Not Very Biblical: Investor Sues Bible.com For Not Being Profitable Enough
from the money-is-the-root-of-all-evil dept
Slashdot points us to an amusing story about how an investor who owns about 28% of Bible.com has sued the board for not being profitable enough. Now, it is true that when the owner of the domain put together a corporation to support it, he wrote in the plan "it is the goal of the board of directors of Bible.com to become very, very profitable," but having failed at that hardly seems something that allows you to get sued. The investor is specifically claiming that a study suggested the domain name itself could be worth over $100 million, and he wants it to be sold.I wondered if the Bible, itself, might have something to say on the matter, and thanks to the lovely thing called the internet, there's actually an entire page of Bible verses about profit, with a few choice quotes such as:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." -- Matthew 6:19-21Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?
"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." -- 1 Timothy 6:10
"No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money." -- Matthew 6:24
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As usual, it will be the same organizations, who collect money on his behalf... All the gods servants, who endup with his money in their pockets..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christine O'Donnell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://wonkette.com/426205/christine-odonnells-former-neighbors-wish-she-didnt-have-sex-so -loudly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Holy shit.
I mean, that's what religion is all about, isn't it?
"Thou shall be profitable. Very, very profitable." -- Matthew 4:20
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy shit.
An honest Christian also understands the concept of separating an action from the person doing it, of disagreeing with an action but still trying to love the person as God asks us to. It's just unfortunate you don't seem to have grasped that distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Matthew 7:14?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
1- Cain kills Abel, despite Gods warnings. What does God do? "Oh, you poor thing, you killed your brother. You better leave before someone hurts you. Oh, and let me put this mark on you so no one will ever harm you". Basically, he let's a sinner go away unpunished. God is Love. QED.
2- Fast forward a bit, and you find a man who picks up sticks on a Saturday (capital crime!). What does god do? "SMITE TEH S1NNAR!", he says. And the man is stoned (and not in a good way). Oops. Guess who has double-standards.
So, God is love huh? Right. I'll be over there worshiping Khorne. I'll probably get killed, but hey, at least I get to wear a cool space marine armor (and I get a free chain-axe. How cool is that?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Context: He didn't say "5...6" before picking up those sticks. He had it coming....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Totally different....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
God has a good sense of humor, hence humanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
God, actually, is exceedingly funny. That's why I like It....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Here's your context:
1:
Cain and Abel were the offspring of Adam and Eve, the first two human creations of God. God loved Abel more (for some reason, not relevant) and this made Cain jealous. Cain plotted to assassinate his brother and God tried to stop him. "Think of the children" he said. But Cain ignored God and killed his brother.
God, as a punishment, sent Cain out into the unknown. "But I will be hated by everyone. They will kill me!" said Cain (without stopping to think about the fact that there was no one else other than him and his parent around to kill him). So God put a mark on him so that everyone that harmed him, would receive the same damage back by around 343% (patting him on the back was NOT recommended). And Cain went on his way (and apparently had a family, God knows how).
2:
A man violated the Sabbath, against one of the ten commandments, by working on that holy day. Abraham asked God what to do with him, and God told him to kill the man by stoning. Apparently, when God tells you to take a break, you _better_ take a break.
Now it's your turn. Start explaining why does god order someone who picks up sticks on a holiday (who doesn't do that these days?) to be stoned but lets the first criminal in history (and not just any criminal, a murderer!) get away unpunished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
1) It was able who loved God more. The sacrifice was superficial, God could see what was in Cain's heart, and that was why his sacrifice was unacceptable. Right after that, Cain killed his brother, so you can see that he was already messed up. God even tried to warn him.
Indeed, God did punish Cain. He was effectively banished, hated by everyone. There were other people around at the time, probably his other brothers and/or sisters (he took one of his sisters with him into banishment).
2) When you think about it, is not working ONE day out of the week very hard? Is it really? So then, it should have been tremendously easy for them. They were told to prepare the previous day (food, supplies, whatever) so that they didn't lack the next. It's not like you could forget. Therefore, working on that day is blatant, direct and completely willful disrespect of God. You can't really do much worse that spitting right in God's face. God was asking them to worship him on that day. One day out of a week. It was also meant to show them that they needed to trust him that, even if they couldn't work that day, they would be fine because God would take care of him. Working on that day showed that, in your heart, you didn't trust God despite all that he had done for them (tons of miracles, deliverance from slavery and all that). There was literally no excuse for breaking that law. And they all knew beforehand the penalty for breaking that law, so how can one say that carrying out that penalty was somehow unloving or unjustified?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Er, cuz the other guy...you know....murdered someone, and his punishment was to take a walk....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Letting new born babies starve to death in dumpsters is perfectly fine in god's eye. Why? He's a sick fellow. I mean, he DID invent all the world's most cruel illnesses, didn't he? He even created the Devil, that shows you how much of a sadist he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Um, I don't think God likes babies to die in a dumpster. I can't remember that being anywhere in the Bible, though I do recall a few passages speaking harshly of those who perpetrate such things.
