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 6:19-21

"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
Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:35am

    "Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?"
    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..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Valkor, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:42am

      Re:

      Cynical much? If you're talking about nonsense like the prosperity doctrine, I'll just point out that it's about as unbiblical as the medieval crusades.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Pickle Monger (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:36am

    "Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?"

    Christine O'Donnell

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    James Carmichael (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:41am

    Holy shit.

    One of the reason the Bible is so popular is that it allows you to do basically anything you want, from hating fags to killing witches. And let's not forget making insane amount of monies. All you have to do is find a quote or two that remotely justifies what you're doing, and completely ignore the parts that contradict your actions. Then when you get criticized, all you have to do is point to the Bible and claim absolute amnesty from criticism, because what you are doing is 'sacred and holy'.

    I mean, that's what religion is all about, isn't it?

    "Thou shall be profitable. Very, very profitable." -- Matthew 4:20

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      TDR, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:51am

      Re: Holy shit.

      I really hope you're being sarcastic, otherwise you've completely missed the point of what the Bible really is. An honest Christian doesn't cherry pick: he or she understands that the Bible is an all-or-nothing thing. They also learn to look past the surface, understanding things like the cultural context and setting of the time of the writing and what the authors were really trying to convey, and that the original languages are far more specific than the English translations we have today. They also try to understand how God really works and who he really is, not how the media and popular culture say he is and does.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:58am

        Re: Re: Holy shit.

        If that's true, there must not be many honest Christians. Plus, with all the contradictions in there, isn't it kind of tricky to view the book as an "all-or-nothing thing?"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Jason, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:09am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          "If that's true, there must not be many honest Christians."

          Matthew 7:14?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          John Doe, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          Funny how people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible, yet when you dig deeper and look at the customs, audience, etc, they don't materialize. Try studying it for a while and you will find out for yourself.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

            Yeah, right. God is love right? That's the worst contradiction of all, since God is the worst dictator of history. Check this:

            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?).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:35am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

              "2- Fast forward a bit, and you find a man who picks up sticks on a Saturday"

              Context: He didn't say "5...6" before picking up those sticks. He had it coming....

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              John Doe, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:37am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

              Funny you list the actions but leave out the reasons behind the actions. Anything taken out of context can lead to contradictions. Look a little harder at the items you listed and see why it happened the way it did, then get back to us.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:41am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                ....was it the "5...6" thing?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  John Doe, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:54am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                  In a prior post you claimed to believe in a God yet you mock him every chance you get. You seem very conflicted. Personally if I believed in a God, I wouldn't go around mocking him every chance I got.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:02am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    Ah, see, but that's the thing. I'm not mocking my god. I'm mocking some people's book.

                    Totally different....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      PGP_Protector, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:54am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      But to some God and the Bible are the same thing.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:24am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        And to some theft and infringement are the same. I'm glad I'm not part of "some"!!

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        jjmsan (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:25am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        If some people regard God and the bible as the same thing they are committing idolatry.
                        God has a good sense of humor, hence humanity

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:28am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                          And the duck-billed platypus. And the faces we make during orgasm.

                          God, actually, is exceedingly funny. That's why I like It....

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:31am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        Yup and we have a word for that, "bibliolatry", making an idol out of the Bible. For the record, its considered a mistake. Our youth pastor put it well one time, "Let us not elevate this book over that of which it speaks."

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      John Doe, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 4:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      Where you err, is to assume that the bible is man's book about God rather than a book God had man write.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:12am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                Funny that, like a good Christian, instead of explaining it, you just shield yourself behind my supposed ignorance.

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:46am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                  A few notes of my own:

                  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?

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:50am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    "so how can one say that carrying out that penalty was somehow unloving or unjustified?"

                    Er, cuz the other guy...you know....murdered someone, and his punishment was to take a walk....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      James Carmichael (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:59am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      It makes complete sense... if you have a dark and twisted mind like god has.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 5:44pm

                        Re: 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."

                        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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:07pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      This is what I mean.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 9:00am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        Oh boy,

                        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. :-)

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    James Carmichael (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:56am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    Yes and the earth is flat. Don't think so? I guess you don't dig down deep enough. Have faith in this, it is flat, just squint A LOT.

                    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?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:33am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      Actually it's a post about Bible.com getting sued, but whatever. You're trolling, I get it.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    James Carmichael (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:10am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    "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."

                    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...

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:21am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      "How does he even expect people back then to even keep track of which day it is?"

