PaulS

For me there are concerns that it could be abused, but I don't think we should be hysterical about it (of course, not suggesting you are being, George). I don't expect scientists to start crossing people with birds etc to come up with scifi hybrids. But I do see the benefits when it comes to screening out disease and disability. Whilst one could say it is against nature, I would question whether nature hasn't allowed us to develop this ability for a reason. It can be very sensationalist for the media to talk about baby design - eye colour, hair colour, sex etc (and conjure about pictures of what somebody like Hitler might do with this technology) but is it a bad thing if it eliminates leukemia, MS, downs syndrome? I think not. Is choosing a baby-to-be's sex necessarily bad by eliminating s_perm that would create the undesired choice in sex or favouring the s_perm that will create the desired sex - is s_perm a person? I don't think so. Like many things, I think it's not the individual act but rather what is behind it that perhaps matters. What are the reasons for desiring such. With animals and plants I don't have too many reservations, other than some concern that it's early days yet, and maybe we don't completely know the results of say genetically modifying the wheat we eat in our bread.

Dutch, What sense of fear and dread do you think the church should return us to? Paul

Stas82, As you would probably know, Googling Progressive Christianity Australia, and/or your state, will probably return several options. I don't attend church myself, but if I did, I like the thought of attending one that already affiliates with and/or identifies itself as, PC. From what I have researched the Uniting Church does seem quite PC, although I'm not sure all are. I live in Oz myself, over here on the west coast. Cheers Paul

What an amazing experience for both of you. Glad you both weren't killed either. What amazing experiences to go through and live to tell.

I'm scratching my head now, wondering why it's such a big deal!

I don't think Myers actually offers any tips at all, he just critisizes and argues against Harris' opinion. He doesn't seem to provide any solution at all. As for the security 'expert', I don't think he really understands profiling. In his article he equates profiling as pulling over a car of black people just because they're black - that's not profiling. Just some points to think about Neon: 1. Profiling isn’t harassment. It is not discriminatory. In fact, the idea is that the profilee shouldn’t even be aware that s/he is being profiled. It isn’t a case of their rights being damned. Profiling is simply the tool used to sharpen the focus on to the right people – in this case potential terrorist threats. Then the authorities investigate those who make it to the shortlist (again, I would expect covertly, otherwise they play their hand) and if there is evidence of wrongdoing or strong grounds for taking it further, then they take action. Profiling isn't about pulling aside a Muslin-looking person simply because they look Muslim, and making them undergo a strip search or waterboarding. 2. In relation to the statement "It would be far more effective to catch them before they show up at the airport, on the basis of associations and activities”. Hmmm. And how do the authorities do that? Do criminals and terrorists make it clear who their associates and potential accomplices are? I would have thought profiling would assist the Police identifying who they might have to 'catch'. 3. You don’t invite the attacker to look for the easy way, the fact of the matter is that the attacker will look for the easy way to beat the sytem, not matter what you put in place. I don't think anyone would expect anything less of somebody who is intent on carrying out their actions. There is in fact no way around this without removing every single person’s freedom. Not practical. Profiling might not be the single, best tool for preventing attacks. But it is one of a suite of measures that can assist in focussing limited resources. Best bang for your buck perhaps. As well, this sort of thing is new for everybody. We never had to worry about it much say 20 years ago. I expect a perfect system, where no innocent person ever gets caught up in the system, is unrealistic. Which I might add is my main reason for being against capital punishment - but I don't mean to start another debate.

Hollis & Paul, I like the points laid out by you both. Paul, I have no doubt that the media, with the culture of 'fear & sensationalism sells', as well as our politicians who only seem to seek election based on how bad they portray the other side to be, has much to answer for in scaring us all into believing the world is so much more dangerous than it once was. Cheers Paul

Yeah, but they tried to kill his Daddy!

It's just a matter of time, Pete. We will see significant change in our generation. I am sure.

Thanks for that George. I didn't lose anyone in 9/11 so it might be easier for me to say this, but I think the invasion of Afghanistan was a mistake, as was Iraq. At the time I didn't really think so, but with hindsight I think it has done more harm than good. I mean that as no reflection on the diligent service people who risked their lives, continue to do so, and in some instances even paid with them. I think there has been way too much fearmongering (by our politicians as well as yours) which has just fed the issue and actually created a perception that doesn't accurately reflect reality.

Yeah, but I only want the good bits, George True, there are communities within our communities. To be honest, the church of my youth filled that for me until I could no longer believe what I had to, to keep being a part of that community.

