas from. It isn't the Bible.
The Bible deals with this subject plainly and simply and yet people still get it mixed up. Temporal discipline for belivers out of fellowship through sin is a major topic throughout the entire text. Even the ultimate punishment for a believer out of fellowship for a prolonged time is discussed and repeatedly demonstrated. This punishment has nothing to do with hell, though. These fully developed concepts run throughout the Bible and are not only repeated in anecdotes, explanation, and instruction, but are the basis for other accepted and easily verifiable doctrines. So you see, it is not just one passage that directly contradicts the ideas you present.
A study of the concept of grace would probably help you understand, though I am beginning to perceive you do not want to understand. I am feeling you would rather publicly bash a strawman than learn what the truth is. Or possibly you would rather spread innacurate information that is easily ridiculed out of some distaste for the Bible. If either is true, and I hope it is not, you are only mocking yourself.
As for me embracing "sin," I have, and to a much greater level than most. It is just like any other addictive habit, fun in small doses but increasingly burdensome when you indulge too much. Eventually it will erode your volition and your enjoyment and all you have left is empty repetition, lacking both pleasure and meaning. From my experience there are much higher pursuits than hedonism, regardless of your disposition towards Christ. Additionally, it is just good practice to avoid mental attitude sins like jealousy, vindictiveness, pride, implacability, and bitterness. They are the direct path to self-induced misery.
I leave you with this: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" Again, salvation discussed yet no mention of sin. In fact, this passage reveals the way in which God approaches all of mankind: through grace. Once you understand the idea that God does all the work necessary for mankind to have salvation, and that He gives this salvation to anyone freely without them having to work for it, then you have the cornerstone of the concept of grace. We, as humans, do nothing to earn or deserve the salvation we have available to us, nor do we have to work to receive or keep that salvation. Christ did everything necessary to remove the barrier of sin and the accompanying condemnation while on the cross. All men need to do is acknowledge that work to receive the fruits of His labor.
First, the sentence you refer to does not say anywhere "if you sin you are going to hell." In fact, no sentence in the Bible says this. So, apparently, the sentence you quote means something different to you than it means to anyone else.
If you want to quote scriptures though, we can do that. Do you remember, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." If sinning means you are going to hell then everyone is going to hell. How about the verse every young child has drilled into their heads (if they go to protestant churches that is): "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." It does not say "...that whoever stops sinning shall not perish..." More directly, Revelation 20:13 states those not provided salvation by the imputation of the righteousness of God through belief in Christ(written in the book of life) will be judged according to their works. Notice it does not mention sin anywhere in that sentence. It is because sin was removed from the equation purpousely by God through the work of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, there are passages that deal with the ongoing problem of sin and describe the mechanics of how Christians can maintain daily fellowship. For instance: "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Notice again that this does not say "...and let us in to heaven" because the problem of sin was resolved once and for all by Christ's spiritual death and propitiatory sacrifice while on the cross.
"any preacher will tell you you can't purposefully keep doing the things your god say you shouldn't and expect to get into heaven."
Any "preacher" who intentionally contradicts the explicit text of the Bible in this way is not a person I would listen to and nor should you.
"You really can't be gay and be a Christian, they're incompatible."
This sentence, and the thoughts behind it, are just plain silly and convey a lack of understanding of Christianity at the most fundamental level.
True, homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, but so is gossiping, lying, running people down, feeling jealous, guilty, or bitter, and being implaccable in your personal relationships. None of those sins, or any of the other more "serious" sins like theft, rape, murder, etc. will exclude someone from being a Christian. Far from it.
Christianity is a belief in a God that understands the human condition completely and as a result has found a way, through the work of Christ, to bridge the gulf between Himself, a perfect, sinless diety, and sinful, imperfect mankind. Considering homosexuality, or any sin for that matter, as an insurmountable obstacle between man and God is completely antithetical to the entire message of the Bible.
Now don't take this as me trying to convince you to believe in God or the Bible as the holy word of God. That is up to you to make a determination for yourself, and it seems you have. However, at the very least you should be accurate and informed about the text and the message that is contained within it. It would be good for many Christians to take that same advice as well. For one, it would eliminate all of this commotion about homosexuality immediately.
Anti-gay christians have a serious problem. Namely, they ignore all of the other sins that they and others commit and focus singly on the issue of homosexuality and assign to it a place of prominence above that which the bible intended.
I do not see these same people threateninig, protesting, and ostracizing liars or adulterers in the same way as homosexuals, yet those activities are listed in the same passages with homosexuality. Just remember, most people can't be bothered with actually reading the Bible in a way that conveys real meaning. Besides, it might contradict what they want it to say so completely they would have to face their own hypocracy, and that is never a pleasant thing. Doubly so for the self righteous and convinced.
The mechanics of salvation described in the Bible state explicitly that sin is not a factor in damnation. True, sin is a central issue in the relationship between man and God, however no human is punished in the afterlife or sent to hell because of sin.
Don't worry about misunderstanding this though. Many churches get this wrong too, even though the text is quite specific about the details. With all the false advertising and judgemental self righteous rhetoric promulgated by the most vocal of churches these days it is no wonder the actual text is so maligned, misunderstood, and marginalized.
"This is something that would not happen if they actually used the book to teach and not as a tool of power, because people would actually bother to ensure the consistency of the information."
