Lately I have had two things of particular annoyance on my mind.
First might be considered making a mash-up of the tanks from Halo and Starcraft, and using my own skills at adding some of the functionality that seems cool to me. Drawing from real-world ideas, include looking at the mobile artillery vehicles out there, and adding some of that to the tank.
All this without making it too unwieldy.
The other has been to get back to what I originally wanted to do with the sister blogs to this, and post my writing, in the vain hope of getting feedback.
So far, on all of these, I just seem to be talking to myself, not having then linked up or noticed, yet.
There are other things, as well, but those seem to occupy me the most right now, in my free time.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
what's the big deal?
I have been busy and in no mood to post.
I wonder, supposing I could get myself called a bank, could I get a bailout to help pay my student loans?
As the seasons change, I always wonder at people complaining that 'it's cold' when they actually have to put on long sleeves and trousers, instead of a halter-top or wife-beater and shorts.
Personally, I don't think it's really beginning to get cold until I can go outside and see my breath.
Of course then I get to look forward to shoveling that accumulated global-warming off the walks.
If that's too cold for you, move to somewhere warmer.
If shoveling snow is too much work for you, get a snow-melt system, or get a work ethic.
I wonder, supposing I could get myself called a bank, could I get a bailout to help pay my student loans?
As the seasons change, I always wonder at people complaining that 'it's cold' when they actually have to put on long sleeves and trousers, instead of a halter-top or wife-beater and shorts.
Personally, I don't think it's really beginning to get cold until I can go outside and see my breath.
Of course then I get to look forward to shoveling that accumulated global-warming off the walks.
If that's too cold for you, move to somewhere warmer.
If shoveling snow is too much work for you, get a snow-melt system, or get a work ethic.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Reading the Newspaper today
As I read the local newspaper today, I had a myriad of reactions.
I read about Parents arrested for sneaking kids into better schools. I am left to wonder at the turf war and power struggle over who gets to teach, and where the children are going to go. It seems to me that it is a stinging indictment of a school when people are willing to risk this sort of law-breaking to get their kids out of it.
I understand that here in SLC, for now, you may send your child to whatever school you choose, to get them to. But that the teachers union is seeking to change this.
-
There are several articles about whether 'mormons' are Christians. The most recent torch tossed on this fire coming from one pastors endorsement of one presidential candidate, and attack on another at that time.
I understand that according to most apologetic theory, there are three types of christian.
The doctrinal christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and his ability to perform miracles, the most important of which being the atonement wherein he took upon him the punishment of our sins, died, and was resurrected: what congregation attended is secondary to this.
The historic christian who counts himself such because he is part of a congregation who can trace its organizational roots to the church formed by Jesus, and left with Peter in charge: this is regardless of what is believed doctrinally, and what is felt about the potential divinity of Jesus.
The third type of christian believes the principles taught by Jesus are sound and good: what congregation, and what is felt about the potential divinity of Jesus is of minor importance.
Some will carry this further to say that their pet doctrine or dogma must also be included to a person to be counted.
This as premise, I ask, which definition of christian is this particular pastor referring when he says that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are not christian?
How does he know this?
For myself, I will do my best to not judge, and leave the decision of whether a person is a disciple of Jesus, to the individual and Jesus himself.
-
Pot-shaped candy alarms parents I for one will not seek this candy out, nor will accept it if it is ever offered. Looking at the dope on the package label, he looks stoned. No thank you.
-
Christians under siege in post-revolution Egypt One thing in this article that caught my attention was the comment that "Copts shared in the euphoria of the 18-day revolution that ousted Mubarak and like so many other Egyptians their hopes for change were high. Mainly, they wanted to be on equal footing with Muslims."
To the best of my knowledge, any nation that is ruled by Muslims, tends to treat any other religion as second class, at best. God's blessings to these people, but don't hold your breath for any recognition of equal footing from the radical Muslims in particular.
-
Breaking the 10,000-hour rule is about learning, and how to learn. In reading this I am left to wonder at some topics that I have been able to learn quicker than others, and that I have learned quicker or slower than others. "...the dominant culture of teaching and coaching in our culture is too directive...There’s too much telling and advocacy, and not enough questioning and aided discovery....Result: We don’t learn how to learn. We look to (others) as the repository of answers, when instead we need to develop the ability to self-regulate and self-adjust and to become relentless problem-solvers."
Some things I have learned how to learn. I have self-taught myself several different computer programs.
