Thursday, December 30, 2004

Tsunami Update

The death toll has now hit 114,000.

How many more will they find?

Wednesday, December 29, 2004

The Disaster in Asia

The death toll from the quake and tsunamis has now exceeded 76,000.

That number just keeps getting bigger and bigger. A combination of the lack of preparation and the strength of the disaster has led to the high death toll, which will inevitably grow higher.

Lone Ranger has a good post about those who point to these disasters as proof against the existence of God.

An excerpt:

What would you have God do, kill the earth? No more rain when you plan a picnic, No more leaves falling in the yard every autumn. No hurricanes or tornadoes or earthquakes that sweep away the old to make way for the new. If a child stuck his hand in a fire, would you have God suspend the laws of thermodynamics so he wouldn't get burned? If a worker fell from a scaffold, would you have God suspend the law of gravity so he wouldn't be killed? Do you want to live in a mystical magical world where science is impossible, where nothing can be predicted, where you can't count on anything?

Read the whole thing!

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Missouri Legalizes Noodling!

Have you ever had the urge to dive into a river, stick your hand up under the bank, and get bitten by a catfish that could be as big as you are? If so, Missouri's your state!

You think I'm kidding? People actually do that, and they come up with some huge fish! It's called noodling, and unfortunately, I don't think it's legal in my state. Somehow I believe I'll survive, though...

Just for the record, I think it's neat that they legalized noodling. I think it's more fair than fishing with a rod and reel (if you want to look at it in terms of fairness), and I'm glad that now people in Missouri have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of gigantic catfish.

Another Member of the Blogging Revolution

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages....

Introducing yet another addition to the blogosphere, Coleoptera!

Coleoptera has written three posts so far, and three good ones at that. Now hop on over there and drop off a comment (links would also be appreciated).

Monday, December 27, 2004

I'm Not Dead

Hey everybody, just wanted to let you know I'm still here.

How about a late MERRY CHRISTMAS! I was sorta grounded from the internet from Thursday night until now... Yes, Neo gets grounded.

Well, I've got lots of stuff I want to write about, but I've forgotten some of it, and I don't have time to write anything lengthy anyway.

But while I'm thinking about it....

On Sunday, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and huge tsunamis struck southern Asia. The death toll has at present passed 22,500.

This is one of the biggest natural disasters decades. Please pray for those who are suffering.

Thursday, December 23, 2004

I, Robot

Well, I watched I, Robot yesterday, and I suppose that I should review it.

I, Robot (starring Will Smith) is based on Isaac Asimov's book of the same name. Essentially it is based several decades in the future, where robots are used for many industrial and personal purposes. These robots are guided in their actions by three laws, which cannot be broken.

The movie follows Detective Spooner (played by Will Smith), a recently divorced cop who was also in a car accident. The accident forced his car and another into a river, and a robot saved him from drowning. The movie begins after the accident, and Spooner is back on the beat; however, he is suspicious of robots, and this is not helped by the development of the NS-5, the most human-like robot yet. On top of that, the Father of Robotics and writer of the "three laws" dies from an apparent suicide just before the NS-5 is released.

It is difficult to say much more without spoiling the movie, so I'll move on.

Coming from someone who has not read the book, I actually enjoyed this movie. I was skeptical after reading other reviews, but I feel that this movie was quite thought-provoking.

The movie explores the problems with robots, who operate completely out of logic. It asks, essentially, is it possible for a robot to experience consciousness? If a robot can experience consciousness, then at what point does that happen? What happens when a robot can choose whether or not to obey the three laws? Are the three laws perfect?

If you don't particularly care for such questions, there is a good bit of action in the movie, and since it involves robots, there are plenty of cool ways to finish off a foe without needing blood and gore. A fair amount of things-that-go-boom and plenty of gunfire help keep you awake while you're pondering some deep question. Let's not forget the special effects either; those robots looked pretty neat!

I, Robot also has its downfalls. It does have some language that it could have definitely done without, and I never planned on seeing Will Smith's bare posterior (it just wasn't on my to-do list).

Having not read the book, I feel that the movie did a good job. An interesting story, plenty of action, and cool special effects lead me to give this movie a 7 out of 10. If you don't mind the language, then go check it out.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Not Sure What To Title This....

