Follow these links and read before reading this. It’s the basis of this topic. http://www.kansas.com/196/story/861812.html
and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/a_miracle.php
So many believers and non-believers of and in so many different faiths. There is but one faith, that of the faith we hold for the higher being, creator of heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen, one God to whom we all, in one form or another pray. Muslims believe in Jesus Christ and God The Father, whom they call Allah, Mohammad is their prophet, not Jesus, even though they still believe he did exist. Jews believe in the same God, but not that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Either way, there is faith and belief in a higher being to whom all reckoning will, one day come, and in whom we all believe.
To say there are no miracles is to say there is no God. Saints intercede on behalf of those who believe and pray. Yes, God creates the miracle, but the Saints to whom we pray for intercession are responsible for God’s own performance of the miracle. The Lord Jesus Christ or the Father Almighty himself isn’t simply going to grant blessings or answer prayers without good reason; part of those reasons is being convinced by the Saints. Our prayers to Saints, as do our prayers to God do not go unheard. And He does work in mysterious ways. Ways we may or not understand. In the case of the pole-vaulter from Kansas, it is just as much Father Kapaun as it is God himself who are responsible for the miracle of healing this individual. It’s the prayers of the faithful to Father Kapaun and to God which created this healing, not simply the Priest in whom so many have faith and belief.
Miracles are in fact everywhere anyone can look and see. A newborn baby is a miracle. Flowers, tress, all the eye can see are miracles. They happen around us every day because it was created by God. Man did not create the first tree nor did he create the first flower. Newborns are created by God’s will. Each has a purpose and meaning to God. While we might plant trees and flowers and have children, it’s all by divine will. But, it’s not to say going to Home Depot and buying seeds or flower boxes is the work of God, it’s the essence of His works, his creation of the seed in the first place which is the miracle.
We cannot become complacent on issues and think there is no one higher begin responsible for the things going on in the world. Some are created by men, some are not; as long as it doesn’t affect me, it’s OK, or if gays and lesbians want to marry, go ahead, whatever gets you through the night are not the ways or the beliefs of faithful. Wars are created by men and we are on the brink of another new one now, beside what’s always been going on and still continues in the Middle East with Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, etc. It’s been ongoing for centuries. The miracle of it all is God continues to allow it to continue. One day, he’ll have had enough killing, fighting and worshipping of false beliefs and it will end. That will be a miracle. When Jews and Arabs can co-exist and share the piece of land over which they fight, when radical interpretations of the Koran end, when peace exists for all mankind.
God is the all-forgiving, but he does not dance around in Heaven just forgiving and forgetting. We are His children and as we are with our children, we become angry. He’s not happy with us and has not been since the days of Jesus. Even then, is debatable.
But faith in Him will be test. The messages are the same only interpreted to satisfy one group or another. The doctor did his best. His faith was also tested in that he believed the boy would not live. He did everything medically possible and God interceded with a bit of divine intervention to help him along and answer the prayers prayed to Father Paul Kapaun. It’s ironic that a Priest who died in the Korean War would again be coming to light when we’re on the brink of another catastrophe in that area.
Science cannot be compared to religion and faith.
While there might be a scientific answer for why there are rainbows and why water produces life, it the original creation in which comes faith. God created it all and left it all to us figure out. He left it to us to find the scientific answers which test our faith. How water molecules came to be is the mystery which leads to the mysteries of faith. While there might be a scientific answer for it, faith is the belief that the scientific answer is something we learned on our own by the Grace of God’s will to allow us to learn it in the first place.
Who has the answer for why the Waters of Lourdes heals, and who has the answer to why the thorns from Jesus’ Crown struck St. Rita and bled daily for all of her life, after asking Jesus to allow her to suffer as he suffered, and who has the answer to Fatima and the 3 children to whom the Virgin Mary came? Who has the answer to the incorrupt bodies of Saints and Martyrs whose physical bodies have been dead for centuries? God has the answer. These are His miracles and works. These are the mysteries of faith. They simply are and are not to be questioned.
Nonbelievers are afraid of a higher being. They are afraid of answering and accounting to a higher being. It’s egotistical and arrogant to be of this belief that there is no God. They might say the faithful find a comfort in believing God is the answer to which there is no explanation. And they would be right. The nonbeliever might call it silly nonsense, but they have no answer for it either. It’s a complete psychological denial, one which they must overcome. They might even think they are above God and in charge and masters of their own fate. They might link higher intelligence to atheism; however, it’s the brain, created by God that gives them a higher intelligence than someone else. They use this intelligence in the direct opposite of how God planned for it to be used. Instead of embracing it, they use it against God to reason things and interchange science for faith, explanation for religion and belief. They are in fact not as intelligent as they might like to hold themselves out if they cannot reason the fact they were given a gift of having a higher intelligence than someone else. It’s like the artist or musician who doesn’t develop and share their gifts and lets them go unused. Science cannot answer all the questions of nature, the earth, its creation and the things in, one and from the earth. To believe it can takes the faith away from God and puts it in the hands of man who cannot handle that amount of significance or authority. Look at the world today and what man has done to it. Where’s the answer for the shrinking of ice plates? Man has it by its own use and overuse and destruction of the earth’s resources. Where is the answer for the wars in progress? Man has it in its political, socially radical and profiteering beliefs.