His website http://johnshelbyspong.com/ would suggest support@johnshelbyspong.com There's also a phone number there for the publishers. Cheers Paul

I just wanted to draw to people's attention that there is a chat room on this forum and it is a great place to converse in real time with others logged in. I mention this because, although the word CHAT is there in the title bar as plain as day and for everyone to see, I've noticed that a number of people (including myself) didn't even recognise that it was there. I think it was Yvonne who mentioned it within a thread a few weeks ago, and since then I've had some lovely chats with others here. It's even got a handy little function where you can leave it open in a seperate screen whilst you contiunue to surf the TCPC website, and if your sound is on you will hear when somebody enters the Chat Room or has sent a message. Cheers Paul

I wonder if it might have been easier to be happy if they felt more connected to their community, to the land, and more fulfilled? (I accept this could be more about me than the state of the world ). What I am talking about isn't really about me giving up what I have to try, because what I am talking about is a complete concept, with everyone involved, not just moving to a house in the woods and living like a hermit from 1728. It's not about living in a dirt floort hut but rather about that type of life as a whole - community, family, connectedness.

Welcome, Robgil. I like Borg and Spong also. Cheers Paul

Paul, you have actually captured much of what I really meant to say in my OP. What I had in my mind when posting was I was thinking about a romantic 'village' life where the small community all new each other well, going to work wasn't about leaving your family behind for the day or even longer but about having you kids near you, evenings meant associating with village neighbours and community halls, etc, sharing music and laughter around a fire drinking home brew beer made from the grain your village grew, and so on. Everyone new everyone else and was there to support and assist. From what I understand, bludgers and lazy buggers still existed in those communites, but they were not well regarded. Perhaps they were tolerated, I don't know. Sure in those environs and in those days there were less conveniences such as power, running water, sewerage, etc, and often that meant decreased health, but were they happier as a community? Perhaps not. Like I said, it is possibly just my romantic notion and not reality. Does that make any sense?

Please let me provide the disclaimer that I believe the bulk of Muslim people do not harbour aggressive tendencies towards non-Muslims. I do not know enough about Islam to say whether Islam is, or is not, a religion of love, but I do know there are many loving Muslim people. I believe the majority of Muslims in the western world are so. I do not know enough about countries like Iran and Iraq to provide an opinion. Like many, on TV I see great crowds in places like Iran protesting and threatening against non-Muslims (usually America), but I have no idea what percentage of the Muslim population they may represent. With that out of the way let me say that I understand profiling to be: "The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere" So in that sense I don't complety agree with you, Neon. I think Harris is trying to put words to what I see as a very difficult matter. He sounds like he is being practical, albeit his message comes across blunt and seems harsh. I think an acceptable balance to all on this matter may be hard to achieve. How do you profile anyone without being discriminatory? Do you think that all people should be profiled or none? I will presume (happy to be corrected) that you see some value from a law enforcement/defence point of view, that there is some value in profiling. If you do think like that, how would you prefer the authorities determine just who to profile? It would seem to me that in choosing whom to profile, judgements are made about character, associates, practices, opinions, etc. That isn't discrimination but the best effort to try and focus resources where they have the most impact. Whilst the authorities could be wrong, it's what they do with this information that matters more (in my opinion). I think there is some validity to what Harris says - statistically the pendulum seems to be in the favour of jihadist, fundy, Muslims blowing people up, and/or planning such. Yes, there have been instances of white Christians doing the same, but I don't think it is incorrect to say that there have been less instances and that such are a less threat to your country. Again, I may be wrong. Where do we direct our resources? At the most likely target area or a scattergun approach? Like I previously said, how do you exactly determine just who to profile? But I agree with what I think is your sentiment. That is, I think you are saying we shouldn't think all Muslims are bad because of the actions of some. We shouldn't single them out for unfair treatment just beacuse they are Muslim. If such people were being treated unfairly as a result of profiling, then I think we have a different argument. I find it difficult to accurately define all that I think about on this issue, so this post is not as thorough as I would like out of respect fron brevity on the forum.

That explains the lack of Johnny Cash in the filmclip!

Bill, No confrontationality taken! (did I just invent a word?). I think I understand your opinon on PC and I think you have every right to feel that way. I am seeing that PC has by no means a strict defining code of how it 'connects' to God and that views can certainly be diverse. FWIW, to me the Christianity in PC means that people can consider Jesus, or at least what we have been led to believe about Jesus through the Bible, as an example of how best to live our lives. Jesus can be an example, but it is recognised by PC that he isn't the only example. That's my take on it anyway. And strangely enough, I don't think one even has to believe in a God to think that Jesus is an example to us of how to live a rewarding and fulfilling life. I'm probably in that category. I think you'll find we are actually wired more closely than you think. I didn't word that sentence well. I actually do find the universe amazing, and it blows me away that we are as insignificant as we are (sort of makes lifes problems not really worth worrying about in some ways). What I was meaning to say is that I don't think of our universe being an amazing probability against all odds, which to mean seems to infer that somehow a creator is behind it. It is amazing that the universe developed and so did we, but we shouldn't be amazaed that it turned out the way it did because as it stands, with the 'laws' as we know them, this is the only way it could have turned out. Cheers Paul

...and sometimes talking about where we're going!

