I'll coarsely go over the content, spotlight some statements, and examine the value of the conclusion in comparison with biblical views based on straightforward exegese, and try to capture the tenure of the piece, which, boringly enough, is predictably summed up by the above expression.
The first two paragraphs cetereson the question of what the meaning
of easter is without the crusifiction, and the fact that crusifiction
is a horrible death, and was not even depicted in early church
history, say 4 centuries. He mentiones the slaughtering of even
children in one breath with the crusifiction, without explicitly
stating wether he is for or against both forms of suffering, and
seems to suggest that protesting against chrildren and others
being slaughtered is what Jesus' crucifiction is about.
Then Jesus walking with the cross is romanticised as the sign of Jesus caring love for humanity, which according to his view should be interpreted as foltering for the sake of good, and his death as the best part of His life and act of love for humanity.
I'll go on without interpreting further, and save more comments until further on. The next statement (or observation or wish ?) is that, and I quote" where real people without violence persue a good cause, the mighty ones of "this world" resist against every disarming, loving act of a person towards another person in trouble. Nothing is as dangerous as unarmed and disarming love as a protest against factual injustice. And such a situation is dangerous for both sides: threatening for the position of the ones in power who abuse their power. But also threatening for the witnesses of of justice and love. The latter become vulnerable to the violent ones in powerm, deadly vulnerable. Such people with vision are disposed of, quitely or by a fake official trial. And this history doesn't stop, it keeps repeating itself until today. End of quote.
What is this man talking about? What is he alluding to? Sacrifice of the masses? The take over of the incredibly cruel and abusive Roman power structures by a system that even carries its name?
Seriously, which people in power resist against unarmed resistance? I don't think I mistranslated, it says that people in power start to have a problem when people protest in an unarmed way. So? Should they resist in an armed way instead, would that bve better? And of course someone in power is dangerous for someone who is not, what kind of rethoric is that? Of course peoople in power might become dangerous to unamrd people resisting them, what does this have to do with God searching man or easter? To me it sounds almost like a threat from a power system that is affraid of resistance and is appearently willing to be lethal in the process. Well, the only appropriate response to that seems to be more lethal, isn't it? It is rather cheap to say that people should be (spiritually) unarmed laymen, when the ones calling you to be that are te ones in power, and fail to mention that armed resistance is even more lethal. A fact well known from reformation times, to mention another "random" time period, about 4 centuries ago. Or am I seeing ghosts here?
.. I'skip some parts for shortage of time...
Jesus alledgedly questioned the reason for his crusifiction.
Wrong: He asked why his Father left Him.
Power abuse: which power abuse ?
Roman catholicism and the 6 million killed jews and others Is it reasonably credible that 12 years of thinking about the roman catholic role in 2d ww produce 12 (!) pages of non-apologies instead of the pope crawling on his knees to Jerusalem?
Redicilous scenario of course
Since my family and quite possibly the non-officially present
social aid circuit (because I renounced its help deeming it more
needed to find some people that speak the truth) in their
infinite wisdom have deemed it better to be outside the
christian sheltered yuoghthostel scene and on the street, I have
the unmeasurable privilige of finding out the actual social
content of the (in)famous Amsterdam social face, and find that just
like eastern europe, the main activity that is expected and
possible for its subjects is joining the queue.
Please get me straight here there are people and organizations that put in a lot of serious effort to aid and be there for people that are not necessarily the nicest persons and the assets to society, although this is evidently just as much subject to variation as the average education level of the homeless person. But I would like to make clear that in my opinion some mechanisms to keep people from using the Salvation Army and all other more or less similar organizetions as a holyday resort could use some polishing and oiling.
Not quie as ridiculous as claiming that computers are aware of
social events which draw a lot of focussed attention, and change
the random generators numbers as a result. Science ? yes. Fiction?
No. Obscure wannabe scientist? No.
