Coca-Cola plans to celebrate Ramadan this year by decorating cans with a crescent moon and star – a widely recognized Islamic symbol.
The moon and star can be found on at least 11 flags of Muslim countries, and now it will be featured on packaging in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Tunisia and other Islamic countries during the Sept. 1-30 Muslim holiday, blogger Bob McCartney reported.
Coca-Cola has hired a company named ATTIK to handle packaging, Brand Republic reports. Its Christmas cans are usually decorated with secular-themed images of Santa Claus, but McCartney asked the company whether it planned to introduce Christian symbols as well....
The song that I quoted in a previous post is so beautiful, that I'd like to post it in it's entirety. Great hymns of the past are great because of good Theology.
William Cowper, 1731-1800, wrote, "There is a Fountain" based on Zech. 13:1, "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanness."
"There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuel's veins, and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains."
"The dying thief rejoiced to see that fountain in his day, and there may I, though vile as he, wash all my sins away."
"Dear dying Lamb, Thy precious blood shall never lose its pow'r, till all the ransomed Church of God be saved to sin no more."
"E'er since by faith I saw the stream Thy flowing wounds supply, redeeming love has been my theme and shall be till I die."
"When this poor lisping, stamm'ring tongue lies silent in the grave, then in a nobler, sweeter song, I'll sing Thy pow'r to save."
hidemi williges wrote: Sears really did have everything to offer the homemaker.
Yeah, evidently, there was even a drug problem way back then. Mom's even drugged their babies to quiet them.
The curse of sin continues, but deliverance has been made available through the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross. His blood was shed for the remission of sins.
Neil wrote: The 1897 Sears Catalog offered opium along with many other patent & homeopathic medicines which today would either be banned, or require a prescription. BTW, it also had KJV Bibles & study aids.
Sears really did have everything to offer the homemaker.
It is the concentration of the additive that matters. I think the sweetener (now fructose) is much more likely to addict than the original cocaine.
Back when colas were invented, there was no FDA to declare cocaine or opium a narcotic. The 1897 Sears Catalog offered opium along with many other patent & homeopathic medicines which today would either be banned, or require a prescription.
hidemi williges wrote: Dr. Pemberton added Tincture of Cocaine
What are you doing worrying about a 2% contamination? 98% or more of the product is good stuff: same as a good cup of green tea. You old guys don't understand the need for Modern beverages. Young people try that old yucky green tea stuff and spit it out. They need the beverage for their generation: the real thing. And there is a good chance that tea originally had cocain in it, but lost that wonderful component. Probably had more caffein before the Flood, too. And maybe it was filled with sugar. That's it: the Sugar Cane/Coca plant/Tea bush were originally combined in the pre-Flood world, and Coke is just restoring it. Coke is just restoring what was lost from the beverage experience. or maybe not.
I'm astonished that nobody mentioned the fact that Dr. Pemberton added Tincture of Cocaine to the soft drink when he first invented and sold it publicly.
Marketing and retail psychology...the lowest depths of evil.
"It doesn't help to see them run roughshod over peasants."
That's what tort law is for. If a company causes material harm, sue them for restitution - std. Anglo-American (and Biblical) legal process. Of course, if the peasants can't make that happen, then they need to fix their legal system 1st.
Many countries have unbiblical (& therefore unjust) laws or legal systems, or else they are not upheld as written. E.g., in even France, considered a typical Western "free country" or "democracy," there's no such thing as Writ of Habeas Corpus. Frenchmen can get locked up indefinitely, w/o trial. Defendants are presumed guilty, not innocent, as in the UK & US.
Neil wrote: So should we really "[call] on the government to abandon its promotion of voluntary alternatives and support binding corporate regulation instead"? And should we approve of Prohibition-style food-and-beverage bans by universities et al., as if they were competent judges of what is good for people to eat?
NO.
You're right there.
But then again, at the individual level we can factor in the history of a company and decide if we want to buy their product for a multitude of reasons. your "nutritional disaster" being the first one for a food product!
It doesn't help to see them run roughshod over peasants.
And seeing them suck up to a bunch of moon-god worshippers will make their product taste even more bitter...
Besides an "amen" to you, Neil, it is interesting that, Coca-Cola was attacked in the past, that it's very script was somehow anti-Muslim this happened several years back in Egypt, but for a more modern listing of their problems on the Coca-Cola website, Middle East Rumors, However, Muhammadans have numerous nutty ideas that are the result of the inventor of their religion, and this is why there's an Inadequacy of Islam.
So should we really "[call] on the government to abandon its promotion of voluntary alternatives and support binding corporate regulation instead"? And should we approve of Prohibition-style food-and-beverage bans by universities et al., as if they were competent judges of what is good for people to eat?
This is the now century-old Progressive program - bureaucratic regulation of business for the "common good," instead of using tort law where necessary. It is also an avowed goal of Roman Catholic social teaching. I am astounded at how often I meet "conservatives" who approve of this.
Now I do believe that Coke is a nutritional disaster, but folks have a right to make foolish choices. Ironically, Coke was originally touted as a safe alternative to "likker," no doubt earning the approval of many Prohibitionists in the Bible Belt. Both Coke & Pepsi originated there. And General Eisenhower saw to it that US troops got plenty of it after Normandy, instead of French booze.
