I agree that not everything is in the Bible, but the church is made of corruptible individuals and you can not put your faith in them. The words of Jesus are written in the Bible (including the ones you just cited). This one statement is not equivalent to Jesus claiming to have given secret knowledge to his disciples. Of course the people who spent a great deal of time with him would have the chance to listen to more of what he said.
The Church is an easy answer to a difficult question that deserves more consideration. God acts in everyone's lives and only though him we can come to understand what is written and what is not written in the Bible. The Church does not have a monopoly on understanding God's will, and any Church that would claim to is likely corrupt.
Most evil things in this world propagated simply because people do not want to take responsibility for themselves and what they've done. Advertising is a perfect example of that. They (should) know that using sex to sell products a: teaches people that sex is desirable and b: it's possible to seek out sex the same way someone would seek out a can of beer. But instead they say "people are evolutionarily programmed to want sex" and claim to be blameless.
In any case, this is where blamelessness is taking us, and we should turn away from these bad practices before they destroy society.
That's why it's important to discuss and study the Bible. But God most certainly did not build the "Church" as it is today to facilitate that. It's a stretch to say that the modern "Church" is the embodiment of Christ, because the way it operates is so contrary to the ideas laid out in the Bible.
You can not depend on someone else to understand the Bible for you, because that person may be tempted to use that influence to turn you away from God's true path. If you feel unqualified to read and understand the Bible, you should learn more about it (not less). When the people who compiled the new testament chose what to put in it they excluded all the books which said that Jesus had taught disciples secret knowledge about how to obtain eternal life. Now you are telling me that God has imbued the Church with this knowledge, and that I need to go to them to get it. This is contrary to the intent of Bible as it is written.
The Bible does not promote a social pecking order. If says that masters must be kind to their slaves (and release them after 7 years) and it says that a husband must love his wife, and that children are the future. No where does it say that some people should pick on others or have an advantage over them. It says that you should obey authority, but not exert it.
Normal group-think tactics are awful, people constantly coerce and manipulate each other. This is completely out of line with what the Bible teaches.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"
That is the most meaningless statement I've ever read. No one believes something that does not agree with their own "reason and common sense"
If you want to see followers of the Bible, please do not assume that anyone claiming to be a Christian follows it. Read the Bible. You will see that most people who say they are christian either have not read it or do not believe it. You can't say that these people are an example of what living out the Bible looks like.
The text is not easily exploitable for personal gain, that is my whole point. If you have a bunch of people who say they believe it, and you say that it says something it doesn't say but they believe you, can you really fault the Bible for that? Clearly they simply haven't read it. If they haven't read it, it can't be influencing their behavior.
I know how the Bible was written, but I judge a work by it's content and not by it's author. People like to focus on details of a work so that they can overlook the work itself. The point is that the Bible paints an honest picture of God, and we each can learn a great deal from it. You could say that it was inspired by God.
Other important texts are written to justify an earthly authority, but the Bible can not be used this way (and people who do try to use it that way must always fear that their followers may pick up the book and read it).
Our society today promotes promiscuity, deceitfulness and hedonism like crazy. Just turn on a T.V. Societies in Biblical times did as well, that's why the old testament has so many warnings against them.
No, there is a lot of truth in Atlas Shrugged. There are really only a couple things I would say she got wrong. Most notably her insistence that the government could and should protect your wealth, and her belief that people should work to achieve worldly wealth.
Her devotion to truth is very Biblical, as is her portrayal of the perfect man as being without guilt and fear (like Jesus). In fact, reading it convicted me of the truth of the Bible. Which seems weird. But then again, I came to Jesus when I moved to Southern California (Orange County, no less) so stranger things have happened.
And everything bad she says about government, religion, academia, and philosophy is completely true. Everyone knows that looters and moochers work to undo society out of their own ignorance and denial. Someone needs to tell the men of blood and rust that they are wrong.
I'm sorry, I was not trying to take a stab at the Catholic church. I have a number of good friends who are Catholic. I am not protestant, and I do not endorse any type of Church "doctrine" (I think those things distract from the message of the Bible).