I'm not sure, but your posts seem to imply you think God could do something about this if he wanted to. Maybe, and I'm stacking guess on guess, it's because you've heard that God is "omnipotent", able to turn water into wine, wheat into marijuanna, and sand into ice cream.
But both Old and New Testament actually speak of God using a crucially different word, "Almighty", which actually puts him up as kind of the boss universal King, whose orders must be followed. While this may make you even more upset, or somehow prove your point, it is crucial to understanding that Christians believe we are the ones (at very least) who have to go digging the babies out of the dumpsters. He commands, we obey. In our roots in Judaism God may have turned a miracle or two, but he was never a magician or wizard, the religion was first and always about deeds.
Before some clever wit jumps in and points out how rotten every Christian he's ever met has been, I'm just pointing out what the book says, and what I understand it commands me to do, as explained to me by the many wonderful Christian men and women who taught me. I can't speak for the other 2 billion or so, you'll have to go ask them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Sure, someone commits a crime, you punish him, that's not the problem. But God's criteria is messed up.
The first murderer walks away. He is even protected and dies of old age! Sure, he has to live with "remorse", but compared to the slow and painful roasting he should have suffered, that's not such a big deal.
And then, some guy, like thousands of years later gets killed for "spitting in God's face". And killing Gods children is what? Giving him a back-rub? WTF man? Is this justice?
Unless this is all part of God's great scheme. He let Cain go so Cain could plant the seeds of misery and war in the world so God could watch CNNs Afghanistan war coverage (God gets bored too, and nothing excites him like people shooting/stabbing the crap out of each other). If that is true, then God is an evil evil entity. I'll stick with Khorne, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Your theology sucks, do you know that?
Let's go back to the story of Cain and Abel for a moment, In what amounts to a fit of jealousy Cain murders able and God, referred to in this story as Elohim if memory serves, is questioned and admits it whereupon he's exiled after being marked by Elohim.
Now that part's important. There are two major writers in Genesis one of whom refers to God as Elohim, the other as YAHWEH (capitals intentional) as that's what was written. The other reference, name, is "I am" by the way.
At this point God is still universal rather than the family god we are presented with beginning with Abraham and returning to universality with Isaiah. Which culminates, according to Christians, in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ (Messiah). According to Islam the culmination is in the dictation of the Qur'an to Mohamed. To Jews there has, as yet, been no culmination.
So let us assume for the moment that with Abel dead the male line of all of humanity comes from Cain. That may, along with the blessing/curse of free will, explain some of the more obvious flaws in human beings.
Now, some time later, a man is ordered stoned by God (YAHWEH) in that story for violating the Sabbath.
The reality, as we are coming to understand, does not require such a horrific intervention, now and then, as those who slave away 7 days a week to satisfy their fetishized love of money have an overall tendency to live shorter, far less happy far less content lives than those who take the advice/order of taking a day of rest.
"Unless this is all part of God's great scheme."
Now you choose to make the mistake that literalists make in that every single word of the Bible in literally true by our society's definition of literal truth.
It isn't. The Old Testament is not a literal history, was never intended as a literal history or to be read and understood as such.
That, too, is idolatry, or a fetish, take your pick. As for God's "great scheme" I certainly have no idea what that might be except to say that it has to be far better than what we human's have managed to date.
Also, God is not a cosmic babysitter. We are each responsible for our own actions.
And Khorne is quite appropriate for this channel. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I blast Christianity here because it's a post about the Bible. I find other religions just as senseless and I don't have any trouble blasting Islam or Judaism. They each have their own silly books, traditions and invisible people.
Just because you claim your beliefs are sacred doesn't mean I have to consider them sacred as well. If I consider logic and rationality sacred, then by talking the way you do I can claim that you offend my beliefs. But that wouldn't be very logical of me, would it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I also doubt you hold logic and rationality sacred, so I am sure that nothing would offend you. Your only Religion is to view down other Religions as inferior, and you are not going to be strayed from that. I am simply pointing out that you are showing no respect or courtesy for people of other views than your own, and if you want to discuss rather than troll, you should be aware that your argument is based on your feelings rather than solid facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
When you think about it, why would God want people not to work on Sunday? Why would he even care? How does he even expect people back then to even keep track of which day it is? If you lose track of the day, does that mean you have to stop working for fear of working on a Sunday by accident, then be killed?
Arguing with Christians is like asking a wall to move to the left a bit. It's completely useless, though I do it anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Was Homo Sapiens, then capable of building pyramids, incapable of counting to 7? Call me crazy, but I think those dudes could handle it.
