Tan (update 3): In the recent news report regarding the “threat” of USA Ambassador Nikki Haley as response to the move by Turkey and Yemen circulating a draft resolution among the member countries of the United Nations, this is clearly a bullying tactic and is likewise a blatant manifestation of the manipulative and malicious character of the Trump administration to enforce its will on the world.
Under such threats, if will be very sad to see world leaders cowtow to such despicable acts of authoritarianism and, if I were a world leader and succumb to such threats, I will have no face to show my citizens. I would be so embarrassed I will step down from office effective immediately — never mind the diplomatic mumbo-jumbo and doublespeak and lame alibis that characterize attempts to desperately cling to and stay in power by justifying their submission to foreign power as a “sacrifice” for the sake of the country.
I honestly did not expect such a statement from supposedly no less than an ambassador to the UN of the USA. I would expect this from juveniles who try to bully others by threatening to tell on them. Aside from surprise, I also feel sorry that such an educated and high-ranking government official will make such a statement.
Yeah, little Nikki, you go ahead and tell big daddy just how naughty some of your playmates are and tell him who these playmates are. Go ahead. See if I care.
TaN (update 2): In the issue of Mr Duterte’s granddaughter’s recent Palace photograph, there is nothing illegal nor immoral about it. However, it is really in bad taste because the people in the photograph (and the others such as the photographer) are treating the official residence of the president as if it were private property.
It shows no respect for the solemnity of the place. It is the highest institution of the country. How we behave in government offices, the more we have to behave in the Palace. Even if there was an official function, one’s behavior must always be observed; there is a proper decorum to be practiced. It was very juvenile and shows the cheapness and shallowness of the incident as well as all those involved in it.
Moreover, Mr Duterte need not have defended the incident, but one cannot fault him for being a grandfather. As the saying goes, You can attack me all you want but stay away from my family.
TaN (update): In an article on technology in Natural News, titled “Researchers have designed a new solar device that may finally make hydrogen cars a reality” [URL: https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-12-17-researchers-have-designed-a-new-solar-device-that-may-make-hydrogen-cars-a-reality.html] by a certain Jhoanna Robinson posted for December 17, there is a statement that I could should have made long ago but didn’t. However, I am glad that this article did, to wit: “Hydrogen energy is not ‘green’ unless it is produced from renewable sources.”
This is precisely what I have been trying to say all this time when I argue against the current drive to convert from the traditional ICE (internal combustion engine) to electric vehicles. Electric cars are not eco-friendly if they are not charged with electricity generated in (true) sustainable and environment-friendly ways — i.e., the electricity is still being sourced from fossil fuels.
There is a widespread misconception and misunderstanding that being sustainable means just converting away from direct consumption of fossil fuels (like in power generation and current ICEs) when, in fact, true sustainability means that the entire process — from “harvesting” from the environment to power generation to consumption and even to after-consumption disposition or disposal — is completely environment-friendly and are renewable.
Moreover, just because we shift to electric cars and other supposedly eco- or environmentally-friendly technologies does not (necessarily) make it sustainable nor good for the environment. There is (also and) still the matter of unnecessary or wasteful consumption. The issue of consumerism and commercialism is still unaddressed and is one of the, if not principal, reasons for being unsustainable.
No matter how environmentally-friendly our technologies are, if our rate of consumption remains being (heavily) influenced “and dictated” by Big Business — through commercialism and consumerism and peer pressure and envy and our own personal weaknesses in the name of economic activity and growth — there is or will be no true sustainable growth and development and, most importantly, consumption.
Even if all of us were to shift to electric and away from dirty and polluting fossil fuels or even if we were all to go to hydrogen technology, it would still be unsustainable because of how we over-indulge ourselves in the trappings of “modern” living where much of our consumption are completely unnecessary — and therefore unsustainable.
Even if the waste from hydrogen technology is “just” water, imagine an environment where the atmosphere — and ground (because there is bound to be precipitation when the superheated steam exits the vehicular exhaust pipe and encounters the external colder air) — is (over-)saturated with water vapor. We may well end with a “water world”.
True sustainable growth and development is not so much a change or shift in technology but in our consumption pattern. We are missing the whole point of being sustainable and permitting Big Business (through media, mass, social or otherwise) to dictate our consumption habits and decisions.
TaN: In numerous videos regarding the race of (ancient) giants sired by angels in the Holy Scriptures, it was repeatedly mentioned that angels are neither male nor female but I wondered, If that were true, why were the “fallen” angels attracted to the daughters of men? Why not attracted to the men or sons of men?
So it would seem that in a default situation where something or someone is deemed to be neither masculine nor feminine, the former is taken or assumed. Moreover, since God is “masculine” — the Father, the Son — it would only seem natural that the angels He creates would be something similar to Him, especially in terms of gender.
Lastly, it is intriguing to note that the Holy Scriptures mentions giants which implies quite a few that all of them would turn out to be evil. I guess there were not enough giants to produce an “aberration” of a good giant.
TaN: As I watched some back episodes of the television series The Big Bang Theory, it just dawned on me that there could be some truth to both the Big Bang Theory and the Biblical account of Creation. The Big Bang Theory’s infinitesimal tiny dot in space, which is supposed to be the source or origin of the universe, would be the Nothingness which God created everything from. [Or it could be something completely different.]
