Blogs aren't the thing they used to be, but I suppose it's a place to drop new memes.
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2021
Friday, February 12, 2021
The Real Bad Side of Joss Whedon
Looking back through old posts, you can see that I defended Joss Whedon against allegations of being a wife-beating rapist based on the content of Firefly. I'd say those defenses are still sound.
It has, however, come out that -- at least on the set of Buffy and Angel -- Joss Whedon was quite the creepy asshat. These are allegations that I find credible. Joss may be decent at the creative writing stuff, but he seems to be a horrible person behind the scenes.
Friday, November 10, 2017
Why Have a Car There?
This is a little meme going around on Facebook which gave me an excuse to put something on the sorely neglected blog.
Why would someone have a car on this tiny island? It makes no sense! What kind of insanity is this?
It's the kind of insanity that realizes...
Note: I have heard suggestions that this might be photoshopped. I doubt it (for reasons listed above), but it's certainly possible.
Also: There's clearly no good place to dock a boat on the house side of the island. It may need to be on that side though, since it does appear to be a lighthouse, so the separation of the dock from house may be unavoidable.
Why would someone have a car on this tiny island? It makes no sense! What kind of insanity is this?
It's the kind of insanity that realizes...
- The boat dock is on the far side of the island from the (light)house for some reason.
- Sometimes you might need to move heavy things from the dock to the house.
- Sometimes the weather is cold and wet and nasty when you need to go from house to dock or dock to house.
Note: I have heard suggestions that this might be photoshopped. I doubt it (for reasons listed above), but it's certainly possible.
Also: There's clearly no good place to dock a boat on the house side of the island. It may need to be on that side though, since it does appear to be a lighthouse, so the separation of the dock from house may be unavoidable.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
The Myth of Perseus and the Gorgon (the short version)
Someone on badmovies.org asked how the Clash of the Titans movies (new and old) differ from the original Perseus myth, so I obliged by retelling the myth for them. Then I figured I should put it on the old blog, as well, so here it is.
Behold Acrisius, King of Argos. He has a daughter named Danae. According to prophecy, if Danae has a son, he will kill Acrisius, so Acrisius keeps Danae locked in the tower.
Behold Zeus. Zeus is horny, and Danae is hot. No locked tower will prevent Zeus from satisfying his lust.
Danae gives birth to a son, Perseus. Hoping to keep Perseus from growing up to kill him, Acrisius puts Danae and Perseus in a wood chest and sets them adrift on the sea.
Behold Polydectes, King of Seriphus. A girl with a baby just washed ashore in a wood chest. That’s something you didn’t see every day back then, so he grants them asylum in Seriphus.
Over time, Polydectes realizes that Danae is hot, so he starts to put the moves on her. Unfortunately, Perseus has grown into a strapping young demigod and master cock-blocker. Needing to get rid of Perseus, Polydectes tricks him into boasting that he could kill the gorgon Medusa (whose face will turn anyone who looks at it to stone) and bring back her head. Polydectes holds him to it, forcing him to go on a suicide quest.
Behold Hermes and Athena. Zeus has sent them to help get Perseus out of the mess he has found himself in. They provide him with some of the gods’ own magical artifacts: winged sandals that allow him to fly, a helmet that turns him invisible, a sword that will cut through pretty much anything, a shield with a reflective inner surface, and a satchel to carry Medusa’s head, if he ever gets it. They also give him directions to the Graeae.
Behold the Graeae, sisters of the Gorgons. The Graeae will know where Medusa sleeps at night. They’re not willing to give up their sister’s location easily, though. Funny thing: the Graeae only have one eye and one tooth among them. Perseus manages to snatch those and only gives them back after they have revealed the location of Medusa’s lair.
Cocky young demigod that he is, Perseus is no fool. Wearing the cap of invisibility, he approaches Medusa, looking only at her reflection in his shield, and cuts off her head while she sleeps. He drops her head into the satchel and starts flying back to Seriphus. (In some versions he is pursued by two other gorgons, sisters of Medusa, but being both invisible and soon airborne, he escapes.)
Behold Andromeda, a maiden tied to a rock by the sea. She is a sacrifice to the Kraken. Perseus spots her as he is flying home and thinks she’s hot. He lands by her father Cepheus, the king of Ethiopia, and offers to kill the monster and save her… if he can marry her. Cepheus agrees, and Perseus offs the Kraken (stories are fuzzy on whether he shows it Medusa’s head or just lays into it with his super-sharp sword).
Behold Phineus. He also thinks Andromeda is hot, but now she’s marrying some courageous foreigner who saved her from being eaten by a monster. Unfair! He gets a bunch of his buddies together to crash the wedding and kill the foreigner. Perseus shows them Medusa’s head, and they shut right up.
Perseus returns to Seriphus with Andromeda, where he finds that Polydectes has been getting super creepy and stalky with Danae. Perseus shows him Medusa’s head to put an end to that.
Hermes and Athena then pay a visit to congratulate Perseus and take back all of the magical artifacts he borrowed, as well as Medusa’s head, which he is starting to have a little too much fun with.
Some time later, Perseus participates in a sporting event in a neighboring kingdom. In the discus throw, he throws so far that the discus goes into the crowd and nails a guy in the head, killing him. Turns out to be King Acrisius, who had gone into hiding when he learned that Perseus had survived and grown up. (Don’t try to avoid prophecies. It never ends well.)
With Acrisius dead, Perseus is the heir to the throne of Argos. Good times.
Addendum: Why is Andromeda tied to a rock?
As noted, Andromeda is hot. So hot, in fact, that some people in Ethiopia (including her mother, Cassiopeia) said she was hotter than the Nereids (sea nymphs).
The Nereids heard that, and it pissed them off, so they complained to Poseidon.
Poseidon was always more into nymphs than humans, so he agreed to punish the tasteless mortals. He sent his hit-beast, the Kraken, to Ethiopia to either destroy the city or eat Andromeda. Their choice.
Second Addendum: What's a Kraken?
The Kraken is actually a sea monster from Scandinavian mythology, not Greek mythology, but it had a cool name, so the producers of the movies used it. The name of the monster in the Perseus myth is not always given, but it is sometimes identified as Cetus.