Other things I have not. I have been taught much in college level math, to a per-calculus level, but could was not able to comprehend what the instructor was trying to instruct in calculus.
-
The last news item that keeps doing the rounds, and which I have commented already on are the 'Occupy' mobs protesting for the fun of it. I have yet to really comprehend what these people are trying to accomplish, and am dubious as to whether they really know themselves.
I have one idea of what they could protest that is a real important issue to the US today: occupy the NBA Arenas, and protest the cancellation of the start of the season and the deadlock between the rick players, and the wealthy team owners and organizations.
I read about Parents arrested for sneaking kids into better schools. I am left to wonder at the turf war and power struggle over who gets to teach, and where the children are going to go. It seems to me that it is a stinging indictment of a school when people are willing to risk this sort of law-breaking to get their kids out of it.
I understand that here in SLC, for now, you may send your child to whatever school you choose, to get them to. But that the teachers union is seeking to change this.
-
There are several articles about whether 'mormons' are Christians. The most recent torch tossed on this fire coming from one pastors endorsement of one presidential candidate, and attack on another at that time.
I understand that according to most apologetic theory, there are three types of christian.
The doctrinal christian who believes in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and his ability to perform miracles, the most important of which being the atonement wherein he took upon him the punishment of our sins, died, and was resurrected: what congregation attended is secondary to this.
The historic christian who counts himself such because he is part of a congregation who can trace its organizational roots to the church formed by Jesus, and left with Peter in charge: this is regardless of what is believed doctrinally, and what is felt about the potential divinity of Jesus.
The third type of christian believes the principles taught by Jesus are sound and good: what congregation, and what is felt about the potential divinity of Jesus is of minor importance.
Some will carry this further to say that their pet doctrine or dogma must also be included to a person to be counted.
This as premise, I ask, which definition of christian is this particular pastor referring when he says that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are not christian?
How does he know this?
For myself, I will do my best to not judge, and leave the decision of whether a person is a disciple of Jesus, to the individual and Jesus himself.
-
Pot-shaped candy alarms parents I for one will not seek this candy out, nor will accept it if it is ever offered. Looking at the dope on the package label, he looks stoned. No thank you.
-
Christians under siege in post-revolution Egypt One thing in this article that caught my attention was the comment that "Copts shared in the euphoria of the 18-day revolution that ousted Mubarak and like so many other Egyptians their hopes for change were high. Mainly, they wanted to be on equal footing with Muslims."
To the best of my knowledge, any nation that is ruled by Muslims, tends to treat any other religion as second class, at best. God's blessings to these people, but don't hold your breath for any recognition of equal footing from the radical Muslims in particular.
-
Breaking the 10,000-hour rule is about learning, and how to learn. In reading this I am left to wonder at some topics that I have been able to learn quicker than others, and that I have learned quicker or slower than others. "...the dominant culture of teaching and coaching in our culture is too directive...There’s too much telling and advocacy, and not enough questioning and aided discovery....Result: We don’t learn how to learn. We look to (others) as the repository of answers, when instead we need to develop the ability to self-regulate and self-adjust and to become relentless problem-solvers."
Some things I have learned how to learn. I have self-taught myself several different computer programs.
Other things I have not. I have been taught much in college level math, to a per-calculus level, but could was not able to comprehend what the instructor was trying to instruct in calculus.
-
The last news item that keeps doing the rounds, and which I have commented already on are the 'Occupy' mobs protesting for the fun of it. I have yet to really comprehend what these people are trying to accomplish, and am dubious as to whether they really know themselves.
I have one idea of what they could protest that is a real important issue to the US today: occupy the NBA Arenas, and protest the cancellation of the start of the season and the deadlock between the rick players, and the wealthy team owners and organizations.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
"Useful Idiot" has a point.
I see the various 'Occupy (fill in the blank)' protest going on, and at first feel to agree with Ann Coulter about them.
Then my left of libertarian sister gets after me for being narrow minded and insulting for calling these protesters 'useful idiots.'
I am not a real good talker. I can express myself better in writings, than conversation. So I could not get my sister to the point that I perceive that these protesters are being directed by others, thus making them 'useful idiots' to those others.
I heard one of these protesters talking to the host of one program about how they were going to be meeting in the protest to discuss just what they are wanting to do. Why assemble without first having a point?
I see others from the current progressive (read 'Marxist' or maybe 'Socialist' or just 'collectivist'?) cast of characters going to these protest to give speeches and rousing the rabble, ultimately seeking to incite to riot.
