I'm saying he apologized for the shakedown. No one has ever said that BP shouldn't be liable for the damages it caused. But no one has said they caused $20 billion in damages either. $600 million in claims have been filed to date. Taking $20 billion to cover $600 million in damages is a shakedown no matter how angry you are at BP.
They're not closing any active wells. This is a moratorium on new drilling, they have shut down all new drilling operations. It will have a dramatic effect on the economy, because almost all the oil field personnel are employed building new wells, and they will all be out of work for however long the moratorium lasts. It will also be a setback in production down the road, but I guess since you won't see an immediate effect, you probably don't care about that.
A myth is a traditional story accepted as history that is used to explain a societal world view.
The vast majority of the books of the Bible, when considered individually, fail to meet basic criteria that would allow them to be considered mythology. None of the letters in the new testament, since they give advice and do not recount history, could be considered myths. None of the prophets could be considered myths because they speak of the future and not the past. The books of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations can not be considered myths because they are books of poetry and sayings, and do not recount history or seek to explain the past.
Even if you claim that any historical account given in the Bible is a myth you are still left to contend with the fact that the majority of the books of the Bible don't give a historical account.
However, this requires an acknowledgment of the great value on peoples lives that having good church buildings brings. While you might not find any benefit from expensive church buildings is it really fair to tell those who do that they don't have their head in the right place?
No, it isn't. It's good to have a place to meet. That said I am often suspicious of the motives of people who build large buildings. Are the buildings meant to be used, or are they meant to draw people in. Throughout history, architecture has been used on a grand scale to express power and authority. It bothers me when I see that a "church" has done the same thing.
Jesus mentioned money it several times, not just that one. The point he is making is that you cannot live for money and still serve God (haha, he says that too!). There's a parable about a farmer who has a good year and decides to store it up and take it easy for a while, but then God demands his life from him that night and all he was stored goes to waste. And there's another parable where a master gives his three servants money because he's going away for a trip. Two of them put the money to work, and when he returns they have doubled the money they were given. The third buries it in the ground and then digs it up when his master returns. He makes the point that someone who wold save their money that way doesn't have faith in their master. This is a theme in the Bible, not a single event. But even if it were a single event, it should generally be good advice for everyone. You probably don't think that when he told the woman caught in adultery "Nether do I condemn you, now go and sin no more" that his statement was only for her. Finally, I would like to point out this behavior from the early church in Acts. Many people gave up what they had to follow Jesus, because they understood his teaching, (it says they have everything in common).
Here's the thing with money, Jesus was explicit about the fact that it's bad to be wealthy. Christians spend too much time rationalizing away his words and not nearly enough time really thinking about them. If they really believed Jesus (in their heart) there would be no question about the meanings of these scriptures. But instead they often think they are smarter than the scriptures and they rationalize them away. They think "Jesus wouldn't really want me give away my wealth, would he?!" But Jesus really knows it's bad for you.
I don't cite Bible verses because I don't like to encourage people to read single verses out of. I think you should read Luke 14:26. If you read that verse, maybe you will also understand why I don't like to cite verses.
You can say that the story was directed at a single man, but then why is it in the Bible? And if the camel-eye of a needle thing isn't proof that Jesus preached against wealth, I don't know what is. And the gate thing is so laughable it brings me to tears. Even if he were just saying it's difficult, isn't that a good enough reason to give it up?! Yes, it is!
As for the hate thing, yes it is sensationalist, and it would have been much more so in the time and place it was said, so it's inappropriate to translate if differently.
When I say abide in laws and rules, I mean you shouldn't put your faith in them. I think that's reasonable. Jesus did say they aren't permanent (along with those other things you've said).
Hey, have you considered becoming a follower? It sounds like you already know most of what it's about.
The election of Matthias is probably one of the better examples of how the church was different. Let me ask you, did they vote for him, as the Pope is elected today? Why not?
I also notice that you mention Paul. Did paul begin his missionary work before, or after he met with the apostles? Since he started before, could he have been "ordained"? If not, then how did he go back to them and speak with authority on the subject of the gentiles and the circumcision. Could something like that happen in the "church" as it is structured today?
I am well aware of all Paul's letters, but you need to understand that Paul was not Peter, even though he was alive at the same time. By the way the "church" does things today, Peter would be making the decisions, and Paul wouldn't even be a part of the process. But that isn't how it happened.
the first letter of Paul to Timothy mentions all three parts of the power structure of the Church
It mentions the names, and the qualifications (it mentions being married to one wife, are priests and bishops allowed to be married?) but it doesn't mention authority. Nevertheless, it is clear from Jesus' words that these are positions of servanthood, not authority.
