Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Like what?
    
    		Alfred

	The Gulf War to me was an unnerving demonstration of how high technology
is being put to use.  And because the technology used was best that money
could buy, the kill ratio was as high as 2000:1 (by some estimates).

	Another unsettling thought compared the Gulf War to a giant Nintendo
game, a parallel which I could not ignore.  Video games also came about
through high technology.  Have video games helped to dehumanize our
adversaries?  Are we being desensitized through a seemingly innocent form
of high tech diversion?

Peace,
Richard

    People have always dehumanized their adversaries in war. Always.
    One doesn't make war against people; one makes war against the
    enemy. Attempting to place blame on technology for "allowing"
    people the rationalize what they have done in war misses a very
    important concept. I do not accept the idea that killing remotely
    and via high tech is more or less easy or more or less dehumanizing
    then killing eye to eye.

    		Alfred

    The issue of how modern military technology has allowed wars to be
    conducted at long distance has been raised before, particularly during
    the Vietnam War.  Dehumanization of the enemy is certainly an important
    part of the wartime propaganda machinery, and removing any obstacles
    towards that goal is no doubt useful for the war effort.  Obviously,
    high military technology is not invented for propaganda purposes; the
    goal of this kind of technological "improvement" is to increase the
    efficiency of the direct warmaking effort.

    The effect of long distance warfare is mostly on the warrior, I
    suspect, since they are the ones who don't have to directly confront
    the faces of the people they kill.  But what about the civilians within
    a nation at war?  For them, it isn't the technology of the war itself,
    but rather the technology of information, that is important.  During
    wartime, the flow of information vitally affects the public's
    perception of the war.  This was the lesson of the Vietnam War,
    America's first "living room" war, one that was not lost on the
    Pentagon, which instituted more rigorous press controls this time
    around.

    One of the most memorable images of the Vietnam War was the photograph
    of the naked Vietnamese girl running in agony down the road.  Here we
    have a case of a simple piece of technology--a camera--that brought
    home the horrors of war.  Technology can be an effect medium for
    communicating the message of peace.  The problem with the Persian Gulf
    War was not, I believe, its high tech nature per se, but rather the
    images associated with its high tech nature.  The myth was that this
    was a Nintendo War, with surgical strikes and a minimum of civilian
    casualties.  The thousands of Iraqi civilians who were incinerated by
    Allied bombs during the raids on the nation's infrastructure were not,
    unlike that fateful Vietnamese girl, given much exposure to the
    American people.  Nor does there seem to be much interest in the
    malnutrition, cholera, typhoid, and other postwar health effects of the
    "surgical" strikes against Iraq by allied bombs.  But there was
    certainly much fascination with the Nintendo-style images, photographed
    from (of course) a safe distance within Allied bombers, showing the
    bombs as they dropped toward their targets.

    -- Mike

There's a line from an old comedy routine that goes

    "a Power so Great that it can Only be Used for Good or Evil!"

Like Mike points out, we can use "high-tech" to fight a war safely at a 
distance, but at the same time we can bring the horrors of war into a hundred 
million living rooms around the world.

That same technology can also be used to spread the Gospel to thousands, as 
well as to bilk millions of dollars from people.

Several years ago a Soviet relations analyst noted that the introduction of 
television to the USSR had brought the beginning of the end to the oppressive
political regime.  The reason:  because no matter how the commentators tried
to explain how the "poor oppressed citizens of the West" had to protest (in a
typical protest rally), they could not hide the fact that the protesters were
wearing nice clothes and driving nice cars.  The unblinking eye can bring
truth, but it can also mesmerize us and numb the humanity right out of our
souls. 

A friend of mine from school had a job at a government research lab designing 
electronic detonators for nuclear warheads.  He decided he could not in good 
conscious do that, so he quit, but the work goes on.

As an employee of a "high-tech" company, and a technology enthusiast, I have 
often wondered if I were engaging in a "good work" or not.  I am still here.

One difficulty I think "high-tech" may bring with it, perhaps more than other 
forms of technology, is the God syndrome.  It is very easy to become the 
posessed instead of the posessor.  People commonly accept the "word of the 
computer" as Truth and let it control their lives.  Computers, for some,
represent the ideal of omniscience, while high-tech medicine seems to bring
with it the power of life and death.  One is forced to have faith in it, 
because there is little understanding of it, meanwhile, more and more people
remain illiterate, poor, and sick of body, mind and soul.  

The high-tech image I have of the Gulf war is of the nightime bombing raids,
with a voice-over promising "a kinder, gentler America". 

Peace,

Jim

	I agree that high technology, by itself, is neither good nor evil.
At the same time I assert that high technology can be used for good purposes
and also for purposes which are malevolent, destructive and evil.

	I sense that the Gulf War was surrealistically "sanitized" through
the use of technological gadgetry and through the use of euphemistic phrases
such as, "collateral damage," and, "surgical strike."

Peace,
Richard

    	How about the morality of the Strategic Defense Initiative
    (Star Wars)?
    
    	Americans were told SDI would serve a giant umbrella protecting
    the U.S. against incoming missiles.  When bigger and bigger holes in
    the umbrella (or "peace shield," as it was euphemistically called)
    appeared, the focus of protection was altered.  Now the official stance
    is that SDI will protect our retaliatory land-based missiles from being
    destroyed.
    