A princeton professor in psychology to be precise, with well documented, double checked, long standing research results. As I have time I want to elaborate on this, because it may have profound fundamentally scientific repercussions, with respect to event horizons and reordering, predefined compbination patterns in number theory and major human events, etc. I will find out wether the changed random patterns are recurrent when one starts fro the same seed in the same time interval. Or wether maybe there is a random seed uncertainty principle, excluding the possibility of combined knowledge of the seed and the attention peek matching results, which maybe circumventable by similar techniques as in the photon coupling experiment. Take a complex number as random seed?
A more down to earth but still highly intreaging option is the assumption of inducing a processor or memory failure at an comman attention peak. Since computer circuitry is not free from possible quantum level originating faults, it is possible that this actually affects the random generators output sequence. At least it would take things outside the before the big bang or works only once or measurement induced observation realm.
A question that also burns on my lips is the question of double or single implication: does the reverse also hold, taking the same sed, can one be sure to generate an event which draws a lot of attention after the same time inerval. Or does the random generato /clock generator get entangled in a time gap? But what about files as a record? Considering this article, maybe. Der liebe Gott dobbelt nicht, er macht attention Democratie. .
Or should we observe a law for conservation of variance here? But that would raise the question of what varies compared to what, that all depends on the non-variant model. The whole question of common geometric properties would seem to be at stake here, is there a reason to assume that at some level preferences for certain (maybe even relativistic) geometric structures are influenced be appearence of matching or non-matching structures, i.e. do basic structures self-amplify? Or is that a similar question to asking wether the uncertainty relation should still be strictly linked with the wave equation when split photons measurably interact? (OK I'm pushing it here).
I want to start with a observing a few fairly known and
reasonably verifiable technological concepts applicable
to the development and production of high tech weapons.
Some scientific historical achievements
There are 2 major developments that come to attention with
respect to possible application in weapon industry: knowledge
about human biology, and knowledge about radiation of all types,
including ordinary types such as radio transmitters.
Some time ago I saw documentary material (on dutch VPRO television)
concerning visually recorded the use of tuned high frequency
radiation used in the
30's or so by a producer of high quality optical microscopes
to selectively literally explode cancer cells in living tissue.
More commonly known of course is the general use of radiation to
do something similar, but at least this type of affecting
living cells is clearly known already for a long time, and that
could make one wonder what those nazi "medical" experiments
during secondworld war were actually about. Of course I at this
point do not speak about the ("forbidden") mosterd gas and other
more subtle biological weapons, but about directable, steerable,
invisible, unhampered by known international agreements type
of weapons based on radioation from anywhere in the
technically available spectrum from 0 to a few hundred giga Herz.
Another area where knowledge has quickly accumulated in forms roughly known to the general public is the area of small scale biology. Well known is the whole area of genetics, from dna blueprints of living cells to engineering new genetic material. Less well known, but available in widely spread books (such as Hammeroff c.s. "Ultimate Computing", which I stumbled on by browsing a library index for books on parallel computing, and consider a provoking enough title to take a peek at the book, ending up devouring it) is the area of nano-biology which concerns sub-cell structures and processes which gouvern the mechanics of mytosis, the DNA guided replication of cells, give more insight into the possible processes involved in the transfering of signals through nerve cells, and the growth of axons and dendrites in the brain, and possibly can provide the highly relevant and yet not available answeres to questions concerning the geometrical guides of tissue growth. The answer to the latter question would have to take in to account some type of inter-cell communication between body cells, a subject of which is hardly touched on even in its most basic two cell version by academic writings and PhD thesises. At least this was the situation when I looked into that area a few years ago.