A sceptical attitude toward Coke's attempt to make themselves look magnanimous seems rational in light of the documented history of corporate pollution, and human right abuse. ?can Coca-Cola sustain A CLEAN IMAGE?dirty cans... Coke's accused of dehydrating local communities in its pursuit of water resources to feed its own plants, drying up farmers’ wells and destroying local agriculture.The company’s own workers have also suffered: workers in Coca-Cola and supplier plants have seen their rights violated in countries such as Colombia,Turkey, India, Turkey, Pakistan,Guatemala and Russia. killer Coke
I don't think there was any call for a more planned economy. Our exchange was over cause & effect in marketing. The best answer to Islam is not outrage, but learning of its doctrinal & textual errors (which are legion) so they can be refuted.
Hope, I wish I had taken Formal Logic as you did, but no one required or even suggested I do so; I had to learn that on my own only recently. I did take Digital Logic & enjoyed it immensely, but it is useless in this venue. Your remark on James 1:14 was excellent.
Some economist historians have argued that Progressive attempts to "clean up" capitalism a century ago actually aided the monopolies they sought to contain. However this may be, I do think that a regulatory regime (OSHA, EEOC, EPA, etc.) is easier for a high-overhead conglomerate to absorb than a small business. And the Minimum Wage (a form of price control) is esp. wicked; it almost guarantees unemployment of the inexperienced (e.g. teenagers) or otherwise unskilled. Gov't is incompetent to decide by fiat what a just wage is; only the parties involved can answer that. Even a $3/hr job is better than none, & not just for economic reasons. One of my first jobs was sweeping up at a garage, hardly worthy of min. wage.
I see that my comment about the love of profit diverted the intent of the article (which being from WND) was obviously meant to generate anti-Islamic spleen venting) into a defense of the American Free Market. To the editors of WND I apologize. Try again to flame up righteous indignation at perceived cowtowing to Islamic extremists. I'll refrain from commenting lest you suffer more frustration.
The $50 question is, does the advertising actually change people, or is it merely manipulating those who are already given over to such idolatry?
Neil,
I've been reading your other posts, and you have well-thought out posts on almost every subject. You have a wealth of knowledge, and I am no match for you in discussion.
Having said that, I especially appreciate your logic in your posts. My favorite class in college was a logic class. What I learned in that class benefits me today.
One Scripture that God used profoundly in my life to humble me was "Come, let us reason together says the Lord, though your sins be as scarlet they shall be as white as snow, though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isaiah 1:18 The emphasis on " come and reason" still brings me to tears when I consider the Omniscient God would say that to a human being.
Now as to your $50 question - your point is well made. "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust." James 1:14
I agree that a Christian ought to master the flesh such that "psychological warfare" tactics (which I concede does show up in advertising) will have little or no effect. Since we know the natural man is an idolator, it is no surprise that, for example, many marketers pump "brand identity" & try to manipulate customers thereby. Perhaps I should've addressed this earlier.
But on the more benign side, Thomas Sowell points out that brands serve a useful purpose when they have a consistent reputation for quality; Standard Oil was successful in part because John D. Rockefeller (a Modernist Baptist, BTW) emphasized quality in his lamp oil so that customers would trust his product (lamps would do bad things with inferior oils). So brands can serve a good purpose, up to a point; customers can save trouble by not constantly experimenting with unknown marques.
BTW, the petrol. industry helped "save the whales," because it replaced whale oil for fuel.
The $50 question is, does the advertising actually change people, or is it merely manipulating those who are already given over to such idolatry?
Neil wrote: I believe the question of whether man is affected by environment or his "genes" or predisposition is utterly impossible to resolve by experiment. Maybe bad ads influence some people but not others. Cause & effect are difficult problems,
I'm back, and if you are still posting, I would like to respond further re: the above post.
I would say the effect depends on the worldview through which one filters the ad. So, as a Christian, I am offended by ads that may be enticing to others. For example, the glitz of the world may be appealing to an impressionable young person, but not to one trained in righteousness.
"The power of sin has been broken" in the Believer, and the Holy Spirit convicts, and we also know the word of God, so we have a defense system that the world does not have.
However, I am obviously influenced by ads and packaging, because I will choose "Morton Salt" over the store brand because of the label - salt is salt, right?
So, advertising creates familiarity, and in the case of bad ads, may desensitize a person to the products effects.
Well, just sharing my thoughts - sounds like you have thought through this and have given me questions to sharpen my thinking. Thank you.
That is an admirable reply; grace & peace to you, then, & may your potatoes turn out well. I hope I did not offend in anything. "Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." - 1 Thess 5:21
Neil wrote: Sorry; I'm a history buff. Q-ships were merchant vessels with concealed guns that would be turned on attacking submarines that surfaced nearby. The British initiated this in WW1.
Thanks for that explanation, and while I am baking potatoes, I have had time to reconsider my previous post to you re: cause and effect
I'll take it up later, but thank you for making me think this through a little more.
There are a total of 33 user comments displayed | add new comment |
SermonAudio.com is not an association, organization, or denomination. Ecclesiastical fellowship is not necessarily implied by becoming a broadcaster. SermonAudio.com is a privately-owned and operated site that seeks to promote the " Fundamentals of the Faith." Articles of Faith | About Us
Dr. David P Murray | 11/12/2006
|
