Outback Soapbox - Have your say
What makes you happy, sad or mad?
Share it with us
What makes you happy, sad or mad?
Share it with us
(Home) (Outback kitchen) (outback Kids) (Outback_Christians) (Quorn) (Australian Animals) (Port Augusta)
| Cursing Creation? |
I am wondering of late if some of our scientists are bringing a curse on creation itself. I am not talking about 'witchcraft' type curses here but a curse none- the-less as they change the very DNA structure of created things. As a Christian I believe the Earth, even the Universe was created to a plan. This plan has rules, order and structure. Nature has properties set in place to sustain life. Gravity, magnetism, precipitation, transpiration etc. Each living thing has a code that determines its structure, its form and its function. For thousands of years these things have been able to run their course each replicating "after its own kind". In fact in Genesis we find the "law of reproduction" where each brings forth its own kind. This is why hybrids cannot breed, there was a code in the DNA that prevented the cross between the different Genus. Sure people over the centuries have "cross-bred" species but they are still "of the same kind" and so no natural law is broken. Now however we find scientists are being given increasingly free reign to cross anything they like. Animal and human genes into plants, human genes into animals and animal genes into humans. The distinction between one species and another are being blown away. Continued below.... |
| Tolerance and our Multicultural society in the West. Does it really exist? |
| Tolerance is a great thing it enables people with different points of view to co-exist peacefully. I am all for tolerance that respects the right for each individual to express their views and live them out as long as it causes no harm to others. Obviously tolerance needs some boundaries, because not all points of view are harmless. Take for example the opinion that it is Ok to take someone elses possessions that they have worked hard for. We don't accept theft because we know it is not right. However I am questioning the boundaries that our pollitically correct society is now starting to errect around "modern tollerance". I am increasingly becoming concerned that they are turning "tolerance" into "intolerance" by supporting special minority groups agendas at the expense of others. How is this so? Well a good example is the current situation we have existing between the homosexual and heterosexual sectors of our community. To balance injustices of the past special predominance has been given to increase the right of the "gay community". While this may have been necessary to make sure they are no longer discriminated against as human beings, it now appears that anyone not in this community is loosing their rights to freedom of speach and freedom to support their different way of life. This is accomplished by using very emotional rhetoric against people who do not have homosexual tendacies. Anything which upsets the "gay community" is now being instantly branded as "hate speach" or an action leading to "hate". I feel this is very judgemental and narrow minded. Another example may be found in some Hindu or Muslim countries where they make it against the law to hold another faith view or to share an opposing faith view.. There is not much tolerance in this, but then they don't make claims to have a diverse multicultural country. They don't fall in the category of hypocracy because they are at least being honest in their stance and even if I don't agree with what they are doing I can admire conviction of belief. ...however in the West we pride ourselves on being tolerant and multicultural, yet we are increasingly failing to achieve this... People who believe in real tolerance and peace know it is possible to agree to disagree, but the immature individual who rushes to be "offended" lacks the ability to hold this wisdom. In America there is a case before the courts in which a group of Christians sought to use the same public bulletin board to promote their group. Their group was aimed at supporing people who have traditional family values and who believe that the current state laws that state "marriage is between a man and a women" are to be valued, explored and promoted. There was nothing on the bulletin that discredited people of other "views". They just stated their beliefs and goals of their group. see <http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon176.htm> by Christian Ryter Someone read it and got "offended". They took it to court and it was labelled as hate speach even though it is in line with the laws of their land. Now if that is how the law courts wish to view it, well so be it. However the same view in my opinion should be then used to jurisdict all groups who wish to promote their group activities in the public sector. This unfortunately is not the case because the "gay community" can, did and will continue to put up their advertising for everyone to come and support their rallies and events. Where is the equity, the equality and the tolerance in this court action. No crimes where commited after the posting of the adverts, no violence, no homophobic activity was recorded. The only thing that happened is that someone chose to be offended because someone had a