Let me offer a recommendation of a book that is the most credible
explanation of Noah's flood that I have ever come across. It can be
found on BARD and the number is DB56673. Here is a link to its Goodreads
description: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1906454.Before_the_Flood
On 1/31/2016 7:07 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
Now, Carl....
There are lots of historically based and factual truths in both testaments along with exagerations
For example, though the Hebrews didn't make the walls of Jericho come tumbling down with a horn they did conquer that ancient city as their first foray in to the promised land. And it appears that they slaughterred every man, woman, and child as an act of terror to send a message to other city-states.
They weren't the only ancients to use such tactics, but they did so on numerous occasions documented not only in the Bible but also in archeology.
As for Noah's flood the writers of that ditty did crib liberally from the ancient Sumerian book "Gilgamesh" which was really the first known novel.
While the Noah flood was a myth story. There is ample arceological evidence that there were great floods in the region. Many were sunami's caused by volcanic activity ... That we have evedence of basically destroying the advanced Minoan civilization in the Aegean. There was also a "great flood" in the Black Sea region which destroyed coastal civilizations in the archeological record.
Now, as for Jesus walking upon water, well probably not in the Sea of Gallilee but he might have come close in the Dead Sea given the salt content and density there...Just kidding...
I just walked upon water yesterday and that is a fact. I walked upon our nearby pond which now, by a miracle is solidly frozen. I only do this feat a few times each winter.
Praise the Lord..
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 7:48 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency
Miriam,
I think the New Testament better reflects the world and the life at
the time of Jesus. The old Testament is an account of Fables and
exaggeration, and Magic. Unless we actually believe that a fellow and
his sons could build a boat big enough to hold 2 of every kind of
animal, food enough to keep them for 40 days and 40 nights along with
cabins for himself and his family. Not to mention what kept their
stomachs full until new crops would be planted, harvested and stored.
Those poor old animals must have been worn to the nubbins, breeding
and birthing at a speed beyond belief, trying to populate the Land
again. No, the Old Testament is a book of Fairy Tales. Joshua blew
his horn and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down. Moses waving
his hand at the Red Sea and rushing his People through to safety,
while the Sea came back together in time to drown his pursuers.
Remember, all people on Earth held beliefs that included Angels,
Demons, Gods of all sorts, and Goddesses who tempted the Gods and men,
alike. We understand that human imagination has peopled the planet
with witches, vampires, zombies, dragons, elves, and all sorts of
other hobgoblins.
We understand that these are creations of our over-active minds.
Unless they show up in one of our Holy Books. And there, we are
afraid to challenge them. Mary was knocked up by God, not Joseph.
Jesus turned water into wine and blessed the fish so it could feed the
multitude. Jesus also raised up the dead and healed the Leper. He
also walked on water and rose up from the tomb. Just because we wish
it could be so, does not make it so.
My dad used to say, "I'll listen to any story, so long as it doesn't cost me."
Well, our insistence upon believing these myths and fables to be true
is costing the Human Race its very existence.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/30/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's a new novel on BARD, The Secret Chord by Geraldine Brooks, which is
about David becoming King, his reign, and his son, Solomon, becoming king.
Now I grew up with no religious education at all and what I know of the
bible, are the bits and pieces that I've read about, along the way. I was
given a book of bible stories when I was a child, which I enjoyed, like I
enjoyed all stories. Anyway, I have no idea how true to the First Testament
story, this beautifully written novel is. I read it because I think
Geraldine Brooks is an excellent author. But this story was filled with
brutality, war, power plays, aggression, men's domination of women,
jealousy, envy, et ecetra. God speaks to Nathan sometimes, telling him what
will happen and making His will clear. Reading the book was truly
disheartening. First of all, nothing has changed except that now we provide
more palatable reasons for wars and murder like, "spreading democracy", and
we kill from a distance, rather than actually thrusting a sword into our
opponent and disemboweling him. And to think that it is stories like this
one that caused the Jews to believe that they were people chosen by God and
that Christians believe that Islam is a violent religion while Judaism and
Christianity are peaceable. I do understand that the New Testament must
have been written to try to clean things up a bit.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2016 10:30 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Step Toward Election Transparency
Like Shakespeare, the Holy Bible is such a part of our thinking, of our
language, that we reach back without ever realizing it, and grab at
commonly
understood phrases to illustrate our point. I suspect that long after all
memories of both Shakespeare and of Christianity have faded to the back
rooms of our memory, we will still be using much of the quotes we use today
because they are such a part of our language.
