You wouldn't believe how much power over the masses the Pope has.
It's sickening, isn't it? As a relatively conervative Christian, I can't believe that these "Christians" don't think for themselves. WWJD is replaced with WWMPD (What would my priest do?), at least with most of the Catholics I know.
Actually, I think it's quite amazing that so many people from such diverse worldly backgrounds could more or less be on the same page.
I am a practicing Catholic and I do know many Christians, and some Catholics, and as we all know, a small number of Priests that, IMHO, act in ways that are incompatible with the teachings of Christ. However, I don't see how you can conclude that people who follow the Pope don't think for themselves. The Pope and the Catholic Church is the only religion that has direct, authoritative, and traceable lineage to Christ and His original Apostles. Therefore it is consistent with Catholic teaching that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ -- the person through whom Christ has chosen to lead His people.
The Pope is responsible for leading humanity in holiness. His task is to effectively promote heavenly values in a world that promotes secular values which often conflict with Christian teaching. I suppose you could liken it to promoting OSS in an environment where commercial software is the rule of the day. Only, OSS developers don't lose sleep at night if their software is not widely accepted -- the consequences are not that substantial. OSS is a nice idea around which a small community flourishes even though it is not generally embraced...
The Pope however, must contend with the knowledge that his work goes against the worldly tide, that he is responsible for all of humanity in ways which have both immediate and eternal consequences for all of us. When we reject God, not only do we suffer, but the Pope and Church also suffer as Christ and his Apostles did out of love for us. Can you imagine how much weight this must put on one person's soul? I suspect this would be too much for one person to handle without Divine assistance. This is why I would spend hours standing in a street waiting to catch a glimpse of the Pope.
Actually, if what you said were true then the BSA would be a terrorist organization. While I agree with you you that Illegality is not part of the definition of terrorism, the use of fear to achieve your objectives is the deifinition of terrorism. So by definition, the use of fear (by threats or violence) by *any* party to achieve its objectives is what makes them terrorists. This is true regardless of wether or not the use of fear tactics is legal.
The main point I was trying to make was in refuting your claim that the BSA uses fear to achieve its objectives. I believe the information contained in the article demonstrates that this is untrue (at least in this case). So thus it would be incorrect to say that the BSA is a terrorist organization. You didn't say that it was, but the implication was clearly there assuming your definition of terrorism was correct.
What the BSA does is promote fear in the minds of the leaders so they pass laws that force the public to do what they want.
I'm sorry but that's just rediculous. The BSA wants the government to crack down on software piracy because it steals revenue from the companies. The leaders and the BSA have reached a mutual agreement. According to the article, this is largely because the government/religious authorities see opportunities to promote their own agendas through instituting the resulting new laws. So it's a *far* stretch to say that the BSA is terrorist organization because they use fear tactics to get what they want. Support your accusations with something more substantial than a blanket statement.
I don't know if he said it or not. However, he often claimed to rely on God's grace. I would suspect it's less unnerving if you know that this world is not your final destination. However, most people don't have that much faith, so maybe then that is why he found it unnerving.
Re:Implications for Radio Astronomy. . .
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 1
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating that the entire spectrum be opened. I think the idea is to initially open a very small portion of the spectrum for use as a test bed for packet radio network experiments.
In any case, if I'm not mistaken, RF Astronomy is mostly confined to a relatively small band of low frequency radiation.
...Tabloids use your interest to get your attention, and abuse their understanding of your inabilities to make you paranoid about things you would otherwise see through.
Yup, actually it seems to me to have moved beyond the profit motive and into the realm of ridiculousness...
Relax, take your paranoia and apply it to something personally applicable, rather than a grand ideal, and live as you would like. If you are intelligent and moral, your actions will speak louder than a hundred Slashdot posts ever could.
Simply put: you're jaded, but only toward things which aren't within your field of expertise. If you think people who use computers, but don't know how they work are stupid, the previous sentence should be nearly self-evident. Diversify, and don't allow your peers to insert you into a heirarchy which makes you paranoid.
Thanks, that was insightful -- a little sanity in an insane world.