The paragraphs I cited directly contradict your claim. The "Church" is exercising lordship with a power structure that was not instituted by Jesus, Jesus himself spoke against, and is not described as being part of the early church in the book of Acts. I don't think I should need to be speaking for Jesus on this one, the Bible speaks for itself.
Judas said something similar to that (John Chapter 12), but Jesus corrected him. People express their faith they way they know how. If someone is buying a gold cross, there's nothing in particular wrong with that (gold is often used in the Bible to symbolize eternal values). Of course, a "Church" spending millions of dollars to have a nice looking building probably doesn't have it's heard in the right place.
There is very little mythology in the Bible. You could certainly claim that the first few chapters in Genesis are mythology. Then if you want to take it further, you could claim that all of the miracles and encounters with God described in the Bible are myth. Strictly speaking, I don't think they qualify. If you don't believe them I think it would me more appropriate to call them lies or exaggerations. If you took all of that out, the vast majority of the Bible would remain.
Genesis can be taken as a history of the Jews passed down through oral tradition, such a tradition would understandably contain creation myths. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are largely excerpts of speeches given by Moses. The next several books are a historical account, and history is colored by the one doing the recounting. The next several books leading into the New Testament are concerned with poetry, sayings and prophecy. None of those things are mythology. The New Testament starts with 5 books recounting Jesus' life and the history of the early church (again, no reason to call that mythology). The next several books are letters written by the apostles (except for Hebrews, which doesn't say where it came from). The final book is also prophecy.
Right, but what I'm saying is that the business man has not made the choice (even though he claims he believes) and the humanist has made the choice (even though he claims he does not believe). The choice is following Jesus, not "believing" in the intellectual sense. I'm not saying that people don't screw up, but the Lord knows your heart. People who do not believe enough to act likely don't believe at all.
Strictly speaking, Jesus never command you to do any of those things (nor to believe anything). He did command a couple things (love God, love one and other, make disciples of all nations) and he was pretty clear that doing those things was of paramount importance. He never (as far as I'm noticed in all my readings) placed any emphasis in belief, though some people misread faith as belief.
Here's my beef with belief. People will say they believe something, and intellectually that may be true, but if they don't practice it they don't believe it in their heart. That is worthless
I'm talking about the church as a business, organization, or an institution. Those things where there there is a hierarchy and a power structure. Those things clearly run contrary to Jesus' teachings. The Church described in the Bible is the Community of Christians, which is a very different thing.
I agree, but what that means is subject to interpretation.
If you have a "christian" who says he has accepted Jesus as his savior (and perhaps understands that intellectually), but runs a large corporation that makes money by exploiting the poor, is Jesus his Lord?
Likewise, if you have a "humanist" who doesn't believe in the power of God (intellectually) but knows Jesus' teachings and gives away his wealth to the poor and takes in orphans to care for them, is Jesus his Lord?
Your belief is only worth the part of it that carries through into your actions.
Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs.
There was a man traveling through the land, casting out demons. When the apostles saw it, they told him to stop because he was not one of them. When they told Jesus what they'd done, Jesus told them that they shouldn't have made him stop because whoever is not against us is with us. What then, do you suppose he would say about your claim that "Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs." I'll tell, you, he wouldn't have cared about your precious "essential beliefs".
You mean the Bible that was compiled by the..um.. church?
Yes. Have you read it? It says that.
Like what?
That you should give away all your money. That you should accept and love all people. That you should hate your father and your mother. That you should not abide in laws and rules, but rather focus on love. That you shouldn't lord over each other. Pretty much the whole of the gospel message has been thoroughly rejected and rationalized away by the "church".
That depends what you mean when you say "Christianity". If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things. It seems that either "Christians" haven't read it, or they didn't understand it. In that regard, "Christians" are much worse than followers of most religions, since don't practice what they preach in any noticeable way (the very act of instituting "Churches" runs contrary to the Bible). Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.
I will not defend the State, it's big enough to take care of itself. But what I mean is, if someone releases this kind of information, but refuses to be held accountable for it, it is all too easy for supporters of the State to say "he's just a coward and a hater" and ignore everything he says. On the other hand, if he were to come forward with the information, the CIA would likely kill him, but no thinking person would be able to deny the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying he apologized for the shakedown. No one has ever said that BP shouldn't be liable for the damages it caused. But no one has said they caused $20 billion in damages either. $600 million in claims have been filed to date. Taking $20 billion to cover $600 million in damages is a shakedown no matter how angry you are at BP.