It's a fact that the Catholic Church kept the Bible from common people, that's why the protestant reformation happened. One of my friends from Mexico says she was not allowed to read the Bible as a child, though I do not believe this is a common practice today. The Catholic Church does teach that you can not talk Directly to God. I understand that you can pray to the saints, or to Jesus (who is God), but the Bible says that you can talk directly to God. There really is a difference.
And the Catholic Hierarchy is nothing like the Church described in the Bible (nor are most "Churches"). The pope lives in a gold-encrusted mansion and wields an enormous amount of earthly power and influence. You don't get much further away from being Jesus-like than that. If the Catholic Church was serious about what they teach, they would have to tear down the Vatican.
I am not trying to be mean. Please explain to me why you think I am wrong.
Right. This is exactly the opposite of the religion laid out in the Bible. The idea that an earthly authority can decide whether or not you are going to hell is preposterous.
It is good to gently correct people who are participating in destructive behaviors. A lot of people take this as a way to be "better" than others, but that is not the point at all. We are not to hold others responsible for their sin, because their are already going to reap what they sew. Instead, we should help them stop.
And you are right that preachers should not take their pay from the offering, that is not the church is modeled in the Bible.
It's true that the Bible describes Jesus and the Apostles as having incredible powers that were given to them by God. The Bible says that these powers come from love, and that all people have them. But that is beside the point.
Jesus never used his powers to gain status for himself. For example, at one point he had performed a couple miracles and people came from all around to listen to him and be healed by him. Instead of hanging around and becoming their king, he left and went to find other people to talk to. When Jesus spoke of himself, it was never from a tone of any kind of superiority but rather of humility.
I understand that some of the stories in the Bible are not possible through a conventional understanding of how the world works (though we can certainly make a bush burn and not be consumed, and bring the dead back to life if they've only been dead a short time, so I don't think those things belong on such a list).
What I mean is that it does not promote the use of magic or curses. I'm referring to the people you go to who will tell you everything that's is going to happen to you or heal you or give you advice based on some mysterious art or magic that only they possess and you don't understand.
The advice and truths given in the Bible are credible because they mirror the real personal stories and events that happen in the world around us. Many myths and religions try to do the same, and they get some things right, but there is always the element of mysticism that has been injected by people trying to gain personal advantage. I know that many "Christians" have tried to do this too (most notably the catholic church and their instance that only the Pope can talk to God, which is in direct contradiction to the primary message of pretty much every book of the Bible, they also asserted in the past that only a properly educated person should be allowed to read the Bible), but such lies are easily uncovered by even a cursory independent look at the Bible.
There is nowhere in the bible where it says giving sacrifices will bring a good harvest (though it does say that you should make sacrifices to atone for your sins and celebrate God), or that your God-given leader will bring you to God (though it does say that Jesus loves you and has opened they way for you). It also doesn't say that you can get to heaven through your own personal works (though it does talk about the importance bearing good fruit).
There are a number of other elements to most religions which the Bible lacks, but the main difference is that most religious are designed to promote cohesion in society by establishing a theological basis for a hierarchal leadership structure (much the same way modern economics, philosophy and political science have established a theoretical basis for the same kind of structure). The Bible seeks to promote cohesion by explaining the benefits of good social behavior and uncovering the lies of society (society tries to tell us that bad behaviors like promiscuity, deceitfulness, idolatry and hedonism will make us happy, while in truth those behaviors separate us from the life-giving society we are a part of and will only lead to isolation and tragedy).
Please do not think that the behavior of most people who call themselves Christians is indicative of the content of the Bible. Many people use the Church as a social club to further their own worldly goals. Instead, read the Bible (it's not much longer than Atlas Shrugged, which you should also read BTW) with an open mind and see whether or not you agree that it is a better way to go about living.
Our ability to provide treatment is also finite (it's limited by the number of doctors) so getting treatment also denies someone else the ability to get it when there is a shortage (as there always seems to be). That is why many people say a single-payor system is "more fair". In reality, denying one person access to a treatment in order to provide it to another will always be seen as unfair. There's no reason to think that a nationalized system that essentially hands things out at random is more fair than a private system that provides care to those who can afford it.