So appropriate and so true -- except for the part about ab initio existence of the soul. Some people are just more aware of the "guiding force" than others. I suspect most don't fully come to realize this, if at all, until they reach a mature age.
Well you can't legislate morality, but I would argue that we do have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to minimize illegal activity as much as possible. For the cost of shipping and handling, the consumer should be able to request content in a different media format if desired. When tools are freely available to make illegal copies and mass distribution possible, a small number of miscreants can do serious damage to the content creators and distributors. This type of activity damages legitimate parties and provides incentive for publishing reduced quality content at a larger price. This isn't fair to those who do play by the rules.
Sure you can argue that it's not the tools that are bad, but rather the people who use them for illegal purposes. But what can reasonably be enforced? When people prove that they are unwilling to act responsibly, they forfeit certain conveniences. It appears to me that copy protection is necessary for the protection of legitimate buyers and sellers; personally I have no problem with it. In addition, I doubt anyone is going to "go after" someone who makes a backup copy of something strictly for personal use, that's not the intent of the DMCA, and it sounds like FUD to me. In any case content recovery should be a relatively simple matter -- a minor inconvenience.
I do agree, however, that region codes sound like an unnecessary restriction and I can't think of a good reason to justify it in light of the possible benefits given that the media is adequately copy protected.
You left out Spidey's greatest strength: his intelligence (luck?)
Spidey beats his opponent because he is able to take full advantage of his environment and is able to pit his opponent's strengths (and weaknesses) against him.
Battle ground NYC: Spidey without a doubt; Anakin might fair better in the Mojave, but Spidey is just too cool to lose:)
With regard to the bias against MS presented by the teacher, note that the teacher presents verifiable points to support his/her conclusion. Therefore, I would classify the bias as reasoned opinion. If there is debate to be had, it seems to me that it would lie in validating the "facts" presented, and/or (as in this case) arguing the validity the larger conclusion based on a limited case (is it fair to say that MS as a whole is corrupt based upon evidence presented on a specific case?). BTW, I didn't see you address any of these points in your reply... I don't think it's reasonable to expect that one is going to get the complete picture from any single source be that an individual or textbook. Should then discussion be limited to only those topics where it is deemed that all "facts" are available?
It seems to me that critical to human development is the ability to draw conclusions where all the facts are not available or where the "facts" themselves are questionable. This is a byproduct of human limitation; without this kind of speculative thinking ability, we are seriously deficient. Therefore, it is necessary that *reasoned* opinions be open for discussion throughout our development in order that we may be able to more fully form our cognitive abilities. Sometimes the greatest benefit to this end comes from analyzing arguments with which one is unfamiliar and consequently may not agree with. I tend to believe the larger and more difficult responsibility is for teachers to teach how to think rather than simply regurgitate "facts". You could then argue that teachers who make a statement like "M$ uses immoral or non-competitive business practices" should also support them, or that opportunities always be given for those who question or disagree to express their own opinions, but I don't think it's wise to propose that reasoned opinions be prevented from being expressed.
I read the poster's comment in a different way. I think what he is trying to say is that incompatibilities will arise between the various third party applications themselves. For example, if StarOffice, MS, etc. all use different file formats then there will be no defacto standard for exchange. This is why making Windows modular isn't in itself going to help the consumer that much. It's also why people argue that API's and file formats be released as well.
I really don't use my printer that often. After throwing away barely used cartridges (twice) for my HP Deskjet, I decided to get one of Cannon's new inkjets. The nice thing about this printer is that there are no chips on the cartridges. I think it uses an LED to check the level at the bottom of the cartridge and just gives you a warning when it gets low. Prints well. Minor driver issues. I've only had it for a couple months but so far I like it.
You can determine the center of gravity of any small, relatively flat object by supporting it at it's end with your fingers and slowly moving your fingers together while balancing the object. The midpoint of where your fingers come together is the center of gravity.
For example, say you're out on a date and your date orders a cheeseburger. You could take that cheeseburger and put it on top of your fingers and slide them together. "Look honey: you didn't distribute your mustard evenly across the surface of the patty!"
There's one thing the religion folks got right - to paraphrase from Proverbs: "raise a child up in the way in which he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it."
