PILUT wrote:
And to the intelligent one who reminded us that Bush didn't stop abortion and such - you need to learn your government. He can't just make an edict. But what Bush did do is not carry the issues to push them further. And he did come out against cloning, and embryonic stem cell research.
Some of you people are truly amazing!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
[URL=http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1784.cfm]]]The Electromagnetic Pulse Commission Warns of an Old Threat with a New Face[/URL].

Jonathan Edwards says, "O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder.." This is the fate of the unredeemed.

Neil wrote:
Hope,

The $50 question is, does the advertising actually change people, or is it merely manipulating those who are already given over to such idolatry?

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

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 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.

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.

Neil wrote:
No, I was sincerely proposing a plausible alternative. Cause & effect are difficult problems, as I find in my computer work. I have a CS degree, so I'm technically an amateur. No Q-ships here!

Neil wrote:
Enjoy your meal then; no rush!
But granting your example of sinful advertising, how does one determine that the effect upon its viewers is as mechanical as you imply? Is a man's sinfulness determined by his environment, as Pelagius implied?
Isn't it also possible that mass advertising succeeds because envy has been a common sin, so it would be an effect, not a cause?

However, just as the lottery, or pornography on the internet, or anything that appeals to the basest desires of human beings, much of advertising does this.

Man is no less sinful without advertising or internet use even, but the extent to which one can engage or does engage is widened.

Man's sinfulness is not caused by the advertising, but it does entice to the degree that absolute wickedness becomes pervasive in society and has an overall destructive effect.

Neil wrote:
Thanks for the clarification.
[rewritten again] Money is necessarily involved in economic exchange. E.g., is an ad campaign promoting price reductions etc. on cars a sign of "money is god" or not? How does one tell the difference?

No, a reduction in price advertised does not promote "money is god."

Let me try something else. An advertisement which says, "Only a select few will live at such and such a place," appeals to the wanting to be better than others. This, of course is sinful. Of course, this advertisement also means "expensive," and "expensive" means "money." You get the picture. So, when one lives at where the "select few" lives, then everyone knows and people see dollar signs - and, that is "success" in the world system.

Neil wrote:
Of course corporations are interested in profits; otherwise they couldn't exist! But at what point does interest in profits change from being healthy to sinful? Christians ought to be careful about generalizations w/o sufficient evidence,
And marketing is not in & of itself sinful just because it's abused; it does no good to have a product or service if one's neighbors don't know about it. appealing to sinful motives, but this is not a universal problem, nor is it restricted to Americans.
How does one determine whether money is a "god" to one nation, but not another?

I agree with most of your post. Corporations aren't sinful - individuals are.

Concerning a nation being ungodly. .again, individually we are accountable to God.

Neil wrote:
should one infer that a poor person or unprofitable company cannot be greedy? Is outward financial success a sufficient indicator of inward attitudes? who is greedy & who is not.
Coke has long celebrated Christ-mass (they popularized Santa's red suit), so should we think this Ramadan design indicates a significant spiritual turnaround - catching a perceived wave of formalist religion.

There is nothing wrong with being rich - though, there is a danger in "trusting in riches." "The love of money is the root of all evil."

A poor person can be just as greedy as the person who already has and is driven to get more and more.

Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor will not increase the standard of living for the poor one iota. This lie sells because we have fostered coveting through our mass media, and the left uses it to buy votes.