The main thing to notice is that Hameroff's book was written I think about 20 years ago (could be wrong, but it was quite some time), and that it contains a lot of possible research directions, with a lot of quite non-theoretical results available already, and generates a wealth of interesting lines of though concerning the operation of human cells, tissues, ans brain functioning. I want to seperately mention brain functioning, because there is widely known scientificaly founded material on the functioning of neurons and their interaction, which completely fails to accurately model both the dynamical behaviour of existing neuronical structures as the way the brain "choses" or decides to make new connections grow. It is in my mind impossible that these processes are at least to some degree influenced by nano-biological events and particles such as micro-tubules and filaments made of the same, researching of which might lead to less ill-informed models on how the brain manages to mechanically (?) implement its remarkable capabilities and sensitivities, and as a result might take brain research away from fairly course grained e.g. tomological observations and neural network approaches that are never going to be able to capture some of the brains main properties into a more mechanismwise understanding of small and large scale behaviour our most powerful organ.
The main observation is that there is an incrediable amount of effort going on for years already in the genetics area, amazing amounts of funding and results, and the basis for the actual processes around this valued inherited materials gouverning most of the most serious deseases such as immune deseases and cancer is already arond for the incredibly long time span of decades and is hardly touched upon, at least in public. Why? Is my assesment of the possiblities and implications these subject so far from reality? I seriously doubt this point of view.
Known techniques not known to be applied in weapons
A major subject of discussion of the so called star wars project
was the use of heavy industrial type of lasers. The main idea
was to start and give impulse to continue the research and
development of very high energy laser devices that from a position
in space would be able to inactivate nuclear or other types of
mainly long range missiles, by hitting them with a directed
beam of radiation in either the light wavelength range, or higher.
The amount of energy these devises would generate would be in the
the dozens of megawatt rangem which is incredibly much,
and be of a coherent, non-divergent (up to 10 meter of
diameter) or focussed beam type. That would eiter be enough energy
to melt the outside of the missiles by mere brute radiation,
or to seriously upset the (shielded) electronics inside the
missile to make it change course or self destruct.
It can be verified that lasers of serious power (maybe not
yet up to those levels) are already available in fully
operative even civilly apllied fashion, as industrial laser
for processing metals, ceramics and other materials.
Imagine walking into the beam of an industrial laser set in
action to burn holes in metal, that is probably enough to do
lasting if not lethal damage, requires no bullets, is not too
easy to shield, although I guess this is negotiable (a nice
mirror?), and when (electronically) kept tightly focussed
could probably simply burn holes in army materials to render them
inactive, evidently including al the fragile biological tissue
that it happens to encounter. These type of lasers are usually
pulsed, and already require a very large mains supply socket,
but their power can be increased technically for instance by
not using them in pulsed mode, and short bursts of use might
be powerable from not too large transportable devices.
In short, a possible weapon which I have never heard of. Maybe there are problems with its application, maybe it would be too ugly (?), I don't know.
A brainstorm on combining detailed biologial knowledge and highly controlled radiation technology, and the likelyhood of military application In short, I cannot imagine that all the scientific knowledge and disclosed areas of research have not been explored to at least some degree, that the army wouldn't have an interest int them, that there are no heavyweight reasons for such slow taking hold of the good medical possibilities of the type of research I mentioned, and that the combination with highly controllable and buildable radiation transmitters has not been given consideration and led to results. (more later).
Resulting major questions
Does equipment like the above exist, what are its capabilities,
what is its stage of development, what's next?
Is it unthinkable that it is possible to influence brain
cell or biological subsystem behaviour by technological means?
Is it possible that billions of funding have yielded deviced
that are capable of having an increasing amount of accuracy
to do so, to the point of seriously influencing though
or biological patterns? Can TV sets be fitted with
hardly noticable teletext steerable circuits to mess with
ones' brain. You could tuch them away in the high voltage
circuitry nicely sealed in plastic, sufficient power available.
I seriously doubt wether this would be the case but hearing
workers that install electrical equipment say that sometimes
they install some realy weird boxes makes me wonder. I
know it is quite possible to switch on public lights by simply
modulating the 50/60Hz power supply wires with some additional
information, and you can even modulate audio on them.