Of course they screwed up:
Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor, etc...
Really you're not being fair at all. Frankly I'm ammazed that you actually quoted a biblical proverb.
You don't have your history wrong. In fact both the Greek and Roman Empires were destroyed precisely because of their immoral behavior. There is shared accountability, to varying degrees, amongst the peoples and leadership of these Empires. I would also argue the decline of the British Empire was the result of immoral behavior. And you are correct; this country too is already experiencing the signs of decay. This is how it should be, as long as we worship immorality, and often even criminal activities. Indeed, it must be that way in order that the true value of Christian morality be manifest.
I'm not sure I understand the counterpoint you are trying to make. Your parent poster was using the smoking example to show how unscrupulous scientists can be used to attempt to distort factual information. In no way does he actually believe that "(smoking does not cause cancer)".
With respect to your point about proof of evolution, if evolution were proven it would no longer be a theory, but a law. That evolution is still regarded by scientists as a theory (at least in the sense of using to explain macro-development) is due to a lack of scientific *evidence* to supporting it. The theory may yet be correct, but it has yet to be proven true.
I make that objection because while it is generally a benevolent socializing force it too is/has been subject to corruption and abuse.
What institution has not been? Please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The extent that Christian ethics are practiced within a society determines the extent to which that society prospers -- we were made that way. Here, I'm thinking particularly about a strong work ethic and recognition of the need to serve (however that may apply in any particular person's life) rather than be served. That is what I was trying to convey with that statement.
Please understand that I am a product of the Catholic church, but I find myself in disagreement with its wisdom on many occasion.
Ditto here, but often I find that things I don't understand become evident to me later. I suspect this is a result of my not knowing all sides of the situation and not having the capacity to figure things out for myself usually.
Nonetheless the need for all persons to value peace, love and understanding are probably best promoted by parents and community, but failing that, they are better promoted through an institution of some size and authority than simply listening to Elvis Costello.;-)
In general, I agree with you that values are best promoted by parents and community, but how do we know if those values we pass on are worthy ones -- will our own person opinions be sufficient? Also, if I'm going to put my trust into some large institution, which one has the best track record? Ask yourself this question: If you were God, how would you chose to make your opinions known (on any particular issue) to the people?
...the internet will give us global perspective at a peer level.
Agreed, but technology in itself won't necessarily lead to global prosperity. Some people will always give in to evil and try to manipulate to their own advantage. For good or for ill, people will still have different opinions about many things. If we try to separate ourselves from Christian teaching (and therefore Christ), we essentially take matters into our own hands. This leaves us at the mercy of both those who are evil, and our own personal opinions which are bond to cause conflict. While I believe technology should help to fight evil, I also believe that there are examples in Western culture that demonstrate that technology is not enough. We can see on CNN that X are killing Y, or that country X is harming country Y, and inevitably the justifications will come from all sides. But will we be able to get past cultural boundaries and misconceptions to agree on what should happen? Certainly there are issues that are fairly concrete and actions which cannot be justified (Sudan comes to mind) and here is where technology can help, but even then, what are we going to do about it? I've noticed that people who try to live holy lives are generally wiser, have better dispositions, and are more capable of figuring out truth. You can argue about what forum would be best to help achieve global prosperity, but I believe the forum and the answers have already been given to us.
Sometimes I turn on CNN and think...this can't be real. I find it extremely difficult to believe that world leaders and their governments would involve themselves in some of the activities they do. I mean, wouldn't you have to ascribe a fair amount of intelligence to people who've managed to obtain these positions? I guess here one can see the difference between intelligence and wisdom, and the need for both. However, even this presumes that people's hearts are in the right place -- something that should be the fruit of true wisdom.
I suspect there might be problems with the motives of the powers that be. What's more is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to distinguish righteousness in the activities of any nation as a nation. That's not to say that the peoples are much better. However, peoples are generally subject to the influences pedaled upon them by their leaders, their medias, and whatever cultural or religious beliefs are made prominent. The degree of the effectiveness of these influences depends on education. This is one reason why education is often targeted early in the demise of a nation.