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:37pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    "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."

                    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?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:53am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                  "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."

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  John Doe, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 4:02pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                  Funny fact, if a teacher does the student's work, how much does the student learn? What I am encouraging you to do is study deeper. What were the customs at the time? What specific situation did the verses address? Who were the players? Once you have dug that deep, you will not find contradictions.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:13pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                    Dude, cut with the evasion. This isn't Sunday school. I am not going into a "deep introspection" until I come up with the answers _you_ want to hear. If I made an error, give me the traceback, which is a funny way of saying, tell me _why_ I am wrong.


                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .
                    .

                    (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.)

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      John Doe, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:11am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      You made an error which I pointed out. First you give the actions, but not the reasons. Then you give some surrounding story, but still no reasons. You trot out the tired old "there are contradictions" argument which non-Christians seem to love. 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. I am not looking for any particular answer here, you are. So please look for yourself.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        John Doe, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:19am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        Try Google. Search on "cain abel commentary" and you will get tons of hits.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Vigo, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:09am

                        Re: 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."

                        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!

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 11:28am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        "You made an error which I pointed out. First you give the actions, but not the reasons."

                        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.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

            You need to read Tom Paine. Take the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, side by side, read the accounts of the central event of the New Testament: three different versions, one doesn't even mention it. That proves to me that the Bible is simply the work of flawed men. That conclusion says nothing about the existence or nature of a god, but that the Bible is flawed, therefore an unreliable guide.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:46am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

              Why do all four testaments have to about about the exact same things?

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:58am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                They don't need to be exactly the same, but if they contradict each other in places, it can't be a perfect document, can it?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                  Well, I'm not arguing that it is a perfect document, but it is still a vital historical account worth its name. Christians don't believe that God himself transcribed the Bible, just gave the humans who wrote it the affluence of wisdom to give their truest account of what happened. I think Anon. Christian put it perfectly in his post about bibliolatry.

                  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.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:26pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                    "Well, I'm not arguing that it is a perfect document"

                    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....

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:52pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                      History Buff? You seem pretty objective and versed on the matter. Whatever your views are, I respect that you came to them through your own objective studies.

                      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)

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 1:13pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                        "History Buff?"

                        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....

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                          Eh, I guess. I never understood why you should leave anything out, though.

                          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.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:52pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in 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...."

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                        Seriously, thank you for the history lesson. That was insightful.

                        "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....

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          identicon
                          Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

                          cool. Am enjoying this discussion *way* too much, will have to give the boss an extra hour of work to make up for today's activities :)

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 9:24am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "people always try to say there are contradictions in the bible"

              "That proves to me that the Bible is simply the work of flawed men."

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          If I have to take the bible as "all or nothing" does that mean I can finally own Canadian slaves? I have been waiting for the day when I can finally do that!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Vigo, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:17am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          Since over 3/4ths of the U.S. identifies themselves as Christian, I am guessing you are either don't realize how many honest Christians are out there, you you just have a very negative view of people in general.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        James Carmichael (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:02am

        Re: Re: Holy shit.

        I understand the distinction very well. I understand how a person may look at the Bible for what it really is. However, Christians somehow believe that the Bible is better than any other book, religious or not, to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. They're extremely hypocritical, thinking that only they have all the answers. Don't tell me that's not true, because if they would have even the most remote doubt of that, they would dare to compare the Bible with other religious texts, or God forbid scientific texts. That would oblige them to become more than just Christians. But the word Christian, by definition, means that you limit yourself to the Bible for your answers, or at least give the Bible a veto power over everything else.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:47am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          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.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:00am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          We can do without that kind of religious stereotyping or bigotry on this board.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:07am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          That post would have been taken down so fast if you replaced Christian with Muslim, and Bible with Qur'an.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

            That post would have been taken down so fast if you replaced Christian with Muslim, and Bible with Qur'an.

            On this forum, I'm skeptical... not unless it broke down to assault (threat of violence) on individuals. This is not a negative.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

              You may be right. I don't know what criteria posts get taken down for. Most places do flag posts for making statements against any race, religion, creed, etc.

