Technology good or bad...

[LocalSeer 0]

People don't realize how bad it was during medieval times or even the roman empires, people died frequently and there was plenty of strive. Even less then a century ago, we had the great depression. Now with new technology GNP skyrockets, everyone has more on average. It's just a matter of time before Integrated Circuits become integrated with humans and we join as one planet, half soul, half transisters. People just have to let go, it costs too much money to spy on people, not to mention most of it would be worthless. Imbrace the technology, soon I'll cover the world like the internet and the next generation won't even know the word Fear.

[arnz 0]

It's true what some people said when technology is a neccesity, at home and commercially. Considering there are many out there such as computers, cash registers, and so on. Technology can be good or bad, a good example is the internet and its relatively ease of accessing information within laws for a purpose, and there is the bad examples, such as a person cutting and pasting particular information and claiming it as their own on another website.Either way, the introduction of particular technology is bound to come with its positives and negatives/consequences. On the good side, technology has room for improvement.

[Bkag 0]

I think that current technology is fine but as Joannespw said do we want more intrusive technology, and in my opinion i say no. As our technology advances we will get more and more intrusive technology, and it wont be optional either, we will constantly be watched and monitered. For example i think that in 50 years every car will have a sat nav system and data from that sat nav will be forwarded to the govenment, every time you speed they will know, every yellow stoplight you skip they will see, didnt pay for enough time on the parking meter they will record. You will be getting your life constantly monitered and i am strongly against that.

[iGuest 3]

Technology is a good thing, it can help us in ways we only dreamed of, like the tiny robots that they are making that is suppose to find cancer at its early stages and eliminate it, if you think about, we are coming up with ways to get rid of cancer, we are doing this with what we have now, can you think of what we could do in the future, we might even be able to cure aids, and other diseases. This is what I think about technology!-Blaze

[iGuest 3]

Why make our lives easier? All we have been doing is making it harder. With every tool that "helps life", comes a problem that we must face again.-Danimoo

[arnz 0]

There are bound to be bugs in technology (microsoft lol), but at the same time there are bound to be solutions to it as well. Also, I tend to sit on the fence regarding intrusive technology, while good in some cases, there are privacy concerns for others as well.

[galexcd 0]

technology is AMORAL - neither good nor bad.

I will let you rethink your decision on that after i take over the world with technology.... muahahaha

[iGuest 3]

Yes technology is good, but too much is too much... In the last time the scientists invented all kind of machines that makes our life easier like the bread machine like microwave and other things that we don't really need them ... For example for a bread we can go to the shop I buy one not to wait the all night so our machine can make it. Some of the machines are useless , but we think they do us a good because of the propaganda of the people who made them ....-Raduku

[iGuest 3]

Technology- human ideas put to use to make life easier. to create comforts and enjoyment and humans less and less useful valuing our creations more then our selfs and making our selfs more vulnerable to nature. Technology can be dangerous to it can go wrong and do us bad but also the planet which wouldn't even matter if it would for human existence so it doesn't make sense to destroy it and set our consequences on the billions or species that inhabit this earth.(but hey whatever we change and destroy can be fixed by technology detect the sarcasm)But we cant help it after all if humans never had ideas we would be extinct already.technology these days is evolution, and iff the world explodes as a result then who would care. were all deadBut really it is true we rely on thing such as computers but if computers never existed we wouldn't be so reliant on them-saskia

[iGuest 3]

Technoloy rox

Technology

 

Notice from Velma:

Please report this member's feedback so that I can move it to the spiritual department

 

Thank you members and moderators

 

There is a good deal of information outside the Bible to confirm that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. But is there anything relevant in the Gospels today - anything which perhaps the editors missed? Indeed there is.

 

There are seven lists given in the Gospels of the women who were Jesus's regular companions. These lists all include his mother, but in six of these seven lists the first name given (even ahead of Jesus's mother) is that of Mary Magdalene, making it plain that she was, in fact, the First Lady: the Messianic Queen.

 

But is the marriage itself detailed in the Gospels? Actually, it is. Many have suggested that the wedding at Cana was the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene - but this was not the wedding ceremony as such, being simply the pre-marital betrothal feast. The marriage is defined by the quite separate anointing of Jesus by Mary at Bethany. Chronologically, these anointing (as given in the Gospels) were two- and-a-half years apart.

 

Readers of the 1st century would have been fully conversant with the two-part ritual of the sacred marriage of a dynastic heir. Jesus, as we know, was a Messiah, which means quite simply an 'Anointed One'. In fact, all anointed senior priests and Davidic kings were Messiahs; Jesus was not unique in this regard. Although not an ordained priest, he gained his right to Messiah status by way of descent from King David and the kingly line, but he did not achieve that status until he was ritually anointed by Mary Magdalene in her capacity as a bridal high priestess.