"When you think about it, why would God want people not to work on Sunday?"
Now that is the 64-thousand dollar question. I don't believe it's possible to explain, unless the person asking is willing to consider that it may be important, and be willing to follow the thread of the argument. Unless that is true it would be two people each asking the wall to move a little to the left/right.
Personally I think it's much easier for somebody to "just have faith" that a dead guy rose from the dead then it is for a modern American to believe that "Lord God Almighty" actually cares if he takes a day off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Ok, so we can agree that God did not "like" Cain as much as he "liked" Abel because Cain failed to uphold whatever standard of dedication God made up, right? So Cain is, effectively, "spitting in Gods face" when he offers insincere sacrifices - an offense much worse than working on Sabbath, I think, but that's just me.
"Right after that, Cain killed his brother"
Right. Despite God's warnings and requests, Cain KILLED (like in, there is no remedy for that) his BROTHER. That's not spiting in Gods face. That's spitting in his face, grabbing him by the beard, slapping him and then throwing a brick through his window.
"Indeed, God did punish Cain. He was effectively banished, hated by everyone. There were other people around at the time, probably his other brothers and/or sisters (he took one of his sisters with him into banishment)."
And this baffles me and makes me dizzy. Cain committed the ultimate crime, and he WALKS AWAY!? With a potential wife even?
Ok, calm down. I'm sure God has a good reason. I think what God is saying is that we should forgive our enemies. Violence only generates more violence and all that. Ok, ok. I got it.
""
Right, just like when Cain killed his brother, that man (was it a man?) spat in God's face by breaking the rules.
I'm glad God is merciful and loving enough to forgive anyone that commits the high treason of breaking the holy Sabbath. He'll probably just forgive the douche, or banish him, right?
Now, here's where it get's funny. He orders his lackeys to stone the man to death.
Huh? Logic fail here. Unless, God has double standards, or he made a mistake perhaps? Or is one rule any less (or more) important than the other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
So far so good.
Note: since I am not a creationist and do not believe Adam was the first man (mostly because I'm able to recognize myth when i see it, even in my own Scripture), I assume Cain produced children the same way we do now.
But keep reading. Cain is given a mark of protection, so he lives and reproduces. After several generations he has a great-great-great....grandson who kills a *child* for some trivial offense. There is no editorializing at this point in the text, it moves on to the next story. But the message is very clear, as told through the image of lineage (they were a lot bigger on lineage than we are), that violence begets violence, and that it tends to degenerate and get worse, not better. But you and I already knew that right, because we're modern progressives? (Well of course I don't know if you're a progressive like me, I'm guessing). But I guess we didn't figure it ourselves, because apparently the author of a backward and superstitious book knew it 2600-3200 years ago (depending on which scholar you believe on when it was written).
As for your second example, I can answer your question but you won't like it. I don't like it either. Moses was taking a group of about 2.5 million slaves out to freedom, and the text is clear they were only half-heartedly into it (Oh and by the way, if you doubt 2.5 million people could move around for any consistent period of time, read up on some history, start with Mongols, or the Goths on the banks of the Danube about 250AD). If you don't believe Moses was a servant of God, the answer is simple, he was a tyrant on the make, making double-darn sure people did what he said with the simplest method of all: the death penalty for any offense. If you believe he was a prophet, the answer, which I said you wouldn't like, is basically the same: freedom still carried some obligations, and as bending the rules was the camel's nose in the tent, bending would not be tolerated. Ouch. However, if you read up on how kings made "covenants" with each other back then it all makes a lot more sense, even if it is profoundly alien to our post-industrialist democratic mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
.
.
.
.
.
(Of course I don't expect much here. You will probably shrug me off with a "I can't help those that don't want to help themselves" sort of answer. A pity actually. I LIKE learning from my mistakes.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I would also like to point out, that the comments to this post along with the ones last week or so, show the true colors of non-Christians. They love to bash Christians and Christianity as intolerant, but you can see from the tone of the posts here who are the intolerant ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
John, if you look outside a few of these threads, which is fair to say there was plenty of trolling going on, you would see that there is actually quite a bit of healthy, open and respectful theological debate that is taking place on this comment board as a whole. Thats pretty impressive for an online forum without any registration requirements. There is plenty of tolerance here coming from both Christians and non-Christians.
I haven't really read over much of the flame-heavy threads, but I see plenty of intolerance from only just a few people, and pretty much coming from a couple non-Christians as well. Overall, there is a great community here!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I meant an error in my analysis, not any procedural error, but fair enough. I'll try to read the mind of people that died eras ago and the mind of God and try to find out the reasons for their actions.
Actors:
1: Cain was mad that God apparently liked his brother better. So he killed him, in a fit of jealousy. Pretty straight forward homicide.