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Chargone (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                Probably has something to do with Christianity not responding to such with officially sanctioned bombings and riots, among other things.

                well, as a rule in the modern world, at least.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          PRMan, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:01pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          This couldn't be further from the truth. While many Christians are insecure and shy away from study because of fear of what they might find, there are many others that are experts on other religions and science as well. They are even experts on evolution.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 5:57pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          "Don't tell me that's not true, because if they would have even the most remote doubt of that, they would dare to compare the Bible with other religious texts, or God forbid scientific texts. That would oblige them to become more than just Christians. But the word Christian, by definition, means that you limit yourself to the Bible for your answers, or at least give the Bible a veto power over everything else."

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:39am

        Re: Re: Holy shit.

        but the Truly, Truly Honest Christians say otherwise - they say you don't know what you're talking about - they say you've lost the one true path to God - they say you're just plain nuts the original post was spot on - it's a theological wild west out there - you can (and Tru Believers do) justify anything and everything with one or more verses from one or more versions of the Bible - or the Koran - or the Torah - or the Book of Mormon - or the Sunday comics, for that matter

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 1:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          "Truly, Truly Honest Christians..." Why not take Jesus's definition of what a Christian is? He said you'd know them by their love. If somebody is spewing a lot of hatred then they are prima facia not Christian, no matter what the name off their book or radio show is. End of story.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 1:41pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

            "Also, the "One True Faith" thing is actually an Islamic concept..."

            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....

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 2:08pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

              "only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church..." It does not say "only" because that word would be superfluous.

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 2:41pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                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.

                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. :)

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 2:48pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                  "I am actually constantly shocked at a number of the similarities between Christianity and Buddhism."

                  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....

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:21pm

                    Re: 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....

                    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.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Dark Helmet (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 4:48pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                      Actually there were buddhists in the holy land. Google jesus visited india

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 5:53pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                        This is some really interesting stuff, DH. Thanks for pointing me towards it. I've been reading some of this so far, and there are some very cool accounts on this. I have more studying to go, but thank you!

                        No matter what, I doubt he was just doing carpentry for 18 years.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:09am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

                          Personally I don't doubt that he was a carpenter for the 30 some odd years he's not accounted for in the Gospels or by Paul for the simple reason that, according to tradition, Joseph was a carpenter and in those days one passed one's trade to the eldest son.

                          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.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 9:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

              The Romans make that claim for the Bishop of Rome. Or the Pope of Rome. In the ancient church there was more than one Pope because all that term meant in those days was Bishop of Bishops or one step below Patriarch.

              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:30pm

        Re: Re: Holy shit.

        An honest Christian doesn't cherry pick: he or she understands that the Bible is an all-or-nothing thing.

        Really?

        However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Paul Hobbs (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 8:22am

          Re: Re: Re: Holy shit.

          Hell yeah! My slaves are awesome - they mow the lawn, clean the pool, wipe my bum. Best invention ever - couldn't live without them. Are you saying you don't have any slaves?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      tax cpe, Oct 31st, 2010 @ 3:22am

      Re: Holy shit.

      That last verse, is that really in the Bible? It seems edited/truncated and very contradicting to the teachings of the New Testament. In any case, it could also be true. After all, Matthew was a tax collector... :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:43am

    "and thanks to the lovely thing called the internet, there's actually an entire page of Bible verses about profit,"

    I believe these verses existed long before the Internet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:44am

    Copyright

    I want to know who is going to claim copyright over this bible thing...


    I'm thinking of suing the state of California because the lottery ticket I bought could have been worth $100 million.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Yogi, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:46am

    Wealth

    Actually there are some pretty wealthy believers in God in the bible, including, of course, Abraham himself. However, they did all have enough common sense not to sue Bible.com.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:51am

      Re: Wealth

      True. If I recall though, he became wealthy because of his faith in God and because he had his favor, not the other way around. And when asked to give it all up and wander the desert for the rest of his life, he did it. Money wasn't central to his life, and his actions prove it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert Ring (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 7:55am

    So, if you invest in a company and they don't make money for you, now the answer is to sue them! It's a win-win scenario, guys.

    Obviously this individual needs to learn a little about the basics of investing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:11am

    Actually the Vactican may do that.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    "Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?"

    I'm lifting that line Mike :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Kohne, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:25am

    The point of the suit...

    The point of the suit, from what I read in the linked article, seems to be that the board isn't doing ANYTHING to try to make a significant profit. It's not that the guy suing necessarily wants it sold, he just wants them to try to make some money.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Jeremy7600 (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:30am

      Re: The point of the suit...

      The board decided to hold off on development until resolving the issue of Solakians involvement. He got involved in Bible.com as a way of settling a $400,000 debt. He was probably owed $400,000 and this was the payoff.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    interval, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:30am

    I have a plan for them...