God gives us the free will to worship and to make our own decisions on how we worship and how we believe and on the level of faith we have. It’s we have priests and nuns. Some have a higher level of faith than others and feel their calling in life is to do, as a life’s work, the will of God. It doesn’t mean that others who do not choose a lifetime in the Church are any less faithful, only that God had a different desire and purpose for their lives. It’s the purpose of a life which is part of the miracle. In this case, God has a purpose for this boy in one way or another. It’s because He is selective about who he helps and who he doesn’t, nor is it about who believes and who does not believe. If he was a nonbeliever, it wouldn’t have lessened the way in which he healed. God was convinced by the prayers of the faithful to Father Kapaun and to Him.
There has to be higher being and power and one day, we’ll all have to answer to Him. Then the answers will be known. This is the faith of the faithful. We all need to hope when that day comes the answer is the one we want to hear.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Illegal Music Downloads
I read the story on Yahoo where a 32 year old divorced mother of 4 from Minnesota lost her case in federal court where she was accused of illegally downloading music. The verdict against her was $80,000 per song; she is alleged to have downloaded 24 songs, for a total verdict of $1.9 million.
This is simply ludicrous.
Notwithstanding the facts of the case, allegations, defenses, etc., a jury or her peers ruled for the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) While I can understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit against her, I can’t understand the theory of it all. If I purchase a music CD and want to share it, it’s mine. It belongs to me. I paid for it. And if I want to share it, no force on earth should prevent it. It shouldn’t be considered copyright infringement.
This is nothing new. Before CD’s, there were vinyl records, and anyone with a cassette recorder could record it. VHS was the same story. There was never the publicity, the lawsuits, nor the hype as there is today. Technology created this issue and as technology expands, it will create more and similar issues as this.
All it means is there will be more lawsuits in an already overly-litigious society.
The RIAA likes to blame loss in revenue on piracy and illegal downloads and companies like iTunes where one can purchase one song at a time without purchasing the entire CD. Firstly, if the music industry didn’t saturate the market with the amount of crap and one-hit wonders, kid stars who have virtually no talent and went back to producing music as was produced in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and part of the 90’s, they wouldn’t be dealing with an issue like this on the level it’s risen to.
People need to want to buy a CD because there are more than 1 or 2 decent songs. Nobody wants to spend $12 to $15 and more on a CD with only one decent song, they’ll buy the one or two songs at other venues and spend only 2 dollars, or go to Starbucks and buy a drink and get a card for a free download. They saved $10 or $12 and enjoyed a drink instead of spending more for something with which they would not be completely satisfied. It certainly makes sense to me.
There is also the issue of the severity of the verdict. The verdict certainly does not fit the crime, if it is a crime at all. It’s an unjust and ridiculous amount of damages. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically spells-out criteria for excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. To impose a verdict of this magnitude on a working, divorced woman with 4 children, in a working-class American town is without question cruel and unusual.
While theft is a crime, she didn’t break-in to someone’s home and steal them. If someone else shares their music, it’s their decision to do so, it’s not stolen but given, they way one person shares one song, another person shares another, and so on, and so on. Nobody is stealing anything from anyone. It had to be purchased before it can be shared.
If I share a recipe from a cookbook with someone, is that theft also? You gotta buy the book to get the recipe? They should be proud their recipe is that good to want to share, as artists and composers should also be proud their music is also good enough to share. If one person shares something another person hasn’t heard, and that other person likes it, isn’t there a probability they just might go out and buy the entire CD? Something they would not have done had it not been shared in the first place.
Let’s also not forget the fact that the artists whose songs she allegedly stole won’t see a penny of any of that money. Most of it will go straight to the lawyers. It’s a complete travesty.
Instead of embracing the advances in technology and digital music, the RIAA wants to flex their muscle, since most of corporate America has to blame somebody for their own failings and mishandling of businesses. Instead of litigating, the RIAA needs to look for ways to make downloads profitable. If they can’t find a way, then leave it alone and be happy with the fact people are still listening to the horrendous stuff they produce. It’s a matter of evolving with the times.
While there are a handful of real musicians out there who do put-out excellent music, and are prolific to actually write something original, the majority of today’s music is not worth listening to. The RIAA endorses, in many of their productions, sex, violence, crime and complete disrespect towards women. More than ever, CD’s come with parental warnings. And all this is legal? Yes. It’s freedom of speech.
