"Book of Virtues" author gambled millions away... - Page 2

I love this discussion because it's totally meaningless in the Real World™.

Yeah, but I love seeing assholes get their comeuppance. I'm just that petty.

And how does this actually hurt him or give him comeuppence?

I had to give up racing(motorsports, that is) because I was spending way way too much money on it for really no return. It was and still would be my favorite pastime. Not specifically spelled out as a non-virtuous act in The Bible. I see the two as the same.

Just because something doesn't have the word "virtue" attached to it doesn't mean it's non-virtuous.

But collecting baseball cards can be destructive too for someone who cannot afford to do so.

And I'm a Roulette player...as displayed by my losses this last weekend in Reno.

And now some absolute idiots are doing this "Recall Davis" campaign. But that's another story...

Well done!

Let me preface my remarks with an "I don't like gambling." Waste of money.

Anyway, how long has Bennett been gambling? I honestly don't know. However, there was something somewhere (I have lost track of it - it was a few months ago) where a Vegas casino owner was talking about average losses per hour. The average person loses $10/hour, or something like that, which he says is all fine and dandy in the grand scheme of entertainment. Assuming Bennett gambled 800,000 hours over the past however long he's been gambling, he could have spent around 400,000 hours playing laser tag or paintball, watched 800,000 movies, or any number of other things. I don't know how much rich people spend on entertainment, but it certainly seems like they could spend 8 million over the span of 10 or 20 years without batting an eye. That's why I don't have a big problem with it - well, that and his not saying anything about it in his virtues.

Are you joking? 800,000 hours? That's 91 SOLID YEARS of gambling, no sleep, no nothing. He was spending a little more than $10 per hour.

Is that what it comes out to? I didn't do the math beyond 8 million/10 dollars. Wow, that's a lot of gambling.

Over ten years his losses work out to $91.32/hour, assuming he was gambling 24/7.

That's about what some mutual funds have been losing for several years now...and the vidpoker is much more fun. Actually I like the Roulette table more.

Too bad. I support it.

Even if it will fail.

It's a huge waste of resources that could better be spent on:

• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">watchdogging Davis
• <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Campaign '06

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Recalls are not good for the system as are impeachments. Davis won't be able to "get away with" much as he's under an even bigger microscope now since the scandal about the State's funds came out immediately after his election.
There are no viable candidates to go against him in a recall election. If nobody electable could step up last year what makes the recall Davis people think someone better would now? I don't hear of anyone willing to step up right now. If this was truly to work there would have to be a huge voice speaking DAILY fropm the bully pulpit. Right now there's just a few radio hosts and the chairmen of the two recall Davis organizations -which is another whole issue.

Why two different recall campaigns? A truly righteous recall effort would have one solid organization.

Nope. These recall efforts happen in just about every election by those who are either disgruntled or by people who have an axe to grind.

In Davis' case everybody has a very good reason to boot him...but it's not being done intelligently.

go read.

Deuteronomy 27:22
Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.

Genesis
19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

19:31
And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:


19:32
Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:33
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.


19:34
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

19:35
And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

19:36
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

19:37
And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

19:38
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

Thanks Devin for reminding me where the Penthouse letter was invented. That Bible sure can be spicy at times.

Nice quoting selectively. There were consequences to that action. The nations arisen from Moab and Ammon were cursed nations constantly at war with Israel. They were later wiped out.

Also Lot didn't "percieve" them as his daughters so obviously it's not as if this was a "mutual" choice.

Although I do wonder what was in that wine. Must've been some strong stuff.

go read.

devin's post

Because the Bible describes something doesn't mean it necessarily endorses it. It doesn't say something like "And God smiled" afterward.

God specifically saved these people from Soddom and Gemmorah. Then they go to the hills and fuck as family and nothing is done. God had already shown by taking apart two whole towns full of people he won't stand for what he doesn't endorse. Then, he just lets these people go.

Abraham marries his half sister with God's blessing. Genesis 20:12

Ew!

Exodus 6:20

6:20
And Amram took him Jochebed his father's sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.

Actually, would a half sister be considered incest?

And Guttenberg, God might have let that go due to the whole drunkeness thing. But God didn't slay everyone who sinned. He let a lot of crap go. Guess he just had it in for those two towns.

How is fucking your half sister NOT incest?

And there's more nasty horrible shit all over the Bible. This is just the INCEST stuff.

Dueteronomy

28:53
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

28:54
So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

28:55
So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

I just don't think god would approach it like a low self esteem girlfriend that just found out she was cheated on - "He said he was too drunk, that he was sorry and that he'd never do it again".

Not to mention god had already made his presence known to Lot by warning him to get the fuck out of town in the first place. If this was so bad, I would think a return appearance would be more than warrented. Unless, of course, god really doesn't mind.

Remember, Lot had previously offered his two daughters to a crowd that wanted to rape some angels.

They don't share the same blood. It's gross, but it's not the mixing of the same blood. In a lot of the Bible, what's laid out as morals has a lot to do with hygene or other things. Incest tends to create weird mutations. Screwing a half-sister who doesn't share the same genes could be considered nice and safe, and you won't get a kid with two heads.

As for the rest of the stuff you put up, I have no idea what the context of that is.

Your STEP sister has no shared blood. Your HALF sister would share HALF of your blood.

Not to mention genetics was an uninvented science at the time.

Whoops, you're right.

I'll say it again...ew!

The halirious thing here is the fact you think theseverses prove that incest is accepted or ANY of these actions by people in the Bible is accepted.

Because the Bible describes David commiting adultery with what would be with Solomon's mother and sends her husband to the front line to die does God condone that? Please! The Bible shows as much the flawes of godly men as it does their virtues. And it also shows how incredibly forgiving God can be.

And also you need to realize that bad things didn't always happen directly to those who committed the crime (though in fact this is rare) but it would happen to ungodly offspring (the nation of Moab and the Ammonites). Call that unfair but the Bible also describes the sin of the father visiting the third and fourth generation.

This is why quoting Scripture without godly understanding is foolishness and only leads to folly in those who hear (or read). So quote all you want but it doesn't mean a damn thing if you cannot comprehend the whole of the message. You point to verses in one section as if they point to the whole meaning but that is farthest from the truth. This is why most Bibles come with corresponding verses to look at along with the verses you are reading so you can come to a fuller understanding of what you are reading.

This is why you can spend your whole life on the Word and not have understand nor comprehend all that is written.

i think the point of this whole exercise is that it is futile to read into the bible for all of your moral ideals. There is a lot of hypocracy.

You talk about not being able to quote without knowing the whole story but the fact is, you only know the story YOUR way. There are a LOT of interpretations of the bible, therefore it is impossible to have anything other than an opinion when it comes to the the bible says.

Hehe and round and round the bend we go!

You know my answer, I know your response. We're just too predictable!

Really, this whole incest thing is a bit much. Yes, the Bible goes both ways. I mean, think about it. Let's say that everyone here accepts the Bible's idea that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth, and all of us are descended from them. That means that the first generation must have all committed incest, or else we wouldn't be here. Then, later Lot does it, then others do it, then the Lord says no. So we can't prove either way, because everyone here can go to an online Bible, search, then quote the scripture that came up. Different people at different times had different commandments, i.e. the kosher laws were done away with after Jesus was resurrected. Does that mean that we should still not eat shellfish, pigs, and so on? No, it just means that God updated his commandments. What superceeds what? I would say Deuteronomy was after all of the quoted scriptures, so Nelson's Deuteronomy quote superceeds all of that incest business.

The Lord describing the seige of Israel and what will happen if they disobey His commandments is hardly an endorsement.