|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 10, 2013 8:20:06 GMT -5
Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo. A more logical comparison would have been to show how people have used "science" as a reason to commit atrocities- such as giving (not treating) syphilis in a group of African Americans between 1932 to 1972 (1972!- unbelievable) in what is called the Tuskegee syphillis experiement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment). Or, used to give homosexuals chemical castrations (which led to the suicide of one of the greatest computer scientists of the 20th century, Alan Turing ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing) or gave lobotomies to the mentally ill. But, the photo and caption are helpful to demonstrate that religion can be a powerful force for leading men and women into evil. And while science is portrayed as the "knight in shining armor" in the photo, science, like religion, is a concept that can be manipulated by false scientists (literally, scientists that cook the data to show what they want to show- or falsify the data- something that is not uncommon) to justify their own ideas or prejudices. Scary quote from the John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases regarding the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiments: "For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science." My thoughts: FOLLOWING ORDERS WHEN IT IS TO DO WRONG AND HURT PEOPLE IS NOT A VIRTUE. So, while the United States Government was sending men to the moon, they were ALSO giving syphillis to unwitting black Americans. The government didn't stop the program "voluntarily"- it took a whistle-blower to bring the program to a stop. Whether in science or religion, men need a moral compass to direct for the good of mankind. And I can EASILY understand how the government/scientists RATIONALIZED that giving syphillis to a small group of poor black people would in the long term lead to the prevention of the disease for millions more (the GREATER GOOD) (following the adage that "There area always a few casualties in war"). And I can easily understand how religion RATIONALIZED the crusades, the inquisition, the shunning (as by the 2x2s), the separation of parents and children (again, 2x2s) if it is for the GREATER GOOD (in the workers minds) for all. When the "GREATER GOOD" morality trumps the GREATER GOOD for the person that is the casualty, then I think that a moral line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same thing "whosoever should offend one of the little ones..." Some of my musings this morning.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 10, 2013 11:10:35 GMT -5
I wonder if the study checked the Africans to se if they already had syphllis OR any other STDS?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 10, 2013 13:42:03 GMT -5
The "Greater Good" terminology used by workers is "For The Kingdom's Sake".
What God's kingdom needs is people who live and teach the principles that Jesus lived and taught.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 10, 2013 15:25:41 GMT -5
I wonder if the study checked the Africans to se if they already had syphllis OR any other STDS? They weren't Africans- they were Americans- poor Southern blacks. The men already had syphillis. The study started before pencillin was discovered to be a "Cure" for syphillis. The ethics of the program is called into question because once pencillin was discovered to be a cure, they men were NOT allowed to be treated with pencillin- many were given placebos, and the others were given ineffective alternatives. In other words- the men were continued to be allowed to be guinea pigs once a cure had already been established. And here were the results by the time the "Study" was stopped in 1972: "By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. Of the original 399 men, 28 had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 10, 2013 15:54:58 GMT -5
Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo. A more logical comparison would have been to show how people have used "science" as a reason to commit atrocities- such as given syphilis to African Americans between 1932 to 1972 (1972!- unbelievable) in what is called the Tuskegee syphillis experiement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment). Or, used to give homosexuals chemical castrations (which led to the suicide of one of the greatest computer scientists of the 20th century, Alan Turing ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing) or gave lobotomies to the mentally ill. But, the photo and caption are helpful to demonstrate that religion can be a powerful force for leading men and women into evil. And while science is portrayed as the "knight in shining armor" in the photo, science, like religion, is a concept that can be manipulated by false scientists (literally, scientists that cook the data to show what they want to show- or falsify the data- something that is not uncommon) to justify their own ideas or prejudices. Scary quote from the John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases regarding the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiments: "For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science." My thoughts: FOLLOWING ORDERS WHEN IT IS TO DO WRONG AND HURT PEOPLE IS NOT A VIRTUE. So, while the United States Government was sending men to the moon, they were ALSO giving syphillis to unwitting black Americans. The government didn't stop the program "voluntarily"- it took a whistle-blower to bring the program to a stop. Whether in science or religion, men need a moral compass to direct for the good of mankind. And I can EASILY understand how the government/scientists RATIONALIZED that giving syphillis to a small group of poor black people would in the long term lead to the prevention of the disease for millions more (the GREATER GOOD) (following the adage that "There area always a few casualties in war"). And I can easily understand how religion RATIONALIZED the crusades, the inquisition, the shunning (as by the 2x2s), the separation of parents and children (again, 2x2s) if it is for the GREATER GOOD (in the workers minds) for all. When the "GREATER GOOD" morality trumps the GREATER GOOD for the person that is the casualty, then I think that a moral line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same thing "whosoever should offend one of the little ones..." Some of my musings this morning. Interesting musings, sacredotal.