I recognize that these protesters want to protest the amorality, greed, and bad policy that has held increasing sway of the financial sector of the economy since the baby boomers first realized that they needed to get real jobs. BUT if they really want to accomplish something, I think the first characters to go after are the law-WRITERS and regulation-WRITERS and then The Congress-critters that passed said laws and then set about enacting them. Then go after the individuals in the corporations who complied with them and profited thereby. I might also go after those in the media, who's job was to report on what these regulations and policies and laws would do, for not doing their job. And also go after those other Congress-critters who saw this, knew what it would do, and then did not cry 'foul'; them I would give at least a dope-slap to.
Who compelled the banks to write all those toxic mortgages and other financial things? Hmm, could it be, The Government - both the Elected and the Bureaucrats; those who have a left-of-center ideology which tells them that people can't take care of themselves, so the state needs to do it for them?
If I were going to name names, I would start with Barney Frank, and all on his committee. Then go to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on to Goldman Sachs, and continue through the rest of the whole intertwined web proverbially burning out all who have sought to prove the capitalist-free market system does not work, because it does not intrinsically provide for an equal outcome for everybody.
Here's a big clue about that: the capitalist-free market system allows you to choose what you will do and to work or not at it, and thereby to risk failure and gain greater success. All other systems that have some kind of compulsion to them, seek to remove the risk of failure, and thereby commensurately diminish the amount of success possible.
The next names I would name are those members of the Baby Boom Generation who rejected the classical morals of Good vs. Evil, and Right vs. Wrong, etc. which their parents tried to instill in them. Then carry on to the children who were not taught these classical morals, and subsequent generations.
Further I would go to those instructors and union thugs and media personalities who's ideology has been collectivism, and taught these kids to reject their parents instructions, and to reject individual merit for the collective bargaining of the group.
To my title, and to wrap this up: The protesters have a point. There is too much amorality, greed, bad policy, bad behavior and so forth going on.
But to leave the government out of the mix, and more so to try to say this is an ideologically right wing problem is to miss the mark. To allow these protests to be shaped by those whose stated and historic agenda's have been to collapse the American system and replace it, that spells bad news to me.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO RELIVE THE SUMMER OF 1968 AGAIN?
Then my left of libertarian sister gets after me for being narrow minded and insulting for calling these protesters 'useful idiots.'
I am not a real good talker. I can express myself better in writings, than conversation. So I could not get my sister to the point that I perceive that these protesters are being directed by others, thus making them 'useful idiots' to those others.
I heard one of these protesters talking to the host of one program about how they were going to be meeting in the protest to discuss just what they are wanting to do. Why assemble without first having a point?
I see others from the current progressive (read 'Marxist' or maybe 'Socialist' or just 'collectivist'?) cast of characters going to these protest to give speeches and rousing the rabble, ultimately seeking to incite to riot.
I recognize that these protesters want to protest the amorality, greed, and bad policy that has held increasing sway of the financial sector of the economy since the baby boomers first realized that they needed to get real jobs. BUT if they really want to accomplish something, I think the first characters to go after are the law-WRITERS and regulation-WRITERS and then The Congress-critters that passed said laws and then set about enacting them. Then go after the individuals in the corporations who complied with them and profited thereby. I might also go after those in the media, who's job was to report on what these regulations and policies and laws would do, for not doing their job. And also go after those other Congress-critters who saw this, knew what it would do, and then did not cry 'foul'; them I would give at least a dope-slap to.
Who compelled the banks to write all those toxic mortgages and other financial things? Hmm, could it be, The Government - both the Elected and the Bureaucrats; those who have a left-of-center ideology which tells them that people can't take care of themselves, so the state needs to do it for them?
If I were going to name names, I would start with Barney Frank, and all on his committee. Then go to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, on to Goldman Sachs, and continue through the rest of the whole intertwined web proverbially burning out all who have sought to prove the capitalist-free market system does not work, because it does not intrinsically provide for an equal outcome for everybody.
Here's a big clue about that: the capitalist-free market system allows you to choose what you will do and to work or not at it, and thereby to risk failure and gain greater success. All other systems that have some kind of compulsion to them, seek to remove the risk of failure, and thereby commensurately diminish the amount of success possible.
The next names I would name are those members of the Baby Boom Generation who rejected the classical morals of Good vs. Evil, and Right vs. Wrong, etc. which their parents tried to instill in them. Then carry on to the children who were not taught these classical morals, and subsequent generations.
Further I would go to those instructors and union thugs and media personalities who's ideology has been collectivism, and taught these kids to reject their parents instructions, and to reject individual merit for the collective bargaining of the group.