view opposite to theirs. How often do you hear at the Footy boos and hisses when the Umpire reports one player for 'push in the back' and then 10 seconds later lets the opposition get away with it. We all acknowledge the need for consistancy, we all want a fair and level playing field in sport and in life.....Isn't that why we supported the rights of the gay community to not be made criminals for thier lifestyle. However things have now gone way beyond making them equal..... You see just as being tolerant is a choice so to is being offended. I can choose to let your view upset me or offend me or I can choose to agree to disagree. It's up to me. For example when I worked in the Wineries I would often have to visit maintenance who are well know for their "nude callendars" on their walls. It makes me feel uncomfortable to view this. However it is not up to me to tell them what to display. I would choose each time I went there not to be offended. I chose also not to look at them and not to have to stand next to them, but I never made them pay, or made management remove them to satisfy me. That is because I am tolerant, even though I think pornography is sick and wrong I don't make them pay, I however never let them put one up in my office because that is my "space". I would at the same time support any one of my staff in allowing them to not have to go to maintenance if they found the callanders too confronting, because I would not expect everyone to hold the same position as me. This is maturity and tolerance at work to maintian peace in a diverse workplace. I can also continue to choose what I am going to do about my "offended sensibilities". I can choose to extend to you your right to hold an opposite and percieved offensive view or I can choose to make you pay. Tolerance, real tolerance dedicated to real peace in society does not choose to make people pay a heavy penalty for a stated moral stance. (It does become a different situation where violence and continued persecution prevail, however that is not the case here. We are only talking about the right to hold and express our own "moral world views".) Increasingly we will find that true tolerance will dissappear due to "politically correct thinking" and the immature wailings of minority groups that really don't just want equality, they want it all. They want their way over and above your way. They don't want you to tolerate them at all they want you to be like them. Well we are not a homogenous monoculture. We are diverse by nature and it is time we grew up and spent more energy respecting the diversity that we currently spend on choosing to be "offended". As long as any minority group is intent in redefining the boundaries of someones elses domain they are not looking for equal rights they are persuing making their way right at the expense of someone else. Surley we are all 'big enough' to make room without stealing someone elses room? God extends the right to everybody to choose Him or deny Him. He allows you the choice, and he shows you the consequenses of your choices, but He never forces you to do either. Shouldn't we follow suit. Let the "gay community" have their lifestyle whether we like it or not, but at the same time they should let us have ours, along with the right to freedom of expression of what we are for. Let the centuries old definition of marriage stand, let us have our moral view. Let them invent their own words to describe their moral view. Then everyone has equality. Sad to say however I don't for a minute believe that the same tolerance will be extended back to me, because I belong to the one group that minority groups can be intolerant to. I am a member of the heterosexual Christian worldview and there are no laws that protect my right to have this view on a public platform such as the internet and I just wonder how long it will take for someone to choose to be offended by my view and make me pay. Posted June 21st 2007 how many days until you label me???????J. Hancock |
Not everyone is convinced that carbon emissions is the cause of global warming it seems. The Lavoisier group of scientists held a conference in Melbourne on June 29th and 30th. The topic "Carbon dioxide and its lack of influence in global warming". Some of the scientists involved were Will Alexander - Prof. Emeritus of Dept. Civil and Biosystems Engineering of the University of Pretoria. David Archibald - Perth based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, climate science and exploration. Prof. Bob Carter - a research Professor at James Cook Universtiy (Qld.). Tim Curtin - a member of the Emeritus Faculty of the Australian National University and William Kininmonth - a consulting climatologist who worked with the Aust. Bureau of Meterology for 38 years in weather forecasting, for 12 years he was head of the National Climate Centre. Their conclusion is said to be that other factors are causing global warming and the trading of carbon will be an expensive waste of time which wont fix the problem because it is not causing it. Information found Stock journal care of Leon Ashby - chairman of Landholders Institute Mount Gambier. |
The Australian -online August 19th 2008
Arthur Herman | August 04, 2008
IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.
In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.
Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.
The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.
But what kind of religion? More than 200 years ago, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume put his finger on the process. His essay, Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, describes how even in civilised societies the mind of man is subject to certain unaccountable terrors and apprehensions when real worries are missing.
As these enemies are entirely invisible and unknown, like today's greenhouse gases, people try to propitiate them by ceremonies, observations, mortifications, sacrifices such as Earth Day and banning plastic bags and petrol-driven lawnmowers.
Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends.
The knaves today, of course, are the would-be high priests of the global warming orthodoxy, with former US vice-president Gore as their supreme pontiff.
As Hume points out, the stronger mixture there is of superstition, with its ambience of ignorance and fear, the higher is the authority of the priesthood. Read More .......
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24122117-7583,00.html
Arthur Herman | August 04, 2008
IT has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US. First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march. It was actually 1934. Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003. Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.
In a May issue of Nature, evidence about falling global temperatures forced German climatologists to conclude that the transformation of our planet into a permanent sauna is taking a decade-long hiatus, at least. Then this month came former greenhouse gas alarmist David Evans's article in The Australian, stating that since 1999 evidence has been accumulating that man-made carbon emissions can't be the cause of global warming. By now that evidence, Evans said, has become pretty conclusive.
Yet believers in man-made global warming demand more and more money to combat climate change and still more drastic changes in our economic output and lifestyle.
The reason is that precisely that they are believers, not scientists. No amount of empirical evidence will overturn what has become not a scientific theory but a form of religion.
But what kind of religion? More than 200 years ago, Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume put his finger on the process. His essay, Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, describes how even in civilised societies the mind of man is subject to certain unaccountable terrors and apprehensions when real worries are missing.
As these enemies are entirely invisible and unknown, like today's greenhouse gases, people try to propitiate them by ceremonies, observations, mortifications, sacrifices such as Earth Day and banning plastic bags and petrol-driven lawnmowers.
Fear and ignorance, Hume concludes, are the true source of superstition. They lead a blind and terrified public to embrace any practice, however absurd or frivolous, which either folly or knavery recommends.
The knaves today, of course, are the would-be high priests of the global warming orthodoxy, with former US vice-president Gore as their supreme pontiff.
As Hume points out, the stronger mixture there is of superstition, with its ambience of ignorance and fear, the higher is the authority of the priesthood. Read More .......
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24122117-7583,00.html
All of this is being done at such an alarming rate we don't even have the time to discover what ramifications will occur from these changes. Just because something seems to have no "toxic effect" in a decade does not mean it will not have this effect in a generation. When you work on the molecular level changes can take a generation or more to show themselves. Think about Nuclear radiation, small doses may show no immediate effects but when you reproduce another generation you may have passed on a defect, as radiation can make changes at RNA, DNA levels. So many people say that what the scientists are doing is great because they are trying to cure disease, but I question this. Why would you change the whole nature of something to cure it. That is no cure at all. A cure is to make something whole again - restore it to its original form and function. Look at someone who has lost a limb. Giving them a fake arm may make them more functional but it is no cure. So by making a person part "pig" by giving them pig genes is not a cure its just a tempory measure to make them more functional. The genes may make that pancreas function for awhile but what about the next generation? Will the diabetic malfunction still be passed on or even worse will the pig genes somehow get into the reproductive system and pass on something else? You see it is no cure it is just a stop-gap measure because basically we don't have the capabilites to restore things to their original perfect form and function. Only God can do that. Scientists may make many so called "moral" claims about the nature of their work, but are the morals of the scientist the same as the morals of everyday people? Is the quest for funding dollars and the quest for making money from scientific discoveries turning the morals of the scientific community into |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
It seems that forces outside our control may be to blame for our "Global Warming' Click on link below to read more
The Emerging Sunspot Cycle 24 and a Weakening Magnetic Field.What does this mean for our planet and species?
The Emerging Sunspot Cycle 24 and a Weakening Magnetic Field.What does this mean for our planet and species?