This does not mean a person has to believe in Jesus Christ as his personal
Savior, to understand what the Scriptures are saying. Nor do we need to
settle any disagreement over whether Shakespeare, Marlowe, Bacon, de Vere,
or Mary Sidney Herbert actually authored this great body of literature, to
draw from the rich language.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/30/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Brilliant! And one thing I really like about Moyers is his religiousgovernment and business.
analogies even though I'm an avowed agnostic. This goes to the utter
"poetry" of the prose as ironic as this might sound. Regardless, these
allusions are a part of the ethoes; the internal mechanisms that
incite the
brain, heart, and, dare I say soul of the average American.
This is why I favor teaching the Bible and other religious texts
including the Kuran, not as dogma, or as fact, but, rather as cultural
referances just
as the teaching of Roman and Greek mythology should take place.
Of course, I do think such courses should be electives but should be
prominent in our public schools again in my opinion, and again as a
non-believer.
Aside from these comments this again is right on on the seminal issue
of transparency at a bare minimum. To use another fantastical anology,
wee Americans deserve at a minimum the right to know that the man
behind the curtain is the so-called Wizard of Oz!
We have at a minimum the absolute right to know just who is pulling
the levers.
That is democracy with a small "d".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 10:33 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] A Step Toward Election Transparency
Moyers writes: "Barack Obama once confessed to politics' original sin
but has yet to atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do so. I
speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics."
Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)
A Step Toward Election Transparency
By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company
29 January 16
It's time for the president to make federal contractors disclose
their political spending.
Barack Obama once confessed to politics' original sin but has yet to
atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do so.
I speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics.
During his
2008 race for the White House, Obama opted out of the public funding
system for presidential campaigns - the first candidate of a major
party to do so since the system was created in 1976, after the
Watergate scandals. His defection chilled hopes that public funding
might enable everyday citizens to check the power of the super rich
and their super PACs, countering the influence of "dark money" -
contributions that cannot be traced to their donors.
A friend of mine, a prominent conservative Republican who champions
campaign finance reform (yes, there are some and we get along
marvelously!) recently told me he believes Obama's decision was a
significant blow to the cause for reform. Six years ago, the
conservative majority on the Supreme Court tried to finish it off
when they ruled for Big Money - unlimited amounts of it
-
in their Citizens United decision.
In his first State of the Union in 2010, President Obama denounced
Citizens United, saying that it would reverse a century of law and
open "the floodgates for special interests." He was just as blunt
last year when he declared flatly that Citizens United was "wrong"
and had caused "real harm to our democracy." Right on all counts.
Public interest advocates Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen and Stephen
Spaulding of Common Cause recently reminded us that since Citizens
United "special interests have spent over $500 million from secret,
undisclosed sources."
Think of it as poison poured into the mainstream of democracy, just
as toxic as the lead released in Flint, Michigan's drinking water.
Americans of every stripe know money corrodes our politics. In a poll
last year, The New York Times and CBS found that 85 percent of us
think the system for funding political campaigns should be
fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt.
President Obama knows it, too. Despite his own apostasy, he has
spoken eloquently over the years against the present system.
Unfortunately, he has done nothing about it. He's gone AWOL in our
biggest battle for democracy.
Which brings us back to his confession. During that first campaign
for president, the Boston Globe reported that "In Obama's eight years
in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the
money he raised for his campaigns - $296,000 of $461,000 - came from
PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.and many other corporate
interests."
Confronted with this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Obama replied:
"I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics
and I am not sinless."
Far from sinless, he has in fact been a serial sinner. From repeated
campaigns for the state legislature, through his one campaign for the
US Senate, to his last campaign for president in 2012, money from
organized interests poured into his coffers. The finance industry,
communications industry, the health industry - they all had a piece
of him, sometimes a very big piece. In his defense, Obama said he
could not "unilaterally disarm." So like the young Augustine of
Hippo, who prayed, "Lord, grant me chastity. but not yet," Barack
Obama was saying that when the time arrived, he would sin no more.
