|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 29 2017 10:38 m4ini wrote:
Yup, have to go with that too. This is not "sacrifice" or christian charity.
Sidenote, that guy has a 10.5m mansion. How the fuck is that even possible. Is he a televangelist or something?
He's the epitome of the "health and wealth" type preachers who forget all the not so nice or pleasant things the Bible talks about. This story is just an excellent example of what a fraud he is (unless he had a good reason, haven't seen one yet).
People who don't subscribe to this weird, philosophically bankrupt form of Christianity generally despise him, although that might be too sweeping of a statement.
|
Every time i see a televangelist, i wonder if i'm in the wrong field.
How hard can it be to bullshit your way through (an apparently very comfortable) life. I do not understand why this is a thing in the US - church in general, sure. But that entire bullshit with money seeding and whatnot?
|
The main criticism against him is that he sort of implies that good things happen to good Christians and bad things are to be overcome by good Christians. It leaves out the whole being humble and equal to the poor and downtrodden in the eyes God, for we are all equal before him in the end.
|
I'm pretty sure that i can find more things to criticise on a preacher that lives in a 11mil mansion.
Pretty sure.
|
On August 29 2017 10:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 10:38 m4ini wrote:
Yup, have to go with that too. This is not "sacrifice" or christian charity.
Sidenote, that guy has a 10.5m mansion. How the fuck is that even possible. Is he a televangelist or something? He's the epitome of the "health and wealth" type preachers who forget all the not so nice or pleasant things the Bible talks about. This story is just an excellent example of what a fraud he is (unless he had a good reason, haven't seen one yet). People who don't subscribe to this weird, philosophically bankrupt form of Christianity generally despise him, although that might be too sweeping of a statement.
It would be too sweeping of a statement to say that the feeling ends or begins at despising him. Christianity in america has tons of faults and tons of shitty people in it but there are legitimately some people losing their lives to help people. And then you have things like that on the same level as catholic child molesting priests that are taking money that should be given to charity and perverting religion in the name of making themselves rich. Even backwater hick southern baptists are tolerable compared to these (and I'm using this word in the most non ironic and serious way possible) heretics.
|
On August 29 2017 11:03 m4ini wrote:
Every time i see a televangelist, i wonder if i'm in the wrong field.
How hard can it be to bullshit your way through (an apparently very comfortable) life. I do not understand why this is a thing in the US - church in general, sure. But that entire bullshit with money seeding and whatnot?
Osteen is a unique talent. Very few people can speak as well as he does.
|
On August 29 2017 11:03 m4ini wrote:
Every time i see a televangelist, i wonder if i'm in the wrong field.
How hard can it be to bullshit your way through (an apparently very comfortable) life. I do not understand why this is a thing in the US - church in general, sure. But that entire bullshit with money seeding and whatnot?
There are a few factors that give people like this room to operate, but that's another discussion.
On August 29 2017 11:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 10:55 Introvert wrote:On August 29 2017 10:38 m4ini wrote:
Yup, have to go with that too. This is not "sacrifice" or christian charity.
Sidenote, that guy has a 10.5m mansion. How the fuck is that even possible. Is he a televangelist or something? He's the epitome of the "health and wealth" type preachers who forget all the not so nice or pleasant things the Bible talks about. This story is just an excellent example of what a fraud he is (unless he had a good reason, haven't seen one yet). People who don't subscribe to this weird, philosophically bankrupt form of Christianity generally despise him, although that might be too sweeping of a statement. It would be too sweeping of a statement to say that the feeling ends or begins at despising him. Christianity in america has tons of faults and tons of shitty people in it but there are legitimately some people losing their lives to help people. And then you have things like that on the same level as catholic child molesting priests that are taking money that should be given to charity and perverting religion in the name of making themselves rich. Even backwater hick southern baptists are tolerable compared to these (and I'm using this word in the most non ironic and serious way possible) heretics.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I'm saying that most Christians seem to fall into the "Yes I have his book" or the "I can't stand that guy" camp. Obviously not everyone, but a lot of people. You won't get argument from me that there are both problems within the church(es) as well as many good things. Are you saying "despise" is too strong a word? Perhaps that's true.
|
I'm saying that its too weak a word.
|
On August 29 2017 11:16 m4ini wrote:
I'm pretty sure that i can find more things to criticise on a preacher that lives in a 11mil mansion.
Pretty sure.