I think the main reason they don't let you buy organs is that the astronomical prices it could create would encourage an illicit organ trade, which would result in poor people being killed to provide organs for wealthy people. Of course, that still exists to some extent:-(
You may have a latex allergy. Try polyurethane condoms instead. Won't solve any of the other problems, but there's no good reason to be enduring pain during sex. Also, avoid the spermicidal lubricants, they always irritate everyone (I don't know why they sell them).
I'm all for charity, but not letting someone live with the consequences of their mistakes is abusive. That's why spoiled rich kids are such terrible people. And giving some one else someone else's money is not charity. It's hyocritical to take with one hand and give with the other. At least the conservative viewpoint is consistantly wrong.
Life expectancy is more broad, but it is too broad because it includes lifestyle, environmental contamination, workplace safety and a host of sociological factors that are not directly related to healthcare.
When someone points out a fact that shows your opinion to be wrong, you can't just point out another fact and then ignore what they've told you. If you are too obsessed with being right, you will ignore evidence that you are wrong. No good will come of it.
Yes, but the liberals subscribe to the "Gods and Clods" theory. Those poor helpless people just can't take care of themselves and we must take care of them and tell them what to do for their own good. Ironically, the conservative viewpoint is more respectful and not really less helpful.
It is such a common trick of words to try to cover up your own wrongness by pointing up someone else's.
I do a lot of government contract work, and in my opinion the main thing driving costs is that budgets and project objectives are not cost driven. For example, we analyze all our samples on a 24-hour turn around rather than a standard turn around in order to get the results sooner because they want the projects to be completed rapidly. Once one phase is completed, they sit on the project for a couple months while they decide what to do. It costs 50% more to expedite the samples, but it would only add one or two months to a year long project at most.
Another good example is doing things out of order. If you're going to build a school, it makes sense to remove all the buildings before you do the environmental remediation. However, if they feel the budget may be time-sensitive (as in it will go away if they don't spend it right away) they will go-ahead and start the remediation before the demolition is complete, effectively doubling the price do the added difficulty. The worst part is that they expect you to eat some of the excess costs even thought you told them it would cost more.
In any case, the government essentially contracts everything, so of course any example of government waste will include a contractor.
Just do a little research on you own. It is well known that blacks and hispanics suffer a higher incidence of diabetes than the general population. People like to claim that it is the result of not being able to afford good food (hence all the hair-brained fast-food ban schemes). I think it is more likely that the poor diet is cultural. In any case, it makes no sense to compare members within the same groups. We are talking about the differences between groups.
Managing - The best managers are familiar with the work being done. For example, I have three bosses, two of them are geologists, and one is an engineer. I can't imagine what it would be like working under someone who didn't know how to do my work (at least a little).
Documenting - Who do you think should be documenting the work?
Testing - This should be done by the developers and by the staff who will use the system.
Maintaining - I hope to god you plan to have a programmer maintaining the system.
Training - Aren't the programmers the only ones who can do the training, since they are the only ones who know how the system works? Or should they train some trainers who will train the staff. That seems inefficient to me.
Busines process discovery - I'm not sure what that is.
Of course, you do need administrators, and they will not be programmers. But I didn't say you could only hire programmers, I said you could hire a lot of programmers for a long time with that kind of money.
150K+ seems steep to me, since 100 programmers would probably mean mostly entry-level programmers with a few more experienced ones. You certainly could find 100 programmers, and pay them for 5 years with benefits for $40 million. I won't guarantee the quality, but you could do it.
There is simply no excuse for this system to cost this much money.
40 million dollars! Maybe they should just tear the school down and build a new one.
This is crazy, you could pay 100 programmers for five years before you'd spend that much money! Are they following the Microsoft software development process? That only works if you have a lot of money to throw away and it doesn't matter that your end product doesn't work.
Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA? Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that not everything is in the Bible, but the church is made of corruptible individuals and you can not put your faith in them. The words of Jesus are written in the Bible (including the ones you just cited). This one statement is not equivalent to Jesus claiming to have given secret knowledge to his disciples. Of course the people who spent a great deal of time with him would have the chance to listen to more of what he said.
