Technology???

[Fadingman]

I agree: technology is neither good nor bad. It is what we do with it that is good or bad.

Money is not evil, but the love of money is. Alcohol is not evil, but drunkenness is. And what may be perfectly all right to do yourself may be evil if it creates a stumbling block to sin for someone else.

Even good things that God created can be used for evil. The Bible is good, but many times it is misused, even by Satan (Matthew 4:1-11). The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was good, but disobeying God by eating of its fruit was not.

Things are not evil, but what we do with those things can be.

 

[no_one]

But you are confusing putting the flesh under with using our God given talent / brains to the maximum.

But does technology mean we’re using our brains to the maximum?

In other words: must brain activity have a concrete, tangible, result in the material world? Is that even implied?

Einstein served the devil with the A -bomb

Actually, Einstein had very, very little to do with the atomic weapons. And his truly minor scientific consulting is belittled by his political (or rather strategic) letter to POTUS. Moreover, that letter was mainly Szilard’s action, not Einstein’s.

but imagine the contribution his mind could have made to the needy.

I would have to disagree yet again. Einstein had very little to do with anything practical. Even to this day.

But if you like Einstein so much and since this is a thread about technology, think about this: E=mc squared.

If that is true, then that equation showed clearly how little has mankind progressed compared to its own theories. Because that equation says that all that mankind had to use to cover all of its energetic needs for its entire history was barely a few trees. Instead, how many resources has mankind consumed? Trees, oil, and so many other things. And so much of them.

The alternative, ironically, is to drop Einstein. But trust me, you wouldn’t lose anything valuable.

Look closely at African tribes. They have been superstitious / primitive since they first arrived. Demons / devil / witch-doctors have kept them down.

I agree.

God lifts us up and sets us free. Look at the USA

I agree that USA was mostly founded by Christians and based on Christian principles (I say mostly because that’s not the whole story).

Ironically, it was those principles that even led to and produced the industrial revolution that put the US in the frontrunner position.

But in the end, US has somehow turned from being a Christian country to an anti-Christian country. One of the major jewels of satan’s worldly crown, I guess.

And I think that technology has played a huge role in that. I mean, where to find God if all that we’re doing is keeping our eyes into digital screens all day long? Talking about all the little things of the world?

 

[no_one]

Yeah...um....saying "the more Christian one is, the less he or she would deal with technology" doesn't help at all when working with youth.
As a group, they already see Christianity as old-fashioned, anti-science, and irrelevant to their modern lives. The above only furthers those misconceptions.

I agree - and I have to look no further then my 15 year old son.

However, that doesn’t mean that what I said isn’t true.

 

[no_one]

Coincidence does not imply causality.

Sorry, but I would have to disagree. If we always call it coincidence, then there will be nothing left to talk about. Regardless, as you can see below (I took the time to look into that) this time it’s not a coincidence.

I found the Biblical verse talking about that:
Daniel 12:4 – “the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased”

Indeed travel, even global travel, has increased like no other time in history. Also, knowledge (and I talk here about the actual knowledge, not theoretical constructs such as evolution). Indeed, there’s an exponential increase in knowledge.

As Chuck Missler put it:
In the time of Abraham they traveled at the speed of the horse, they communicated through hand-written messages, and they had an agrarian economy. Millennia later, in the time of George Washington, they still traveled at the speed of the horse, they communicated through hand-written messages, and they had an agrarian economy.
But only a few centuries after that, we communicate at the speed of light, travel at the speed of sound, and have synthetic fabrics (and so many other things).

Through internet (or cell phones or TV) now we know in seconds what happens in the other parts of the world. Which is required for the entire world to see God’s two prophets lying dead.

 

[RiverJordan]

So how are we defining "technology", and how do we decide where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable? Right now, "technology" to us means smart phones, tablets, and 1,000 channels of HDTV. Fifty years ago "technology" was 3 channels of color TV and transistor radios. One hundred years earlier it was steam engines and electricity.

Are we all supposed to live Amish? If so, what the heck are you all doing on this forum?!

 

[Panda]

Ok, I'll rephrase. Because two things happen to occur in similar time periods, does not imply that one causes another.