Behold Acrisius, King of Argos. He has a daughter named Danae. According to prophecy, if Danae has a son, he will kill Acrisius, so Acrisius keeps Danae locked in the tower.
Behold Zeus. Zeus is horny, and Danae is hot. No locked tower will prevent Zeus from satisfying his lust.
Danae gives birth to a son, Perseus. Hoping to keep Perseus from growing up to kill him, Acrisius puts Danae and Perseus in a wood chest and sets them adrift on the sea.
Behold Polydectes, King of Seriphus. A girl with a baby just washed ashore in a wood chest. That’s something you didn’t see every day back then, so he grants them asylum in Seriphus.
Over time, Polydectes realizes that Danae is hot, so he starts to put the moves on her. Unfortunately, Perseus has grown into a strapping young demigod and master cock-blocker. Needing to get rid of Perseus, Polydectes tricks him into boasting that he could kill the gorgon Medusa (whose face will turn anyone who looks at it to stone) and bring back her head. Polydectes holds him to it, forcing him to go on a suicide quest.
Behold Hermes and Athena. Zeus has sent them to help get Perseus out of the mess he has found himself in. They provide him with some of the gods’ own magical artifacts: winged sandals that allow him to fly, a helmet that turns him invisible, a sword that will cut through pretty much anything, a shield with a reflective inner surface, and a satchel to carry Medusa’s head, if he ever gets it. They also give him directions to the Graeae.
Behold the Graeae, sisters of the Gorgons. The Graeae will know where Medusa sleeps at night. They’re not willing to give up their sister’s location easily, though. Funny thing: the Graeae only have one eye and one tooth among them. Perseus manages to snatch those and only gives them back after they have revealed the location of Medusa’s lair.
Cocky young demigod that he is, Perseus is no fool. Wearing the cap of invisibility, he approaches Medusa, looking only at her reflection in his shield, and cuts off her head while she sleeps. He drops her head into the satchel and starts flying back to Seriphus. (In some versions he is pursued by two other gorgons, sisters of Medusa, but being both invisible and soon airborne, he escapes.)
Behold Andromeda, a maiden tied to a rock by the sea. She is a sacrifice to the Kraken. Perseus spots her as he is flying home and thinks she’s hot. He lands by her father Cepheus, the king of Ethiopia, and offers to kill the monster and save her… if he can marry her. Cepheus agrees, and Perseus offs the Kraken (stories are fuzzy on whether he shows it Medusa’s head or just lays into it with his super-sharp sword).
Behold Phineus. He also thinks Andromeda is hot, but now she’s marrying some courageous foreigner who saved her from being eaten by a monster. Unfair! He gets a bunch of his buddies together to crash the wedding and kill the foreigner. Perseus shows them Medusa’s head, and they shut right up.
Perseus returns to Seriphus with Andromeda, where he finds that Polydectes has been getting super creepy and stalky with Danae. Perseus shows him Medusa’s head to put an end to that.
Hermes and Athena then pay a visit to congratulate Perseus and take back all of the magical artifacts he borrowed, as well as Medusa’s head, which he is starting to have a little too much fun with.
Some time later, Perseus participates in a sporting event in a neighboring kingdom. In the discus throw, he throws so far that the discus goes into the crowd and nails a guy in the head, killing him. Turns out to be King Acrisius, who had gone into hiding when he learned that Perseus had survived and grown up. (Don’t try to avoid prophecies. It never ends well.)
With Acrisius dead, Perseus is the heir to the throne of Argos. Good times.
Addendum: Why is Andromeda tied to a rock?
As noted, Andromeda is hot. So hot, in fact, that some people in Ethiopia (including her mother, Cassiopeia) said she was hotter than the Nereids (sea nymphs).
The Nereids heard that, and it pissed them off, so they complained to Poseidon.
Poseidon was always more into nymphs than humans, so he agreed to punish the tasteless mortals. He sent his hit-beast, the Kraken, to Ethiopia to either destroy the city or eat Andromeda. Their choice.
Second Addendum: What's a Kraken?
The Kraken is actually a sea monster from Scandinavian mythology, not Greek mythology, but it had a cool name, so the producers of the movies used it. The name of the monster in the Perseus myth is not always given, but it is sometimes identified as Cetus.
Monday, December 14, 2015
Just a Rifle
Yet again, there's a dubious photo meme going around on Facebook.
I'm not going to try to make a case that you should not be allowed to purchase an AR-15 rifle like the one at the bottom of the image. I just want to point out that this whole "just a rifle" argument is disingenous. Rifles have different designs for different purposes, and terminology has adapted to describe those purposes. Not all rifles are made equal.
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, an "assault rifle" is a "military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." By design, they are easy to carry, have a high rate of fire, carry a large amount of ammunition in the magazine, and reload quickly by changing the mazagine. The only distinction that the civilian model at the bottom has from a military weapon is that the civilian weapon is not capable of fully automatic fire.
The first (top) rifle in the image is a lever-action rifle. Today, they are designed mostly for hunting at moderate range. Looking at online advertisements, they are available in a wide range of calibers. The magazine typically seems to hold about 10 rounds of ammunition, which would have to be loaded into the weapon individually. The weapon must be cocked by lowering and raising the lever before every shot, which will limit its rate of fire, but if you went on a crazy shooting spree with this weapon, you could probably shoot ten people before you had to stop and reload, allowing potential victims to either escape or attack you.
The second is a bolt-action rifle, also typically used for hunting these days, although military sniper rifles are also frequently bolt-action rifles. Generally used with a scope, they are accurate at long ranges. The World War 2 era rifle that I own myself holds 5 rounds in the magazine; these can be loaded individually or loaded all at once using a "stripper clip" that holds all five rounds together in the right orientation for loading. These rifles typically use a powerful cartridge like the .30-06 round (7.62 mm). The bolt-action must be manually worked before every shot. If this was your weapon on a shooting spree, you could potentially hit from a large distance, but you would still probably only be able to hit a few people before your victims scrambled for cover.