Well, Mr. President, it's time. You have no more campaigns to wage.
With a little less than 12 months left in the White House, you have
the opportunity to atone for exploiting a system that you have
deplored in words if not deeds. You can restart the engine of reform
and even demonstrate that Citizens United can be tamed. Just take out
your pen and sign an executive order compelling federal contractors
to disclose their political spending.
In one stroke you can put an end to a blatant practice of political
bribery that would be one small step for you and one giant leap for
democracy.
It's an open-and-shut case. In fewer than five minutes, you could
face the cameras and announce your decision:
My fellow Americans. I have today signed an executive order requiring
any company with a federal contract to disclose how much they spend
on politicians and lobbyists, and who is receiving their money.
There are several reasons for this.
First, federal contracting is big business. In 2013 alone, the United
States government spent about $460 billion dollars on contracting,
with $177 billion of that going to just 25 companies. Since the year
2000, the top 10 contractors have raked in $1.5 trillion in federal
contracts.
That's your money. All of it comes from taxpayers. And as the
economic analyst Robert Reich reminds us, you are footing the bill
twice over. You pay for these corporations to lobby for those
contracts. Then you pay for the stuff they sell us. It's only fair
that you see how much it costs for corporations to buy influence.
Second, there is a direct relationship between what a corporation
spends on campaign contributions and the amount it receives back in
government spending. Federal contractors have long been banned from
contributing to federal candidates, parties or political committees,
but that ban does not apply to their executives, shareholders and
political action committees.
In
fact, since the Citizens United decision in 2010, contractors have
been free to contribute unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to
super PACs and the shadowy operations known as "social welfare
organizations."
It's now possible for companies that get government contracts to
secretly - let me say it again, secretly - spend untold amounts to
elect and re-elect the very legislators who are awarding them those
contracts. That's wrong.
It's a terrible conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of
government.
Some of you will remember that I said the Citizens United decision
would harm democracy. I wish it were not so, but I was right; this
secrecy in influence peddling by federal contractors is a bad thing.
It wastes your money. It distorts the relationship between your
me.
It
works against start-up entrepreneurs who can't afford to hire
lobbyists or make political contributions while entrenched old-line
companies hire former government officials - members of Congress and
their staffs in particular - to steer business their way. Let's put
an end to these practices, once and for all.
Third, an open democracy is an honest democracy. Disclosure is the
foundation of public trust in government and business, while secrecy
invites corruption. Even the Supreme Court justice who wrote the
majority opinion for Citizens United acknowledged this to be true.
Justice Anthony Kennedy belongs to another party than I. He adheres
to a different ideology. But listen to what he wrote: "With the
advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of [political] expenditures
can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to
hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their
positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their
corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in
making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are
'in the pocket'
of so-called moneyed interests." I agree with Justice Kennedy.
You see, undisclosed money - "dark money" - is not "free speech" as
its proponents claim. To the contrary. It's a threat to free speech,
especially to citizens like you. Even if you believe money is speech,
don't you and every other American have a right to know who's
speaking? Secrecy weakens democracy's backbone, causing it to become
brittle - so brittle that fractures are now commonplace. That's one
reason Washington is broken and dysfunctional.
As Justice Kennedy himself - the author of the Citizens United
decision, remember - recently admitted, our system "is not working
the way it should."
The executive order I have signed today is a step toward helping us
see why it is not working and giving us a way to start fixing it. We
are casting sunshine on a system badly in need of light.
Sadly, I must report to you that Republicans in Congress are opposed
to sunshine. They prefer government do business in the dark, out of
your sight and away from the prying eyes of reporters. But the
Sunlight Foundation has discovered that over one recent five-year
period 200 of the most politically active corporations spent a
combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions
and, in return, got $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.
Yes, $4.4 trillion - with a "t." That's an enormous return on their
investment in lobbyists and politicians.
Earlier this month I delivered my last State of the Union address to
you.
