In Today’s Speaking to the Soul on the Episcopal Café’ web
site Lowell Graham speaks about the differences in the resurrection stories we
have in the Gospels. Near the end of his comments he says “I'm
satisfied to read with devotion the various accounts … to draw meaning from it all, and not to get too exercised over the
unknowable question of ‘what really happened’ in detail.” (Emphasis mine.) I’m pleased to see the author
make this comment because both the literalists, on one side of the coin, and
the atheists on the other side loose sight of this concept. In the Old
Testament story of Jonah and the whale (fish), for example, the literalists
will say that this actually happened as it is written and the atheist will look
at both the story and the reaction of the literalist and say, “How can you be
so gullible; this could not have possibly happened.” What both points of view
tend to loose sight of is the truth that God wants us to take from the story;
namely that when God tells us to do something we had better do it. This method
of reading the scriptures “…to draw meaning from it all”; reading with the eyes
of faith would be more productive than mounting the unnecessary and untenable
defenses of taking all scripture literally. That and the more liberal
Christians (echoing the atheists) would not have to say, “How can you be so naive.”
and we could get on with the real work that needs to be done, loving God and people
and all that that entails.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Difference
This is a quote from Wikipedia about Mitt Romney and his time at Bain Capital:
"Bain Capital's leveraged buyouts sometimes led to layoffs, either soon after acquisition or later after the firm had left.[55][48][60][61] How jobs added compared to those lost due to these investments and buyouts is unknown, due to a lack of records and Bain Capital's penchant for privacy on behalf of itself and its investors.[66][67][68] In any case, maximizing the value of acquired companies and the return to Bain's investors, not job creation, was the firm's fundamental goal, as it was for most private equity operations.[61][69] Bain Capital's acquisition of Ampad exemplified a deal where it profited handsomely from early payments and management fees, even though the subject company itself ended up going into bankruptcy.[48][62][69] Dade Behring was another case where Bain Capital received an eightfold return on its investment, but the company itself was saddled with debt and laid off over a thousand employees before Bain Capital exited (the company subsequently went into bankruptcy, with more layoffs, before recovering and prospering).[66] Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most fees in such cases."[57][62]... (Above emphasis mine.)
By 2010 and 2011, Romney and his wife were receiving about $21 million a year from investment income, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code) and about $3.5 million to charity, including to the LDS Church.[76][77] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases.[78]"
That works out to a tax rate of 14.3%. Most of us pay more like 35% on unearned income.
We will have a choice for President of the United States between a man, who after graduation from Harvard Law School, could go to a large law firm and earn "BIG BUCKS" but who decided instead to be a community organizer in Chicago and work in low income areas and assist those who lived there. Or we can choose a man who ... well see above.
"Bain Capital's leveraged buyouts sometimes led to layoffs, either soon after acquisition or later after the firm had left.[55][48][60][61] How jobs added compared to those lost due to these investments and buyouts is unknown, due to a lack of records and Bain Capital's penchant for privacy on behalf of itself and its investors.[66][67][68] In any case, maximizing the value of acquired companies and the return to Bain's investors, not job creation, was the firm's fundamental goal, as it was for most private equity operations.[61][69] Bain Capital's acquisition of Ampad exemplified a deal where it profited handsomely from early payments and management fees, even though the subject company itself ended up going into bankruptcy.[48][62][69] Dade Behring was another case where Bain Capital received an eightfold return on its investment, but the company itself was saddled with debt and laid off over a thousand employees before Bain Capital exited (the company subsequently went into bankruptcy, with more layoffs, before recovering and prospering).[66] Bain was among the private equity firms that took the most fees in such cases."[57][62]... (Above emphasis mine.)
By 2010 and 2011, Romney and his wife were receiving about $21 million a year from investment income, of which about $3 million went to federal income taxes (based upon the beneficial rate accorded investment income by the U.S. tax code) and about $3.5 million to charity, including to the LDS Church.[76][77] In 2010, the Romney family's Tyler Charitable Foundation gave out about $650,000, with some of it going to organizations that fight specific diseases.[78]"
That works out to a tax rate of 14.3%. Most of us pay more like 35% on unearned income.
We will have a choice for President of the United States between a man, who after graduation from Harvard Law School, could go to a large law firm and earn "BIG BUCKS" but who decided instead to be a community organizer in Chicago and work in low income areas and assist those who lived there. Or we can choose a man who ... well see above.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
By What Authority
In today's Speaking to the Soul from the web site Episcopal Cafe the author of the meditation states the question that the religious authorities of Jesus' time asked him in Mark 11:27-33. The question in the Contemporary English Version of the Bible puts it this way, "They asked, 'What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you this authority?' "(v.28). The author sets the scripture in context of first century society but then goes on to explain how this scripture can apply to today's society. Contextualizing and applying a sermon or meditation to our current lives are two things that any good sermon or meditation should do.
So what does this meditation say to us today? To find out got to: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/thesoul/by_what_authority.html#more
So what does this meditation say to us today? To find out got to: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/thesoul/by_what_authority.html#more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