They're not closing any active wells. This is a moratorium on new drilling, they have shut down all new drilling operations. It will have a dramatic effect on the economy, because almost all the oil field personnel are employed building new wells, and they will all be out of work for however long the moratorium lasts. It will also be a setback in production down the road, but I guess since you won't see an immediate effect, you probably don't care about that.
I am so sick of this lie. You need to go back and re-read the apology he issued. And stop spreading around this nonsense.
A myth is a traditional story accepted as history that is used to explain a societal world view.
The vast majority of the books of the Bible, when considered individually, fail to meet basic criteria that would allow them to be considered mythology. None of the letters in the new testament, since they give advice and do not recount history, could be considered myths. None of the prophets could be considered myths because they speak of the future and not the past. The books of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations can not be considered myths because they are books of poetry and sayings, and do not recount history or seek to explain the past.
Even if you claim that any historical account given in the Bible is a myth you are still left to contend with the fact that the majority of the books of the Bible don't give a historical account.
No, it isn't. It's good to have a place to meet. That said I am often suspicious of the motives of people who build large buildings. Are the buildings meant to be used, or are they meant to draw people in. Throughout history, architecture has been used on a grand scale to express power and authority. It bothers me when I see that a "church" has done the same thing.
Jesus mentioned money it several times, not just that one. The point he is making is that you cannot live for money and still serve God (haha, he says that too!). There's a parable about a farmer who has a good year and decides to store it up and take it easy for a while, but then God demands his life from him that night and all he was stored goes to waste. And there's another parable where a master gives his three servants money because he's going away for a trip. Two of them put the money to work, and when he returns they have doubled the money they were given. The third buries it in the ground and then digs it up when his master returns. He makes the point that someone who wold save their money that way doesn't have faith in their master. This is a theme in the Bible, not a single event. But even if it were a single event, it should generally be good advice for everyone. You probably don't think that when he told the woman caught in adultery "Nether do I condemn you, now go and sin no more" that his statement was only for her. Finally, I would like to point out this behavior from the early church in Acts. Many people gave up what they had to follow Jesus, because they understood his teaching, (it says they have everything in common).
Here's the thing with money, Jesus was explicit about the fact that it's bad to be wealthy. Christians spend too much time rationalizing away his words and not nearly enough time really thinking about them. If they really believed Jesus (in their heart) there would be no question about the meanings of these scriptures. But instead they often think they are smarter than the scriptures and they rationalize them away. They think "Jesus wouldn't really want me give away my wealth, would he?!" But Jesus really knows it's bad for you.
I don't cite Bible verses because I don't like to encourage people to read single verses out of. I think you should read Luke 14:26. If you read that verse, maybe you will also understand why I don't like to cite verses.
I'm afraid that Google an Facebook have beaten 'em to the punch. It's a nice thought though.
Where does it say that?
You can say that the story was directed at a single man, but then why is it in the Bible? And if the camel-eye of a needle thing isn't proof that Jesus preached against wealth, I don't know what is. And the gate thing is so laughable it brings me to tears. Even if he were just saying it's difficult, isn't that a good enough reason to give it up?! Yes, it is!
As for the hate thing, yes it is sensationalist, and it would have been much more so in the time and place it was said, so it's inappropriate to translate if differently.
When I say abide in laws and rules, I mean you shouldn't put your faith in them. I think that's reasonable. Jesus did say they aren't permanent (along with those other things you've said).
Hey, have you considered becoming a follower? It sounds like you already know most of what it's about.
The election of Matthias is probably one of the better examples of how the church was different. Let me ask you, did they vote for him, as the Pope is elected today? Why not?
I also notice that you mention Paul. Did paul begin his missionary work before, or after he met with the apostles? Since he started before, could he have been "ordained"? If not, then how did he go back to them and speak with authority on the subject of the gentiles and the circumcision. Could something like that happen in the "church" as it is structured today?
I am well aware of all Paul's letters, but you need to understand that Paul was not Peter, even though he was alive at the same time. By the way the "church" does things today, Peter would be making the decisions, and Paul wouldn't even be a part of the process. But that isn't how it happened.
It mentions the names, and the qualifications (it mentions being married to one wife, are priests and bishops allowed to be married?) but it doesn't mention authority. Nevertheless, it is clear from Jesus' words that these are positions of servanthood, not authority.
The paragraphs I cited directly contradict your claim. The "Church" is exercising lordship with a power structure that was not instituted by Jesus, Jesus himself spoke against, and is not described as being part of the early church in the book of Acts. I don't think I should need to be speaking for Jesus on this one, the Bible speaks for itself.