And finally, the third weapon, which is also "just a rifle". The design is military, although the fully automatic fire capability is removed for the civilian market. For the military, it is intended to fire a lot of bullets in a short time at moderate range. As far as I know, civilians typically buy such weapons for home defense, plus just liking the idea of owning such a weapon. The AR-15 fires .223 caliber ammunition (5.56 mm): a small but fast bullet. The civilian model is semi-automatic, loading a fresh round into the chamber after every shot, allowing you to fire as quickly as you can aim and pull the trigger. I found online ads for AR-15 magazines holding anywhere from 10 to 40 rounds of ammunition. By design, the magazine can be detached when empty and quickly replaced with a full one. If this was your weapon on a shooting spree, and you had practiced with it, you could reasonably expect to shoot dozens of people.
I am not against gun ownership. As I said, I have a rifle myself. In it's time, my Mosin-Nagant was a military combat rifle.
I am against bad arguments for anything. Pretending that there is no difference between the three rifles in that picture is dishonest. You don't need 40 rounds of .223 semi-automatic fire for deer hunting; a weapon like the AR-15 is meant to kill people.
Sure, "assault" is an action, but it is also a design specification.
 |
| Just a Rifle |
According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, an "assault rifle" is a "military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." By design, they are easy to carry, have a high rate of fire, carry a large amount of ammunition in the magazine, and reload quickly by changing the mazagine. The only distinction that the civilian model at the bottom has from a military weapon is that the civilian weapon is not capable of fully automatic fire.
The first (top) rifle in the image is a lever-action rifle. Today, they are designed mostly for hunting at moderate range. Looking at online advertisements, they are available in a wide range of calibers. The magazine typically seems to hold about 10 rounds of ammunition, which would have to be loaded into the weapon individually. The weapon must be cocked by lowering and raising the lever before every shot, which will limit its rate of fire, but if you went on a crazy shooting spree with this weapon, you could probably shoot ten people before you had to stop and reload, allowing potential victims to either escape or attack you.
The second is a bolt-action rifle, also typically used for hunting these days, although military sniper rifles are also frequently bolt-action rifles. Generally used with a scope, they are accurate at long ranges. The World War 2 era rifle that I own myself holds 5 rounds in the magazine; these can be loaded individually or loaded all at once using a "stripper clip" that holds all five rounds together in the right orientation for loading. These rifles typically use a powerful cartridge like the .30-06 round (7.62 mm). The bolt-action must be manually worked before every shot. If this was your weapon on a shooting spree, you could potentially hit from a large distance, but you would still probably only be able to hit a few people before your victims scrambled for cover.
And finally, the third weapon, which is also "just a rifle". The design is military, although the fully automatic fire capability is removed for the civilian market. For the military, it is intended to fire a lot of bullets in a short time at moderate range. As far as I know, civilians typically buy such weapons for home defense, plus just liking the idea of owning such a weapon. The AR-15 fires .223 caliber ammunition (5.56 mm): a small but fast bullet. The civilian model is semi-automatic, loading a fresh round into the chamber after every shot, allowing you to fire as quickly as you can aim and pull the trigger. I found online ads for AR-15 magazines holding anywhere from 10 to 40 rounds of ammunition. By design, the magazine can be detached when empty and quickly replaced with a full one. If this was your weapon on a shooting spree, and you had practiced with it, you could reasonably expect to shoot dozens of people.
I am not against gun ownership. As I said, I have a rifle myself. In it's time, my Mosin-Nagant was a military combat rifle.
I am against bad arguments for anything. Pretending that there is no difference between the three rifles in that picture is dishonest. You don't need 40 rounds of .223 semi-automatic fire for deer hunting; a weapon like the AR-15 is meant to kill people.
Sure, "assault" is an action, but it is also a design specification.
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Pro Life
Donating bone marrow is something that most people can do to save lives. The procedure is done in a hospital and requires the donor to be placed under general anesthesia. Needles are inserted through both sides of the back of the pelvic bone to extract liquid marrow. This liquid is then sent to the patient who requires it. Common side effects include back or hip pain, fatigue, throat pain, muscle pain, insomnia, headache, dizziness, loss of appetite, and nausea. They are generally gone within two days of the procedure. The median time to full recovery for a marrow donation is 20 days, although it can take up to a year. Due to the life-saving benefits and minimal risks of the procedure, donation is mandatory. Effective immediately, all adults shall be required to donate bone marrow as often as possible, unless they have a medical exemption.
Platelet donation is a procedure that can be performed in the offices of a blood donation organization such as the Red Cross. Platelets are often needed for patients undergoing chemotherapy or organ transplants. During the procedure, blood is extracted from the donor, platelets are separated from the other blood components, and the rest of the blood (with some supplementary fluid) is returned to the patient. An anticoagulant is also administered to aid in the collection process. The procedure typically takes about two hours, after which the donor can typically resume normal activity, although they should avoid heavy lifting for the rest of the day. Effective immediately, all adults are required to donate platelets as often as possible unless they are making other tissue donations that would prohibit platelet donations or are medically ineligible to donate.
Effective immediately, all citizens are organ and tissue donors. Upon death, all viable organs and tissues will be collected and sent to waiting patients. Everyone will need to be pretested for organ matching to expedite the process, which will help save people in need of life-saving donations. Participation is mandatory.
When everyone is okay with all of these pro-life policies, we can talk about outlawing abortion. If we are going to require women to donate nine months of their lives to save a fetus while taking the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, everyone can take lesser risks to make donations that will save the lives of people who have already been born.
Platelet donation is a procedure that can be performed in the offices of a blood donation organization such as the Red Cross. Platelets are often needed for patients undergoing chemotherapy or organ transplants. During the procedure, blood is extracted from the donor, platelets are separated from the other blood components, and the rest of the blood (with some supplementary fluid) is returned to the patient. An anticoagulant is also administered to aid in the collection process. The procedure typically takes about two hours, after which the donor can typically resume normal activity, although they should avoid heavy lifting for the rest of the day. Effective immediately, all adults are required to donate platelets as often as possible unless they are making other tissue donations that would prohibit platelet donations or are medically ineligible to donate.
Effective immediately, all citizens are organ and tissue donors. Upon death, all viable organs and tissues will be collected and sent to waiting patients. Everyone will need to be pretested for organ matching to expedite the process, which will help save people in need of life-saving donations. Participation is mandatory.