Okay, I think it's about time I said something.

Bunnie, I hope you read this... I think it's time I apologized.

I flouted the rules on your blog, and I'm sorry.

That's it. No arguments. Just an apology.

Monday, December 20, 2004

TIME Person of the Year

I can scarcely believe my eyes: G. W. Bush is the TIME Person of the Year!

What can be said except that he deserved it? All great men have had to "stick to their guns" in the face of adversity. George W. has fought to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, he has deposed of Saddam and the Taliban, and free elections have been held or will be held in those countries. He signed a bill to protect our country's youngest citizens.

You may disagree with him, but you're blind to not see the courage that it takes to stick to your principles (which have had a major positive effect; see above paragraph). Even I can't say I agree with everything Bush has done, but I stand behind him. GW has led our country with excellence; that can be seen no matter what side of the aisle you are on, and he gets four more years in office because of it.

God bless George W. Bush.

No Comment

Just uh... tell me what you think about this post.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Pope Condemns Same-Sex Marriage

From Yahoo! News:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul on Saturday condemned same sex marriage as an attack on the fabric of society and called on Catholics to combat what he said was aggressive attempt to legally undermine the family.

"Attacks on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect, are becoming stronger and more radical every day," the 84-year old pontiff said in the unusually strong statement.

"Who destroys this fundamental fabric causes a profound injury to society and provokes often irreparable damage."

I must say, he hit the nail squarely on the head. Homosexual marriage _is_ an assault on morality, the family, and ultimately our society. Whether or not they are trying to tear our very society in pieces, I can't say. But I do know what the effects are, and effects are entirely independent of intention.

Any good sociologist will tell you that societies are held together by shared beliefs and a common sense of morality and ethics which are not to be violated. Gay marriage is a violation of natural laws, and what we as humans know to be right. When our sense of ethics is violated in such a way, it causes conflict within a society as a result of the stress between those who believe that objective morality is unnecessary and those who believe that it is part of what holds our society together.

As this morality is violated, another institution in our society is coming under attack: the family. The family is a unit that serves to provide stability in our society. When you go and drastically change such a stabilizing force in a society, it's like changing the height of the pillars in the Parthenon. Suddenly the stability that was provided by a combination of people who fit into different roles and provide different services is gone. The family is a unit that functions only when there are two parents of opposite gender. "Biological destiny," as it is called by some liberals, is what restricts a man to performing the role of father. This "destiny," no matter how much the liberals may decry it, can't be changed. It can, however, be ignored; the problem with ignoring a problem that causes instability, however, is that the instability remains. The family is weakened when an unstable factor is inserted into it, and the weakened family in turn can't support our society.

Now, as individual and common ethics continue to be weakened, society as a whole grows weaker. No longer do people have a common system of values, which reduces strife; no longer can the family support a society, when "family" has become a subjective term that means whatever individuals want it to mean; and no longer can a society stand, when its foundations are so weakened. If America accepts gay marriage, its society will be weakened and threatened. The radical subjectivity of liberals today has never had positive effects on a society; tolerance is great, and it is a great asset to a society, but the uncontrolled subjectivity that is necessary for the acceptance of same-sex marriage is dangerous.

So in light of these facts, I cannot support gay marriage. Other arguments can be made against it, but the effects that it would have on society would be destabilizing and thus it can't be allowed. We must follow the Pope's lead and remain vigilant, at least if we wish to pass on a healthy society to our children and grandchildren.

Peace (through strength),
Neo

Friday, December 17, 2004

Why I'm not a Lutheran

Wow. Major turn-off to Lutheranism.

You should check out some of her religion-related posts from the past and see why I am quite happy in my "holier-than-thou," "Pharisaical," "pietist" Christianity.

I love her new zero-tolerance approach to those who disagree with her.

Wonderful example of a Christian. Great doctrine, Bunnie.

Beautiful.

And she simply gives me more reason to not be a Lutheran. Nevermind the fact that she once justified her brashness by claiming to be "confronting bad doctrine," or something like that.

Rubbish. She wants to pick a fight, and she decides to do it with other Christians.