The mansion and and lack of humility in his teachings are linked. Going after his style of preaching and the focus on personal improvement, healthy living and hints of the prosperity gospel are just as effective as going after his wealth. Because in the end, it shows he thinks he deserves it because he is hard working at preaching the teachings of God. I've read my bible, Jesus never had a sermon deserved a nice house for working really hard as saving us from our sins.
But he is sort of the walking embodiment of the prosperity gospel that dominates so many evangelical churches. It is a really shitty version of Christianity.
|
On August 29 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:
I'm saying that its too weak a word.
Ah, ok. Perhaps that bit about heretics should have been a clue. I don't necessarily disagree with that characterization of it, either.
|
Bill Gilmer remembers spending the night listening to the winds of Hurricane Ike tear through his suburban Houston neighborhood in September 2008. He also recalls waking up the next morning to hear something completely different.
"The first sound I heard was chainsaws, and I looked out and all my neighbors were out there clearing the streets, clearing their yards, cleaning up their yards," says Gilmer, who directs the Institute for Regional Forecasting at the University of Houston's C.T. Bauer College of Business.
Houston residents have survived big hurricanes before and know how to pitch in and help each other recover, Gilmer says. But the drenching rainfall that has followed Hurricane Harvey, flooding streets all over the country's fifth-largest metropolitan area, is out of scale with anything the city has seen before, he says.
Chuck Watson, who studies the economic impact of natural disasters for Enki Holdings, says the cost to the economy from the flooding is likely to be $30 billion. That's because of the rain.
"If Harvey were just a hurricane, it would have only caused $4 or $5 billion worth of damage. As a tropical storm phase, it's actually producing five times that much damage," Watson says.
About a third of Houston's economy is directly tied to the oil and gas industry. But the region is also home to non-energy companies, both small manufacturers and large corporations such as KBR, Waste Management and the food service giant Sysco.
Many of those companies have shut down in Harvey's wake, as have several hospitals, both major airports and the Port Of Houston.
"You've got the fifth-largest economy in the United States basically sitting at a dead stop for three or four days," Gilmer says.
Gilmer says the economy will be able to make up for lost time once the flood waters recede, but the physical damage to the city will be much harder to recover from.
"In Houston you're going to have street signs, traffic lights, traffic signals, road damage, culverts, a tremendous amount of public infrastructure damage, and of course, there's no insurance. That just comes right out of the taxpayers," Watson says.
It's not clear yet how many homes have been destroyed yet, but right now Watson estimates the cost of repairing residential properties will be about $12 billion.
Most of that damage won't be covered by insurance, because homeowners' policies typically don't cover flooding. While coverage is available through a federal program, most people never bother to get it, says Loretta Worters, spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute.
Watson also worries about something else.
Some of Houston's oil refineries are closed right now for a simple logistical reason: Streets are flooded and their employees can't get to them.
About a third of Houston's economy is directly tied to the oil and gas industry. But the region is also home to non-energy companies, both small manufacturers and large corporations such as KBR, Waste Management and the food service giant Sysco.
Many of those companies have shut down in Harvey's wake, as have several hospitals, both major airports and the Port Of Houston.
"You've got the fifth-largest economy in the United States basically sitting at a dead stop for three or four days," Gilmer says.
Gilmer says the economy will be able to make up for lost time once the flood waters recede, but the physical damage to the city will be much harder to recover from.
"In Houston you're going to have street signs, traffic lights, traffic signals, road damage, culverts, a tremendous amount of public infrastructure damage, and of course, there's no insurance. That just comes right out of the taxpayers," Watson says.
It's not clear yet how many homes have been destroyed yet, but right now Watson estimates the cost of repairing residential properties will be about $12 billion.
Most of that damage won't be covered by insurance, because homeowners' policies typically don't cover flooding. While coverage is available through a federal program, most people never bother to get it, says Loretta Worters, spokesperson for the Insurance Information Institute.
Watson also worries about something else.
Some of Houston's oil refineries are closed right now for a simple logistical reason: Streets are flooded and their employees can't get to them.
Source
|
You know the drill. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has been asked about something scientific and has said something ludicrous in response.
Shortly after announcing that he wants climate researchers to “debate” climate deniers on live TV, he gave a characteristically painful interview to a Texas radio show. Just after appearing to endorse peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
The idea that science should not dictate nor influence policy is insane. It really doesn’t need to be said that science is one of the key foundations of modern society.
JFK couldn’t have made his famous, rousing speech about heading to the Moon without the advice and expertise of scientific experts, just as lawmakers couldn’t have appropriated funds for the groundbreaking LIGO experiments that detected gravitational waves for the very first time.