To my title, and to wrap this up: The protesters have a point. There is too much amorality, greed, bad policy, bad behavior and so forth going on.
But to leave the government out of the mix, and more so to try to say this is an ideologically right wing problem is to miss the mark. To allow these protests to be shaped by those whose stated and historic agenda's have been to collapse the American system and replace it, that spells bad news to me.
DO WE REALLY WANT TO RELIVE THE SUMMER OF 1968 AGAIN?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Science vs. Religion? Quit playing 'lets you and him fight.'
This Article struck a cord in me, as I read it.
More so, the usual cast of characters who show up in the comments section struck a nerve. There are the fundamentalist scientists who's religion is 'Science;' the fundamentalist religionists who's science is 'Religion;' and every stripe in between. The group I most agree with would be those who say that science is and should be looking for how God made the universe.
This leads me to a topic that has pestered me for a while: people who want to be spiritual, or religious depending on your vocabulary, without belonging to an organized religion.
I have met many people who have been trained by school, or by their parents or friends, or by their experience, or what have you, to reject organized religion in general and any of the prominent christian churches in particular. Some take this so far as rejecting anything they perceive as connected with these organizations. "Those organizations are corrupt and full of corrupt people." I could probably fill books with all the comments that go in that direction. My first thought, if i could get people to listen and be interested long enough would be to get people to understand the division between individual spirituality/religiosity and the organizations that have been set up to promote such in the world. Here is an article I found that discusses this idea from the perspective of one who has gone through that transformation process.
I applaud those who want to be spiritual and 'get religion' as it was once said. but I do not fully comprehend the rejection of organized religion.
As for Science: I see science as those disciplines set forth to discover and comprehend how and what God has done in creating the world; what laws and methods were used to put the stars and planets and life in motion.
Religion is to answer the harder questions: Why? What is my part? What is my value?
Several other threads come together in my mind about these ideas.
- Godel's Incompleteness says in so many words that no system can be completely known within itself.
- The second law of thermal dynamics says in so many words that every system must eventually break down into chaos, or entropy.
Other ideas can be brought to bare, but for this point, I simply ask, "If the universe cannot be comprehended within itself, and must eventually break down to entropy, what keeps it running?" Answer: something outside the limits of the universe as we know it. This something is god
Science shows that god, however god is defined, must exist. Thus the question leads to religion: how do I get to know about the nature of god, and god's reasoning? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What happens when I die? And my ancestors and children?
God himself has answered these. But he is in a power struggle in spreading his message. Just as God exists, so also does the devil. This leads to the definitions of good and evil, but I will leave that tangent for another time.
For much of the next part, I presume that the reader has as a given a basic comprehension that Jesus of Nazareth set up a church with a body of ideas to be taught and adhered to by those associated with it, and appointed a group of men to lead it after his departure. That there were certain acts or 'ordinances' that were to be performed to enter into the society of this church, and then regularly performed by members of it. That means were put in place to see to the perpetuation of said organization.
That others have had churches or systems of philosophy set up that are followed, I also leave as given, and focus myself to the christian focus. There are more ideas that can be quibbled about, but for my purposes, this is sufficient.
To the question of organized religion: "But why does God have so many churches that claim to be his?"
Simple: the devil is the author of this confusion, and tempts men to drift away from and be confused about the truth of God. He tempts men with power, with doubt, with lusts, with pride, with any number of other tools in his arsenal.
- Second rule of bureaucracy: those who seek to maintain a bureaucracy will rise to power over those seeking to accomplish the bureaucracy's goals.
- Power corrupts
- Power attracts the corrupt
Without continual input from God, the bureaucracy of his church will drift to the goals of those who seek power for themselves.
Some call this Simony, after Simon Magus in the book of Acts. See also the Sons of Sceva. This leads to men creating churches to honor themselves, or whatever other noun they can set up to be worshiped. The biggest one I see forming today, is the church of the collectivist state: government is god.
So, how does God give continual input: through his duly authorized cadre - those holding the priesthood of god.
This leads to two questions, and I leave this for now.
1) Is priesthood authority necessary to perform ordinances?
If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, than the answer is that he did then, so he does now.
Those who say otherwise, are not in align with God.
2) Where is it/Who has it today?
Historically, most commonly understood, Jesus invested and left this authority in The Twelve and their duly appointed successors.
So if the secessionists are right that it is needed, and the reformists are right that the secessionists don't have it, where does the scripture say to look?