Many people do just that. In fact, I would say there are probably vastly more than you think. However, sensationalism and controversy draw all the attention. No one pays attention to the scholars and devotees quietly studying and trying to conform themselves to a moral standard that is largely incongrous with modern american life. Furthermore, those individals and congregations avoid political involvement and public controversy by their very nature. They are among a growing number of churches where the offering plate is never passed, hymns and singing are relegated secondary (or tertiary!) status, and the "message" is more like a college class with sentence diagrams of ancient languages, textural criticism, historical studies of the times and places of the people of the bible, and categorical reconciliation of ideas from the entire text of the bible.
But hey, if all you ever see is the pope, poison drinking snakehandlers, and televangelists you wouldn't know that there are places where people actually believe that the bible is the inspired word of God and are truly comitted to understanding it without presumption.
Maybe we should just rename them "Ten things that idiots with an agenda will stil try to intentionally distort and misrepresent even though I made them really simple."
Am am interested in your opinion. It differs widely from my own but that has never stopped me from exploring it in an attempt to understand you and the others you refer to. Do you also feel the same way about killing done in war? What about abortion? Also, what about self defence? I am truly curious.
Sadly, even Verizon's dismal dedication to customer service seems vastly superior to the service I received at the hands of Tmobile.
In particular I refer to an incident where my phone was stolen and, within about 12 hours, used to call Guatemala and Honduras so many times that the bill was over $800. As many of you know, all calls are the responsibility of the person who owns the phone, regardless of whether or not you actually make them or if the phone is stolen. However, in my particular case I had requested international calling be blocked from my phone when I initially set up my service.
My converstaion with them was simple, straighforward, and possibly one of the most insulting displays of arrogance I have ever seen in my life. When I made the call to let them know my phone was stolen the representative said something to the effect of "Hey, we were expecting your call." Apparently it was obvious something was throwing red flags on my account, but they weren't at all interested in letting me know that. I was curious at that statement, but eager to take care of business, so I proceeded to tell them the phone had been stolen the night before. They then revealed the international calls that were made and the accompanying charges. Surprised, I reminded them that I had requested to have international calling disbled on my account and wondered how they could have made international calls with that feature blocked. The representative put me on hold to checked this, confirmed it from account notes and told me so, and then told me I would have to be transferred to a supervisor as they are the only people who can authorize the refund of charges to my account.
As soon as I was transferred it was like I had been teleported to bizarro world customer service. The supervisor immediately told me all calls were my responsibility, told me the full balance of my account (including all the international charges), and listed the ways I could pay them right then and there over the phone. I reminded the supervisor of the converstaion I *just* had with the initial rep, how they had confirmed international calls should have been blocked, the reason I was transferred (for a refund of charges!), and tried to confirm they were talking to the right person. Their response was that they have no records of my request to block international calls, I was lying, and they needed payment right now. Furthermore, the supervisor then accused me of allowing someone to use the phone with full knowledge of the calls, extracting payment for those calls, selling the phone, and then reporting it stolen.
The conversation at that point went downhill pretty fast, though at no time did I curse, become unprofessional, or rage at the insolent pigs I was talking to. After additional unfounded and untrue accusations from supervisors even higher up in Tmobile's friendly customer service team and absolutely no progress in establishing a meaningful dialougue where htey would do anything other than demand immediate payment, I terminated the call. Thinking that cooler heads might prevail, I asked my wife to call the next day. She was in tears after a few moments of dealing with "Mike, another supervisor. He called her a liar, threatened to call the police and have them investigate us for fraud, and demanded payment immediately.
Needless to say I have never, and will never speak to anyone from Tmobile again nor provide them with any payments of any kind. I take that back, if molotov cocktails or pipe bombs become legal currency I will pay them in spades.
I do enjoy watching some sports, however the mind altering effects of having a favorite team often seem on par with the strikingly one-sided maniacal devotion of racism and bigotry. For instance, I have witnessed people deny reality they see with their own eyes even though it is replayed for them in hi-def ultra slow-mo (That ball was IN!). I have seen paranoia and conspiracy theories spring forth spontaneously (The refs really have it in for us today!) from the minds of seemingly rational people. And I have seen unprecedented denigration of people, and by this I mean exceptionally vile, filthy, derogatory comments about players, because of the color of their jersey.
If it wasn't for that part of team oriented sports I might have a bigger desire to watch them. Usually I end up watching the people watching the game because, to me, it is an inordinately emotional overblown train wreck. Call me morbid, but I just can't look away from the carnage. It also makes me feel a little left out at times though, like I really don't get to expereince the highs and lows like everyone else does, like I can't really understand what it is all about. Then my rational mind kicks in again and reminds me this is just a microcosm of all the grotesquely screwed up things I hate about politics, same-race relations, and religious wars. Then I feel better. Kind of...
I hate to sound so punitive, but are you really that stupid? The analogy isn't hard to understand, though to be fair I get the feeling you are just trying to find a way to support your own opinions and vent them.
If Apple is the grocer, then their devices are the grocery store where you buy things. As the grocer, Apple gets to determine what is sold in their store in an attempt to provide an experience that is unique for their clients. And, with brick and mortar establishments, it is easy for a customer to choose which place they want to go based on what experience they want and what they want to buy.
I liken the Apple approach to Whole Foods. They both have an ethic and a viewpoint that differentiate them from other retailers and appeal to a certain part of the market. Asking Apple to sell whatever you want would be like asking Whole Foods to sell pesticide and hormone ridden foods. They won't because its a violation of their chosen brand identity. If you don't like it go down the street to another retailer.
Always got the feeling Manson was trying way too hard to be something he was not. Gaga on the other hand, seem to legitamately express her inner strangeness. Subjective it may be, but easily arguable from anyone who has seen them both.