Knowledge will increase as the end times draw near by the definition of "time". Knowledge has increased from the day the world was created until the present time, with only war to account for any loss or decrease in knowledge.

If you believe technology is evil, then are you not using evil by being on the internet? Not picking on you here, but it seems that there are a LOT of people on the Internet talking about how evil the Internet is and how we should all get rid of our technology.

 

[Fadingman]

The way I see it, technology merely amplifies human power, like a lever. Whatever we can do, technology makes us able to do it faster, cheaper, more efficiently, more powerfully, and so forth (at least in theory). If it is used for good, technology amplifies the good (think Gutenberg printing many Bibles in a much shorter amount of time than could be written by hand). If used for evil, technology amplifies the evil (think terrorists flying planes into buildings).

This power amplifying principle also applies to all primitive technologies such as the lever and the wheel. I think it's futile to try to find a dividing line between 'good' and 'bad' technology.

There a familiar saying that says, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." This is not 100% accurate. God wields absolute power, but it hasn't corrupted Him in the slightest degree. Power only corrupts when it is exercised by the corrupt. It magnifies the corruption that is already in the person. For this reason, since we're all sinners, it is very important to always do everything (including using technology) for the glory of God rather than for selfish purposes (1 Corinthians 10:31).

 

[no_one]

Are we all supposed to live Amish?

No, not you. Not me also. But I would expect Christians closer to God to do just that. The closer to God, the lesser technology they would use.

That was my claim even the first time, so I really don’t know why I have to correct you.

And no, I wouldn’t expect that because I think technology is evil. I would expect them to drop technology simply because they wouldn’t need it (although I think they would refuse to use much of technology due to bad content unavoidably associated with some applications of technology, such as mass media).

And yes, I do know what I’m talking about. For example, I, as a Protestant, have read some Orthodox books (reports about some monks) that made me say ‘wow!’ for many, really many times (stopping a thunderstorm, or bringing rain during drought was among the little miracles that God has done for them). And none of those people had (close to or literally) any technology. I also read some Catholic books in that regard, although I can’t remember those titles - it was more than a decade ago.

And yes, I believe them, but not because I have faith (woe to me!). Instead, because I have seen miracles with my own eyes. So it’s because I don’t have faith.

I also know personally at least a few Protestants that have had their share of miracles.

And I can always bring the case of my wife: she walks with God and God walks with her. And she uses very little technology. Most of it for cooking, reading Christian books (exclusively), or transportation. For example, she doesn’t watch TV, or use computers, or even listen to music. She doesn’t need to. She’s with God - literally. It’s a fulfillment beyond imagination. I really can’t describe that, even as external witness. You’d have to find such people yourself to understand. I don’t think she’s ever been into a restaurant, even before God started to walk with her. To suggest to such people to read the newspaper would mean to kill their soul. Yes, a newspaper. Even that is a difference between the world and a true Christian - a person that God finds pleasure in walking with. Now, you can imagine the difference between reading a newspaper and doing all sorts of sins…

That’s what happens when you really get close to God: even small, ridiculously small things such as reading a newspaper, become huge sins.

(If you have problems with that term, “sins”, then instead read: cause for separation between you and God.)

 

[no_one]

If you believe technology is evil

I don’t. See above.

 

[RiverJordan]

No one,

So do you believe that the more technology one uses, the further away from God that person is?

 

[aha]

Peacefulness, silence, praying,

Must be the reason why I think old people/ retirees want to stay long, visit the church everyday...

One wants to be closer to the one you love….in silence, praying…

 

[dUmPsTeR]

Just about done with grad school. At my church, I work a lot with middle and high school youth, and this "go Amish or you're not Christian" thing....well, just doesn't resonate with kids today.

Part of my premise in starting this thread was- we live in a push button age. People are used to instant results at a push of a button. And I don't know about you, but sometimes if I push a button or 'click' something and it doesn't respond like I'm thinking it should, once in a while I will get irritated. So in essence of an expectation that brings about anger. Would you say this is of God, or satan, or what?

As for youth thinking Christianity is taking them away from science- I would look at what is taught in school. Widely taught is evolution, a theory, an unproven mans idea that this man, Darwin, even questioned himself. But it's taught as if it were a Law.