It seems to me that a more open society, where cross cultural communication can occur easily, should serve to deter leaders from pursuing selfish aims. It also seems to me that historically, governments are always searching for the best way to retain power while extracting productivity from people. If you tolerate slave labor, that's what you get. Don't like it? Fight or flight.
Wouldn't it be great if the world were a smaller place and we could go from one country to another in a matter of minutes? If we all had one language, and could understand each other? As science and technology advance, the communal nature of our human identities should evolve, and the power of those who serve evil should diminish. This I believe has been a valuable contribution of the Western Christian centered societal model. Our conditions for continued prosperity have been, and continue to be given to us by the Church, but we need to listen and act.
Got it? Newton's Laws of Motion? Theory. E=MC^2? Theory. That the moon is held to the earth by gravity and not little fairy sprites? Theory.
These things are different from theory, by definition, because there is accepted scientific evidence available to support them. Remember, theories are postulates, or guesses.
The Theory of Evolution is simply the most probable way that life on Earth came to be...
Actually, Evolution remains in the realm of theory in so much as the evidence to support it as the basis for life on Earth and macro development (such as the type that would be required for an ape to evolve into a human being) does not scientifically exist.
The fact that we still cannot thus prove this theory, and that science tells us that all life is naturally pre-programmed to reject certain modifications or mutations, it seems more probable to me that we are indeed the product of creation. More than this: Earthly creation was, and the manner in which life evolves is -- a matter of design.
In general, I agree with you; it's important not to confuse science and theory. I won't comment on the scientific validity of Hawkings' work, however, many people spend a fair amount of time trying to make sense of everything to their own minds. The theories that result are often the basis for scientific discovery.
Any imaginative author or deluded "holy man" can define the universe and then find details and create a history that is logically consistent, and can adapt such a theory to any and all data that might refute it.
That sounds like quite a difficult task, unless you are defending your perspective to a group of 1st graders. My own perspective on the universe is that there are many categories of science that may hold true in their own areas of application (like classical and quantum physics). However, at any particular point in time, mankind has the ability to measure and explain only a portion of "reality". There are probably whole categories of science as yet unknown to us.
Once quantified and accepted, scientific observations hold until data are obtained which refute them; this perhaps by observation of rare natural phenomena or through development of the ability to apply new knowledge/technology to models of classical science achieving results that would not be obvious or perhaps even attainable using previous scientific rules and assumptions (relativity comes to mind). Thus the technological possibilities of existence seem potentially limitless!
I believe it is the attempt to grasp the significance of the complexity of the universe through scientific analysis that led Einstein to recognize that we indeed do live in a universe in which an intelligence much greater than our own is at work. If you accept that this is true, then some extremely significant questions naturally follow...
People want the power, and smarter ones also want the ethics that will bring it to them.
Not always, some technologies they will value, others they will not. Who is to say that any particular technology is more valuable than another? This valuation will be a function of personal opinions influenced in large part by culture. As I have stated in an earlier post, I believe diversity of culture is critical to the development and prosperity of mankind as a whole; there are many good reasons for this.
If you want culture, local or global, to go a certain way you have to take responsibility for seeing that it does so, and hope others do the same.
It is not quite so simple. The type of cultural shift needed to bring about more responsible activities in the realm of cultural development will come only when peoples hearts and minds are changed. In our own culture, people have arrived at a point where they seem to analyze every aspect of life today in terms of dollars and cents. This has come about litlle by little through decades of development. The profit motive is now firmly ingrained in most significant aspects of our culture and we think nothing of it. We are losing focus on what we really should be concerned about: the welfare of our nation, and the world as a whole given that we are really each other's brothers and sisters.
Science and history have taught us enough about humanity that we should be able to solve most of the world's problems. However, as is often the case with highly developed societies, a critical ingredient is missing. This is the human condition. Nations rise and they fall. What do you really think will be necessary for this country to prosper in a more global setting? What historically has been the impetus for cultural revolution?
Corporations regularly try to create culture (or rather a market) which will accept their product. We call this advertising.
Advertising is just one tool. There are many methods employed, and what I think is becoming more evident is that some are just plain immoral.