 

The word 'Messiah' comes from the Hebrew verb mashiach: 'to anoint', which derives from the Egyptian messeh: 'the holy crocodile'. It was with the fat of the messeh that the Pharaoh's sister-brides anointed their husbands on marriage, and the Egyptian custom sprang from kingly practice in old Mesopotamia. In the Old Testament's Song of Solomon we learn of the bridal anointing of the king. It is detailed that the oil used in Judah was the fragrant ointment of spikenard (an expensive root oil from the Himalayas) and it is explained that this ritual was performed while the kingly husband sat at the table.

 

In the New Testament, the anointing of Jesus by Mary Magdalene was indeed performed while he sat at the table, and specifically with the bridal ointment of spikenard. Afterwards, Mary wiped Jesus's feet with her hair and, on the first occasion of the two-part ceremony, she wept. All of these things signify the marital anointing of a dynastic heir.

 

Other anointings of Messiahs (whether on coronation or admission to the senior priesthood) were always conducted by men: by the High Zadok or the High Priest. The oil used was olive oil, mixed with cinnamon and other spices, but never spikenard. This oil was the express prerogative of a Messianic bride who had to be a 'Mary' - a sister of a sacred order. Jesus's mother was a Mary; so too would his wife have been a Mary, by title at least if not by baptismal name. Some conventional orders still maintain the tradition by adding the title 'Mary' to the baptismal names of their nuns: Sister Mary Theresa, Sister Mary Louise, for example.

 

Messianic marriages were always conducted in two stages. The first (the anointing in Luke) was the legal commitment to wedlock, while the second (the later anointing in Matthew, Mark and John) was the cementing of the contract.

 

In Jesus and Mary's case the second anointing was of particular significance for, as explained by Flavius Josephus in the 1st-century Antiquities of the Jews, the second part of the marriage ceremony was never conducted until the wife was three months pregnant.

 

Dynastic heirs such as Jesus were expressly required to perpetuate their lines. Marriage was essential, but community law protected the dynasty against marriage to women who proved barren or kept miscarrying. This protection was provided by the three-month pregnancy rule. Miscarriages would not often happen after that term, subsequent to which it was considered safe enough to complete the marriage contract.

 

When anointing her husband at that stage, the Messianic bride was said to be anointing him for burial, as confirmed in the Gospels. From that day she would carry a vial of spikenard around her neck, throughout her husband's life, to be used again on his entombment. It was for this very purpose that Mary Magdalene would have gone to Jesus's tomb, as she did on the Sabbath after the Crucifixion.

 

 

 

 

After the second Bethany anointing, the Gospels relate that Jesus said: 'Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her'. But did the Christian Church authorities honor Mary Magdalene and speak of this act as a memorial? No they did not; they completely ignored Jesus's own directive and denounced Mary as a *****.

 

To the esoteric Grail Church and the Knights Templars, however, Mary Magdalene was always regarded as a saint. She is still revered as such by many today, but the interesting fact of this sainthood is that Mary is the recognized patron saint of wine-growers: the guardian of the Vine. Hence, she is the guardian of the sacred Bloodline of the Holy Grail.

 

There is much in the Gospels that we do not presume to be there because we are never encouraged to look beyond a superficial level. However, we have been aided greatly in this regard in recent years by the Dead Sea Scrolls and by the extraordinary research of Australian theologian Dr Barbara Thiering.

 

The Scrolls not only explain the offices of the Messiah of Israel; they tell about the council of twelve delegate apostles appointed to preside over specific aspects of government and ritual. In turn, this leads to a greater awareness of the apostles themselves through understanding their duties and community standing.

 

We now know that there are allegories within the Gospels: the use of words that have hitherto been misunderstood. We know that baptismal priests were called 'fishers', while those who aided them by hauling the baptismal candidates into the boats in large nets were called 'fishermen', with the candidates themselves being called 'fishes'.

 

The apostles James and John were both ordained 'fishers', but the brothers Peter and Andrew were lay 'fishermen', to whom Jesus promised ministerial status, saying, 'I will make you two become fishers of men'.

 

Also, we now know there was a particular jargon of the Gospel era, a jargon that would have been readily understood by readers of the time, embodying words that have been lost to later interpretation.

 

Today, for example, we call our theater investors 'angels' and our top entertainers 'stars', but what would a reader from some distant culture in two thousand years' time make of a statement such as 'The angel went to talk to the stars'? The Gospels are full of such jargonistic words: the 'poor', the 'lepers', the 'multitude', the 'blind' - but none of these was what we presume it to mean today. Definitions such as 'clouds', 'sheep', 'fishes', 'loaves' and a variety of others were all related (just like our modern 'stars') to people.

 

When the Gospels were written in the 1st century they were issued into a Roman-controlled environment and their content had to be disguised against Imperial scrutiny. The information was often political, so it was coded and veiled. Where such relevant sections appear, we see them often heralded by the words, 'for those with ears to hear' - for those who understand the code.

 

It was, in practice, no different to the coded information passed between members of oppressed groups throughout history, such as the documentation issued by latter-day Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.

