If you ask for the government to solve a problem, it will make two more. In the case of the deck collapse, good old personal responsibility, rather than preemptive government intervention, would suffice. The property owner should be held liable for the injuries rather than taking away my right to build a deck on my property without asking permission.
(I moved from MD to Brigham City, UT. Oh, and I now own gold and not a minute too soon)
Was the building permit issue the real reason Kent went to jail? I know the popular media tries to make it a case of him not paying his taxes, but I just don't buy it without some proof. He seems way too smart for that. Is the trial transcript available yet?
It seems relatively straightforward to me. It's his land, he can erect a giant pink flamingo on it if he wants to. Otherwise, what's the point of having private property?
AAC, what are you getting at? That seemed like a rather sharp and specifically pointed comment.
Banks lend and collect interest on money they do not have; they create it out of thin air, so it is in their best interest for people to borrow as much as possible. Go to YouTube and search for "corrupt banking system". There's a 5-segment video there. If you don't know how the monetary system works in this country, it will be a real eye opener.
If your interest compels you to invest a little more time to the topic, I recommend the book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by Edward Griffin.
This result was inevitable. US currency only exists when it is borrowed into existence, and it disappears when it is paid back. The only money available is what somebody owes, and since one must pay back more than was borrowed, the available money supply is insufficient to service everyone's debt all at once. Add to this money taken out of circulation by taxation, and the problem gets worse. Like the Titanic sinking, loan default is a mathematical certainty. There's only so much money out there to earn. It's a giant game of spoons. (or musical chairs if you aren't familiar with the game "spoons")
My solution: Let these mortgages go into default, and let the market sort it out. Adults should be held responsible for their decisions. Since I don't own a house (because I was smart enough to realize that I couldn't afford it) every 'rescued' loan is a low-priced house stolen from me and others like me.
If becoming more educated leads you away from what you believed, isn't that a sign that it was wrong to begin with? Why is this not obvious? I guess when you've dedicated your life to a system, you're not amenable to it being displaced by added knowledge. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer. It's just that I'm a believer because of what I know, not what I don't know.
This sounds a lot like Warren Jeffs calling a formal education "worldly", because it causes people to doubt the FLDS belief system.
What we're seeing now is the popping of the ignorance bubble, much like the popping of the housing and stock bubble.
This sounds REALLY fishy. Who gives away $3M? Wanna bet this donation is a cooperative scam so the winner does to not have pay taxes on his winnings? Could that be why he/she wants to remain anonymous?
I think the pastor just might have won this money and funneled it through the church to avoid paying taxes. Forgive me, but I'm not satisfied with the "no way" answer.
I have read most of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, and I have found it edifying. To read the detailed descriptions of the torture these faithful men and women endured rather than give up Christ and then see what "Christianity" has become makes my blood boil. Might I also suggest Richard Wurmbrand's book, "Tortured for Christ"?
I just don't think these people get it. Not being "man friendly" is far from being the church's problem.
When "church" ceases to be the lucritive business with a pious facade, this and other problems may take care of themselves. Step one is dropping the 501-c-3 tax exemption and dissolving the corporation. Since nobody is willing to do that because of the large wealth liquidation it requires problems like these will continue, and the egg-heads will continue to scratch their heads and search for better ways to market the product.
I can assure you that my rationale is not to avoid Biblical authority or to avoid sound preaching. I want a group of people who will strengthen me and keep me accountable and who will allow me to return the favor. I also understand that you were speaking in generalities and not necessarily accusing me of ill intent, and I harbor no resentment towards you for bringing up your questions.
This actually has a bit of irony to it. Choosing a home church because it "suits me better" than the institutional church I left is the same logic as changing churches for carnal reasons, only it is masked as a better motive. It's all an economy of scale. If my complaint is the commercialism and consumerism, my recourse cannot be in any form that utilizes that same system to express my disfavor. The only logical escape to this inconsistency is to stop speaking of changing teams and leave the league entirely. When I chose to do that, I found others outside the arena who have similar stories.
It is then that I took the red pill and was unplugged. I learned that my spiritual eyes are sore and weak, because I had never really used them. (Continuing the "Matrix" analogy) My muscles were atropined from years of "church".
What if the only churches within 100 miles were Catholic? Would it then be sinful to not attend? What if they were all Universalist? Does the context of which you speak give an implicit command to attend the closest church no matter what?
Which shall I pick? I could go to A, but B has more comfortable seats! Wait a minute, C has child care AND complimentary coffee? Oh, but D has a bookstore, casual attire, coffee, AND donuts. With so many choices, what's a consumer to do these days? Poor Paul, he only had one choice.
If the context card is to be played, it needs to be done consistently. The context of the 'ekklesia' passages (those "one another" passages) is not the American system that we have created. The "gathering together" those passages reference is the fellowship and iron-sharpening experience to be had with other Christians.
The institutional church is completely void of these relationships. In fairness, there are some churches that offer "small groups". The ironic thing is that once these small groups become fruitful, they fulfill the "one another" mandate you reference, and the institutional church that birthed them is no longer needed.
I'm not afraid of personal conflicts within a real church, because they are a side effect of real fellowship. You don't have that in the institutional church where people dress up and pretend for 2 hours once a week.
I would be very happy to be a part of an 'ekklesia'. I wish I could find a group of believers with which to fellowship here, but I can't.
No, I don't attend a home church. There aren't any in my area on the East Coast. My departure from the corporate church was spurred on by the book "Pagan Christianity" by Frank Viola. My faith has grown by leaps and bounds now that I have to study for myself instead of buying pre-packaged sermons.
Neil is right about the conflicts, and marriage is a very good analogy. The real church is made of real people with real imperfections. When you strip away the dress clothes and the fake smiles, you see each other as fallible human beings, and personal conflicts are inevitable.
As for your question about the "starve" statement, yes. The typical pastor is the CEO of a business which is part of a larger multi-billion dollar corporate empire. Each church is nothing but a business looking to capture customers on the open religious market. I absolutely loathe his worldview, but Richard Dawkins hit the nail on the head in "The God Delusion" when he said,
"Rival churches compete for congregations - not least for the fat tithes that they bring - and the competition is waged with all the aggressive hard-sell techniques of the marketplace. What works for soap flakes works for God..." (p 41)
There's a lot you can learn when you take the red pill.
I have heard that charge about Margaret Sanger from several independent sources, so I decided to check it out for myself. I'm about half-way through her autobiography, and I have yet to see a racist tendency. So far all I have read about is her fight for freedom of the press.
Did she develop her racist tendencies later in life, and I haven't come to that turning point yet?
"All it takes is one example where the long age/macroevolution system fails to work, and the whole theory will be invalidated. Just show me ONE!"
If you've ever debated with an atheist, you've heard that phrase. If this flood isn't one of those examples for which that challenge begs, I don't know what is.
If this flood had happened in the year AD 102 with no one to watch it, school children would be taught that it took "millions and millions of years" to form. Yet, it was observed to form quickly.
Even when faced with a clear example of how a canyon, which would have otherwise been assumed to take millions of years to form, can be carved quickly, these robots still hold to the belief that the Grand Canyon "obviously" took 5-6 million years to form.
When did science cease to be about questioning assumptions and relying on evidence?