Give the devil an inch and he will stretch it into a mile.
...and it seems the ethics of western culture are an integral part of that same technological power, and vice versa. This is what is in such demand, and in pursuit of it much local culture is still lost.
Are you trying to say that western ethics, technological power, or both are in demand? You may be right in saying that western technology and ethics are intertwined. However, I do not think that this is a good thing in our present condition. I also don't believe it is necessary. My observation is that corporations are the ambassadors of american culture. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, but in practice I believe it is.
If McDoanlds were to open up a restaurant in some foreign country and the people chose to eat there, that's fine, but if not, then are they justified in attempting to create a culture which accepts their product? Companies do that even in this country some in subtle ways and some in not so subtle ways (take Microsoft for example). I believe your right in that something is lost when this type of cultural engineering takes place. My own opinion is that cultural development should occur naturally, that is to say it should occur because the people actually like a particular aspect of our culture and not because they don't have any other choices.
There is also the problem of rating what is valuable in a particular culture. In practice this seems to be the prerogative of those with the resources to promote and sell. I would think the only way to effectively determine this is to grant large scale exposure of the culture to foreigners, but how to do this? what is the cost, what risk is acceptable given that corporations have the resources to create culture to eliminate risk? The solution as I see it, is to grant more respect to local cultures, otherwise, in the long term, we all lose. But even here, there is the assumption that the local culture is wealthy enough to purchase a McDonalds meal, etc... What about those countries that are poor like Afghanistan, are there valuable cultural aspects in them? I bet there are, but I hope we become smart enough to recognize them and not destroy them in pursuit of profit.
To those whom much is given, much is expected.
Oops! That last paragraph where I used cloning as an example was probably unfair as the issues are slightly different and a lot more obvious than genetic research. I was involved in another discussion elsewhere and my mind drifted, sorry. In the case of genetic manipulation my prime concerns arise from problems experienced in GM crops and in insects, as well as what I've read about the nature of genetic research.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think it's quite amazing that so many people from such diverse worldly backgrounds could more or less be on the same page.
I am a practicing Catholic and I do know many Christians, and some Catholics, and as we all know, a small number of Priests that, IMHO, act in ways that are incompatible with the teachings of Christ. However, I don't see how you can conclude that people who follow the Pope don't think for themselves. The Pope and the Catholic Church is the only religion that has direct, authoritative, and traceable lineage to Christ and His original Apostles. Therefore it is consistent with Catholic teaching that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ -- the person through whom Christ has chosen to lead His people.
The Pope is responsible for leading humanity in holiness. His task is to effectively promote heavenly values in a world that promotes secular values which often conflict with Christian teaching. I suppose you could liken it to promoting OSS in an environment where commercial software is the rule of the day. Only, OSS developers don't lose sleep at night if their software is not widely accepted -- the consequences are not that substantial. OSS is a nice idea around which a small community flourishes even though it is not generally embraced...
The Pope however, must contend with the knowledge that his work goes against the worldly tide, that he is responsible for all of humanity in ways which have both immediate and eternal consequences for all of us. When we reject God, not only do we suffer, but the Pope and Church also suffer as Christ and his Apostles did out of love for us. Can you imagine how much weight this must put on one person's soul? I suspect this would be too much for one person to handle without Divine assistance. This is why I would spend hours standing in a street waiting to catch a glimpse of the Pope.
Actually, if what you said were true then the BSA would be a terrorist organization. While I agree with you you that Illegality is not part of the definition of terrorism, the use of fear to achieve your objectives is the deifinition of terrorism. So by definition, the use of fear (by threats or violence) by *any* party to achieve its objectives is what makes them terrorists. This is true regardless of wether or not the use of fear tactics is legal.
The main point I was trying to make was in refuting your claim that the BSA uses fear to achieve its objectives. I believe the information contained in the article demonstrates that this is untrue (at least in this case). So thus it would be incorrect to say that the BSA is a terrorist organization. You didn't say that it was, but the implication was clearly there assuming your definition of terrorism was correct.
What the BSA does is promote fear in the minds of the leaders so they pass laws that force the public to do what they want.