Bill, I don't agree with your opening assumption about Dawkins, that he thinks a 'more' is unknowable and irrelevant. To the contrary Dawkins says in this interview "To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them". He also acknowledges "There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding" . I don't read anywhere in the interview, as you seem to suggest, Dawkins saying that if there is a More it is completely unknowable. Maybe you're referring to other interviews or understandings you have of Dawkins? I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with all of it. At the same time, I certainly don't agree with everything Dawkins says or has said in other forums. It was either on this thread or another that I recently said that I don't understand some atheists' firm mindedness that there definitely cannot be a God. At best I think all one can say is "I haven't experienced any such God, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist". I don't understand why it wouldn't be left at that. And I don't doubt that many feel they have experienced God. I am undecided as to whether that is a psychological thing or if in fact they have in some connected to/genuinely experienced God. A person's certain-ness in having experienced God does nothing to convince me though. My comments were strictly in relation to the point being recited by George that somehow the universe as we know it, is held together by some laws that have some ridiculously infitissimal likelihood of occurring. My point is, as we don't know what actually could be achieved had the universe rolled another way, then I fail to see how we can put that in perspective when considering what we do know of this universe and determining some sort of 'odds'. Instead of marvelling at the 'chances' of our universe turning out this way so that we may have life, I simply say "we have life because the universe turned out this way". It's not amazing to me that we're here, it's simply a result of the universe developing this way. Had the universe developed differently, I doubt we would be having this conversation.

You're right there George, I am often in awe as to how I managed to drag myself through life in the earlier days, without an iPhone . For instance, I would have never have been able to play Scrabble or check my TCPC New Content page whilst on the move! I'm not so sure though that we live our lives safer from violence than when we once did. Sure, the last few thousand years or more may have been particularly violent, but I'm not convinced it has always been that way. Australia's aboriginals for instance lived a life for +40,000yrs that was relatively violence free. There were tribal conflicts but by the nature of their 'rules' usually there were very few casualities before the dispute was settled. Increased availability of food and medicine only seems to be creating fatter people. Many of us still do suffer from agonising pain and less than dignified endings that our ancients might not have experienced - cancer, dementia, loss of control of bowels etc with age, heart attack, motor vehicles (the single largest killer in the world). Yes, fewer of our children die, but so? Possibly more of them grow up to be affected by drugs, broken homes, alcoholism, etc than before too. If we hadn't developed our world as much and accepted a hunter/gatherer life and all the risks that go with it, I wonder if we'd be more at peace as a world? I'm sorry if I am going on about Aboriginals, but they lived for 40,000yrs exactly the same. There doesn't seem to have been a desire for more. I wonder why?

I'd have to say that Dawkins is making the same point that I was trying to - just because we can't understand it being any other way, doesn't mean that it couldn't be any other way. Seems to me Dawkins is allowing for the unknown yet Collins has already determined that that unknown, whatever it may be, has to be God.

I wonder what peoples' thoughts are concerning whether our society has developed for the better. I know there are the practical aspects that we generally consider for the better, such as better health care, longer life spans, running water, electric blankets, microwave popcorn, and so on. But at the crux of it, are we better off than ancient tribespeople? Sure they might have died before they were 30, but what's so bad about that? Life may have been 'tougher', but I don't imagine they saw it as so - life was just what is was, probably in the same way that future generations will look back on us and wonder how we ever lived without flying cars and tele-transporters. Don't get me wrong, I'm not promoting a 'go-back-to-the-land' philosophy. There is of course the enviromental considerations that go with a vastly more populated planet. Millions of people simply couldn't wask their clothes in mountain streams, deficate in the bush, kill local wildlife to survive, or else the planet would be totally ruined (if not now, in the future at some point with continued population growth). But why is living longer and physically healthier considered 'improvement'. Surely even to the religous fundamentalist, this is only delaying the onset of heaven. And although we may live longer, are we happier or more satisfied that our earlier-dying ancestors? Even if we are, so what? Just a thought that has come acorss my mind recently as I have been reading a bit about Australia's first indigenous people and also the Amazon's Piraha people who frankly, to me, all seemed quite happy with their lives without the type of government and society we now find ourselves living in.

And that's fair enough, George. I don't lean towards some sort of intentional structure, yet neither do I do I regard 'this' as random chance.