Does this seem like a good idea?

UPDATE: She just banned my IP address. And I didn't comment further.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Sorry y'all, I'm flaming. I shouldn't have said all that stuff. To anyone who's offended or appalled that I'd act that way, I apologize.

Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Jury Sentences Scott Peterson to Death

Justice is served.

The jury's decision followed seven days of tearful testimony in the penalty phase. In arguing for death last week, prosecutors called Peterson "the worst kind of monster" and said he was undeserving of sympathy. Geragos begged of jurors: "Just don't kill him. That's all I am asking of you. End this cycle."

Prosecutors spent months portraying Peterson as a cheating husband and cold-blooded killer who wanted to murder Laci to escape marriage and fatherhood for the pleasures of the freewheeling bachelor life.

"They had no reason to doubt it was Scott who did what he did," said Laci Peterson's stepfather, Ron Grantski, the only member of her family to speak to reporters. "He got what he deserved."

Sunday, December 12, 2004

This Scares Me

If you had told me this by word of mouth, I wouldn't have believed it.

Rat Brain Flies Fighter Jet Simulation

This is straight out of a science fiction movie! And honestly, I'm a bit worried about where it will lead. Biological computers? That opens up a completely new world; how long before humans are hooked up to things like this? Is it possible?

I don't know. I do know that the quality of our artificial intelligence would definitely skyrocket (due to the fact that it would no longer be entirely artificial). I also know that it may not stop with rats. I'm all for progress, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm in some kind of hysteria, but I do think that this new ability calls for caution and prudence.

Did anybody else think of The Matrix when they read that article?

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

An Interesting Discussion

Wanna read more Neo? Check out this post and thread on Worldmagblog about the performance of American public schools and its alternatives.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

It's Our Turn Now!

You have no idea how long I've been searching for this song!

Our Turn Now
with Carman and Petra

I'm not askin' for a theocracy... just a little freedom.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Welcome to the Family!

Well then. I am the Blogfather!

Introducing two new additions to the blogosphere, Giggle Fritz and Serendipitous! They've got some cool posts so far, and I'm trying to help them work out the kinks.

Now head on over there and welcome them to the family!

And let's not forget...

Bria's back! Again! Yay, welcome back Bria!

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

...Eliminate the Negative

I think I'll approach a different question in the music debates while I'm thinking about it...

One of the great differences between Christian music and secular music (besides the fact that one's Christian and one's secular) is the fact that Christian music is almost always positive and secular music is often negative. For example, a Christian song might say "I was hurting, but You healed me," whereas a secular song would be far more likely to say "These wounds won't seem to heal; this pain is just too real." (Evanescence My Immortal)

Is this healthy? I mean, to emphasize the negative and meditate on it doesn't strike me as a good idea. To say "this pain is just too real" is sort of giving power to such feelings, isn't it? It seems like saying "well, I can't really overcome this problem because it hurts too much." It doesn't really leave a lot of room for God's healing power, does it? In other words, it sort of points to a lack of faith in God's ability to heal any hurt you may have.

Not that I'm knocking Evanescence... I commend the fact that their lyrics are relatively clean. However, their music and most other secular music seems to focus excessively on depressing things, rather than uplifting and edifying things. Radiohead is another offender, of a different type. It's hard to tell if Radiohead is trying to be positive or negative with most of their lyrics, since most of their songs appear to be composed of five random sentences that are repeated in different orders throughout the song. Radiohead also appears to have a very limited vocabulary, judging from their fondness of profanity. If a group can't find any better words to express themselves, then I prefer not to listen to them.

So here's another question.

How much does the music you listen to affect you? If the eyes are the windows to one's soul, are the ears such also? And thus, by listening to negative music, are you in effect filling your soul with negativity?

Also, David brought up a point in the last music thread about how he feels that praise music should be used for just that: praise. Is that the case? And also, does CCM qualify as music for praise, or is it rather for entertainment? I know I listen to it for entertainment, personally...

So... Have at it. Let me know what you think.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.


Take the MIT Weblog Survey Federal Social Security Calculator

Powered by Blogger

Who Links Here Religion Blog Top Sites Whose values?