Yes, both religion & science can be used either for good or for evil.
There are always people that will rationalize what they do.
However, although Jesus's words are sound in this instance, people can understand & act in a way without Jesus being a part of the equation.
The Tuskegee instance was a terrible experiment.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 10, 2013 15:58:29 GMT -5
Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 10, 2013 16:01:47 GMT -5
Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo. Right- conspiracy theories galore abound over that one. You can see the wire at the top making it stand out straight- the rest are just wrinkles that give the illusion of "waving" in a photograph.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Mar 10, 2013 16:02:32 GMT -5
This is just an interesting aside- I was looking at the flag & wondered how the flag could be waving. There is no wind on the moon is there?
Looks to be a rod of some sort at the top of the flag giving full view of the flag.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 10, 2013 16:32:38 GMT -5
ahh, thanks, that solves that one!
|
|
|
Post by emerald on Mar 10, 2013 16:44:35 GMT -5
This is just an interesting aside- I was looking at the flag & wondered how the flag could be waving. There is no wind on the moon is there?
Looks to be a rod of some sort at the top of the flag giving full view of the flag. That's what I see and the ripples in the flag are nothing more than wrinkles. You'd think they'd have ironed it before putting it up. The umbrella type thing on the right may supposedly be for radio communication, but I think it looks just like a Hollywood studio light... What do you think dmg?
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Mar 10, 2013 17:33:49 GMT -5
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 10, 2013 20:01:29 GMT -5
Looks to be a rod of some sort at the top of the flag giving full view of the flag. That's what I see and the ripples in the flag are nothing more than wrinkles. You'd think they'd have ironed it before putting it up. The umbrella type thing on the right may supposedly be for radio communication, but I think it looks just like a Hollywood studio light... What do you think dmg? It doesn't point downward like a light would, probably is a means of gathering in waves for communication or gathering in of solar rays for energy. It looks so fragile! I would hate to have to have my life depend on it either way!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 10, 2013 20:03:59 GMT -5
Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana. That is way, way too profound for me to contemplate! ;D
|
|
|
Post by ts on Mar 10, 2013 23:29:31 GMT -5
I wonder if the study checked the Africans to se if they already had syphllis OR any other STDS? They weren't Africans- they were Americans- poor Southern blacks. The men already had syphillis. The study started before pencillin was discovered to be a "Cure" for syphillis. The ethics of the program is called into question because once pencillin was discovered to be a cure, they men were allowed to be treated with pencillin- many were given placebos, and the others were given ineffective alternatives. In other words- the men were continued to allow to be guinea pigs once a cure had already been established. And here were the results by the time the "Study" was stopped in 1972: "By the end of the study in 1972, only 74 of the test subjects were alive. Of the original 399 men, 28 had died of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children were born with congenital syphilis." Right. My children are more African American than the vast majority of blacks in the USA and my children are white. They are a minority if ever there was a minority.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Mar 11, 2013 7:47:26 GMT -5
(image) Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo. A more logical comparison would have been to show how people have used "science" as a reason to commit atrocities- such as giving (not treating) syphilis in a group of African Americans between 1932 to 1972 (1972!- unbelievable) in what is called the Tuskegee syphillis experiement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment). Or, used to give homosexuals chemical castrations (which led to the suicide of one of the greatest computer scientists of the 20th century, Alan Turing ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing) or gave lobotomies to the mentally ill. (image) But, the photo and caption are helpful to demonstrate that religion can be a powerful force for leading men and women into evil. And while science is portrayed as the "knight in shining armor" in the photo, science, like religion, is a concept that can be manipulated by false scientists (literally, scientists that cook the data to show what they want to show- or falsify the data- something that is not uncommon) to justify their own ideas or prejudices. Scary quote from the John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases regarding the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiments: "For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science." My thoughts: FOLLOWING ORDERS WHEN IT IS TO DO WRONG AND HURT PEOPLE IS NOT A VIRTUE. So, while the United States Government was sending men to the moon, they were ALSO giving syphillis to unwitting black Americans. The government