Luke 22:24-30
Luke 14:26
Judas said something similar to that (John Chapter 12), but Jesus corrected him. People express their faith they way they know how. If someone is buying a gold cross, there's nothing in particular wrong with that (gold is often used in the Bible to symbolize eternal values). Of course, a "Church" spending millions of dollars to have a nice looking building probably doesn't have it's heard in the right place.
No, I really don't.
There is very little mythology in the Bible. You could certainly claim that the first few chapters in Genesis are mythology. Then if you want to take it further, you could claim that all of the miracles and encounters with God described in the Bible are myth. Strictly speaking, I don't think they qualify. If you don't believe them I think it would me more appropriate to call them lies or exaggerations. If you took all of that out, the vast majority of the Bible would remain.
Genesis can be taken as a history of the Jews passed down through oral tradition, such a tradition would understandably contain creation myths. Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are largely excerpts of speeches given by Moses. The next several books are a historical account, and history is colored by the one doing the recounting. The next several books leading into the New Testament are concerned with poetry, sayings and prophecy. None of those things are mythology. The New Testament starts with 5 books recounting Jesus' life and the history of the early church (again, no reason to call that mythology). The next several books are letters written by the apostles (except for Hebrews, which doesn't say where it came from). The final book is also prophecy.
I know what is in the Bible. This is what I mean when I say "church". There's a reason I put it in quotes.
Right, but what I'm saying is that the business man has not made the choice (even though he claims he believes) and the humanist has made the choice (even though he claims he does not believe). The choice is following Jesus, not "believing" in the intellectual sense. I'm not saying that people don't screw up, but the Lord knows your heart. People who do not believe enough to act likely don't believe at all.
Strictly speaking, Jesus never command you to do any of those things (nor to believe anything). He did command a couple things (love God, love one and other, make disciples of all nations) and he was pretty clear that doing those things was of paramount importance. He never (as far as I'm noticed in all my readings) placed any emphasis in belief, though some people misread faith as belief.
Here's my beef with belief. People will say they believe something, and intellectually that may be true, but if they don't practice it they don't believe it in their heart. That is worthless
I'm talking about the church as a business, organization, or an institution. Those things where there there is a hierarchy and a power structure. Those things clearly run contrary to Jesus' teachings. The Church described in the Bible is the Community of Christians, which is a very different thing.
I agree, but what that means is subject to interpretation.
If you have a "christian" who says he has accepted Jesus as his savior (and perhaps understands that intellectually), but runs a large corporation that makes money by exploiting the poor, is Jesus his Lord?
Likewise, if you have a "humanist" who doesn't believe in the power of God (intellectually) but knows Jesus' teachings and gives away his wealth to the poor and takes in orphans to care for them, is Jesus his Lord?
Your belief is only worth the part of it that carries through into your actions.
There was a man traveling through the land, casting out demons. When the apostles saw it, they told him to stop because he was not one of them. When they told Jesus what they'd done, Jesus told them that they shouldn't have made him stop because whoever is not against us is with us. What then, do you suppose he would say about your claim that "Its meaningless to say you are a Christian or a member of a particular church unless you share its essential beliefs." I'll tell, you, he wouldn't have cared about your precious "essential beliefs".
Yes. Have you read it? It says that.
That you should give away all your money. That you should accept and love all people. That you should hate your father and your mother. That you should not abide in laws and rules, but rather focus on love. That you shouldn't lord over each other. Pretty much the whole of the gospel message has been thoroughly rejected and rationalized away by the "church".
That depends what you mean when you say "Christianity". If you are referring to the "churches" where things are hierarchically structured and they teach that you must adhere to a strict system of "beliefs" or "doctrine" or "theology" then you are correct. Ironically, the Bible comes out strongly against those things and that way of doing things. It seems that either "Christians" haven't read it, or they didn't understand it. In that regard, "Christians" are much worse than followers of most religions, since don't practice what they preach in any noticeable way (the very act of instituting "Churches" runs contrary to the Bible). Jesus certainly wouldn't be allowed in "Church", they'd probably stone him if he went up before them preaching some of the things the Bible says he preached.
I doubt a semiconductor called "Lead Selenide" is going to go far if, as it's name implies, it is comprised of lead and selenium.
I will not defend the State, it's big enough to take care of itself. But what I mean is, if someone releases this kind of information, but refuses to be held accountable for it, it is all too easy for supporters of the State to say "he's just a coward and a hater" and ignore everything he says. On the other hand, if he were to come forward with the information, the CIA would likely kill him, but no thinking person would be able to deny the truth.