Friday, September 15, 2006:
Concerning the Technological Singularity, it is supposed that there will come a point at which the progression of technological development will cycle so quickly that it will move beyond natural human comprehension. The word natural is used here advisedly.
Human beings are fighting nature as part of nature. Humans are the architects of their cities, etc. Humans are the computer hardware and software architects as well. As such, they are likened in the minds of some as like unto gods. The terms here are meant in very particular contexts.
The computers, once they reach a completely self-replicating and self-learning stage will not require human kind for their, the computer(s), procreation. Unless humanness is networked into the computer system and humans stop being humans, per se, but cross into transhumanism (cyborgs and beyond), every last vestige of humanness will be at the mercy of that system. Humans will have created their own master.
The computer will be working in the mundane world, meaning all that is not spirit. It will race to catch up with God. It will seek to control everything. However, no matter what it does, it will never be able to exceed the master. It won't even be close.
Why is that? The reason is because God is not the god who created out of chaos. God is our God who created out of God. God didn't begin creation out of formless space. God created space. God also created time and dimension. If it is, God created it.
Don't read things into this. There are two views in competition in the world. One is that God is the author of only good. The other is that God is the author of both good and evil. How one defines God is critical to how eternity will unfold for that one.
God created the freewill choice to become self-enslaved in evil, but for our edification and spiritual development and salvation, God also warned against choosing unrighteousness (selfishness, which is harmful).
God is the author of good and not evil. God allowed free choice. Was that an evil thing to do? This is the crux. The answer to that question is to know what went on in the proverbial, and literal if you like, Garden of Eden.
Is the Creator also the architect? Yes and no depending upon one's full context. You see, God is Most High. Satan is below God. Satan is an architect. Satan is not the Creator of the beginning.
We, each of us, is below God. We cannot exceed God no matter what. We may only join God, as in God takes us into his bosom. The error comes when the mind says who needs God and goes on to say I am God, without God, just as self. In other words, it reaches the point where one says it is human beings who are the top. In fact, there is a notion that God is a human being, just further evolved. However, God has always been spirit and known it—Always!
This life is a learning ground and test and filtering system of souls. Our individual faith and deeds as one is that upon which we each shall be judged.
Developing the computer system heading toward that singularity is a dead-end shortcut. It is assumed to be a shortcut that won't require purity of spirit, pure unselfishness. That's a dead-end. In fact any computer system reaching a singularity will arrive at that conclusion.
Will it bow down and worship God?
Jesus knew all about these seeming paradoxes. He knew them better than anyone else who has ever lived. When Satan tempted (tested) Jesus, Satan was the spirit of humanism absent God, not humanism with God. Satan said, if you will bow down and worship your own ego, you will be able to takeover the planet. Satan was right of course in one sense but not in the sense that matters. Jesus rejected that ego trip, that self-esteem trip.
Think about that. Jesus was one with God, but was not about to gratify Jesus's ego. Jesus was a separate individual while at the same time without conceit, pride, or self-esteem. That would be incredible (not believable) except it is the most true thing this world has ever seen.
This is where the dichotomous thinking comes in where Jesus is first by being last. He was the lowliest, the most humble, in earnest and, therefore, in God's eyes, the best.
Jesus was more alive than others. He still is alive. While he walked this earth though, he was more alive than anyone else. His feelings were more. His emotions were huge. When he prayed out in the wilderness, when he felt God, when he felt the distance of humanity and his own closeness therefore, his emotions would have overwhelmed others. His sorrow was so deep that it would have killed others. His joy was so uplifted that others would have been driven mad. This sounds like a manic-depressive, but Jesus was the most sane person I have ever heard of. After all, the new commandment consists of the smartest words and idea this world has ever heard or seen.
He didn't use any technology, any human architecture, any computer system to effectuate materialization. He just knew. He was absolutely certain about God. He didn't strain or go through any hocus-pocus. It wasn't hypnotism, per se. It was God working through his son. It was the Holy Spirit, who is God the father, in Jesus our brother.
Oh, see the line between the selfish and the unselfish. It runs through everything. It separates the compatible from the incompatible. It divides the house that cannot stand into the house that can stand. The new heaven will stand forever.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)