didn't stop the program "voluntarily"- it took a whistle-blower to bring the program to a stop. Whether in science or religion, men need a moral compass to direct for the good of mankind. And I can EASILY understand how the government/scientists RATIONALIZED that giving syphillis to a small group of poor black people would in the long term lead to the prevention of the disease for millions more (the GREATER GOOD) (following the adage that "There area always a few casualties in war"). And I can easily understand how religion RATIONALIZED the crusades, the inquisition, the shunning (as by the 2x2s), the separation of parents and children (again, 2x2s) if it is for the GREATER GOOD (in the workers minds) for all. When the "GREATER GOOD" morality trumps the GREATER GOOD for the person that is the casualty, then I think that a moral line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same thing "whosoever should offend one of the little ones..." Some of my musings this morning. I like the balance in your musings. The finger pointing is not unidirectional. I made the mistake in the past thinking that religion is all bad and atheism does not have the same social blemishes, until someone was kind enough to point out the very same idea you just did above. It put a whole new lens on my world view, making it a bit clearer. andy
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 11, 2013 11:25:13 GMT -5
(image) Although an interesting sentiment, I think that the logic is flawed in the caption of the photo. A more logical comparison would have been to show how people have used "science" as a reason to commit atrocities- such as giving (not treating) syphilis in a group of African Americans between 1932 to 1972 (1972!- unbelievable) in what is called the Tuskegee syphillis experiement ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment). Or, used to give homosexuals chemical castrations (which led to the suicide of one of the greatest computer scientists of the 20th century, Alan Turing ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing) or gave lobotomies to the mentally ill. (image) But, the photo and caption are helpful to demonstrate that religion can be a powerful force for leading men and women into evil. And while science is portrayed as the "knight in shining armor" in the photo, science, like religion, is a concept that can be manipulated by false scientists (literally, scientists that cook the data to show what they want to show- or falsify the data- something that is not uncommon) to justify their own ideas or prejudices. Scary quote from the John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases regarding the Tuskegee Syphillis Experiments: "For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science." My thoughts: FOLLOWING ORDERS WHEN IT IS TO DO WRONG AND HURT PEOPLE IS NOT A VIRTUE. So, while the United States Government was sending men to the moon, they were ALSO giving syphillis to unwitting black Americans. The government didn't stop the program "voluntarily"- it took a whistle-blower to bring the program to a stop. Whether in science or religion, men need a moral compass to direct for the good of mankind. And I can EASILY understand how the government/scientists RATIONALIZED that giving syphillis to a small group of poor black people would in the long term lead to the prevention of the disease for millions more (the GREATER GOOD) (following the adage that "There area always a few casualties in war"). And I can easily understand how religion RATIONALIZED the crusades, the inquisition, the shunning (as by the 2x2s), the separation of parents and children (again, 2x2s) if it is for the GREATER GOOD (in the workers minds) for all. When the "GREATER GOOD" morality trumps the GREATER GOOD for the person that is the casualty, then I think that a moral line has been crossed that should not be crossed. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same thing "whosoever should offend one of the little ones..." Some of my musings this morning. I like the balance in your musings. The finger pointing is not unidirectional. I made the mistake in the past thinking that religion is all bad and atheism does not have the same social blemishes, until someone was kind enough to point out the very same idea you just did above. It put a whole new lens on my world view, making it a bit clearer. andy Yes, it is best to be balanced and understand it's not the 'system' so much as the individuals in the systems. We humans have the ability to turn something good into something horrific no matter what our beliefs are. I still think that religions have a harder time because of their sacred books being quite horrific in places, but somehow those who have good hearts still do manage to remain that way no matter what they are exposed to. And, atheists are exposed to a lot too. It is always a choice 'we' make how we want to walk through our world. However, when we do get led astray like the scientists above, it usually is regretted in hindsight. We can get too zealous about anything and not use our hearts when we do things.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Mar 11, 2013 11:30:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2013 13:59:20 GMT -5