I
told you that, "We have to reduce the influence of money in our
politics,
so
that a handful of families or hidden interests can't bankroll our
elections.
And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can't pass
muster
in
the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution."
My record on this issue may not inspire confidence, but I offer this
executive order as an act of genuine penitence. And I pledge to you
that in my remaining months as president I intend to take more steps
to put right what I have helped to keep wrong. When I leave this
office next January there will be no private citizen in the country
more active in the fight to save our public life from the pernicious
grip of private greed.
I am not a saint; I am a sinner. But I have been born again - again.
And this time I will keep the faith. If you believe in democracy, join
government and business.Thank you and good night.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Bill Moyers. (photo: PBS)
http://billmoyers.com/story/lets-ask-obama-to-give-this-speech-next/h
ttp://b illmoyers.com/story/lets-ask-obama-to-give-this-speech-next/
A Step Toward Election Transparency
By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company
29 January 16
It's time for the president to make federal contractors disclose
their political spending.
arack Obama once confessed to politics' original sin but has yet to
atone for it. He now has an opportunity to do so.
I speak of his promiscuous relationship with money in politics.
During his
2008 race for the White House, Obama opted out of the public funding
system for presidential campaigns - the first candidate of a major
party to do so since the system was created in 1976, after the
Watergate scandals. His defection chilled hopes that public funding
might enable everyday citizens to check the power of the super rich
and their super PACs, countering the influence of "dark money" -
contributions that cannot be traced to their donors.
A friend of mine, a prominent conservative Republican who champions
campaign finance reform (yes, there are some and we get along
marvelously!) recently told me he believes Obama's decision was a
significant blow to the cause for reform. Six years ago, the
conservative majority on the Supreme Court tried to finish it off
when they ruled for Big Money - unlimited amounts of it
-
in their Citizens United decision.
In his first State of the Union in 2010, President Obama denounced
Citizens United, saying that it would reverse a century of law and
open "the floodgates for special interests." He was just as blunt
last year when he declared flatly that Citizens United was "wrong"
and had caused "real harm to our democracy." Right on all counts.
Public interest advocates Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen and Stephen
Spaulding of Common Cause recently reminded us that since Citizens
United "special interests have spent over $500 million from secret,
undisclosed sources."
Think of it as poison poured into the mainstream of democracy, just
as toxic as the lead released in Flint, Michigan's drinking water.
Americans of every stripe know money corrodes our politics. In a poll
last year, The New York Times and CBS found that 85 percent of us
think the system for funding political campaigns should be
fundamentally changed or completely rebuilt.
President Obama knows it, too. Despite his own apostasy, he has
spoken eloquently over the years against the present system.
Unfortunately, he has done nothing about it. He's gone AWOL in our
biggest battle for democracy.
Which brings us back to his confession. During that first campaign
for president, the Boston Globe reported that "In Obama's eight years
in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the
money he raised for his campaigns - $296,000 of $461,000 - came from
PACs, corporate contributions, or unions.and many other corporate
interests."
Confronted with this by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Obama replied:
"I have said repeatedly that money is the original sin in politics
and I am not sinless."
Far from sinless, he has in fact been a serial sinner. From repeated
campaigns for the state legislature, through his one campaign for the
US Senate, to his last campaign for president in 2012, money from
organized interests poured into his coffers. The finance industry,
communications industry, the health industry - they all had a piece
of him, sometimes a very big piece. In his defense, Obama said he
could not "unilaterally disarm." So like the young Augustine of
Hippo, who prayed, "Lord, grant me chastity. but not yet," Barack
Obama was saying that when the time arrived, he would sin no more.
Well, Mr. President, it's time. You have no more campaigns to wage.
With a little less than 12 months left in the White House, you have
the opportunity to atone for exploiting a system that you have
deplored in words if not deeds. You can restart the engine of reform
and even demonstrate that Citizens United can be tamed. Just take out
your pen and sign an executive order compelling federal contractors
to disclose their political spending.
In one stroke you can put an end to a blatant practice of political
bribery that would be one small step for you and one giant leap for
democracy.
It's an open-and-shut case. In fewer than five minutes, you could
face the cameras and announce your decision:
My fellow Americans. I have today signed an executive order requiring
any company with a federal contract to disclose how much they spend
on politicians and lobbyists, and who is receiving their money.