2: A man was picking up sticks in clear violation of the Sabbath. Reason? I don't think the bible specifies (I could be wrong though). To keep himself warm probably. He was mad, so what? We all are a bit.
God:
1: I suppose God saved Cain because he is all knowing and all loving and all that. I can understand that. It's a GOOD thing that a God can show compassion. Also, Cain had no way of knowing what "killing" was all about. I suppose God could have taught him, but whatever.
So God spares him and unleashes evil onto the world. Was God's purpose to "balance the force" by filing the world with an equal amount of good people and evil people? If so, he failed, because if you fast forward a bit, he ends up drowning everyone anyway. Or did he feel compassion for the first criminal and, as criminality became banal, he decided "Ok, let's put a stop to this". If so, then we have a problem. God isn't as all-knowing as he claimed to be.
2: Now, this is where it gets funny. Someone violated the law. Fair enough, he gets fair punishment. Or does he? For that crime, God decided that the man should be killed. Why? To make an example of him? Ok, fine. But what about Cain. Is it fair that Cain didn't suffer equal or greater punishment?
"But when you corner them on it, they stutter and stammer as you have and can't back it up. What I am pushing you to do is actually study the material before you make claims."
Look bud. I presented two little stories from the Bible. I wanted answers. All you gave me were questions and accusations. You are the one who cannot explain why your God has double-standards. I cannot explain it either, but I can do logic.
It does not seem logical that you can claim to be just if you punish one crime one way and another (lesser, from my point of view) crime in a completely disproportionate way. Hence, the contradiction. Solve this contradiction, and we will all be happy.
"I would also like to point out, that the comments to this post along with the ones last week or so, show the true colors of non-Christians. They love to bash Christians and Christianity as intolerant, but you can see from the tone of the posts here who are the intolerant ones."
Just because I question your faith, it does not mean that I am intolerant. What I cannot tolerate is that someone can make claims with no basis or support and then, when questioned about it, just evades the questions or dismisses them altogether.
If you don't want to answer, fine, I won't pressure you. But you can't come back and accuse everyone else of being intolerant or ignorant for not understanding something that apparently is so obvious (to you, at least).
And let me point out that you don't exactly have the moral high ground on religious discussions. For every intolerant non-Christian you find, I can find an intolerant Christian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
Here's an experiment. Get together with 3 of your friends from 20 years ago, each of your write about a all the events that you did together then, spanning on a time frame of 3 years. Compare notes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
Also, the Bible has been scrutinized from the beginning of it's compilation. There are a number of books that were not included because there was a mere shadow of a doubt that they we not true accounts. They didn't just scrape together everything they could, if thats what you are thinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
Ah, cool....
"but it is still a vital historical account worth its name"
Just so long as you know, like with all historical accounts, it's going to be biased and have errors, then I agree. It's an incredibly insightful book, particularly in the realm of historical anthropology, and I do believe the new testament is based on some historical record. So we're good there, too....
"Christians don't believe that God himself transcribed the Bible"
Careful. Many (most?) believe that God guided man's hand in creating the bible, hence it's perfection. That's pretty much the same thing....
"There are a number of books that were not included because there was a mere shadow of a doubt that they we not true accounts."
Er, that's not why many of the books were not included. The main problem with most of them was Gnosticism and paganism, both in the profession in the books, but even more importantly IN THE ACTIONS OF CHRIST AND THE DECIPLES.
"They didn't just scrape together everything they could, if thats what you are thinking."
Nope, I'm kind of versed in the history of the Council of Nicaea. Although I'm far from an expert....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
I didn't omit on purpose the books that were dropped for the reasoned you mentioned. But it is valid that there was a lotta text like that they needed to go though. The Nicaea council was important because it brought some standards and validation to Christianity and set a standard on the few things that all Christians should be agreeing on. (Nicean Creed)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
Yes, growing history buff. More to the point, philosophy buff.
"But it is valid that there was a lotta text like that they needed to go though."
Eh, I guess. I never understood why you should leave anything out, though. Best policy: keep everything in and let interested parties sort out for themselves what their faith is. To have a council of some 200 bishops (out of 1800 worldwide at the time, mind you) more or less arbitrarily start chucking texts out of consideration because they didn't agree with them....well that's ripe for abuse....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
There are two side to that coin, and I understand both. First, at the time, Christianity was very scattered, and there were many Christian sects. They needed to set standards on what is taught, Mostly, so Constantine would establish it as official religion. I see the incentive there (plus, it's good to no longer be lion food). It wasn't so much 200 Bishops wanting to unify, but they were forced into deal. Christians generally believe that Constantine's vision to unify Christianity was divine intervention, it perpetuate the notion that the results of what had happened there was intended by God.
That being said, I think it helped Christianity avoid the degree of perversions and zealotry that certain other religions have to face. Also, I think the conduct of the council was fair enough..everything in Christianity had to go through a vigorous process of evaluating every facet in order to unify.
