The Political Thread

[maryanddavid]

Led lighting are fine but they will reduce your electricity bill very little.
The biggest energy bill in a house is heating, be it water or central heating. Solar panels for water are generally a fad, if you are installing them in the British Isles and Ireland, the payback on them is so long that they are not worth putting in, if you are in Portugal they are a great idea.

Turbines will be a good investment when the systems get a bit cheaper especially on the west coast of these islands, and the electricity companies start to buy the current at a decent price, not the sum they currently pay. There is all sorts of systems, turbines directly to the house with current sensing relays that will turn off the mains and use the turbines, turbines to a battery dump that is used to power the house when needed, neither system is great, the first will only turn off the mains when a certain amount of current is created, wasting electricity, the second, the battery dumps have to be replaced, and thats not cheap. The easiest is to sell the electricty directly to the provider and get credit off your bill.

Stream and river turbines work well too, but the cost is huge, and not worth it for domestic application.

Electrical solar panels really are toys in this part of the world, they will provided current, so long as its a bulb you want lit, just don't ask it to boil a kettle!

The best way of saving money and using less energy is insulation, the amount is important, but it come to a point that if you use any more it makes no difference. The the real important thing with insulation is that its fitted properly.

Other simple things that really do make a difference, even though they are on every government green flyers, close the doors, if you have appliances that are a few years old that are left plugged in on standby, plug them out when no in use, depending on what you have this can make more difference that using CFL of LED lamps. Lagging, less water in the kettle etc etc.

[JamesC]

This is from an email that came around at work - I thought it was quite funny:

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

[TordelBack]

Blissful.

How long does Trout have to remain in Canada before we can purchase him?

[The Prodigal]

This is from an email that came around at work - I thought it was quite funny:

On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

James M. Kauffman,

Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,

Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

P.S. (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian.)

:)An excellent response and one that highlights effectively the need for a little thought and discernment when it comes to these things. The tragedy for me as someone who believes is that a sizeable proportion of the Christian community (for a start) doesn't realise that this kind of stuff is in the Biblical texts and another section prefers to avoid it entirely.

Not exactly Songs of Praise is it?

I have a few to add should anyone want them for future reference btw

[Modern Panther]

It amazes me how many "good" people are willing to treat others badly because their partial reading of a poorly translated version of something written on goat skin by a hermit.

[Charlie boy]

A uni module I did focused on how the Bible can be used in various ways by those in power etc who clearly skip over or pretend certain parts of it aren't there. I ended up finding a site- I think it was something easy to remember like evilbible.com- that gave a long listing of the bad like the bloke a couple of posts up did. I did purchase a Bible to check them and they were in there- mine were just a verse or two off from the ones posted online.

[The Prodigal]

There are however, Christian theologians who are very open about the whole "dark side of the Bible."

One bloke Greg Boyd has a book out shortly on precisely these kind of things and that indeed is the very title of the book.

Refreshing little article:

http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/

[Eric Plumrose]

Refreshing little article:

http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/

Hubris. The inherent arrogance of Christianity is that it presumes the Jews got their own religion wrong. In the unlikely event of Christendom ditching the Tanakh it would literally halve its theological issues.

Fudge me if Christianity isn't the Star Trek of religions.

[TordelBack]

....the more fundamental problem is that the dilemma we're facing isn't first and foremost about the clash between horrific portraits of God in Scripture and our moral intuitions. It's rather about the clash between these portraits and God's own self-revelation in the crucified Christ.

No, I think it has a everything to do with our 'moral intuitions'.  Murdering the innocent and oppressing the other  is wrong - we don't need to read about God's avatar/son/logos being tortured to death to grasp that.  The persistent assertion that morality can only derive from a divine revelation is the most patronising aspect of most religious thought.

[The Prodigal]

Refreshing little article:

http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/

Hubris. The inherent arrogance of Christianity is that it presumes the Jews got their own religion wrong. In the unlikely event of Christendom ditching the Tanakh it would literally halve its theological issues.

Fudge me if Christianity isn't the Star Trek of religions.

Not sure I get this Eric. Are you saying that Christian theologians are guilty of hubris towards Judaism but should nevertheless dump the entire Old testament to avoid the nasty bits and hence resolve the identified issues?

Star Trek? Are you referring to a religious amalgam or Spock's Judaic based Vulcan salute?

[The Prodigal]

....the more fundamental problem is that the dilemma we're facing isn't first and foremost about the clash between horrific portraits of God in Scripture and our moral intuitions. It's rather about the clash between these portraits and God's own self-revelation in the crucified Christ.