    	In the meantime, the U.S. plods ahead with plans to desecrate
    space with a shroud of military hardware.  How far will we reach
    because we're ruled by fear?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
>    	In the meantime, the U.S. plods ahead with plans to desecrate
>    space with a shroud of military hardware. 

	Desecrate? Seems like strong language. Just because weapons are
	some place does not mean desecration. Not to me anyway.

			Alfred

Note 263.8
>                   -< and space is not a holy place anyway >-

Oh?  And, why not?
    
>	Desecrate? Seems like strong language. Just because weapons are
>	some place does not mean desecration. Not to me anyway.

Well, you're entitled, of course.

As I see it, the military serves a very limited function: to kill and destroy.
It is bad enough that God's Earth has been violated and laid to waste
through military operations (Desert Storm serving as an excellent example),
but God's space beyond the atmosphere of the Earth is still largely virgin;
that is, chaste, pure, unblemished and relatively unpolluted by human delivery
systems engineered for death and destruction.

Peace,
Richard

>>                   -< and space is not a holy place anyway >-
>
>Oh?  And, why not?

	Perhaps I have a more limited view of a holy place. To me it is
	a place reserved for worship and generally not used for other purposes.

> As I see it, the military serves a very limited function: to kill and destroy.

	Well, you're entitled, but I see the military and Police as little
	different from each other. I see their role as one of protector and
	servant. 

				Alfred

Didn't the USA and the USSR at one time or another sign a treaty banning the
launch of military hardware into orbit?  Does anyone know what specifically
was allowed/banned in those agreements? 

This could get rather sticky, because on the one hand there are the more 
passive reconnaisance satellites (in fact, I recall that as the system of 
weather/resource monitoring satellites nears its predicted end life, some 
surveillance satellites may be transfered into that role (hooray!)), and on
the other hand, some peaceful exploratory hardware (Voyagers for instance)
employ plutonium power plants, and there are many concerns over the launch 
of that type of material. 

As far as SDI goes, I'll just say that I am against it for political, moral, 
ethical, social, technical, and spiritual reasons.

Again, the ability to launch *anything* into orbit is a great creative feat.  
For what use shall we employ that gift of God?

Peace (the kind that blooms in the heart, not launches from a bunker),

Jim

>Didn't the USA and the USSR at one time or another sign a treaty banning the
>launch of military hardware into orbit? 

	Atomic weapons were covered. I don't believe anything else was.

>As far as SDI goes, I'll just say that I am against it for political, moral, 
>ethical, social, technical, and spiritual reasons.

	I can understand (though may not agree with) political, social and 
	technical reasons. The spiritual, moral, and ethical reasons are the 
	ones I have trouble with. It is in fact for moral and ethical reasons 
	that I overcome my own technical questions to support SDI.

			Alfred 

     This concept of a holy place is an interesting thing. I would
   tend to think that if one believed that the universe is God's
   creation, then one would view everyplace as a holy one.

     A similar train of thought comes to mind with respect to weapons
   of mass destruction. If all humans are your brothers and sisters 
   in Christ then is not killing one crucifying Christ all over again ? 

     Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I perceive as
   as some of the basic beliefs of Christianity as I understand the
   Bible and other Christian writings ?

     Someone please let me know if this poor confused Zen Buddhist
   has got it all wrong.

                                                      Mike
     

    Mike, I agree with you on both points.
    
    -- Mike

	Rather then rathole here on the topic of holy places I have opened
	a new topic. This has gotten me thinking.

		Alfred

 
re.13



>    Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I perceive as
>   as some of the basic beliefs of Christianity as I understand the
>   Bible and other Christian writings ?

	Yes and no. No, because "Christianity" is all over the map as to 
beliefs.

	Yes, in terms of your question... "If all humans are your brothers and 
sisters in Christ then is not killing one crucifying Christ all over again ?" 

	Some misunderstanding here with the Biblical revelation...

	- All humans are not brothers and sisters in Christ, however, all 
	  true believers in Jesus are.

	- The say that killing another is the same as crucifying the Lord
Jesus is to misunderstand the meaning and accomplishment of the cross. These
two must be separated to understand their relationship.


regards,
ace

    Mike .13,
    
    You are echoing *exactly* the perceptions of Meister Echart, Christian
    mystic who lived in the body several centuries ago, amongst many others 
    who came before and after him.  His work has been a tremendous source 
    of inspiration in my life and forms much of my own spiritual ground
    of being.  
    
    I have said many times in this file that all of creation is sacred to
    me.  I have stated in Golf::, but I don't think here that imho, the
    injustices humans do to each other and nature *is* akin to Christ
    being crucified over and over and over again.
    
    sigh.
    Kb

           
           Let's see if I can get this started again.  I view high tech &
           Christianity in whether one uses it (technology) or abuses it,
           and whether "it" becomes an idol before God (eg- Nintendo uses
           more time than time w/God).  
           
           It also fascinates me how science & high tech are so
           intertwined with God.  The thing about computers & high-tech
           is that the "goal" (or highest form of computer) is basically
           an electronic super-human.  That is, a machine that can do
           everything a man can do, but faster, without mistakes and
           without emotions.  
           
           When we get close to that "end-state", I wonder if man will
           think we're equal with God...
           
           Steve