When everyone is okay with all of these pro-life policies, we can talk about outlawing abortion. If we are going to require women to donate nine months of their lives to save a fetus while taking the risks associated with pregnancy and childbirth, everyone can take lesser risks to make donations that will save the lives of people who have already been born.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Circulating Nonsense
People are circulating an article with the headline "Civil War museum closed, Confederate artifacts burned" in complete seriousness. The first line of the article, visible in the Facebook post, is:
"On the heels of the Confederate flag controversy, the City Council of Harrisburg voted to permanently close the doors of the Civil War Museum last week."Some of the comments from the thread on Facebook where I saw it include the following:
- "And all those other times when people decided to burn / erase history and artifacts from the past: How did that turn out? Did it ever turn out good?"
- "In the tradition of the Taliban, ISIS, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the Red Chinese Cultural Revolution to just go back 90 years or so... and just to name a few... statists are insane."
- "Rewriting history is classic Soviet behavior."
- "Go authoritarian fascism"
It took me less than ten seconds to find the website of the The National Civil War Museum in Harrisburg, PA. Apparently the article has been getting shared a lot, because they had this statement on the home page.
In light of the situation in the current press, The National Civil War Museum has issued the following statement:The post links to a site called "The People's Cube" which looks like a troll site. Seriously, just look at it for a second and it's obvious.
The Board of Directors of The National Civil War Museum have no intentions of closing the museum and we will be conducting business as usual.
How foolish have we become that we accept such a blatant troll article at face value?
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Arguing With Bad Numbers
There's now a Libertarian image floating around the internet that claims Wal-Mart would go out of business if it paid its hourly employees a living wage. It's too bad they use crappy math to make their case. Let's have a look, shall we?| Employees | 2,000,000 |
| Avg hourly wage | $8.81 |
| New minimum | $15.00 |
| Raise | $6.19 |
| Increase/hour | $12,380,000 |
| Increase/day | $99,040,000 |
| Increase/year | $36,149,600,000 |
| Prior Annual Profit | $16,800,000,000 |
| Modified Profit | -$19,349,600,000 |
The argument assumes that all 2 million employees get the full $6.19/hr raise, not just those already making less than $15/hour. It also assumes every employee works an 8-hour day, 365 days per year -- every single person.
Does anyone think that's realistic? I hope not. But you have to dig into the calculations to see what bad assumptions and methods are being used.
What happens if you do the math again, but with more realistic numbers? What if we use a more likely $12/hour rate and only make them work 40 hours per week?
| Employees | 2,000,000 |
| Avg hourly wage | $8.81 |
| New minimum | $12.00 |
| Raise | $3.19 |
| Increase/hour | $6,380,000 |
| Increase/day | $51,040,000 |
| Increase/year | $13,270,400,000 |
| Prior Annual Profit | $16,800,000,000 |
| Modified Profit | $3,529,600,000 |
With just a couple of tweaks, Wal-Mart is suddenly back in the black again, profiting $3.5 billion per year.
The claims of Wal-Mart's dire situation only get more ridiculous if you use the $10.10 per hour wage that Obama imposed on Federal contractors, account for the fact that many Wal-Mart employees are part-time, and realize that not all of those two million employees are going to get the raise (since some of them will already be getting more than $10.10 per hour).
Take a few of those issues into account, and Wal-Mart could easily be profiting over $12.5 billion per year without raising any prices.
If there's a case for keeping the minimum wage where it is, this isn't it. The real story is far more complicated, and people with far more expertise have examined the impact of increasing wages at Wal-Mart.
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Follow Your Passion?
Mike Rowe's take on finding the job you love.
I think it's an important message. I actually do enjoy my work, but maybe I enjoy it because I've embraced it as a "calling". Writing documentation for computer systems isn't glamorous, but it is necessary and valuable.
I don't know which of my friends read this, but I know some are looking for a job they can be passionate about. Mike's advice is to find a job you can do well and use to support yourself and your family. Let it support your passions.
I think it's an important message. I actually do enjoy my work, but maybe I enjoy it because I've embraced it as a "calling". Writing documentation for computer systems isn't glamorous, but it is necessary and valuable.
I don't know which of my friends read this, but I know some are looking for a job they can be passionate about. Mike's advice is to find a job you can do well and use to support yourself and your family. Let it support your passions.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Click Bait
I assume that the likes, comments, and shares on these posts somehow translate into advertising revenue for the originator. They can claim to have hundreds or thousands or more interested eyeballs on their pages because of all the activity on their posts.
Some of them encourage you to try some simple keyboard trick that causes an image to be displayed (like entering "(^^^)" in Facebook, which displays a shark icon).
But more often they issue some painfully easy challenge like the one in this post, and you get to congratulate yourself for being one of the "smart" people. Come on, internet users -- anyone can come up with a movie name without a "T" in it! They just want you to promote them on your preferred social media site.
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Ken Has a Dinosaur Skeleton
Ken Ham has managed to get his hands on what appears to be a genuine allosaurus skeleton for his creation museum. Based on some of the weakest evidence I've ever heard, he claims that it is only 4500 years old and therefore disproves an old Earth.
Serious research could be done on these remains, but instead they're going to gather dust in Ken's museum as he uses them to spread creationist misinformation. I weep for the real paleontologists who won't get to examine this find.
Serious research could be done on these remains, but instead they're going to gather dust in Ken's museum as he uses them to spread creationist misinformation. I weep for the real paleontologists who won't get to examine this find.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Obsolescence
I find myself wondering what we'll do as a society when we've automated every job that currently requires a human. Hearing reports that computers are now able to write clean essays and papers is somewhat discouraging for me, personally, and brought this question into my head.
Sooner or later, computers will be designing objects, and then assembling them via robots, with little or no human intervention. Assuming there is no machine revolution, what will people do in a world where there are no jobs because machines do all of the work.
What happens when all vehicles on land, in the sea, and in the air have automatic pilots?
What happens when a computer can diagnose a medical condition more quickly, more accurately, and more reliably than a human doctor? When it can prescribe the best medications and control a robot to perform the best procedures?