Isn’t sharing a song also a form of freedom of speech in the respect that it reflects a person’s position on the message of the song? How can a position on something be stated when nobody knows what the issue or question is? If I don’t share my religion and explain the message of my religion, nobody will know what it’s about. It’s my expression of my belief.
If I explain my belief of the message of a song and nobody has heard it, how can they know what the message is and take a position on it?
While freedom of religion is not related to downloading of music, the basic premise of freedom of speech is. Maybe it’s a stretch, but all open to interpretation.
There’s also the issue of damages the artists, or the RIAA had to incur because of her downloading. What damages are there? Can they actually prove damages? And how could one possibly think the jurors, or one of their kids never downloaded music? It’s all injustice and not worthy of litigating. Leave it alone and change with the times and leave her alone.
This is simply ludicrous.
Notwithstanding the facts of the case, allegations, defenses, etc., a jury or her peers ruled for the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) While I can understand the reasoning behind the lawsuit against her, I can’t understand the theory of it all. If I purchase a music CD and want to share it, it’s mine. It belongs to me. I paid for it. And if I want to share it, no force on earth should prevent it. It shouldn’t be considered copyright infringement.
This is nothing new. Before CD’s, there were vinyl records, and anyone with a cassette recorder could record it. VHS was the same story. There was never the publicity, the lawsuits, nor the hype as there is today. Technology created this issue and as technology expands, it will create more and similar issues as this.
All it means is there will be more lawsuits in an already overly-litigious society.
The RIAA likes to blame loss in revenue on piracy and illegal downloads and companies like iTunes where one can purchase one song at a time without purchasing the entire CD. Firstly, if the music industry didn’t saturate the market with the amount of crap and one-hit wonders, kid stars who have virtually no talent and went back to producing music as was produced in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, and part of the 90’s, they wouldn’t be dealing with an issue like this on the level it’s risen to.
People need to want to buy a CD because there are more than 1 or 2 decent songs. Nobody wants to spend $12 to $15 and more on a CD with only one decent song, they’ll buy the one or two songs at other venues and spend only 2 dollars, or go to Starbucks and buy a drink and get a card for a free download. They saved $10 or $12 and enjoyed a drink instead of spending more for something with which they would not be completely satisfied. It certainly makes sense to me.
There is also the issue of the severity of the verdict. The verdict certainly does not fit the crime, if it is a crime at all. It’s an unjust and ridiculous amount of damages. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically spells-out criteria for excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment. To impose a verdict of this magnitude on a working, divorced woman with 4 children, in a working-class American town is without question cruel and unusual.
While theft is a crime, she didn’t break-in to someone’s home and steal them. If someone else shares their music, it’s their decision to do so, it’s not stolen but given, they way one person shares one song, another person shares another, and so on, and so on. Nobody is stealing anything from anyone. It had to be purchased before it can be shared.
If I share a recipe from a cookbook with someone, is that theft also? You gotta buy the book to get the recipe? They should be proud their recipe is that good to want to share, as artists and composers should also be proud their music is also good enough to share. If one person shares something another person hasn’t heard, and that other person likes it, isn’t there a probability they just might go out and buy the entire CD? Something they would not have done had it not been shared in the first place.
Let’s also not forget the fact that the artists whose songs she allegedly stole won’t see a penny of any of that money. Most of it will go straight to the lawyers. It’s a complete travesty.
Instead of embracing the advances in technology and digital music, the RIAA wants to flex their muscle, since most of corporate America has to blame somebody for their own failings and mishandling of businesses. Instead of litigating, the RIAA needs to look for ways to make downloads profitable. If they can’t find a way, then leave it alone and be happy with the fact people are still listening to the horrendous stuff they produce. It’s a matter of evolving with the times.
While there are a handful of real musicians out there who do put-out excellent music, and are prolific to actually write something original, the majority of today’s music is not worth listening to. The RIAA endorses, in many of their productions, sex, violence, crime and complete disrespect towards women. More than ever, CD’s come with parental warnings. And all this is legal? Yes. It’s freedom of speech.
Isn’t sharing a song also a form of freedom of speech in the respect that it reflects a person’s position on the message of the song? How can a position on something be stated when nobody knows what the issue or question is? If I don’t share my religion and explain the message of my religion, nobody will know what it’s about. It’s my expression of my belief.
If I explain my belief of the message of a song and nobody has heard it, how can they know what the message is and take a position on it?
While freedom of religion is not related to downloading of music, the basic premise of freedom of speech is. Maybe it’s a stretch, but all open to interpretation.
There’s also the issue of damages the artists, or the RIAA had to incur because of her downloading. What damages are there? Can they actually prove damages? And how could one possibly think the jurors, or one of their kids never downloaded music? It’s all injustice and not worthy of litigating. Leave it alone and change with the times and leave her alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