I'm sorry but that's just rediculous. The BSA wants the government to crack down on software piracy because it steals revenue from the companies. The leaders and the BSA have reached a mutual agreement. According to the article, this is largely because the government/religious authorities see opportunities to promote their own agendas through instituting the resulting new laws. So it's a *far* stretch to say that the BSA is terrorist organization because they use fear tactics to get what they want. Support your accusations with something more substantial than a blanket statement.
I don't know if he said it or not. However, he often claimed to rely on God's grace. I would suspect it's less unnerving if you know that this world is not your final destination. However, most people don't have that much faith, so maybe then that is why he found it unnerving.
I don't think anyone is seriously advocating that the entire spectrum be opened. I think the idea is to initially open a very small portion of the spectrum for use as a test bed for packet radio network experiments.
In any case, if I'm not mistaken, RF Astronomy is mostly confined to a relatively small band of low frequency radiation.
Thanks, that was insightful -- a little sanity in an insane world.
LOL!
So appropriate and so true -- except for the part about ab initio existence of the soul. Some people are just more aware of the "guiding force" than others. I suspect most don't fully come to realize this, if at all, until they reach a mature age.
Well you can't legislate morality, but I would argue that we do have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to minimize illegal activity as much as possible. For the cost of shipping and handling, the consumer should be able to request content in a different media format if desired. When tools are freely available to make illegal copies and mass distribution possible, a small number of miscreants can do serious damage to the content creators and distributors. This type of activity damages legitimate parties and provides incentive for publishing reduced quality content at a larger price. This isn't fair to those who do play by the rules.
Sure you can argue that it's not the tools that are bad, but rather the people who use them for illegal purposes. But what can reasonably be enforced? When people prove that they are unwilling to act responsibly, they forfeit certain conveniences. It appears to me that copy protection is necessary for the protection of legitimate buyers and sellers; personally I have no problem with it. In addition, I doubt anyone is going to "go after" someone who makes a backup copy of something strictly for personal use, that's not the intent of the DMCA, and it sounds like FUD to me. In any case content recovery should be a relatively simple matter -- a minor inconvenience.
I do agree, however, that region codes sound like an unnecessary restriction and I can't think of a good reason to justify it in light of the possible benefits given that the media is adequately copy protected.
You left out Spidey's greatest strength: his intelligence (luck?)
:)
Spidey beats his opponent because he is able to take full advantage of his environment and is able to pit his opponent's strengths (and weaknesses) against him. Battle ground NYC: Spidey without a doubt; Anakin might fair better in the Mojave, but Spidey is just too cool to lose
With regard to the bias against MS presented by the teacher, note that the teacher presents verifiable points to support his/her conclusion. Therefore, I would classify the bias as reasoned opinion. If there is debate to be had, it seems to me that it would lie in validating the "facts" presented, and/or (as in this case) arguing the validity the larger conclusion based on a limited case (is it fair to say that MS as a whole is corrupt based upon evidence presented on a specific case?). BTW, I didn't see you address any of these points in your reply... I don't think it's reasonable to expect that one is going to get the complete picture from any single source be that an individual or textbook. Should then discussion be limited to only those topics where it is deemed that all "facts" are available?
It seems to me that critical to human development is the ability to draw conclusions where all the facts are not available or where the "facts" themselves are questionable. This is a byproduct of human limitation; without this kind of speculative thinking ability, we are seriously deficient. Therefore, it is necessary that *reasoned* opinions be open for discussion throughout our development in order that we may be able to more fully form our cognitive abilities. Sometimes the greatest benefit to this end comes from analyzing arguments with which one is unfamiliar and consequently may not agree with. I tend to believe the larger and more difficult responsibility is for teachers to teach how to think rather than simply regurgitate "facts". You could then argue that teachers who make a statement like "M$ uses immoral or non-competitive business practices" should also support them, or that opportunities always be given for those who question or disagree to express their own opinions, but I don't think it's wise to propose that reasoned opinions be prevented from being expressed.