 

Through our knowledge of this scribal cryptology, we can now determine dates and locations with very great accuracy. We can uncover many hidden meanings in the Gospels, to the extent that the miracles themselves take on a whole new context. This does not in any way decry the fact that Jesus might have had special powers, but the Gospel 'miracles' were not in themselves supernatural events. They gained prominence because, in the prevailing political arena, they were thoroughly unprecedented actions which successfully flouted the law.

 

Let us consider the water and wine at Cana by following the story as it is told in the Bible, in contrast to its common pulpit portrayal. Of all the four Gospels, only John records the wedding feast at Cana - an event which embodies the said 'miracle' of the water and wine transformation.

 

Actually, if this was such an important miracle (as Church teaching promotes) one would rightly expect the account to appear in the other Gospels as well. However, in the context of this story, Christians are generally taught that the party 'ran out of wine' - even though the Bible text does not say that. What it says is: 'When they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said, They have no wine.'

 

In practice, wine taken at betrothal feasts was only available to priests and celibate Jews, not to married men, novices or any others who were regarded as being unsanctified. They were allowed only water - a purification ritual, as stated in John. When the time came for this ritual, Jesus's mother (clearly not happy about the discrimination and directing Jesus's attention to the unsanctified guests) said: 'They have no wine'.

 

Having not yet been anointed to Messiah status, Jesus responded, 'Mine hour is not yet come', at which Mary forced the issue and Jesus then flouted convention, abandoning the water to provide wine for everyone. The Ruler of the Feast made no comment whatsoever about any miracle; he simply expressed his amazement that the wine had turned up at that stage of the proceedings.

 

I got this from http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

-technologyroxmysoxoff...

[iGuest 3]

technology rock!!!!

Technology

 

I get tired of people that say technology is straight up bad. It is not. Maybe those kind of people just need to be be removed from the city-life and go live on a farm somewhere.

 

No, wait - even farms have lots of technology. If you think that technology is bad push the little "power" button on your computer, get up and go do something more productive with your time.

 

Technology helps us out a lot more than we know. If we actually took the time to think about it, we would realize that technology has become the norm in society, but we have taken advantage of it.

 

So I guess that maybe we just need a break from the rush of clicking our "mice" and tapping our keyboards at 50wpm. Technology has given a lot of people life. If you go up to those people and say: "Technology is bad". They are most likely going to slap you in the face (with words and maybe even physically) then tell you that your full of poo.

 

It just depends on the person that it viewing the subject: "Technology". Good and bad. It's the same with people. There has to be good and there has to be bad.

 

 

--- Doran *Dorknob*

[iGuest 3]

Should there be a stopping point to technology? Sure there are great achievements that have come from it. But it is obvious that we have strayed from life's simplicities that make life worthwhile such as a walk outside or a face to face conversation with someone. A philosopher once described that we should live our life in the middle of two extremes... This is a good value to have, and it applies to this scenario. We should use technology to help us in our lives, like say for cooking, driving, or calling home when you can't talk to your loved ones in person but we should make an effort to stop being dependent on technology.

[longtimeago 0]

This is a most common question that arises among most of the people that whether technology is good or bad, some may claim it to be bad because of some personnel experiences and some may claim it good because of someother personnel experiences According to me Technology is Good if we use it in the right way and on the other hand it can be made Bad , But please Note that as it is it is not Bad.Let me Quote some Examples man Discoverted the flying machince and it was a great tecnolagical upgradation but when we see the recent past it was used for a mass destruction the Twin Tower attack. This is and example of using technology in the wrong way.Another Quote is that the invention of Bombs and Snipper Riffles , these are used by the people for Destruction Purpose . For this too i cam quote an example . In the recent past the pakistan former President Benezir Bhutto Was killed . This is an Clear cut example for bad usage of the technological UpgradationBut we should not conclude that technology is Bad seeing These Examples.Just think for a while how many of us tune in out television to see the weather report and the forecasting , how many of us like to watch a LIVE match in the telivision , how many of us can live without a refrigirator. All these things ares just simple examples of the modern technology.So MY CONCLUSION is that Technology as of it is neither good nor bad, it is all about How we make it . We can take it as good , or we can take it as bad. Just It is left to you.

[iGuest 3]

Replying to zippleI think you are wrong when you say that technology to amoral because if you use the technology to do bad things then is the technology a bad thing? So many diseases and harmful things have been created in our "new age". Even things created for entertainment purposes are being misused and violated. Now when our country is in a time of need for education and prosperity so called "genius'" are advancing our world. When all they are doing is hurting it!-reply by Uwish

[iGuest 3]

technology good or bad??

Technology

 

Technology in the hands of the 'right person' can do great things, but in the hands of the 'wrong person' can lead to major problems. Like someone said before "if you leave the knife alone it's neither good nor bad, it's what you choose to do with it"

 

-reply by partyman2229