There are several reasons for this.
First, federal contracting is big business. In 2013 alone, the United
States government spent about $460 billion dollars on contracting,
with $177 billion of that going to just 25 companies. Since the year
2000, the top 10 contractors have raked in $1.5 trillion in federal
contracts.
That's your money. All of it comes from taxpayers. And as the
economic analyst Robert Reich reminds us, you are footing the bill
twice over. You pay for these corporations to lobby for those
contracts. Then you pay for the stuff they sell us. It's only fair
that you see how much it costs for corporations to buy influence.
Second, there is a direct relationship between what a corporation
spends on campaign contributions and the amount it receives back in
government spending. Federal contractors have long been banned from
contributing to federal candidates, parties or political committees,
but that ban does not apply to their executives, shareholders and
political action committees.
In
fact, since the Citizens United decision in 2010, contractors have
been free to contribute unlimited amounts of undisclosed money to
super PACs and the shadowy operations known as "social welfare
organizations."
It's now possible for companies that get government contracts to
secretly - let me say it again, secretly - spend untold amounts to
elect and re-elect the very legislators who are awarding them those
contracts. That's wrong.
It's a terrible conflict of interest that undermines the integrity of
government.
Some of you will remember that I said the Citizens United decision
would harm democracy. I wish it were not so, but I was right; this
secrecy in influence peddling by federal contractors is a bad thing.
It wastes your money. It distorts the relationship between your
me.
It
works against start-up entrepreneurs who can't afford to hire
lobbyists or make political contributions while entrenched old-line
companies hire former government officials - members of Congress and
their staffs in particular - to steer business their way. Let's put
an end to these practices, once and for all.
Third, an open democracy is an honest democracy. Disclosure is the
foundation of public trust in government and business, while secrecy
invites corruption. Even the Supreme Court justice who wrote the
majority opinion for Citizens United acknowledged this to be true.
Justice Anthony Kennedy belongs to another party than I. He adheres
to a different ideology. But listen to what he wrote: "With the
advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of [political] expenditures
can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to
hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their
positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their
corporation's political speech advances the corporation's interest in
making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are
'in the pocket'
of so-called moneyed interests." I agree with Justice Kennedy.
You see, undisclosed money - "dark money" - is not "free speech" as
its proponents claim. To the contrary. It's a threat to free speech,
especially to citizens like you. Even if you believe money is speech,
don't you and every other American have a right to know who's
speaking? Secrecy weakens democracy's backbone, causing it to become
brittle - so brittle that fractures are now commonplace. That's one
reason Washington is broken and dysfunctional.
As Justice Kennedy himself - the author of the Citizens United
decision, remember - recently admitted, our system "is not working
the way it should."
The executive order I have signed today is a step toward helping us
see why it is not working and giving us a way to start fixing it. We
are casting sunshine on a system badly in need of light.
Sadly, I must report to you that Republicans in Congress are opposed
to sunshine. They prefer government do business in the dark, out of
your sight and away from the prying eyes of reporters. But the
Sunlight Foundation has discovered that over one recent five-year
period 200 of the most politically active corporations spent a
combined $5.8 billion on federal lobbying and campaign contributions
and, in return, got $4.4 trillion in federal business and support.
Yes, $4.4 trillion - with a "t." That's an enormous return on their
investment in lobbyists and politicians.
Earlier this month I delivered my last State of the Union address to
you.
I
told you that, "We have to reduce the influence of money in our
politics,
so
that a handful of families or hidden interests can't bankroll our
elections.
And if our existing approach to campaign finance reform can't pass
muster
in
the courts, we need to work together to find a real solution."
My record on this issue may not inspire confidence, but I offer this
executive order as an act of genuine penitence. And I pledge to you
that in my remaining months as president I intend to take more steps
to put right what I have helped to keep wrong. When I leave this
office next January there will be no private citizen in the country
more active in the fight to save our public life from the pernicious
grip of private greed.
I am not a saint; I am a sinner. But I have been born again - again.
And this time I will keep the faith. If you believe in democracy, join
Thank you and good night.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