My biggest issue with Nicea was that they burned everything that they didn't use in the Bible. It would be nice to go back and evaluate what was taken out by these bishops and learn from it. So, we have a Canon and Creed out of the the Council, but we lost knowledge that could have been. We do have their notes to go on, but that is all. It sounds like that is what you are getting at as well. There is spiritual writings (some probably have quite a bit of merit) that we have lost forever because they decided against adopting it in the 300's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
Actually the group who believes this tends to be heavily centered in the USA, and to be clustered in certain denominations. Therefore by straight numbers they are not most Christians, though they are likely to be many you meet from certain denominations. To understand why you have to go back 500 years.
When Luther got into his spat with the Pope about 500 years ago, he came to the radical conclusion that the Pope could in fact be wrong, and so the Pope's claim to authority was not legitimate. But being a medieval man down to his toes, he could not imagine a world without a first and final authority. So he thought: "Why not the Bible?" (Curiously, he then redacted 7 books out of his Bible to remove the more purely historical and leave a heavier concentration of theology. So who was the final authority, the Bible, or him???)
What most Christians who tend to idolize the Bible do not know is that they are caught in year 500 of the fight that started then. Catholic and Protestant went to increasingly ridiculous extremes in their claims of authority. Factoid: most people don't know this, but so-called "Papal Infallibility" is a restatement of the Pope's claim to be the unquestionable final arbiter in matters of faith (it has nothing to do with his being impeccable, or infallible outside of matters of faith), a direct slap at Protestants with their claims of biblical authority. And what do the Protestants follow up with? "Biblical inerrancy." Coincidence you say?
Anyway, the Protestant half of the argument mostly ended up moving to the New World to practice their sectarian variations w/out harassment (except of each other ha ha), and we've inherited much of that 500 year old argument today, though most people involved in it don't even know why they're arguing anymore.
Another answer is in how the media works. Wackos who crave attention can get it, even if their church is 50 people, by threatening to burn the Quran publicly. Even though 25 of their members then leave, this becomes "Christianity" in the popular mind. Wackos make much better news than quiet Christians who "not letting the left had know what the right hand is doing" are doing their best to raise families and donate time and money to causes both Christian and secular that allow them to follow Jesus's commands to us Christians to feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
"Another answer is in how the media works."
Here we definitely agree. Christians, by and large, are a force for good in the world. Christian leadership on the other hand....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"
NOW you're getting it! And what human enterprise isn't flawed?
Paine's observation is hardly unique but it missed the point entirely. The Gospels are not history they're narrative. Three of them are called synoptic for the simple reason that they're all based on Mark plus what's known as the "Q" source.
(Don't blame me for calling it that. Some German theological came up with that and for some reason it stuck.)
As for an unreliable guide keep in mind that each of the Gospels were written for a specific audience by men who were not intending to write Scripture but to explain Jesus to that audience. For example Mark was written to and for an group of early Christians, most likely Jews/Hebrews outside of Judea perhaps Alexandria. Matthew for another group of Christians of the Hebrew/Jewish faith within Judea which included the begats and the birth narrative and then expanded and added to Mark for his audience. Luke for a collection of Greeks in Greece who, in all likelihood, were what Hebrews known as God Fearers who were on the edged of the Hebrew faith without quite getting their feet wet, as it were and he expanded on Mark and Matthew. John for a church in, probably, Antioch who were living in a time of persecution not only from the Romans but the more numeric Hebrews at the time as the Christians were being excluded from the synagogue.
All after the Romans flattened, quite literally, Jerusalem and the Temple and were, in part, trying to explain that.
What we now know as Christianity wasn't a separate religion at the time but saw themselves as reformers of the Hebrew faith which they felt had lost its way in, among other things, kowtowing to the Romans.
By the way, John's not very flattering comments about Jews wasn't aimed at Hebrews in general but those from Judea (hence Jew) and specifically the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem at the time of the crucification. And yes, we Christians have a lot to answer for in how we've treated our co-religionists ever since then.
Nor are the Gospels in any way what we call history. That's an invention of the 18th Century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Yes, the bible is an "all or nothing thing" to most Christians because we try to gain meaning from all of the Bible. We don't take everything literally, but gain an understanding of the meaning. Example: The Bible says that our hand causes us to sin, we should chop it off. You don't see Christians running around with their hands chopped off, because we know the meaning is about separating ourselves from the source of temptation.
And yes, there are radicals in every religion, and radicals outside of religion. Just because some people use religious writings to justify their horrible ideals and hates does not mean that any honest follower of the religion would ever condone that behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy shit.