Forget America – what about the world? Without science dictating policy, smallpox wouldn’t have been eradicated, hundreds of millions of children would not be alive, and we wouldn’t know that climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth.
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos advances with each discovery.
Politics is a method in which those with the most convincing argument win elections, regardless of how factual those arguments are.
These two systems are quite different, but in an ideal world, science is used to help the most powerful people on the planet understand what is true and what is not. Evidence is better than reading our future in tea leaves.
Source
Will try to find a more "legit" source.
|
On August 29 2017 11:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +You know the drill. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has been asked about something scientific and has said something ludicrous in response.
Shortly after announcing that he wants climate researchers to “debate” climate deniers on live TV, he gave a characteristically painful interview to a Texas radio show. Just after appearing to endorse peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
The idea that science should not dictate nor influence policy is insane. It really doesn’t need to be said that science is one of the key foundations of modern society.
JFK couldn’t have made his famous, rousing speech about heading to the Moon without the advice and expertise of scientific experts, just as lawmakers couldn’t have appropriated funds for the groundbreaking LIGO experiments that detected gravitational waves for the very first time.
Forget America – what about the world? Without science dictating policy, smallpox wouldn’t have been eradicated, hundreds of millions of children would not be alive, and we wouldn’t know that climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth.
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos advances with each discovery.
Politics is a method in which those with the most convincing argument win elections, regardless of how factual those arguments are.
These two systems are quite different, but in an ideal world, science is used to help the most powerful people on the planet understand what is true and what is not. Evidence is better than reading our future in tea leaves. SourceWill try to find a more "legit" source.
Legit debates on TV is probably exactly what the field needs.
|
On August 29 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 11:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:You know the drill. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has been asked about something scientific and has said something ludicrous in response.
Shortly after announcing that he wants climate researchers to “debate” climate deniers on live TV, he gave a characteristically painful interview to a Texas radio show. Just after appearing to endorse peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
The idea that science should not dictate nor influence policy is insane. It really doesn’t need to be said that science is one of the key foundations of modern society.
JFK couldn’t have made his famous, rousing speech about heading to the Moon without the advice and expertise of scientific experts, just as lawmakers couldn’t have appropriated funds for the groundbreaking LIGO experiments that detected gravitational waves for the very first time.
Forget America – what about the world? Without science dictating policy, smallpox wouldn’t have been eradicated, hundreds of millions of children would not be alive, and we wouldn’t know that climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth.
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos advances with each discovery.
Politics is a method in which those with the most convincing argument win elections, regardless of how factual those arguments are.
These two systems are quite different, but in an ideal world, science is used to help the most powerful people on the planet understand what is true and what is not. Evidence is better than reading our future in tea leaves. SourceWill try to find a more "legit" source. Legit debates on TV is probably exactly what the field needs.
Or an educated audience.
edit: or at least a less stupid one. There really isn't anything to debate there. Especially not with complete laymen - although i do would enjoy watching Alex Jones getting redder and redder while trying to explain why chemtrails are turning frogs gay to someone who knows what he's talking about.
I doubt that anything fruitful would come of this though. Other than my own amusement.
|
On August 29 2017 11:58 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2017 11:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:You know the drill. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, has been asked about something scientific and has said something ludicrous in response.
Shortly after announcing that he wants climate researchers to “debate” climate deniers on live TV, he gave a characteristically painful interview to a Texas radio show. Just after appearing to endorse peer-reviewed science, he added that “science should not be something that’s just thrown about to try and dictate policy in Washington DC.”
The idea that science should not dictate nor influence policy is insane. It really doesn’t need to be said that science is one of the key foundations of modern society.
JFK couldn’t have made his famous, rousing speech about heading to the Moon without the advice and expertise of scientific experts, just as lawmakers couldn’t have appropriated funds for the groundbreaking LIGO experiments that detected gravitational waves for the very first time.
Forget America – what about the world? Without science dictating policy, smallpox wouldn’t have been eradicated, hundreds of millions of children would not be alive, and we wouldn’t know that climate change was an existential threat to life on Earth.
Science, as has often been said, is true whether you believe in it or not. It is a constantly self-correcting, unbiased system, one through which our collective understanding of the cosmos advances with each discovery.
Politics is a method in which those with the most convincing argument win elections, regardless of how factual those arguments are.