Now I don't have a problem with science. I love how it shows the incredible things God has done with creation. Like for example the immense complexity of the human eye. And from what I understand, more and more scientist are starting to believe in intelligent design. That so much is involved in everything created, that something, or someone had to be behind it all.

The internet- I am very, very careful where I go, as I'm sure most of you are too. But even being careful, mistakes can be made in navigation, and by the younger generation. And I have a problem with that because it might be taking us to a place that would definitely not be neutral or of good content and thus distracting us from focus in the right direction.

But I love how much it helps with bible study. The net and software have unlocked answers from the bible quickly, that was almost unattainable before.

I try not to be cliché, but it's like a catch 22....I dunno?

 

[jonbanjo]

People are used to instant results at a push of a button. And I don't know about you, but sometimes if I push a button or 'click' something and it doesn't respond like I'm thinking it should, once in a while I will get irritated. So in essence of an expectation that brings about anger. Would you say this is of God, or satan, or what?

I think some of it could just be put down to human nature and I think there can be a bit of psychology involved. Take a progress bar for example. It does nothing to speed a particular task up but displaying one and allowing users to see something is happening rather than leaving them guessing could make a difference to their perception of the application's responsiveness and to their level of contentedness/frustration.

 

[RiverJordan]

Part of my premise in starting this thread was- we live in a push button age. People are used to instant results at a push of a button. And I don't know about you, but sometimes if I push a button or 'click' something and it doesn't respond like I'm thinking it should, once in a while I will get irritated. So in essence of an expectation that brings about anger. Would you say this is of God, or satan, or what?

Being upset at unmet expectations is hardly anything new, or anything that stems from recent technology. In a way, the story of Cain and Abel centers on unmet expectations. That's just human nature.

As for youth thinking Christianity is taking them away from science- I would look at what is taught in school. Widely taught is evolution, a theory, an unproven mans idea that this man, Darwin, even questioned himself. But it's taught as if it were a Law.

I'm at a university in a biology program, and evolution is not "taught as a Law". I don't know where you're getting that information from, but they're not telling you the truth.

Evolution is taught as a fact because it is. We see it happen all the time, right in front of us. I have no idea why anyone would demand that one must reject observable reality to be a Christian.

Now I don't have a problem with science. I love how it shows the incredible things God has done with creation. Like for example the immense complexity of the human eye. And from what I understand, more and more scientist are starting to believe in intelligent design. That so much is involved in everything created, that something, or someone had to be behind it all.

I agree that the study of science is a means of revealing the wonders of God's creation. It's the reason I got into the field in the first place.

But "intelligent design" is not becoming more popular. It was a term that young-earth creationists came up with when the federal courts ruled against teaching Biblical creationism in public school science classes. They figured they would just keep the same arguments, but strip out all the overt Biblical stuff and sneak it in that way. But the scientists and courts saw through that pretty quickly and now, "intelligent design" is basically dead.

The internet- I am very, very careful where I go, as I'm sure most of you are too. But even being careful, mistakes can be made in navigation, and by the younger generation. And I have a problem with that because it might be taking us to a place that would definitely not be neutral or of good content and thus distracting us from focus in the right direction.

But I love how much it helps with bible study. The net and software have unlocked answers from the bible quickly, that was almost unattainable before.

I try not to be cliché, but it's like a catch 22....I dunno?

As others said, it's a tool and like any other tool, it all comes down to how you use it.

 

[no_one]

Evolution is taught as a fact because it is. We see it happen all the time, right in front of us.

I tried to patiently ignore this statement of yours, but you said it one more time (and in several threads) than I could actually tolerate.

I think you’re the only evolutionist in the world claiming that can see evolution. For all the others, evolution is instead inferred.

You must be confused between the terms. There is microevolution, what we YECs call adaptation and the capability to produce varieties. This is not contested by anyone.

And there is macroevolution – which is actually what anyone (except you, apparently) means by evolution.

But if you say you can see macroevolution, then show it to me. Not one million such instances, not 10, but just one. Yes, a single case of macroevolution. You shouldn’t have any problems, since you claim “we see it”. Let me see it too.

So show me corn turning into something that isn’t corn. Or dogs producing something that isn’t a dog. Looking forward.

Oh and make sure you’re not showing me microevolution. Also make sure you’re not making any assumption. You said we could see it, so let’s see it.