    This domain could be incredibly profitable if it became a porn site.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:32am

    The most important verse in the bible about economics:

    "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:36pm

      Re: The most important verse in the bible about economics:

      please note that there's some evidence that 'the eye of the needle' in this context may have been a particular kind of small gate in a city's wall that required the camel to have everything it was carrying removed so it could go through, possibly on it's knees.

      quite difficult and a big hassle, but far from impossible.
      (it also fits thematically a lot better than if it's read absolutely literally)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:49pm

        Re: Re: The most important verse in the bible about economics:

        please note that there's some evidence that 'the eye of the needle' in this context may have been a particular kind of small gate in a city's wall that required the camel to have everything it was carrying removed so it could go through, possibly on it's knees.

        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!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Josef Anvil (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 8:40am

    LMAO - If only....

    If only religion actually worked like this guy wants it to. If you follow the Evangelical movement in the US you will find a lot of churches that tell you that if you tithe you will be "blessed" tenfold.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chargone (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:58pm

      Re: LMAO - If only....

      i hope you realise that tithe started out as a way of supporting the functions of the temple, which included official responsibility for the poor, widows, orphans, record keeping, and all sorts of other basic functions carried out by governments in large parts of the western world today.

      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.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:09am

    Wonder who's going to file the amicus brief on behalf of God?

    I would suggest the Monastery of St Macarius.

    "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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 9:16am

    Cant be sued if you have God on your side !! :)

    Oh its about the bible, or church, so they can do no wrong !!

    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 !!.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Christian, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:32am

    There are different Biblical Authors

    One thing that bothers me as a Christian who has studied the Bible quite thoroughly for 10 years is the simple shorthand statement, "The Bible says..." The Bible is not a person or any kind of sentient agent of any kind and so it cannot say anything. Rather, Moses is recorded saying, Jesus is recorded saying (by Matthew, Mark, Luke and/or John), Paul said, Jeremiah is recorded by Baruch as saying, and so on. And to follow up TDR's point, it becomes much easier to understand the history and context when we begin with the basic exercise of looking at books, authors, history, and culture, instead of "The bible says..."

    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."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      darryl, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 2:42pm

      Re: There are different Biblical Authors

      It was Moses that killed a slave owner for striking his slave, then Moses fleed the desert. (ran away).

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 3:39pm

        Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors

        Religion and its associated texts have been the cause of mass destruction throughout history, to this very day.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:17am

        Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors

        Quite the list of sins you come up with there. ;-)

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 12:26pm

        Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors

        Is it my imagination, or did darryl do a whole post not disagreeing with or insulting Mike and his post? Have we found a topic that annoys him more?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Valkor, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 3:24pm

        Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors

        Yep, eliminate religion and everything turns up roses. Just ask Stalin.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Christian, Oct 27th, 2010 @ 4:28pm

        Re: Re: There are different Biblical Authors

        "Religion and its associated texts have been the cause of mass destruction throughout history, to this very day."

        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?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:28am

      Re: There are different Biblical Authors

      Actually the anti-slavery movement got started before the Revolutionary War by a collection of Anglican priests in the United Kingdom and was picked up from there.

      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". ;-)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 11:10am

    Down with logic. Go fairy tales.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Back to the topic at hand?
    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 10:33am

      Re:

      it sounds, in so many ways, what we've come to know of as the cult of "entitlement" doesn't it? :)

      As in "Thou shalt profit to my expectations or I shall see thee in court with the Lord at my side"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    nasch (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 12:36pm

    Hypocrisy or not?

    What if the investor isn't Christian?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    RandomGuy (profile), Oct 27th, 2010 @ 6:36am

    Nothing gets the comments like a post related to religion, eh?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Mar 16th, 2013 @ 8:41am

    We will be finally rid of religion, when we make it a felony to lie to children. You couldn't pay a sane, healthy, happy adult to believe that crap, but when you brainwash children from damn near infancy, you can make them believe anything.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Mar 16th, 2013 @ 8:52am

    One more thing.

    Stalin and Lenin couldn't have committed their crimes without the church. It took religion to create the mindset of blind obenience to authority.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Wolfy, Mar 16th, 2013 @ 8:59am

    It's disturbing to see so many with a slave mentality in the purported "Land of the Free." No Free man or woman would ever bow head or bend knee to anyone or anything. No "Lord" or "Master" for him or her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This