What happens when all manufacturing is done by robots?
What happens when humans are no longer needed for anything?
I can only imagine that the wealth disparity that exists now will become far worse. It seems likely that the owners of the machines (and therefore all of the wealth and resources) will represent a tiny portion of the population. What will become of everyone else?
A machine revolution might not even be necessary for a vast depopulation event.
Sooner or later, computers will be designing objects, and then assembling them via robots, with little or no human intervention. Assuming there is no machine revolution, what will people do in a world where there are no jobs because machines do all of the work.
What happens when all vehicles on land, in the sea, and in the air have automatic pilots?
What happens when a computer can diagnose a medical condition more quickly, more accurately, and more reliably than a human doctor? When it can prescribe the best medications and control a robot to perform the best procedures?
What happens when all manufacturing is done by robots?
What happens when humans are no longer needed for anything?
I can only imagine that the wealth disparity that exists now will become far worse. It seems likely that the owners of the machines (and therefore all of the wealth and resources) will represent a tiny portion of the population. What will become of everyone else?
A machine revolution might not even be necessary for a vast depopulation event.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
22 Messages from Creationists
These messages are ostensibly to Bill Nye at the debate he had with Ken Ham. Just hearing Ken's non-answers to Bill's questions was painful enough, but some of these really burn my brain cells. They show a complete lack of understanding of the Theory of Evolution and science in general, which I think is tragic.
Still, I can give my answers/responses to these questions. I am going to try to suppress my usual snark.
1) Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
Yes. Bill is trying to teach children how science is really done.
2) Are you scared of a divine creator?
I dare say that Bill is not.
3) Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature (i.e. trees created with rings, Adam created as an adult,...)?
The problem with such a belief is that it requires colossal deception on the part of the creator. Light from distant stars has to be created "en route" so we can see it today; hundreds of thousands of extra layers of snow ice must be formed; millions of rock layers must be formed; pre-decayed nuclear materials must be planted; fossils must be distributed in layers that indicate progressive evolution. The creator would have to have taken a lot of trouble to make the Earth and universe look much older than they are. If the universe were created by such a huge deceiver, why would we expect the Bible to be true?
4) Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove Evolution?
No, it does not. If thermodynamics disproved evolution, physicists would have laughed it out of universities ages ago.
5) How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
I don't know if I can answer this without sounding condescending. The Earth rotates. From our perspective, the Sun dips below the horizon. The light scattering from particles in the atmosphere gives us the brilliant colors.
6) If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
As I said, the laws of thermodynamics don't debunk Evolution or the Big Bang.
7) What about Noetics?
I'm not familiar with Noetics. A quick search tells me that Noetics is a "branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect". I don't really see how this field of philosophy is supposed to relate to the question of Evolution and Creationism.
8) Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
I don't really understand the question. I don't think that deriving your meaning of life from the Bible is objective. "Meaning" is something you find for yourself: it's never objective.
9) If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
Pretty much by chance, yes. Abiogenesis is the particular field of study of the early origins of life. It relates to how organic chemistry on the ancient Earth could have generated simple compounds and "cells" that replicated themselves, starting the process of life. No one has managed to generate simple, replicating cells in a lab yet, but this work is ongoing.
10) I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!
Thanks for making it clear that you're not interested in talking about this like an adult.
11) Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God-believing people reject the idea of there being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
By and large (in my experience, at least), non-creationists do not embrace the concept of alien intervention, either.
12) There is no in between... the only one found has been Lucy, and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof".
This seems to be a simple case of misinformation. "Lucy" is only one example of the australopithecine fossils. There are at least nine significant finds of this genus, and "Lucy" is 40% complete, not just "a few pieces".
13) Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
I really like this question. The answer is no. Metamorphosis is something that happens to an individual organism during its lifetime. Evolution happens to a population of organisms over successive generations. They are separate phenomena.
14) If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is Evolution taught as fact.
Misuse of the word "theory" is a common problem when discussing controversial science topics. To a scientist, a theory is a coherent group of tested propositions that can be used to explain a set of observations or facts. In other words, it is not a guess or an untested claim. A theory must undergo rigorous testing and peer review before becoming widely accepted.
15) Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
This is another clear case of misinformation. "Science" is an organized effort to understand the universe. A "theory" is an explanation for observed phenomena that is testable, observable, and repeatable. Creationism and intelligent design do not meet that standard: evolution does.
16) What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process.
One of the simplest is "gene duplication". An error in replication produces an extra copy of an existing gene. The duplicate is free to change in subsequent generations, allowing new content to enter the species' genetic code without losing the original gene.
17) What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
As I believe I said earlier, finding purpose in life is something everyone does for himself or herself. There are plenty of ways to find fulfillment in life.
18) Why have we found only 1 "Lucy", when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
As noted before, there are actually several australopithecine fossils, and more examples of other early human ancestors.
19) Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?
There is observable evidence for the Big Bang, so faith is not required.
20) How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's amazing!!!
It is amazing, but that does not require it to be the creation of a deity (let alone just six thousand years ago despite all of the evidence that the Earth is much older).
21) Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?
There are many questions to which scientists are still seeking answers. We can observe that the universe is expanding from a central point, but we still don't know exactly what happened there. The tools available to us now can't tell us exactly what "exploded" or what was going on before the "explosion". Scientists, however, see that as an opportunity for study, not a mystery to leave unsolved.
22) If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
Okay, I was trying to suppress my snark, but this is such an old and absurd question that I'm pretty sure the guy holding up the card is just trolling. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says that monkeys have to go extinct for apes and humans to evolve from them.
Still, I can give my answers/responses to these questions. I am going to try to suppress my usual snark.
1) Are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?
Yes. Bill is trying to teach children how science is really done.
2) Are you scared of a divine creator?
I dare say that Bill is not.
3) Is it completely illogical that the earth was created mature (i.e. trees created with rings, Adam created as an adult,...)?
The problem with such a belief is that it requires colossal deception on the part of the creator. Light from distant stars has to be created "en route" so we can see it today; hundreds of thousands of extra layers of snow ice must be formed; millions of rock layers must be formed; pre-decayed nuclear materials must be planted; fossils must be distributed in layers that indicate progressive evolution. The creator would have to have taken a lot of trouble to make the Earth and universe look much older than they are. If the universe were created by such a huge deceiver, why would we expect the Bible to be true?
4) Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove Evolution?
No, it does not. If thermodynamics disproved evolution, physicists would have laughed it out of universities ages ago.
5) How do you explain a sunset if there is no God?
I don't know if I can answer this without sounding condescending. The Earth rotates. From our perspective, the Sun dips below the horizon. The light scattering from particles in the atmosphere gives us the brilliant colors.
6) If the Big Bang Theory is true and taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?
As I said, the laws of thermodynamics don't debunk Evolution or the Big Bang.
7) What about Noetics?
I'm not familiar with Noetics. A quick search tells me that Noetics is a "branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intellect". I don't really see how this field of philosophy is supposed to relate to the question of Evolution and Creationism.
8) Where do you derive objective meaning in life?
I don't really understand the question. I don't think that deriving your meaning of life from the Bible is objective. "Meaning" is something you find for yourself: it's never objective.
9) If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate? By chance?
Pretty much by chance, yes. Abiogenesis is the particular field of study of the early origins of life. It relates to how organic chemistry on the ancient Earth could have generated simple compounds and "cells" that replicated themselves, starting the process of life. No one has managed to generate simple, replicating cells in a lab yet, but this work is ongoing.
10) I believe in the Big Bang Theory... God said it and BANG it happened!
Thanks for making it clear that you're not interested in talking about this like an adult.
11) Why do evolutionists/secularists/humanists/non-God-believing people reject the idea of there being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial sources?
By and large (in my experience, at least), non-creationists do not embrace the concept of alien intervention, either.
12) There is no in between... the only one found has been Lucy, and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for an "official proof".
This seems to be a simple case of misinformation. "Lucy" is only one example of the australopithecine fossils. There are at least nine significant finds of this genus, and "Lucy" is 40% complete, not just "a few pieces".
13) Does metamorphosis help support evolution?
I really like this question. The answer is no. Metamorphosis is something that happens to an individual organism during its lifetime. Evolution happens to a population of organisms over successive generations. They are separate phenomena.
14) If Evolution is a Theory (like creationism or the Bible), why then is Evolution taught as fact.
Misuse of the word "theory" is a common problem when discussing controversial science topics. To a scientist, a theory is a coherent group of tested propositions that can be used to explain a set of observations or facts. In other words, it is not a guess or an untested claim. A theory must undergo rigorous testing and peer review before becoming widely accepted.
15) Because science by definition is a "theory" -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable, why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?
This is another clear case of misinformation. "Science" is an organized effort to understand the universe. A "theory" is an explanation for observed phenomena that is testable, observable, and repeatable. Creationism and intelligent design do not meet that standard: evolution does.
16) What mechanism has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process.
One of the simplest is "gene duplication". An error in replication produces an extra copy of an existing gene. The duplicate is free to change in subsequent generations, allowing new content to enter the species' genetic code without losing the original gene.
17) What purpose do you think you are here for if you do not believe in salvation?
As I believe I said earlier, finding purpose in life is something everyone does for himself or herself. There are plenty of ways to find fulfillment in life.
18) Why have we found only 1 "Lucy", when we have found more than 1 of everything else?
As noted before, there are actually several australopithecine fossils, and more examples of other early human ancestors.
19) Can you believe in "the big bang" without "faith"?
There is observable evidence for the Big Bang, so faith is not required.
20) How can you look at the world and not believe someone created/thought of it? It's amazing!!!
It is amazing, but that does not require it to be the creation of a deity (let alone just six thousand years ago despite all of the evidence that the Earth is much older).
21) Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?
There are many questions to which scientists are still seeking answers. We can observe that the universe is expanding from a central point, but we still don't know exactly what happened there. The tools available to us now can't tell us exactly what "exploded" or what was going on before the "explosion". Scientists, however, see that as an opportunity for study, not a mystery to leave unsolved.
22) If we come from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?
Okay, I was trying to suppress my snark, but this is such an old and absurd question that I'm pretty sure the guy holding up the card is just trolling. There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that says that monkeys have to go extinct for apes and humans to evolve from them.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Bad Reasons
I recently came across an article named "Why I Am a Six-Day Creationist". Of course I had to read it, and of course I wasn't really surprised by what it contained. What wisdom has this creationist brought us?
“I spent a couple of days this week speaking at a conference
at the Creation Museum—my first time visiting it. Before I arrived I decided to
put a little bit of thought into why I am a six-day creationist. I wanted to
affirm in my own mind that I was walking into the museum already convinced of a
position.”
I am filled with pity, loathing, and curiosity.
“I believe God created the world in six days—six literal
twenty-four hour periods. I believe the earth is young—probably less than ten
thousand years old. I have always believed this. But why? As I considered this
position, I realized there are three main reasons I hold to it.”
And I expect to be
disappointed by all of them.
“THE BIBLE TEACHES IT
The first reason I am a six-day creationist is this: I
believe it is what the Bible teaches. There have been endless debates about the
meaning of the word we translate as “day” in Genesis 1 and so much of the
debate stands or falls right here. There have been many attempts, some of them
quite compelling and some bordering on the ridiculous, to make it express
something other than “day.” But in the end, I believe a natural reading of
Scripture, and a natural reading of the author’s intent in the passage, leads
to the most natural and obvious conclusion: God created all that exists, from
nothing, in six literal days. This is what the author said, because this is
what the author meant to convey, because this is what the author believed,
because this is exactly how God did it.”
So, basically, you’re
taking the Biblical text as accurate, no matter what other evidence exists? I
realize that scientific estimates have gone up over time, but that’s because
the evidence (over time) has revealed that the age of the Earth could not be “less
than” a certain minimum age. There was never an upper limit. Improvements in
technology have allowed us to improve our estimates, and none of them have put
the age of the Earth in the “thousands of years” range.
“THE WRITERS BELIEVED IT
The second reason I am a six-day creationist is that I
believe this is what the other biblical writers believed. When the subject of
creation arises elsewhere in the Bible, I see no evidence that the writers held
to any position other than literal six-day creation. If we hold that Scripture
interpets Scripture, I see the Bible confirming the simplicity of God creating
all things in six literal days.”