Yes, it is best to be balanced and understand it's not the 'system' so much as the individuals in the systems. We humans have the ability to turn something good into something horrific no matter what our beliefs are. I still think that religions have a harder time because of their sacred books being quite horrific in places, but somehow those who have good hearts still do manage to remain that way no matter what they are exposed to. And, atheists are exposed to a lot too. It is always a choice 'we' make how we want to walk through our world. However, when we do get led astray like the scientists above, it usually is regretted in hindsight. We can get too zealous about anything and not use our hearts when we do things. Those who claw their way up the church corporate ladder would seek to dominate in any niche they're in. If they're in local politics, they'd suck up to the mayor or covet that role. If they're in national politics they'd suck up to the President or Prime Minister or King or covet that role. If they're in the armed forces they'd suck up to the general or admiral or covet such a role. If they're in business they'd suck up to the CEO or covet that role. If they're in a club they'd suck up to the Chairperson, President, Secretary or Treasurer or seek an executive role. Wherever they are, they'd want to be admired and to control. Churches tend to be controlled by alpha males and alpha females and those who suck up to them.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 11, 2013 15:00:08 GMT -5
Yes, it is best to be balanced and understand it's not the 'system' so much as the individuals in the systems. We humans have the ability to turn something good into something horrific no matter what our beliefs are. I still think that religions have a harder time because of their sacred books being quite horrific in places, but somehow those who have good hearts still do manage to remain that way no matter what they are exposed to. And, atheists are exposed to a lot too. It is always a choice 'we' make how we want to walk through our world. However, when we do get led astray like the scientists above, it usually is regretted in hindsight. We can get too zealous about anything and not use our hearts when we do things. Those who claw their way up the church corporate ladder would seek to dominate in any niche they're in. If they're in local politics, they'd suck up to the mayor or covet that role. If they're in national politics they'd suck up to the President or Prime Minister or King or covet that role. If they're in the armed forces they'd suck up to the general or admiral or covet such a role. If they're in business they'd suck up to the CEO or covet that role. If they're in a club they'd suck up to the Chairperson, President, Secretary or Treasurer or seek an executive role. Wherever they are, they'd want to be admired and to control. Churches tend to be controlled by alpha males and alpha females and those who suck up to them. Yes, we've been programmed well. If we're not alpha we are somehow not good enough. Hogwash. There can only be one alpha at a time, plain and simple. Doesn't make the rest any less.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 11, 2013 16:19:16 GMT -5
There are alphas, and there are those who suck up to them: the sycophants.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Mar 11, 2013 17:42:06 GMT -5
There are alphas, and there are those who suck up to them: the sycophants. Like the spirit of Jezebel and the spirit of Ahab.
|
|
|
Post by Child of God on Mar 16, 2013 16:40:41 GMT -5
so...
are humans basically good? or is it the evil human nature that drives evil in the world?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 18, 2013 19:17:35 GMT -5
so... are humans basically good? or is it the evil human nature that drives evil in the world? Answer C please. Workers and theologians who present a static view of humanity typically teach that human nature is evil.. that was the view I was raised on. While some reference the deleterious effects of a tempting agency, that aside seems to have little effect upon their belief in the doctrine of radical depravity as it pertains to their fellows. Today I do not believe that human nature is essentially evil nor do I believe that a universal tempting agency exists apart from our minds. There's a level of arbitrariness involved with deeming something to be of no value. Your car may be useless to you if it won't start, but chances are there is vastly more right with your car than isn't. One could draw a similar conclusion about human beings. We are led about by two natures it seems. The mistake of the theologians has been to inaccurately demonize the one nature commonly referred to as 'the flesh.' Perhaps the apostle Paul worked harder than anyone else to subject his flesh but he regarded this nature as being neither good nor bad in itself, rather something that in the course of being created just was. Romans 8:7
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 18, 2013 21:23:10 GMT -5
Looks to be a rod of some sort at the top of the flag giving full view of the flag. That's what I see and the ripples in the flag are nothing more than wrinkles. You'd think t hey'd have ironed it before putting it up. The umbrella type thing on the right may supposedly be for radio communication, but I think it looks just like a Hollywood studio light... What do you think dmg? What do I think?
I think that they probably forgot to bring along an iron!
Naugh, -it's not a studio light, it's probably what they said it was,- a radio communication device!
|
|