No, I think it has a everything to do with our 'moral intuitions'.  Murdering the innocent and oppressing the other  is wrong - we don't need to read about God's avatar/son/logos being tortured to death to grasp that.  The persistent assertion that morality can only derive from a divine revelation is the most patronising aspect of most religious thought.

Tordel I think you need to recognise the articles immediate intended audience and the fact that it is a theological work and maybe in that respect adopt a different approach road. The article is written for a Christian audience. He is stirring the pot of the Christian community in the first instance.

Also in writing:

"At the same time, I believe it is also vitally important that we remain ruthlessly honest with ourselves and others and God about this material. How else can we describe material such as this as anything other than horrific, macabre, grotesque, and even revolting? If a portrait of God commanding people to slaughter babies and causing mothers to eat them doesn't qualify as revolting, what would? If you found material like this in any other ancient or modern text, would you hesitate for a moment from labeling it as macabre, revolting, or some such phrase? If we are honest, we cannot deny it. So how does horrific material like what I just reviewed suddenly become less revolting by virtue of being found in our sacred text rather than someone else's? - See more at: http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/#sthash.7RH06fo4.dpuf"


I think he is acknowledging an obvious role for an inbuilt moral intuition right at the outset of the article. Besides I know this guys thinking and he is not a fundamentalist in the sense that he of course acknowledges that very worthy value bases can flow from atheistic/humanist fundamentals.

[TordelBack]

If I thought for one second that the religious audience would see theological discussions as only addressed to them and not humanity as a whole I'd be more tolerant, in the same way that I wouldn't troll a My Little Pony forum unless they insisted that I too brush my mane thrice daily, and persist in enshrining this in secular law.

I think he is acknowledging an obvious moral intuition right at the outset of the article.

Beyond the introduction, it seems clear that he is asserting 'normal' morality as deriving from the New Testament.  That said, he seems like a decent guy.  (see also: Satan)

[The Prodigal]

If I thought for one second that the religious audience would see theological discussions as only addressed to them and not humanity as a whole I'd be more tolerant, in the same way that I wouldn't troll a My Little Pony forum unless they insisted that I too brush my mane thrice daily, and persist in enshrining this in secular law.

I think he is acknowledging an obvious moral intuition right at the outset of the article.

Beyond the introduction, it seems clear that he is asserting 'normal' morality as deriving from the New Testament.  That said, he seems like a decent guy.  (see also: Satan)

Tordel as previously stated I am both a Christian and committed secularist. I believe faith should be a personal position and when it affects the state ugly things can happen and have happened. Faith and politics is a potentially very poisonous mix. I am not on my own in that respect within the Christian community.

I think in the article Greg is saying in the first instance, doesn't this material strike your moral intuition as bizarre and just plain wrong and then having acknowledged that, is viewing this material in the context of the picture of Jesus presented in the NT and asking some key questions.

Boyd is a good fella. Intensely anti-nationalistic and shares my secularism. he has taken a lot of flak from the religious right for his stance. He is also a huge Pink Floyd fan which I like a lot.

[The Prodigal]

If I thought for one second that the religious audience would see theological discussions as only addressed to them and not humanity as a whole I'd be more tolerant, in the same way that I wouldn't troll a My Little Pony forum unless they insisted that I too brush my mane thrice daily, and persist in enshrining this in secular law.

I think he is acknowledging an obvious moral intuition right at the outset of the article.

Beyond the introduction, it seems clear that he is asserting 'normal' morality as deriving from the New Testament.  That said, he seems like a decent guy.  (see also: Satan)

Tordel as previously stated I am both a Christian and committed secularist. I believe faith should be a personal position and when it affects the state ugly things can happen and have happened. Faith and politics is a potentially very poisonous mix. I am not on my own in that respect within the Christian community though I freely acknowledge the

I think in the article Greg is saying in the first instance, doesn't this material strike your moral intuition as bizarre and just plain wrong and then having acknowledged that, is viewing this material in the context of the picture of Jesus presented in the NT and asking some key questions.

Boyd is a good fella. Intensely anti-nationalistic and shares my secularism. he has taken a lot of flak from the religious right for his stance. He is also a huge Pink Floyd fan which I like a lot.

Double post-apologies.

Where is the disintegrator button?

[Professor Bear]

Religion was in charge of the world once, coincidentally we call that time the Dark Ages.
Generally speaking, I find that we and not our imaginary friends should make decisions about our lives.