It's also important to point out that most religious institutions are not 'honest Christians'. Most Christians are not smart enough, as you are, to realize that the Bible is to be taken in context. If the majority of Christians really were honest and intelligent, there wouldn't be any teleevangelist, popes, and so many factions dividing Christianity into a bunch of groups that don't quite agree with each other.
You can keep telling yourself that the Bible is great and every Christian agrees on what it says, or realize that it's just a book that's been written a long time ago and used by a variety of people to justify a very wide variety of actions, from very good to very bad.
Also, if you believe you can talk to an invisible man in the sky, you may want to seek medical help. And if you believe that water can turn into wine, you may want to read a book or two about chemistry. And stay away from politics, we need rational people making rational decisions for a rational world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Does the same logic apply to the PTA with respect to parents? The Glenn Beck's of the world and Republicans? Nancy Pelosi and Democrats? What about extremist environmental activists and actual ecologists?
In my opinion, one of the major problems with politics in general is that sociopathy befits politicking and noisemaking, but not necessarily the mindset of ordinary people politicians and noisemakers are supposedly representing. Not to mention the fact that the mass-media gravitates to the sensationalized not the rationalized. You will never get a CNN report on normal people from multiple religions working together for their community, because it happens every day.
Near ad hom is a near miss, and tantamount to closed-mindedness. This is not to say we should forget the history of the greedy few with power and a lot of ordinary people under their rule. Evil deeds are done by people from myriad ideologies, no exclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
On this forum, I'm skeptical... not unless it broke down to assault (threat of violence) on individuals. This is not a negative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
My point is pretty much how there is a general notion that as long as it is Christian bashing it's OK, even though it is equally offensive as those kind of statements against other religions, races, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
well, as a rule in the modern world, at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
There are these things called "miracles" that temporarily disrupt the laws of nature because of the intervention of God. Are you trolling? Because given your statements, it's hard to believe that you are that ignorant about what Christians believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
You need to get out more.
The elder board of my Church has at least two PhD's on it at any given time, including a biologist who (gasp!) is extremely well versed in evolution (duh, it is his job after all), and a Physicist who converted from Judaism. A young turk (ha ha, he actually is Turkish and young) just recently converted and joined our weekly Bible study and can tell you quite a bit about the Q'uran. I can tell you a thing or two myself, since I've read the entire thing and it's sitting on my desk next to my Bible.
I'm thinking of the "Tao te Ching" next, mostly because I've found a Chinese co-worker who discusses it enthusiastically, so I'm hoping to be able to have some stimulating and revealing conversations.
Or perhaps you might read a book called "Hear, My Son" about Proverbs, but only if you don't mind seeing Hebrew texts compared to Egyptian and Hittite wisdom literature. Or perhaps a book by Youngblood (book name escapes me), but only if you don't mind a treatise on Hittite royal contracts and how much the Biblical covenant resembles them. Those guys are both nasty Christians by the way, so consider yourself warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Also, the "One True Faith" thing is actually an Islamic concept (to the best of my knowledge, I'm not nearly the expert on Islam I'd like to be). It has been gruesomely grafted onto Christianity like some creation of Dr. Moreau based on Jesus's statement that "Nobody knows the father except through me." Of course he also made the extremely puzzling statement, "I have sheep that are not of this flock, and I go to them now." When that one sinks in it makes any serious Christian realize we're better off sticking to the instructions: feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. The Nicaean Creed professed Catholicism to be the "only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church" after the change made at the First Council of Constantinople in 381AD. Muhammad wasn't even born until 610AD....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
But anyway, it's a sectarian statement that the group of dudes drawing up documents in Nicaea were the "true Christians", in opposition especially to Aryans. It was the first doomed attempt to prevent sectarianism.
As for the Islamic concept, I got that by reading the Quran. There are subtle but extremely important differences in the evangelical natures of the two religions. The assignment to "make disciples of all the nations" by Jesus had far more in common with the only other evangelical religion in the world, Buddhism, than it had with Islam.
Of course, once Constantine converted, it was a new ball game. Suddenly it became the holy mission of the Church and State to protect the empire and its faith, and it just snowballed into one muck-up after another. Once Islam showed up a patriotic Byzantine Christian just *had* to defend empire and faith against these dark-skinned turban-wearing ghouls (and yes obviously I'm speaking in the terms of the day, that is not what I think). Jesus's words and the actions of the first apostles were utterly lost in warfare and church-state machinations.
But happily we can once again "make disciples of all the nations" the old-fashioned way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I am actually constantly shocked at a number of the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism. I think a number of people chalk it up as being a polytheism because they have "gods" but when you actually study Buddhism, you realize that it is actually a misnomer (maybe intentional). Buddhist gods are pretty much the same thing as Catholic saints. They were real life people who did great works in their life. They are patrons over a certain aspect in of our lives, they have holidays and temples named after them dedicated to them. It's pretty much the same thing as a saint.