What Bronze Age or
Iron Age authors believed has negligible bearing on what the evidence we can obtain
with modern technology tells us.
“SCIENCE CONFIRMS IT
The third reason I am a six-day creationist is that I
believe this is what science tells us. I believe science confirms a literal
six-day creation and a young earth. I find the science demanding millions or
billions of years less compelling than the science supporting a much less
ancient universe. Even though so many people today scoff at even the suggestion
that the world may be young, I find the old-earth science built upon very shaky
and ever-shifting ground.
No. Just no. There are no
reputable scientists who believe in a six-day creation that happened less than
10,000 years ago. The claims of “young Earth creationists” have been tested and
found unsupported (if not outright wrong) many, many times.
“MY CONVICTION
I believe the Bible speaks with greater clarity and greater
authority than what I believe I see or what I believe I experience. Where many
interpretations of science appear to contradict a literal six-day creation, I
am not ready to re-interpret a clear and natural reading of Scripture to make
it fit with these observations. The Bible is infinitely more stable than
science and infinitely more reliable. G.I. Williamson recently said this well:
“ I do not believe that there is, or ever will be, any scientific discovery
that will be able to discredit what God has spoken. Yes, scientific theories do
appear to discredit that creation account. But be patient. In time it will be
seen that those humble Bible believers were right all along: it was a six-day
creation.” I believe this too.”
Are you ready to
disagree with clear and basic math? With basic geometry we can determine that
there are objects in the sky that are hundreds of millions of light-years away
from Earth. The simple fact that we can see them tells us that the universe is
at least hundreds of millions of years old. Either the objects we see are that
far away, or God has deliberately
deceived us to make us think that they are.
(And yes, a really good telescope can see objects billions of light years away, but I was being conservative.)
“I was and I remain a convicted six-day creationist,
something that seems to increasingly be a minority position in the church. I do
not make belief in a six-day creation a necessary mark of orthodoxy or a
necessary mark of a Christian. But I do believe it is correct (I wouldn’t believe
it otherwise, would I?) and I do believe it matters. How and why it matters is
a topic for another day.”
All you need to do to
hold on to your belief is to dismiss all of the reliable evidence that modern
science has delivered to us.
Monday, June 10, 2013
"Aquaoir"? Really?
I'm sure that aging a wine under water will give it a different character than aging it in a cellar, but the descriptions in this article are typical of the kind of pretentiousness we've come to expect from "wine connoisseurs".
Of course, Mira Winery has invented the word "aquaoir" to describe flavor variations that occur during bottle aging, meaning that it really has nothing in common with "terroir" at all.
Sommelier Patrick Emerson produced some lovely nonsense after sampling some of the water-aged wine.
Ocean-aged wine is 'more complex' says Napa wineryYou know its pretentious when they make up a new word -- "aquaoir". That's a play on "terroir", which describes subtle differences in wine derived from the soil in which the grapes were grown. A zinfandel made from grapes grown in France, for instance, can be distinguished from a zinfandel made from California grapes, even if the wine-making process is otherwise the same.
Of course, Mira Winery has invented the word "aquaoir" to describe flavor variations that occur during bottle aging, meaning that it really has nothing in common with "terroir" at all.
Sommelier Patrick Emerson produced some lovely nonsense after sampling some of the water-aged wine.
‘I am quite surprised – shocked at how quickly these two wines have changed paths – something magical has happened with “aquaoir”. The signature difference might be in the riddling motion of the tides.’Mira winemaker Gustavo Gonzalez made the much humbler and more believable claim that...
‘It’s not better, it’s not worse and it is definitely different.’Unfortunately he followed that with wine mumbo-jumbo rivalling Emerson's.
‘The land wine is tighter versus aquaoir-aged wine, which is more complex and broad, more open and relaxed.’I love wine myself, and would love to do some taste-testing of water-aged versus cellar-aged wine, but wine descriptions tend to leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Internet "Censorship"
As I've occasionally mentioned in posts before, comments to the Saga are screened before they are published. Yes, I reserve the right to decide what appears on my blog.
I seldom refuse to publish a comment. If someone disagrees with me, I usually want their comments to be seen. Either they made a good point that I should address, or they helped me make mine through their absurdity. Most of the comments that I've refused to publish have just been spam.
But let's make no mistake: if I don't publish your comment, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech. Respecting your freedom of speech does not require me to let you stand on my soap box. You can start your own no-cost blog just as easily as I did. That's why I have multiple blog articles that respond to Allecto: I understand that she blocks critical comments and that she has every right to do so. I can be critical of her on my own blog.
This is not a response to any complaints about my actions: it's a general broadcast. I've seen people complain that so-and-so screens comments on their blog or doesn't allow comments on their YouTube videos or "unfriends" people on Facebook. So what? It's their blog, their channel, their Facebook account! They have no obligation to publish anyone else's opinion. If you want to say something, you can start your own blog or channel. Your freedom of expression is not infringed just because someone else doesn't give you free access to their media channel.
End of rant.
I seldom refuse to publish a comment. If someone disagrees with me, I usually want their comments to be seen. Either they made a good point that I should address, or they helped me make mine through their absurdity. Most of the comments that I've refused to publish have just been spam.
But let's make no mistake: if I don't publish your comment, I'm not infringing on your freedom of speech. Respecting your freedom of speech does not require me to let you stand on my soap box. You can start your own no-cost blog just as easily as I did. That's why I have multiple blog articles that respond to Allecto: I understand that she blocks critical comments and that she has every right to do so. I can be critical of her on my own blog.
This is not a response to any complaints about my actions: it's a general broadcast. I've seen people complain that so-and-so screens comments on their blog or doesn't allow comments on their YouTube videos or "unfriends" people on Facebook. So what? It's their blog, their channel, their Facebook account! They have no obligation to publish anyone else's opinion. If you want to say something, you can start your own blog or channel. Your freedom of expression is not infringed just because someone else doesn't give you free access to their media channel.
