After reading the article, I think more likely it is Matthew 24:14 which explains the desire to "hasten the coming of Christ’s return". The verses says, in the NIV, _14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come._ I suppose he is equating "improve the quality of life of every human on the planet" with them hearing the Gospel.
Check out the wide breadth of tuts provided by Digital Ocean. This is just one post, misleadingly titled at that, whereas DO has LOADS of excellent and clearly explained tuts.
EP did not say he achieved #1; about #2, "I spent much of my
life in this state, and I know all about it."; "I first considered what seemed to be in my best interest, or, more often, gave no thought to the matter at all." is his take on #3; "my normal slouch" in #4; he makes no claim to have gained an eternal perspective, merely quoting others in #5; that "cloud of uncertainty" gives little confidence in #6; being 90, he had little to say about #7 sadly; the reader has to guess whether he was lucky or not in #8; and finally #9 is likewise devoid of actual personal recounting of what he has.
All in all, I find "advice" and "what I've learned" tomes by *older* people to be unhelpful. When someone has spent much other their life living contrary to the advice they are now dishing out, I question it. I prefer advice from someone currently living life, learning and adjusting and growing
now... not at the end when it doesn't matter.
> I prefer advice from someone currently living life, learning and adjusting and growing now... not at the end when it doesn't matter.
He spent time to think about what he's learned and decided to put it in writing at 94 years old. He seems to still be avid reader at his age. He still thinks about ideas of living a fulfilling life. It seems to me he's still currently living life, learning and adjusting and growing now. There may even be a lesson there to having a long life: It always matters. What do you consider the end?
yes. why do we listen to this guy compared to any other 90 years old person? most people would listen to him because he is monetarily successful or because “he made it”. but as he points out, most of it was luck, so there’s really no point in paying closer attention to him than to any other older person that would like to give away his or her advice. number 4 is literally “I read a meme on fb that said that you should be happy now”. great advice. i was hoping he would say something like “i saw this quote and that triggered an interest in buddhist philosophy or meditation”. instead he ends that advice with “i saw another post on fb that confirmed this idea”
i understand he has no obligation to give any good reason for his advice, he just felt like giving it, and that’s nice of him. i would just suggest younger people not to waste too much time listening to “successful people” (whatever that means) on advice because it’s usually not applicable anymore or at all and is just entertainment with no real value
What I've read in his essay is that he piloted a flight simulator for most of his life, then read a manual and some things other people who wrote about flying and landing. So, yes, as I said, I prefer flying with pilots who have learned to land, are continuing to learn, and are getting better each time, with bigger planes and more people.
I'm not sure you've understood the idea. While your values include not breaking certain rules of ethics, your value ALSO clearly extends to being offended by others when they do it. So your value isn't purely "don't break ethical rules", but, "observe ethical rules and react when they are broken, by me and by others". I think what the author (not OP) means is that once you are virtuously selfconstituted, your decision about these and what YOU do about it is not easily swayed or pushed around. In this sense, it shouldn't matter that _others_ are breaking rules... obviously it isn't an ethical rule for them... but that you are clear that you wouldn't do the same. Thus, if your activities at work relate to pursuing goals aimed at by these broken rules, then it is _work_, and you do your work.
Another way of interpreting what you've shared is that what you are stressed about is actually _not quite the value you think you have_, otherwise you would have walked away, self-assuredly, emotionally certain in the rightness of removing yourself. But you haven't. So it isn't a set value. Obviously another value like, "I have to eat" preempts this ethical value being broken at work. I'm not saying this is wrong or not, just trying to help you navigate your stressful environment.
Since we are talking about something as fanciful as aliens, consider this perspective: There are no aliens because their existence runs counter to what the Bible says about God.
Assuming the only creation God engaged in was planet earth, how he is described (as never changing) means that his revelation of himself in Christ (who was both human and God, in order that his death would be like our deaths, ((wages of sin is death)), but whose divinity would allow him to rise from the dead ((thereby proving the penalty of sin - death - had been paid for _eternally_ {{being God}})) means that any other creation in the universe would need to be in a similar situation as humanity on earth...otherwise Christ as God/Human is totally senseless and useless on these other planets...which can not be since God does not change. Thus, no aliens, anywhere.
Now before ppl go off screeching about religion, this is in no way an attempt to convert. It is just a perspective made possible by someone who reads the Bible and likes to try to place any modern idea against it, and maybe the same might help someone else grapple with the immensity of It All. It also doesn't mean that there is no need for humanity to keep searching and exploring the stars.
The idea that God is unchanging, or "immutable," is a common literal interpretation, often derived from passages such as Malachi 3:6 ("For I the Lord do not change") and Hebrews 13:8 ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever"). However, the idea that these passages mean that God's actions or creations cannot change or vary is not the only possible interpretation.
It's possible to understand these passages as referring to God's nature and character, rather than His actions. In other words, God is consistent in His attributes — His love, justice, mercy, and so on — but this doesn't necessarily mean that His actions or creations are limited to a single pattern. After all, even within the Bible, we see God interacting with different people in different ways at different times.
So, to apply this to the topic at hand: God's immutability might not prevent Him from creating life elsewhere in the universe. The incarnation of Christ was a unique event in human history, but this doesn't necessarily mean that God couldn't or wouldn't interact with other life forms in a way that is appropriate to their nature and circumstances. God's consistency in character doesn't restrict Him to only one method of interaction or revelation.
It's worth noting that other interpretations exist which might allow for the possibility of extraterrestrial life without contradicting the idea of an unchanging God.
If you want to take an approach that is literally the opposite of the scientific method then, yeah, sure. This is HackerNews though, and we tend to stick to verifiable evidence here.
>otherwise Christ as God/Human is totally senseless and useless on these other planets...which can not be since God does not change
This doesn't even make sense. God being unchanging doesn't imply that the relationship of all created beings to God must be the same. Genesis makes it clear that humanity was created in a state of perfection and then fell from grace - and yet God didn't change, despite humanity's relationship to God changing. Therefore it is possible within Biblical canon for created beings to exist which do not need salvation through grace - humans are an exception, not the rule.
I mean, within the Bible, there are humans who just don't die and go straight to Heaven because God likes them and decides to waive the immutable stain of original sin like a parking ticket, because apparently even God's rules can have exceptions.
Also, your assumption that the only creation God engaged with was planet Earth is fallacious. Genesis clearly states that God created the Heavens and the Earth. He created the entire universe. The Bible doesn't mention the dinosaurs either (no, Leviathan doesn't count, file that under the common Indo-European motif of chaoskampf) but we know they existed.
I'm not even religious but I can see your point of view is a bit too limited even within Christendom. CS Lewis was writing about aliens within the framework of Christianity a century ago. Many religious people can square that circle quite easily, simply by assuming God is not strictly limited to what is contained within Biblical canon.
This doesn't sound convincing at all, and I'm struggling to follow your reasoning. I think it's an open question for Christians whether or not there are aliens.
I spent a few years in Bayonne, France.... Pelote courts were all over the place, south towards Spain and inland into the low Basque Pyrenees, and often full of people of all skill levels playing variations of pelote and jai alai. If anyone wants to see it, wants to play it, go there! And equipment (for non-pros) is easily bought at local Decathlons (a sport store).
Too many parents think the goal is to have a baby sleeping through the night, or alot, as soon as possible. NO! The goal in the early weeks is to have a well-fed baby so it can grow. Feed it every few hours!
The baby has mostly heard mother's heartbeat. So when you hold it, be sure to place its head over your heart, or on your heart side.
Finally, you are also the parent. A dad never babysits his own kid. Own this!