Suddenly it became the holy mission of the Church and State to protect the empire and its faith, and it just snowballed into one muck-up after another.
Which is precisely why separation of Church and State is in place in the US. Either the Church uses the state to bend laws protect and progress their own goals, or the State uses the church to justify it's actions and control people. It's not there to keep a school graduation ceremony from being held in a religious building. Not trying to open a debate here, I just had to say it. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
I seem to remember some story circulating that a Buddhist Temple in Asia had a record of a young man from West studying there for several years at a time that would coincide with the missing years of Christ's life. Not sure how true that is, but it might explain the similarities if it were....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
That's really interesting, never heard that before. With all the similarities between the two religions, I know certain scholars believed there had to be some connection. Since Sanskrit was not translatable at the time, and there was no Buddhist influence anywhere around, I never heard of any theories on how that could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
No matter what, I doubt he was just doing carpentry for 18 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
Also, Jesus needed to support himself as he wandered around and carpenters would have been in constant demand as they are now. Remember that Paul made his way in his wanderings falling back on his trade by making and mending tents.
Nor do I accept the often made argument that he was completely illiterate. As a carpenter he'd, at least, be numerate. As they do now, Jews took great pride and invested a lot in education as their faith was and is based on written documents. So I rather suspect that while he may not have been able to write Hebrew or Aramaic he could read one or both of them passably.
As for Buddhists and other faiths being familiar to the Holy Land. Keep in mind that on the trade routes of the day Jerusalem was on a choke point in the trade routes from the east to the Nile Delta and from then onto Greece and Rome. If that wasn't enough Herod the Great build a huge artificial harbour at Caesaria that he dedicated to Augustus in part penance for backing the wrong horse (Mark Anthony) in the recently concluded Roman civil war.
This alone would have exposed Jerusalem, Nazerth (right on the direct path to Caesaria) and other points in Judea to many faiths and influences. Buddhism among them as they'd have traded with Persans and the Buddhist Afgans and residents of the Indus River watershed (Pakistan) of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
And you're very right in that the use of the term catholic in the Nicaean, Apostles and other accepted creeds means universal it doesn't apply to just one branch of Christianity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Holy shit.
Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Holy shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe these verses existed long before the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Smartass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(...etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... but not all on the same page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
probably not ^_^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
I'm thinking of suing the state of California because the lottery ticket I bought could have been worth $100 million.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wealth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wealth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obviously this individual needs to learn a little about the basics of investing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/vatican-to-rich-countries-stop-excessive-ze al-for-ip-rights.ars
When even the Catholic Church is saying people have gone to far with IP law crapoula that got to be something serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm lifting that line Mike :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The point of the suit...
I don't know much more than what's in the article, but it kind of sounds like as soon as he got involved, they put the brakes on.
There's nothing wrong with them doing whatever they feel is right with the domain, EXCEPT that they seem to have taken other people's money in exchange for a promise to try to make more money. This guy in particular seems to have given up $400K in debts for his share.
I don't know that the suit is justified or not, but this isn't about whether they should make money or shouldn't make money on Bible.com. As presented in the article, this is about whether the board should be living up to the promises they made or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The point of the suit...
From the article it sounds like he wanted to take over and the rest of the board didn't take kindly to it. So they halted development and obviously this guy is suffering for it.
Sounds to me like he is getting his "fair share."
Now if the dude wasn't so power hungry, the board may have done its duty, continued development and he might be happy.
I obviously know nothing aside from what is in the article, so take this all with a grain of salt. Or a pillar.
If he accepted the offer to pay off a $400,000 debt, he took the risk and he should accept it as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a plan for them...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a plan for them...
Too late!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a plan for them...
"This domain could be incredibly profitable if it became a porn site."
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "bible bashing".
o.0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most important verse in the bible about economics:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most important verse in the bible about economics:
quite difficult and a big hassle, but far from impossible.
(it also fits thematically a lot better than if it's read absolutely literally)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The most important verse in the bible about economics:
I was working on a way to liquefy camel just so I could prove it possible and justify my plan to get rich. You saved me the effort! :P
Interesting comment though! Now I am off to get rich!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LMAO - If only....
I don't think the investor should be suing, but rather he should have faith and wait for God to bless him tenfold for his investment.
It's just VERY humorous that the church has learned to use the internet to take its practice of receiving tithes to a whole new level.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LMAO - If only....
it's a combination of charity and taxes.
so one can easily count charity donations as well as money given to churches to continue their functions and such as tithe...
I'm not sure about the tenfold thing, but there's certainly something in the bible to the effect of 'if you look after the poor, God will look after you'.
I think you're merging a number of separate concepts here.
besides, going into such a thing purely with the expectation of profit is hardly 'tithing'.