The Church is an easy answer to a difficult question that deserves more consideration. God acts in everyone's lives and only though him we can come to understand what is written and what is not written in the Bible. The Church does not have a monopoly on understanding God's will, and any Church that would claim to is likely corrupt.
Most evil things in this world propagated simply because people do not want to take responsibility for themselves and what they've done. Advertising is a perfect example of that. They (should) know that using sex to sell products a: teaches people that sex is desirable and b: it's possible to seek out sex the same way someone would seek out a can of beer. But instead they say "people are evolutionarily programmed to want sex" and claim to be blameless.
In any case, this is where blamelessness is taking us, and we should turn away from these bad practices before they destroy society.
That's why it's important to discuss and study the Bible. But God most certainly did not build the "Church" as it is today to facilitate that. It's a stretch to say that the modern "Church" is the embodiment of Christ, because the way it operates is so contrary to the ideas laid out in the Bible.
You can not depend on someone else to understand the Bible for you, because that person may be tempted to use that influence to turn you away from God's true path. If you feel unqualified to read and understand the Bible, you should learn more about it (not less). When the people who compiled the new testament chose what to put in it they excluded all the books which said that Jesus had taught disciples secret knowledge about how to obtain eternal life. Now you are telling me that God has imbued the Church with this knowledge, and that I need to go to them to get it. This is contrary to the intent of Bible as it is written.
The Bible does not promote a social pecking order. If says that masters must be kind to their slaves (and release them after 7 years) and it says that a husband must love his wife, and that children are the future. No where does it say that some people should pick on others or have an advantage over them. It says that you should obey authority, but not exert it.
Normal group-think tactics are awful, people constantly coerce and manipulate each other. This is completely out of line with what the Bible teaches.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"
That is the most meaningless statement I've ever read. No one believes something that does not agree with their own "reason and common sense"
If you want to see followers of the Bible, please do not assume that anyone claiming to be a Christian follows it. Read the Bible. You will see that most people who say they are christian either have not read it or do not believe it. You can't say that these people are an example of what living out the Bible looks like.
The text is not easily exploitable for personal gain, that is my whole point. If you have a bunch of people who say they believe it, and you say that it says something it doesn't say but they believe you, can you really fault the Bible for that? Clearly they simply haven't read it. If they haven't read it, it can't be influencing their behavior.
I know how the Bible was written, but I judge a work by it's content and not by it's author. People like to focus on details of a work so that they can overlook the work itself. The point is that the Bible paints an honest picture of God, and we each can learn a great deal from it. You could say that it was inspired by God.
Other important texts are written to justify an earthly authority, but the Bible can not be used this way (and people who do try to use it that way must always fear that their followers may pick up the book and read it).
Our society today promotes promiscuity, deceitfulness and hedonism like crazy. Just turn on a T.V. Societies in Biblical times did as well, that's why the old testament has so many warnings against them.
No, there is a lot of truth in Atlas Shrugged. There are really only a couple things I would say she got wrong. Most notably her insistence that the government could and should protect your wealth, and her belief that people should work to achieve worldly wealth.
Her devotion to truth is very Biblical, as is her portrayal of the perfect man as being without guilt and fear (like Jesus). In fact, reading it convicted me of the truth of the Bible. Which seems weird. But then again, I came to Jesus when I moved to Southern California (Orange County, no less) so stranger things have happened.
And everything bad she says about government, religion, academia, and philosophy is completely true. Everyone knows that looters and moochers work to undo society out of their own ignorance and denial. Someone needs to tell the men of blood and rust that they are wrong.
I'm sorry, I was not trying to take a stab at the Catholic church. I have a number of good friends who are Catholic. I am not protestant, and I do not endorse any type of Church "doctrine" (I think those things distract from the message of the Bible).
It's a fact that the Catholic Church kept the Bible from common people, that's why the protestant reformation happened. One of my friends from Mexico says she was not allowed to read the Bible as a child, though I do not believe this is a common practice today. The Catholic Church does teach that you can not talk Directly to God. I understand that you can pray to the saints, or to Jesus (who is God), but the Bible says that you can talk directly to God. There really is a difference.
