I have complained a lot about Pastor Disasters, but ethically challenged or clueless laymen are also part of the problem. Despite being immersed in Scripture, in my experience, they have little notion of integrity, nor empathy with people who are wronged, esp. by church leaders whom they sinfully idolize & protect at all costs.
So I think the failure of the organized church is part of a general collapse of our civilization, summarized well in this essay: www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=226
Lighten up, as Thomas the Doubter irenically said, since for the life of me, I cannot figure out what that corporation has to do with pasteurization or raw milk. They do produce Bovine Somatotropin, a growth hormone which is controversial, but it's a separate issue since it has nothing to do with how milk is treated before shipping.
Monsanto is famous (or notorious) for other things like Roundup & GM seeds, which are off-topic here. They have an exhibit at Epcot Center.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I think I've shown, Neil, the Chinese to have tight targeting circles. Do I know if they were in a few feet where they wanted to go? No. But then you don't know if they weren't.
Jim, we're both speculating here of course, but yours is that of a total piker (having no real technical specifics to offer as evidence). You simply don't know what you're talking about â€“ the Chinese aren't stupid & don't need espionage (per Cox Report allegations) to figure out how to do what the Russians did 40+ yrs. ago. Furthermore, publicly-available technology has progressed greatly since then; in fact I wonder why the Chinese didn't do this sooner.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The Chinese has very good accuracy in their missiles when they decide to use it.
How do you know? Are you an expert on the Long March 3B & how it is used on the Chang'e program? And consider this: engineers tend to avoid using more technology than they need for the purpose. It's more expensive, for one thing, & when highly classified, creates Need to Know issues.
But keep trying to dig yourself out of the hole you created, it's fun to see.
"China's first moon rover has touched the lunar surface and left deep traces on its loose soil."
Yes, rovers *do* tend to do that on unpaved surfaces.
The Soviets drove their Lunokhod 1 rover onto the Moon in 1970. So why would the Chinese need 1990s missile technology to do the same thing this year?
Getting a spacecraft to land within a couple miles of a desired landing point on the Moon is nothing compared to getting a CEP (Circular Error Probable) of a 100m or so on the Earth using a nuclear warhead. This is why much NASA stuff is unclassified.
Mike wrote: He gets charged with attempting to use a wmd, but it was never a real bomb, because the FBI planned the outcome from the start. Is this something new, where a dummy device can be redefined as a wmd? Oh, it's so confusing.
I suppose intent is the legal point, like brandishing a toy gun in a bank. By letting the idiot follow through with his plot, it's probably an easier case to prosecute.
On the flip side, does Allah give partial credit for *intending* to kill infidels?
I recall the Peanuts character Linus saying, "It doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you're sincere." Perhaps Charles Schultz read Kierkegaard.
OK, so I'll avoid raw milk from Minnesota. Maybe it's all those Norwegian Bachelor Farmers.
I remember stopping by a dairy while vacationing in PA. The cows were lying down in their filth. But that's OK, you see, because they pasteurize the milk there anyway. By contrast, conditions were much better at a raw milk dairy in AZ.
Raw vegetables have been known to harbor harmful bacteria as well. But how does one inspect sanitary conditions on vegetable farms?
Mike wrote: If Australia buys something it doesn't want, it's Australia's fault, not the seller's. We have the problem of no personal responsibility here as well.
Good point, though by his standards, he should blame Ireland instead, for historians say they were largely responsible for popularizing that holiday here in the 1st place, after mass immigration due to the Potato Famine. Before then, Americans assumed an Irish person was from Ulster.
One would think Irish convicts transported to Australia may have started it there sooner. They imagined they were transported Down Under because they were Irish, but they were usually wrong. Many also thought they could escape to China by land, but of course they were wrong about that, too. Source: â€śThe Fatal Shoreâ€ť by Robert Hughes
BTW, America is to blame for the founding of Australia. Britain lost her New World dumping-ground for convicts & needed a new one, which James Cook conveniently discovered.
Indeed, for thoughtful atheists, ethics become a Blind Alley, for they have no basis for universal imperatives (â€śthou shalt/shalt notâ€ť). They often wind up arguing, what is right for Bushmen is not necessarily right for Englishmen.
This does not mean that atheists will be consistently & completely wicked, for like many non-atheists, they cannot (for various reasons) totally adhere to their declared principles. The more ruthless ones like Stalin or Pol Pot come closer, murdering even their allies.
Will wrote: â€¦ we can see a pattern of correlation amongst many individuals that would suggest causation or at least the rational grounds of causation.
That does not answer how the ground of causation is rationally (logically) determined. This is especially difficult in psychology, let alone the physical sciences (hindered by experimental error), because when researchers interview subjects, they cannot know whether they are lying unless they can confirm from other sources, not always possible. For people deceive even themselves, as well as others.
In addition, it is hard to escape the fallacy of Hasty Generalization (Induction). Even if cause could be determined for *some* subjects, that does not imply it is true for all.
If you think I"m overstating matters, Bertrand Russell admitted that induction & causation in general are unsolved problems in â€śIs Science Superstitious?â€ť Yet to my amazement, few Christians I've met recognize the implications of this.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Neil, thanks for your response. Things change with time as we find more efficient ways of doing things. You won't find a Biblical warrant for driving to work, but it is a more efficient use of your time.
You are totally misunderstanding me. The Apostles, being the foundation of the church, set the precedent for how the NT church is organized & run, but since we aren't Apostles, we are not at liberty to add to what they established & do any crazy thing we like in the name of expedience. This is called the Regulative Principle of Worship; look it up.
Since I believe the Bible establishes the autonomy of the local church, it follows that there is no place for denominational entities like seminaries.
And I am not speaking of weekly adiaphorĂ¦. Why must I point this out?
mourner wrote: No, nor did I say anything like that, but he and his brethren were bringing a nation out of serious error and reforming doctrine, worship, discipline and government according to the Scripture and it was not done in a corner.
You didn't "say anything like that," yet you brought him up just the same. What else am I supposed to conclude? Perhaps you're trying to have it both ways.
I do not see how Scottish history is relevant to any discussion about what is answerable to Scripture. For that is an era not discussed in the Biblical canon. Secular history, like science, is always tentative & subject to revision.
Example of how Christian zeal for healthy eating isn't new. Suppress "unhealthy carnal urges" with bland food. Maybe this is what the dissolute French really need: more Kellogg breakfast cereal & less haute cuisine.
Kellogg sure did a number on England, weaning them off porridge.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Neil, just wondering, what Biblical warrant do you use for posting in this forum?
I'll indulge you even though I suspect your question is gratuitous: â€śBut exhort one another daily, while it is called Today; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.â€ť â€” Hebrews 3:13