(the existance of so called 'super-churches' that are basically glorious get-rich-quick scams is depressing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?
"Up to the present time the community has spent about 5 million Egyptian pounds on restoration and construction. The monastery has no regular source of income and no bank account. We do not solicit donations, publicize the monastery's financial needs or receive financial support from any organization. And yet, when the monastery's needs are put before God in our communal prayers, donations are received daily, miraculously meeting our needs exactly. The monks therefore have no doubt that God has undertaken responsibility for this enormous work, not only in the spiritual, but also in the material realm."
The monastery has survived like this for over 1500 years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cant be sued if you have God on your side !! :)
Religious groups are allways squeeky clean,,, oh wait..
So we have a perfect 'bad buy' that is suing "GOD" and those on the side of God. Who have lied and stolen (by breaching a contract) but because they are on the side of God its OK for them to lie. And make claims that they could not keep.
But I assume, you believe therefore that NO religious groups are capable of committing crimes.
Or if they do commit a crime, you are somehow convicting God !!.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cant be sued if you have God on your side !! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are different Biblical Authors
Such a broad viewpoint has had considerable impact in history. To take only a single example, consider that both Moses in the Old Testament and Peter in the New testament explicitly supported and codified the institution of slavery, and yet somehow the Northern Protestant preachers in the US in the mid-19th century, after reading the entire book, concluded that American slavery could not possibly be reconciled with Christian principles. Christian action at its best is always deeply rooted in history (after all, most of the Bible is history) while using that history to respond to the issues of the day. Contradictions? Hardly, one of the most consistent things "the Bible says" is that God hates powerful people who exploit the weak, in fact, this is one of the few areas where it is stated outright that God finds something 'detestable', 'horrible' and so forth. It's darn near the most consistent message you'll find. It was that consistency that caused the abolitionists to realize that the details of slavery found in the Bible were historical leftovers from a past age that were no longer permissible in a more progressive era.
But as for the topic of the OP, perhaps the investor should not have allowed himself to become "unequally yoked."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are different Biblical Authors
You run away from a crime if you know you are guilty. So why was it ok for Moses to kill someone and get away with it ?
If God hates powerful people who exploit the weak, then that would have to include Moses.
And if God does hate powerful peoplewho exploit the weak what does that say about the rash of catholic priests who keep getting busted for molesting little boys ?
Im my books that would be the powerfull exploiting the weak.
It seems quite clear that throughout history Religions in general have done more harm to mankind than it has done good.
It's help back the progression of science, its been the cause of more killing and death than any nuclear bomb has done.
Religion and its associated texts have been the cause of mass destruction throughout history, to this very day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors
So you think without Religion there wouldn't be the cause for war or destruction? Ha! Religion is only a justification that leaders use to try sway opinion. It's a red herring. War is always about land, money, control, or revenge. Look at China and their thousands of years of wars. Religion had very, very little (if any) to do with their any of their wars, yet they have one of the most battle intense histories of them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors
And, of course, you're just as wrong as those who make those claims have always been.
Oh, and don't forget those who used religion as an excuse to be incredibly crappy to other people rather than the underlying reason such as the Pope of the time seeking to strengthen his "base", as we call it now", by encouraging the First Crusade and almost immediately regretting it because he couldn't control what he'd set in motion.
I would, however, suggest that in a remarkably short period of time political and economic ideologies, products of the Enlightenment both, have cause as much if not more bloodshed and misery that religion has ever been capable of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors
If you include the religion of Bolshevism, which demanded the human sacrifice of 20 million of its own to maintain purity, we might have a conversation going. Might be tough though, because those bolsheviks were going to liberate us all from the superstition and nonsense of religion, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are different Biblical Authors
In part it was the "do unto others" reading that led Wilberforce to that conclusion who found it impossible to reconcile the condition of slaves in the English colonies of the day with that phrase.
It was also the recognition as the movement was picked up by the English and Americans in the North East of the United States that with the industrial revolution and attendant automation that agricultural slavery no longer made economic sense.
A point of view hotly contested by those in the cotton business the the South and the sugar and other businesses of the Caribbean.
BTW, most of us Anglicans/Episcopalians would also reject the notion that we're Protestant in the Continental European sense. We prefer the idea that we express in liturgy and in practice the "via media". ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the board of IBM decided that it was going to stop conducting business, and in doing so, no longer try to make a profit, then its investors would sue the board and IBM. And they would be right to do it.
A corporation set up to make a profit must operate with making a profit its goal. There is no guarentee or requirement that it actually make a profit, but it is obligated to try.
But reading the quotes Mike picked out, maybe he would have been better off investing in Heaven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As in "Thou shalt profit to my expectations or I shall see thee in court with the Lord at my side"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stalin and Lenin couldn't have committed their crimes without the church. It took religion to create the mindset of blind obenience to authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]