The dog has a discerning ear ... I'd be howling too if I was subjected to that discordant racket =o/

When I speak of ecstasy, I'm not talking about a sense of awe or wonder in the presence of natural beauty or a particularly moving passage in a piece of literature. There is, of course, no religious barrier to experiences of that sort. What I'm talking about is ek stasis, standing outside yourself. The Greeks originally used this term to speak about the powerful trances that would come upon the worshipers of Dionysos at their holy revels.

When I say "ecstasy," then, I'm talking about visions of gods and angels. I'm talking about howling to the bowels of the earth to dredge up demons and bend them to your will. Or alternatively, quiet sitting, focusing the mind on only the tip of your nose for an hour at a time, until a vision of the Unconquered Sun comes on you and explodes your world. The kind of experience that causes you to walk around for the next week as if the blood in your veins has been turned into holy wine. I'm talking about experiences that are life changing, help you to break bad habits and come to epiphanies.

Literal belief in these things is not necessarily key. But our brains need a hook to plug into this transcendence. Very few of us are able to do it without some kind of religious approach. And, of course, literal belief can sometimes be quite dangerous, if the belief is not just wrong, but demands harmful action--the Pentecostals who literally demonize those who disagree with them, for instance.

So we're not just talking about metaphor here. Non-literal interpretation by no means implies metaphorical interpretation, in the sense of the metaphor as a literary device.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
You know my feelings on the subject Shiny, but there's one thing I appreciate about this video: his rant about how the rich are not getting into heaven. I've heard all sorts of different interpretations and people trying to "translate out" their own beliefs in Matthew 19:24, but I just can't see it in any other way than: "If you have it, give it all away. You can't take it with you and we certainly aren't taking it into account when you get here."

Far from bashing Christians (and I know I'm ignorant where the bible is concerned), I agree with and support this particular idea. It frustrates me to know end when I hear people try to rationalize their selfish excess.

The idea of the rich rarely being saved is well supported by scripture. First, I think Jesus couldn't have been more clear about it in Matthew 19:23:

"Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven"

However, I do not believe this is a condemnation against having wealth in general. Rather, I think is a condemnation against those who use their riches for selfish gain and not for the greater good. This interpretation supported by James 5:1-6

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.

Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.

You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you.

It is condemning those rich who have lived in luxury and in self-indulgence, who have gained by cheating more righteous people of their just due. It even rises to the level of murder in Gods eyes, perhaps because of the impact of a poor person losing even a few days wages could be fatal.

This is illustrated even more plainly in the Parable of the Rich Fool

13Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”

14Jesus replied, “Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?” 15Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

16And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. 17He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’

18“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

20“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’

21“This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God.”

God is condemning greed here, and this is something we can see is nigh universal with the rich. Too much is never enough for many of them. But what this is saying is that it is not money itself, it is the love of money that is the issue:

1 Timothy 6:9-10

But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows

The love of money is a snare and a temptation to people. It is what you can call a false idol, because those who pursue riches cannot serve God:

Matthew 6:24

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.


It comes down to what you love; God or the world, and whatever you love more, your heart will be in that:

Matthew 6:19-21

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

That's why Jesus posed these two questions:

Matthew 16:25-26

For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Steve Jobs is a good example of this. He had about as much money, power, celebrity and accomplishment as you could desire in this life. Yet, what good did his riches do him when it was his time to go? They couldn't keep him alive, and they couldn't insure his eternal future. In the grand scheme of things, they were nothing but a millstone around his neck.

So yes, I think there is clear evidence that scripture condemns the rich, but only the greedy and self-serving rich. Not those who use their wealth for the greater good and not for themselves.

Would be nice to switch the link in the embed to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1824urmZmt0
Somehow I didn't really like the idea of someone stealing somebody others video and then pretending (and failing badly at that) to be finnish.

The dog is great tho! How come our Beagles never played anything while howling

>> ^BoneRemake:

I laughed like Ricky did


I know! When I watched it on TV in full context, I was howling with laughter. I think it's my favourite bit of this series.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.

Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.

These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.


P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.




>> ^heropsycho:

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

So are you admitting partisan vitriol is bad or not? If you are, then stop doing it yourself. Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.

And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...
Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.
...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

1) Of course, Bush did everything; after all, he collapsed the economy. Let's thank him for that too.
2) How can you say that "Obamacare" has cost us millions when it doesn't even go into effect until 2014?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Did you know that Ford has also received HUGE help from the federal government? Why is it wrong for the government to help domestic industry. It's not like it's a new practice in the US, and it's not like other countries don't give their industries a similar advantage.>> ^quantumushroom:

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.
Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...

>> ^longde:
QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

I'd like to have a domestic auto industry IF it deserves to stay in business and meets expenses with profits from building cars consumers--not Chicago Jesus--want, not 50K rolling fireplaces like the chevy volt.

Ford didn't take any bailout money and they're doing fine. Plus how 'bout all those foreign car companies with domestic plants, sans greedy unions, building cars un-rich people can actually afford...


>> ^longde:

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!)...

Answers your question about Bush approving of the auto bailouts.

...the left would be howling about their obvious failure.

Meaning if Bush were President now, the left, using the same exact stats, would declare the bailouts a failure. Which, by the way, they are.


>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?

QM, would you rather have a domestic auto industry or not? >> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Treasury Admits What Everybody Already Knew: Taxpayer Losses On GM Bailout Are Going to be Massive
Had Bush executed these erroneous bailouts (oh wait, he did!) the left would be howling about their obvious failure.
But let's say Obama did save "thousands" of jobs. The economic uncertainty created by obamacare has cost millions more.


Didn't Bush make those bailouts? I mean weren't they done up but Bush people?