Nothing, by virtue of it being nothing, will have no physical size — at least not in this temporal reality. Therefore, it would logically be natural to come to the conclusion that the theoretical dot in space — from which all everything originated — has to be made of the same stuff, albeit in a much much much much denser state which may have different characteristics and attributes. Nevertheless, this dot cannot be nothing since it IS something, perhaps just not what we are used to calling as something.
More often than not and especially during these “modern” times, semantics plays a pivotal role. In fact, it has been said that semantics is frequently at the center of all our mis-understandings and misperceptions and conflicts and illogical assessments of each other, our conversations and messages, and the affairs of the world in general. People either use incorrect, inaccurate, or vague terms or substitute terms not knowing the subtle differences as we communicate with one another. This is especially true when communication is done in different languages and with people from differing cultures and values and idiomatic expressions.
In the end, it could all be the classic story of the seven blind men and the elephant — with the blind trying to describe the elephant through their sense of touch and coming up with very different accounts when it is but a matter of putting all of their accounts together.
TaN: Not only the principal but probably the sole cause of all our problems and issues regarding environmental damage and sustainable development is the hijacking of the original purpose and concept of doing business from social support and providing comfort and convenience to others to become profit-driven and pure self-interest.
Without the motivation of making profit, we will only take from the environment what we need because it will not make sense to take more. What would we use the excess for and what would it benefit us to take in excess of what we need?
Whereas if there is the objective of making profit, it makes sense to take as much as we can from the environment in order to make a huge a profit as possible. This not only puts pressure on the environment but even creates a lot of waste because we would naturally take more than can be consumed to ensure that all consumers will be served — never mind the unsold as they will be relegated as waste because factored into the profits are always the loss from unsold goods.
It is not so much the money but the greed or love of money — as forewarned and prophesied in 1 Timothy 6:10 [KJV]: “For the LOVE OF MONEY is a root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” [emphasis or capitalization mine] — that is putting everything at risk. When greed sets in, nothing is held sacred anymore and money is very tempting.
To satisfy those who simply cannot (make) do without money (or some form of medium of exchange), I will compromise and say that money has its place but those are the key operative words — “has its place”. So, I will accede to the use of money but only if restricted to certain very specific instances or conditions (such as mandatory public disclosure of actual production cost of a product and a flat tax rate on gross revenue or income without exemptions and reductions of any sort like discounts and upward progressive according to gross sales). Only prime commodities can avail of tax incentives and exemptions.
Furthermore, there will be complete transparency of company books, especially those that deal with the cost of raw or input ingredients or materials and the production of goods — i.e., can be subject to public scrutiny with the proper request made for a court order.
In conclusion, I must admit that it is extremely difficult, especially when money has been in use for such a long time and in practically all aspects of life and so many “supporters”, that it will be next to but not totally impossible to completely do away with money, especially when dealing with other people like trading or exchanging goods and putting values on the goods.
TaN: The concept or theory that one’s time of death has been pre-determined at the time of birth is more true that most people think. However, the problem is most people — particularly those who agree with the notion — have a mis-understanding of what the theory truly means.
It is not so much that the (exact) time of death has been pre-set but the conditions or circumstances that, once met, commences the inevitable. The time element is still significant, in any case, but the determining factor are the conditions that have been set to trigger the inevitable.
It is the same with the end of the world. If one combs through the Holy Scriptures carefully and meticulously, one will find the specific passage that reveals when the end that has been pre-set for the end to come. [I am not telling where, go find it yourself so you will have to read everything through. But I will give a clue…] It is not so much the exact time but the conditions that have been put in place when, once met, begins the process of the end — but the conditions met only set the wheels in motion and does not mean the world will end immediately.
Be it the world or one’s own end, time cannot be the basis because time is (very) relative in this temporal world and is entirely different or may be totally absent in Heaven — because Stephen Hawking, in his best-seller A Brief History of Time, agues that time is a dimension of matter so if there is no material existence, it follows that there will be no time.
Moreover, time is manifested in two forms: absolute and relative where absolute refers to that which is independent and self-defining whereas relative refers to the different groupings or shorthand notations (such as days, weeks, years, etc) where it is vastly different throughout the universe. A case in point is that our definition of day is a full rotation on one’s axis while a year is a full revolution or trip around a sun, but it takes Jupiter a longer period to rotate on its own axis than the Earth so a day in Jupiter does not have the same duration as here on Earth and likewise the trip around the sun. Moreover, what about the sun? How do you measure its year? A year would apply only to nonstellar bodies that go around a star.
In addition, relative time has two aspects: personal and impersonal, where the personal refers to one’s age (which is referenced from or at the place of birth — and not death) while the impersonal refers to time as mentioned in the aforementioned statement.
Finally, the end of the world is likewise relative. There is the end of the world as in the end of all existence and the personal kind which refers to one’s own death. In the case of personal end of the world, it is (for all intents and purposes) going to be “the end of everything” — literally and figuratively. Figurative “end” means one’s death is the end of one’s own world, whereas literal “end” means the end of all existence (i.e., Judgment Day).
As in sleep, where one is unconscious of the passage of time, the moment of one’s death means that we will be unconscious of the passage of time for the rest of existence so, as soon as we die, we are awaken to Judgment Day. The time elapse between the moment we die and the end of all existence will pass by so quickly and unconsciously that we will (literally) “wake up” as soon as we die.