I have no idea why anyone would demand that one must reject observable reality to be a Christian.

That “observable reality” is only observable by evolutionists. Does this help?

I think you’re confusing observable reality with human theories about that observable reality. For example, Grand Canyon is indeed an observable reality. How it got there, however, is not part of observable reality, and that’s the reason for being debated.

 

[RiverJordan]

You must be confused between the terms. There is microevolution, what we YECs call adaptation and the capability to produce varieties. This is not contested by anyone.

"Microevolution", evolution below the species level, is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.

And there is macroevolution – which is actually what anyone (except you, apparently) means by evolution.

But if you say you can see macroevolution, then show it to me. Not one million such instances, not 10, but just one. Yes, a single case of macroevolution. You shouldn’t have any problems, since you claim “we see it”. Let me see it too.

"Macroevolution", evolution above the species level, is also evolution and has also been directly observed.

Finches

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/12/0911761106

Fruit flies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2332612&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14519211&dopt=Abstract

Whiptail lizards (in the lab)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/03/1102811108.short?rss=1

Cichlids

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11918795&dopt=Abstract

Cicadas

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11005298&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11165695&dopt=Abstract

Yeast

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12459586&dopt=Abstract

Bacteria

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10752687&dopt=Abstract

Goatsbeard

http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/7/1022

Sparrows

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05183.x/abstract

Apple maggot fly (in the process)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=12663534&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/suppl_1/6573

More examples

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php?title=No_new_species_have_been_observed&redirect=no

Hybrid speciation (blog entry with lots of links)

http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/12/hybrid_speciation_strikes_agai.php

South Atlantic Island Finches

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/315/5817/1420

So show me corn turning into something that isn’t corn. Or dogs producing something that isn’t a dog. Looking forward.

Yeah, that' likely the problem here. You don't know the basics of evolutionary biology. A dog producing a non-dog isn't evolution. That would be a miracle.

That “observable reality” is only observable by evolutionists. Does this help?

Is this where you start invoking conspiracy theories to explain why reality isn't what you need it to be?

I think you’re confusing observable reality with human theories about that observable reality. For example, Grand Canyon is indeed an observable reality. How it got there, however, is not part of observable reality, and that’s the reason for being debated.

Right. But when we see existing species evolving into brand new species right in front of us, "species arise via evolution" becomes reality.

 

[no_one]

River, I think I asked for one example. So don’t show me ten examples, or more.

Show me only one. And make sure it’s one by which your belief in evolution stands or falls - otherwise I won’t even look into it.

 

[RiverJordan]

LOL!!!

Here's one of my favorites, since I've seen it first-hand.

http://www.amjbot.org/content/91/7/1022.abstract

I know that's a bit technical, so let me boil it down for you. When two separate species of Goatsbeard overlap in their range, they produce a hybrid species that is unable to interbreed with either of its parent species, but is able to continually reproduce its own species. Plus, the new species is more robust and hardy than either of the parents.

 

[no_one]

"Microevolution", evolution below the species level, is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.

I used that term so that you (or other evolutionists) would understand. I obviously don’t agree with the term.

You don't know the basics of evolutionary biology. A dog producing a non-dog isn't evolution. That would be a miracle.

Now this is truly funny. Because evolution, at the core, postulates a common ancestor for all life.

Is this where you start invoking conspiracy theories to explain why reality isn't what you need it to be?

OK, let’s not dance around anymore: whose world is this? And try to answer in only one or two words. You shouldn’t need more, if you actually read the Bible.

But when we see existing species evolving into brand new species right in front of us, "species arise via evolution" becomes reality.

1. how long it takes for that new “species” to “arise”?
2. couldn’t it be that you purposefully define the result as a new species in order to show that as evidence of evolution?

 

[no_one]

When two separate species of Goatsbeard overlap in their range, they produce a hybrid species that is unable to interbreed with either of its parent species, but is able to continually reproduce its own species. Plus, the new species is more robust and hardy than either of the parents.

There you are, not showing evolution: you started with Goatsbeard and ended up with Goatsbeard. So where exactly is the evolution?

Ah, that you prefer to call the result a different species … well, you certainly would, because otherwise there would be no evidence for evolution, would there?