End of rant.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Firefly and Feminism: Reflection
The various articles I wrote about feminism and Firefly in response to Allecto's rants continue to be among the best hit-getters for the Saga. Consequently, I tend to reflect upon the topic when I see that new visitors have come to the blog to see one or more of those articles.
On one of these occasions, I considered one of Allecto's questions.
That's when it occurred to me that I've never seen a woman in the Alliance in a position of authority. Not on the core worlds, at least.
Out among the "border moons," there are women like Patience who have taken charge. Patience apparently runs the entire moon, but the Alliance really doesn't care what's happening on the more remote colonies. They certainly seem to have the means to assert their authority if they so desire, but the border colonies have small populations and negligible industrialization. They don't have anything to offer the Alliance, and they would expect a lot more support if the Alliance imposed a lot of restrictions. The Alliance apparently doesn't consider them worth the trouble, choosing to ignore them until they do have something of value.
Among the highly-developed core worlds, there are plenty of wealthy, well-educated women, but I can only think of one who was an authority figure of any kind. Inara entertained a female Councilor in "War Stories," and she's the only female politician, military leader, or business leader I can think of.
We certainly see women in working roles -- there were certainly female doctors and nurses in "Ariel" -- but not so much in leadership roles.
And when you get to the Alliance aristocracy, the only role available to women seems to be "trophy wife." Maybe Inara chose life as a Companion to becoming one man's "kept woman."
I don't know how that should be interpreted in the context of whether Firefly should be considered feminist or misogynist (the Alliance does tend to be villainous most of the time), but I hadn't really noticed it before.
On one of these occasions, I considered one of Allecto's questions.
The women who ‘choose’ to be ‘Companions’ are shown as being intelligent, accomplished, educated, well-respected and presumably from good families. If a woman had all of these qualities and opportunities then why the **** would she ‘choose’ to be a man’s **** toy?I wondered, why would Inara choose life as a Companion? What other opportunities would she have in Alliance society? Are they so limited that they make high-class prostitution look preferable?
That's when it occurred to me that I've never seen a woman in the Alliance in a position of authority. Not on the core worlds, at least.
Out among the "border moons," there are women like Patience who have taken charge. Patience apparently runs the entire moon, but the Alliance really doesn't care what's happening on the more remote colonies. They certainly seem to have the means to assert their authority if they so desire, but the border colonies have small populations and negligible industrialization. They don't have anything to offer the Alliance, and they would expect a lot more support if the Alliance imposed a lot of restrictions. The Alliance apparently doesn't consider them worth the trouble, choosing to ignore them until they do have something of value.
Among the highly-developed core worlds, there are plenty of wealthy, well-educated women, but I can only think of one who was an authority figure of any kind. Inara entertained a female Councilor in "War Stories," and she's the only female politician, military leader, or business leader I can think of.
We certainly see women in working roles -- there were certainly female doctors and nurses in "Ariel" -- but not so much in leadership roles.
And when you get to the Alliance aristocracy, the only role available to women seems to be "trophy wife." Maybe Inara chose life as a Companion to becoming one man's "kept woman."
I don't know how that should be interpreted in the context of whether Firefly should be considered feminist or misogynist (the Alliance does tend to be villainous most of the time), but I hadn't really noticed it before.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Fundamentalist Hurricane Exploitation
On September 7, Jim Ellif published an article in the Worldview Times titled “Do Hurricanes Just Happen?” I’ve seen a few links to this little jewel of fundamentalist ghoulishness lately. Yes, it’s time for a fundamentalist to exploit natural disasters.
So I bet you’ve gathered by now that this attitude toward natural disasters aggravates me. I think the following quote from the Babylon 5 episode “A Late Delivery from Avalon” sums up my attitude toward natural disasters.
God is at work doing His perfect will, even during hurricane season. These spinning engines of destruction originate from Him as Ruler (first cause), through nature (second cause), all for His purposes. Though God owes us no explanation, one or all of the following possible objectives may help us understand "why" God decrees such fear-producing events:The beauty of these “explanations”, of course, is that they provide an excuse for any horror visited upon anyone, meaning that they really explain nothing.
1. God is recognized as powerful and not to be trifled with. God often asserted that cataclysmic events were done to display His power to men. (Exodus 9:14-16; 14:31)I’d like to see ministers try to use this explanation with a grieving family. “You shouldn’t feel bad about your family member’s death. They died so God could show off.”
2. Society is warned of the greatest calamity, eternal judgment. A physical disaster is nothing compared with eternal damnation. A hurricane is an announcement: "If you don't repent, worse than this is coming." (Luke 13:1-5)Jim believes God uses hurricanes in much the same way that mundane tyrants use guns and artillery.
3. Some people are deservedly punished for their rebellion. The Bible states that "the wrath of God is revealed [lit. is being revealed] from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men . . ." (Romans 1:18). That means now. Hurricanes are just one of the ways that might happen. (Psalm 7:11-13)When God smites a massive geographical area, there may be someone in there who actually deserves it. Maybe.
4. Some true believers are tested or disciplined and made stronger in their faith. The same storm that judges a non-believing man may be the crucible of testing and/or chastisement for a true Christian, and will toughen and purify him for the future. (James 1:2-3; Hebrews 12:5-11)If God’s holy engine of destruction smashes through the homes of devout believers and crushes churches, it’s just a test of their faith.
5. Believers may be taken to heaven; and some enemies of God may be removed from the earth. This is a reality that is hard to accept, but nonetheless true. The Bible says that our days are ordained by God even before one of them is lived (Psalm 139:16). He also promises that many rebellious people will face a calamitous end. (Psalm 73:18-19)It really doesn’t matter who God kills with his storms, anyway. He brought you into this world; he can take you out at his whim.
6. The godly are given an opportunity to love sacrificially. Because of the nature of the true believer, you will always find Christians among those on the scene helping to relieve the distress. (1 John 3:17; Galatians 6:10) Their love may point many to Christ.And disasters always provide Christians an opportunity to look good. Pay no attention to those heathens and non-believers who are also doing their best to help out.
So I bet you’ve gathered by now that this attitude toward natural disasters aggravates me. I think the following quote from the Babylon 5 episode “A Late Delivery from Avalon” sums up my attitude toward natural disasters.
I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, 'wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them?' So now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