These two systems are quite different, but in an ideal world, science is used to help the most powerful people on the planet understand what is true and what is not. Evidence is better than reading our future in tea leaves. SourceWill try to find a more "legit" source. Legit debates on TV is probably exactly what the field needs. Or an educated audience. edit: or at least a less stupid one. There really isn't anything to debate there. Especially not with complete laymen - although i do would enjoy watching Alex Jones getting redder and redder while trying to explain why chemtrails are turning frogs gay to someone who knows what he's talking about. I doubt that anything fruitful would come of this though. Other than my own amusement.
There's been too much denigration and shunning. You could take any qualified pro-AGW panel that just keeps its shit together and focuses on science and defuse tensions.
|
On August 29 2017 09:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:34 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2017 09:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one. i mean yeah why try to understand the basis for one of the largest political movements in the country right now when we have more important things to think about like exactly how much of a hack elon musk is You seriously think we'll move to understanding it here ... nay, even understanding what the hell you mean by 'one of the largest political movements in the country.' You got your Kwarks that say racists didn't vote Obama and it's half the Republican party, you got the trolls that think xDaunt's "vermin" is the useful definition, you got your ChristianS generalizers that will caterwaul about disparate impact and disparate time-spent-on-issue racism. IgnE, I seriously thought your comprehension of what debate looks like in this thread to put you above making such a ridiculous one-liner. A thousand monkeys hitting keys at random on a typewriter for a year might do a better job than this forum typing out the synopsis on race and political movements.
Not sure I understand what I'm being accused of here but honestly I was just flattered to get the name check
|
On August 29 2017 10:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 10:29 Danglars wrote:On August 29 2017 10:26 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Okay not to get off topic too much, but place your bets his church gets the personal info for each person seeking shelter to lobby for donations and so forth.
Can't you thaw that cold heart of yours enough to bring in notions of Christian charity? I've seen reams and reams of personal testimony of community and individual sacrifice for their neighbors throughout this event. He was basically shitcanned on social media for refusing to opening his megachurch. This isn't anything other than a PR stunt to save face.
I need to up my game on megachurches. Didn't know Lakewood was Osteen's. Obviously his whole operation deserves serious skepticism. Still, in '01 he opened it up to 5k from Allison.
|
On August 29 2017 09:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2017 09:34 IgnE wrote:On August 29 2017 09:09 LegalLord wrote:
I'm willing to straight up say that the desire to never be racist simply isn't important enough to constantly get into debates about what is and isn't racist - not as a matter of public policy, not as a matter of anonymous internet discussion. Let the courts decide what legally qualifies as racism; as far as I'm concerned that's a valid definition to be used for the purpose of considering what does and does not go over the edge of that definition. Dicking around trying to figure out what goes over the edge just doesn't really matter to everyone in equal measure - and often it's little more than a tiresome distraction from more important matters.
I know enough people care about it far more than I do - GH being the prime example - but that's on them. If it's "racist" to care about it less than that then perhaps the quest to never be "racist" is just a pointless one. i mean yeah why try to understand the basis for one of the largest political movements in the country right now when we have more important things to think about like exactly how much of a hack elon musk is You seriously think we'll move to understanding it here ... nay, even understanding what the hell you mean by 'one of the largest political movements in the country.' You got your Kwarks that say racists didn't vote Obama and it's half the Republican party, you got the trolls that think xDaunt's "vermin" is the useful definition, you got your ChristianS generalizers that will caterwaul about disparate impact and disparate time-spent-on-issue racism. IgnE, I seriously thought your comprehension of what debate looks like in this thread to put you above making such a ridiculous one-liner. A thousand monkeys hitting keys at random on a typewriter for a year might do a better job than this forum typing out the synopsis on race and political movements.
you're right i should have said it's the basis for multiple significant political movements, from the KKK to BLM. but like i said, we need to know if Musk can put a colony on Mars
|
And speaking of m4ini's 'educated audience' ...
George W Bush has a lot of blood on his hands - at least in the eyes of younger generations.
According to a new survey, one third of millennial, generation “X” and “Z” respondents believe that more people were killed while Bush was US president than under the dictatorship of former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin.
Only 5 per cent of millennials were unfamiliar with the former US president - his decision to invade Iraq took place within recent memory - while 18 per cent were unfamiliar with Stalin.
The results were revealed in the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation’s first "annual report on US attitudes towards socialism".
"It is because of such widespread ignorance about communism that we formed the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, which is dedicated to telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," Lee Edwards, co-founder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, told the Daily Signal.
"Ronald Reagan said that ‘freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction,'" he added.
"It is the solemn obligation of this generation to educate the rising generation about the manifold victims and crimes of the deadliest ism of the last 100 years—communism."
TheIndependent (reporting on a YouGov poll)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