And the Catholic Hierarchy is nothing like the Church described in the Bible (nor are most "Churches"). The pope lives in a gold-encrusted mansion and wields an enormous amount of earthly power and influence. You don't get much further away from being Jesus-like than that. If the Catholic Church was serious about what they teach, they would have to tear down the Vatican.
I am not trying to be mean. Please explain to me why you think I am wrong.
Right. This is exactly the opposite of the religion laid out in the Bible. The idea that an earthly authority can decide whether or not you are going to hell is preposterous.
It is good to gently correct people who are participating in destructive behaviors. A lot of people take this as a way to be "better" than others, but that is not the point at all. We are not to hold others responsible for their sin, because their are already going to reap what they sew. Instead, we should help them stop.
And you are right that preachers should not take their pay from the offering, that is not the church is modeled in the Bible.
It's true that the Bible describes Jesus and the Apostles as having incredible powers that were given to them by God. The Bible says that these powers come from love, and that all people have them. But that is beside the point.
Jesus never used his powers to gain status for himself. For example, at one point he had performed a couple miracles and people came from all around to listen to him and be healed by him. Instead of hanging around and becoming their king, he left and went to find other people to talk to. When Jesus spoke of himself, it was never from a tone of any kind of superiority but rather of humility.
Do you see the difference?
I understand that some of the stories in the Bible are not possible through a conventional understanding of how the world works (though we can certainly make a bush burn and not be consumed, and bring the dead back to life if they've only been dead a short time, so I don't think those things belong on such a list).
What I mean is that it does not promote the use of magic or curses. I'm referring to the people you go to who will tell you everything that's is going to happen to you or heal you or give you advice based on some mysterious art or magic that only they possess and you don't understand.
The advice and truths given in the Bible are credible because they mirror the real personal stories and events that happen in the world around us. Many myths and religions try to do the same, and they get some things right, but there is always the element of mysticism that has been injected by people trying to gain personal advantage. I know that many "Christians" have tried to do this too (most notably the catholic church and their instance that only the Pope can talk to God, which is in direct contradiction to the primary message of pretty much every book of the Bible, they also asserted in the past that only a properly educated person should be allowed to read the Bible), but such lies are easily uncovered by even a cursory independent look at the Bible.
There is nowhere in the bible where it says giving sacrifices will bring a good harvest (though it does say that you should make sacrifices to atone for your sins and celebrate God), or that your God-given leader will bring you to God (though it does say that Jesus loves you and has opened they way for you). It also doesn't say that you can get to heaven through your own personal works (though it does talk about the importance bearing good fruit).
There are a number of other elements to most religions which the Bible lacks, but the main difference is that most religious are designed to promote cohesion in society by establishing a theological basis for a hierarchal leadership structure (much the same way modern economics, philosophy and political science have established a theoretical basis for the same kind of structure). The Bible seeks to promote cohesion by explaining the benefits of good social behavior and uncovering the lies of society (society tries to tell us that bad behaviors like promiscuity, deceitfulness, idolatry and hedonism will make us happy, while in truth those behaviors separate us from the life-giving society we are a part of and will only lead to isolation and tragedy).
Please do not think that the behavior of most people who call themselves Christians is indicative of the content of the Bible. Many people use the Church as a social club to further their own worldly goals. Instead, read the Bible (it's not much longer than Atlas Shrugged, which you should also read BTW) with an open mind and see whether or not you agree that it is a better way to go about living.
By your rationale everyone who receives a transplant is an asshole. I think that may be true, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.
Our ability to provide treatment is also finite (it's limited by the number of doctors) so getting treatment also denies someone else the ability to get it when there is a shortage (as there always seems to be). That is why many people say a single-payor system is "more fair". In reality, denying one person access to a treatment in order to provide it to another will always be seen as unfair. There's no reason to think that a nationalized system that essentially hands things out at random is more fair than a private system that provides care to those who can afford it.