I read the poster's comment in a different way. I think what he is trying to say is that incompatibilities will arise between the various third party applications themselves. For example, if StarOffice, MS, etc. all use different file formats then there will be no defacto standard for exchange. This is why making Windows modular isn't in itself going to help the consumer that much. It's also why people argue that API's and file formats be released as well.
I really don't use my printer that often. After throwing away barely used cartridges (twice) for my HP Deskjet, I decided to get one of Cannon's new inkjets. The nice thing about this printer is that there are no chips on the cartridges. I think it uses an LED to check the level at the bottom of the cartridge and just gives you a warning when it gets low. Prints well. Minor driver issues. I've only had it for a couple months but so far I like it.
You can determine the center of gravity of any small, relatively flat object by supporting it at it's end with your fingers and slowly moving your fingers together while balancing the object. The midpoint of where your fingers come together is the center of gravity.
For example, say you're out on a date and your date orders a cheeseburger. You could take that cheeseburger and put it on top of your fingers and slide them together. "Look honey: you didn't distribute your mustard evenly across the surface of the patty!"
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor, etc...
Really you're not being fair at all. Frankly I'm ammazed that you actually quoted a biblical proverb.
You don't have your history wrong. In fact both the Greek and Roman Empires were destroyed precisely because of their immoral behavior. There is shared accountability, to varying degrees, amongst the peoples and leadership of these Empires. I would also argue the decline of the British Empire was the result of immoral behavior. And you are correct; this country too is already experiencing the signs of decay. This is how it should be, as long as we worship immorality, and often even criminal activities. Indeed, it must be that way in order that the true value of Christian morality be manifest.
I'm not sure I understand the counterpoint you are trying to make. Your parent poster was using the smoking example to show how unscrupulous scientists can be used to attempt to distort factual information. In no way does he actually believe that "(smoking does not cause cancer)".
With respect to your point about proof of evolution, if evolution were proven it would no longer be a theory, but a law. That evolution is still regarded by scientists as a theory (at least in the sense of using to explain macro-development) is due to a lack of scientific *evidence* to supporting it. The theory may yet be correct, but it has yet to be proven true.
Agreed, but technology in itself won't necessarily lead to global prosperity. Some people will always give in to evil and try to manipulate to their own advantage. For good or for ill, people will still have different opinions about many things. If we try to separate ourselves from Christian teaching (and therefore Christ), we essentially take matters into our own hands. This leaves us at the mercy of both those who are evil, and our own personal opinions which are bond to cause conflict. While I believe technology should help to fight evil, I also believe that there are examples in Western culture that demonstrate that technology is not enough. We can see on CNN that X are killing Y, or that country X is harming country Y, and inevitably the justifications will come from all sides. But will we be able to get past cultural boundaries and misconceptions to agree on what should happen? Certainly there are issues that are fairly concrete and actions which cannot be justified (Sudan comes to mind) and here is where technology can help, but even then, what are we going to do about it? I've noticed that people who try to live holy lives are generally wiser, have better dispositions, and are more capable of figuring out truth. You can argue about what forum would be best to help achieve global prosperity, but I believe the forum and the answers have already been given to us. Thank you, and you too!
Sometimes I turn on CNN and think...this can't be real. I find it extremely difficult to believe that world leaders and their governments would involve themselves in some of the activities they do. I mean, wouldn't you have to ascribe a fair amount of intelligence to people who've managed to obtain these positions? I guess here one can see the difference between intelligence and wisdom, and the need for both. However, even this presumes that people's hearts are in the right place -- something that should be the fruit of true wisdom.
I suspect there might be problems with the motives of the powers that be. What's more is that it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to distinguish righteousness in the activities of any nation as a nation. That's not to say that the peoples are much better. However, peoples are generally subject to the influences pedaled upon them by their leaders, their medias, and whatever cultural or religious beliefs are made prominent. The degree of the effectiveness of these influences depends on education. This is one reason why education is often targeted early in the demise of a nation.
It seems to me that a more open society, where cross cultural communication can occur easily, should serve to deter leaders from pursuing selfish aims. It also seems to me that historically, governments are always searching for the best way to retain power while extracting productivity from people. If you tolerate slave labor, that's what you get. Don't like it? Fight or flight.