For a restoration of this authority, according to the pattern that God has used to communicate with man from the beginning. Angel's sent to the first man to open the channel of communication, and then continuing revelation once that channel is open.
I have an answer for myself which church to be in, taught me of the Holy Ghost, but without more investigation on your part, are you ready to receive it?
More so, the usual cast of characters who show up in the comments section struck a nerve. There are the fundamentalist scientists who's religion is 'Science;' the fundamentalist religionists who's science is 'Religion;' and every stripe in between. The group I most agree with would be those who say that science is and should be looking for how God made the universe.
This leads me to a topic that has pestered me for a while: people who want to be spiritual, or religious depending on your vocabulary, without belonging to an organized religion.
I have met many people who have been trained by school, or by their parents or friends, or by their experience, or what have you, to reject organized religion in general and any of the prominent christian churches in particular. Some take this so far as rejecting anything they perceive as connected with these organizations. "Those organizations are corrupt and full of corrupt people." I could probably fill books with all the comments that go in that direction. My first thought, if i could get people to listen and be interested long enough would be to get people to understand the division between individual spirituality/religiosity and the organizations that have been set up to promote such in the world. Here is an article I found that discusses this idea from the perspective of one who has gone through that transformation process.
I applaud those who want to be spiritual and 'get religion' as it was once said. but I do not fully comprehend the rejection of organized religion.
As for Science: I see science as those disciplines set forth to discover and comprehend how and what God has done in creating the world; what laws and methods were used to put the stars and planets and life in motion.
Religion is to answer the harder questions: Why? What is my part? What is my value?
Several other threads come together in my mind about these ideas.
- Godel's Incompleteness says in so many words that no system can be completely known within itself.
- The second law of thermal dynamics says in so many words that every system must eventually break down into chaos, or entropy.
Other ideas can be brought to bare, but for this point, I simply ask, "If the universe cannot be comprehended within itself, and must eventually break down to entropy, what keeps it running?" Answer: something outside the limits of the universe as we know it. This something is god
Science shows that god, however god is defined, must exist. Thus the question leads to religion: how do I get to know about the nature of god, and god's reasoning? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What happens when I die? And my ancestors and children?
God himself has answered these. But he is in a power struggle in spreading his message. Just as God exists, so also does the devil. This leads to the definitions of good and evil, but I will leave that tangent for another time.
For much of the next part, I presume that the reader has as a given a basic comprehension that Jesus of Nazareth set up a church with a body of ideas to be taught and adhered to by those associated with it, and appointed a group of men to lead it after his departure. That there were certain acts or 'ordinances' that were to be performed to enter into the society of this church, and then regularly performed by members of it. That means were put in place to see to the perpetuation of said organization.
That others have had churches or systems of philosophy set up that are followed, I also leave as given, and focus myself to the christian focus. There are more ideas that can be quibbled about, but for my purposes, this is sufficient.
To the question of organized religion: "But why does God have so many churches that claim to be his?"
Simple: the devil is the author of this confusion, and tempts men to drift away from and be confused about the truth of God. He tempts men with power, with doubt, with lusts, with pride, with any number of other tools in his arsenal.
- Second rule of bureaucracy: those who seek to maintain a bureaucracy will rise to power over those seeking to accomplish the bureaucracy's goals.
- Power corrupts
- Power attracts the corrupt
Without continual input from God, the bureaucracy of his church will drift to the goals of those who seek power for themselves.
Some call this Simony, after Simon Magus in the book of Acts. See also the Sons of Sceva. This leads to men creating churches to honor themselves, or whatever other noun they can set up to be worshiped. The biggest one I see forming today, is the church of the collectivist state: government is god.
So, how does God give continual input: through his duly authorized cadre - those holding the priesthood of god.
This leads to two questions, and I leave this for now.
1) Is priesthood authority necessary to perform ordinances?
If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, than the answer is that he did then, so he does now.
Those who say otherwise, are not in align with God.
2) Where is it/Who has it today?
Historically, most commonly understood, Jesus invested and left this authority in The Twelve and their duly appointed successors.
So if the secessionists are right that it is needed, and the reformists are right that the secessionists don't have it, where does the scripture say to look?
For a restoration of this authority, according to the pattern that God has used to communicate with man from the beginning. Angel's sent to the first man to open the channel of communication, and then continuing revelation once that channel is open.
I have an answer for myself which church to be in, taught me of the Holy Ghost, but without more investigation on your part, are you ready to receive it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)