:-(
I think the main reason they don't let you buy organs is that the astronomical prices it could create would encourage an illicit organ trade, which would result in poor people being killed to provide organs for wealthy people. Of course, that still exists to some extent
"Satellite wifi is only 1 way"
Iridium will carry data both ways, though it is extremely slow and the phones are expensive.
You may have a latex allergy. Try polyurethane condoms instead. Won't solve any of the other problems, but there's no good reason to be enduring pain during sex. Also, avoid the spermicidal lubricants, they always irritate everyone (I don't know why they sell them).
I'm all for charity, but not letting someone live with the consequences of their mistakes is abusive. That's why spoiled rich kids are such terrible people. And giving some one else someone else's money is not charity. It's hyocritical to take with one hand and give with the other. At least the conservative viewpoint is consistantly wrong.
Life expectancy is more broad, but it is too broad because it includes lifestyle, environmental contamination, workplace safety and a host of sociological factors that are not directly related to healthcare.
When someone points out a fact that shows your opinion to be wrong, you can't just point out another fact and then ignore what they've told you. If you are too obsessed with being right, you will ignore evidence that you are wrong. No good will come of it.
Yes, but the liberals subscribe to the "Gods and Clods" theory. Those poor helpless people just can't take care of themselves and we must take care of them and tell them what to do for their own good. Ironically, the conservative viewpoint is more respectful and not really less helpful.
It is such a common trick of words to try to cover up your own wrongness by pointing up someone else's.
I do a lot of government contract work, and in my opinion the main thing driving costs is that budgets and project objectives are not cost driven. For example, we analyze all our samples on a 24-hour turn around rather than a standard turn around in order to get the results sooner because they want the projects to be completed rapidly. Once one phase is completed, they sit on the project for a couple months while they decide what to do. It costs 50% more to expedite the samples, but it would only add one or two months to a year long project at most.
Another good example is doing things out of order. If you're going to build a school, it makes sense to remove all the buildings before you do the environmental remediation. However, if they feel the budget may be time-sensitive (as in it will go away if they don't spend it right away) they will go-ahead and start the remediation before the demolition is complete, effectively doubling the price do the added difficulty. The worst part is that they expect you to eat some of the excess costs even thought you told them it would cost more.
In any case, the government essentially contracts everything, so of course any example of government waste will include a contractor.
Just do a little research on you own. It is well known that blacks and hispanics suffer a higher incidence of diabetes than the general population. People like to claim that it is the result of not being able to afford good food (hence all the hair-brained fast-food ban schemes). I think it is more likely that the poor diet is cultural. In any case, it makes no sense to compare members within the same groups. We are talking about the differences between groups.
This is a strange attitude to have.
Managing - The best managers are familiar with the work being done. For example, I have three bosses, two of them are geologists, and one is an engineer. I can't imagine what it would be like working under someone who didn't know how to do my work (at least a little).
Documenting - Who do you think should be documenting the work?
Testing - This should be done by the developers and by the staff who will use the system.
Maintaining - I hope to god you plan to have a programmer maintaining the system.
Training - Aren't the programmers the only ones who can do the training, since they are the only ones who know how the system works? Or should they train some trainers who will train the staff. That seems inefficient to me.
Busines process discovery - I'm not sure what that is.
Of course, you do need administrators, and they will not be programmers. But I didn't say you could only hire programmers, I said you could hire a lot of programmers for a long time with that kind of money.
150K+ seems steep to me, since 100 programmers would probably mean mostly entry-level programmers with a few more experienced ones. You certainly could find 100 programmers, and pay them for 5 years with benefits for $40 million. I won't guarantee the quality, but you could do it.
There is simply no excuse for this system to cost this much money.
40 million dollars! Maybe they should just tear the school down and build a new one.
This is crazy, you could pay 100 programmers for five years before you'd spend that much money! Are they following the Microsoft software development process? That only works if you have a lot of money to throw away and it doesn't matter that your end product doesn't work.
Since it's the state I live in, I think it's a very good example of what effect this kind of thinking may have on me. . .
Has it occurred to anyone else that treating "utilities" like utilities is what's caused water shortages and rolling brown-outs in CA? Maybe it's not such a great idea to extend the process to ISPs.