Wouldn't it be great if the world were a smaller place and we could go from one country to another in a matter of minutes? If we all had one language, and could understand each other? As science and technology advance, the communal nature of our human identities should evolve, and the power of those who serve evil should diminish. This I believe has been a valuable contribution of the Western Christian centered societal model. Our conditions for continued prosperity have been, and continue to be given to us by the Church, but we need to listen and act.
Actually, Evolution remains in the realm of theory in so much as the evidence to support it as the basis for life on Earth and macro development (such as the type that would be required for an ape to evolve into a human being) does not scientifically exist.
The fact that we still cannot thus prove this theory, and that science tells us that all life is naturally pre-programmed to reject certain modifications or mutations, it seems more probable to me that we are indeed the product of creation. More than this: Earthly creation was, and the manner in which life evolves is -- a matter of design.
That sounds like quite a difficult task, unless you are defending your perspective to a group of 1st graders. My own perspective on the universe is that there are many categories of science that may hold true in their own areas of application (like classical and quantum physics). However, at any particular point in time, mankind has the ability to measure and explain only a portion of "reality". There are probably whole categories of science as yet unknown to us.
Once quantified and accepted, scientific observations hold until data are obtained which refute them; this perhaps by observation of rare natural phenomena or through development of the ability to apply new knowledge/technology to models of classical science achieving results that would not be obvious or perhaps even attainable using previous scientific rules and assumptions (relativity comes to mind). Thus the technological possibilities of existence seem potentially limitless!
I believe it is the attempt to grasp the significance of the complexity of the universe through scientific analysis that led Einstein to recognize that we indeed do live in a universe in which an intelligence much greater than our own is at work. If you accept that this is true, then some extremely significant questions naturally follow...
It is not quite so simple. The type of cultural shift needed to bring about more responsible activities in the realm of cultural development will come only when peoples hearts and minds are changed. In our own culture, people have arrived at a point where they seem to analyze every aspect of life today in terms of dollars and cents. This has come about litlle by little through decades of development. The profit motive is now firmly ingrained in most significant aspects of our culture and we think nothing of it. We are losing focus on what we really should be concerned about: the welfare of our nation, and the world as a whole given that we are really each other's brothers and sisters.
Science and history have taught us enough about humanity that we should be able to solve most of the world's problems. However, as is often the case with highly developed societies, a critical ingredient is missing. This is the human condition. Nations rise and they fall. What do you really think will be necessary for this country to prosper in a more global setting? What historically has been the impetus for cultural revolution?
Advertising is just one tool. There are many methods employed, and what I think is becoming more evident is that some are just plain immoral.
Give the devil an inch and he will stretch it into a mile.
If McDoanlds were to open up a restaurant in some foreign country and the people chose to eat there, that's fine, but if not, then are they justified in attempting to create a culture which accepts their product? Companies do that even in this country some in subtle ways and some in not so subtle ways (take Microsoft for example). I believe your right in that something is lost when this type of cultural engineering takes place. My own opinion is that cultural development should occur naturally, that is to say it should occur because the people actually like a particular aspect of our culture and not because they don't have any other choices.
There is also the problem of rating what is valuable in a particular culture. In practice this seems to be the prerogative of those with the resources to promote and sell. I would think the only way to effectively determine this is to grant large scale exposure of the culture to foreigners, but how to do this? what is the cost, what risk is acceptable given that corporations have the resources to create culture to eliminate risk? The solution as I see it, is to grant more respect to local cultures, otherwise, in the long term, we all lose. But even here, there is the assumption that the local culture is wealthy enough to purchase a McDonalds meal, etc... What about those countries that are poor like Afghanistan, are there valuable cultural aspects in them? I bet there are, but I hope we become smart enough to recognize them and not destroy them in pursuit of profit. To those whom much is given, much is expected.
Oops! That last paragraph where I used cloning as an example was probably unfair as the issues are slightly different and a lot more obvious than genetic research. I was involved in another discussion elsewhere and my mind drifted, sorry. In the case of genetic manipulation my prime concerns arise from problems experienced in GM crops and in insects, as well as what I've read about the nature of genetic research.