HUH?
Drill baby drill.
Kansas City Star:
The United States was so dependent on foreign oil that by 2008 it imported two-thirds of what the country’s refineries needed to produce enough gasoline, diesel and the other petroleum products to meet the country’s needs.
But recently the federal Energy Information Administration reported that in 2010 imports had fallen far more than many realized — to 49 percent of the country’s needs.
What happened?
Part of the big drop resulted from the federal agency’s using a different measurement — net petroleum imports — widely viewed as a more accurate way to judge overall dependence on foreign petroleum. The figure counts imports of crude oil and of refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel, but it also subtracts exports of U.S. petroleum products, which have been growing.
The country recently stopped being a net importer of petroleum products for the first time since at least 1973, as the country’s refiners sold more gasoline and other end products to other countries.
A second factor is simply lower demand for petroleum products, in large part a result of the sour economy, but also helped by more efficient cars.
And on the supply side, U.S. oil production, after languishing for years, is on the upswing.
One example is North Dakota. Perhaps within a year the state is expected to supply more oil for domestic use than the 1.1 million barrels a day that Saudi Arabia now exports to the United States.
In addition, biofuels, mainly ethanol, are meeting more fuel needs. And natural gas liquids, a byproduct of natural gas that can be used to replace some petroleum products, are surging.
Put them all together, and the United States has cut its dependence on imports substantially — with further declines possible if the trends continue.
“It’s a silent revolution,” said Lehi German, publisher of the newsletter Fundamental Petroleum Trends. “This is a big deal.”
The size of the shift has been somewhat hidden by the different numbers that have been used to describe the country’s dependence on foreign oil.
One measure looks solely at the percentage of imported oil used by refineries. T. Boone Pickens, who backs a plan to use more natural gas, likes to use that gauge, which topped 66 percent in 2008 and dropped below 62 percent in 2010.
Critics of that standard say it overstates U.S. dependence on imports because it ignores other fuels being produced in America, and it ignores how much of that oil is re-exported as refined products.
But the net imports standards reflect those extra supplies and growing exports. Taking everything into account, the country’s net petroleum imports peaked at 60.3 percent in 2005 and dropped to 49.3 percent in 2010.
“It’s a more comprehensive picture,” said James Williams, an analyst for WTRG Economics.
That picture has been changing dramatically for several reasons.
•Biofuels, which are now almost entirely corn-based ethanol, have already displaced about 5 percent of gasoline supplies and are being counted on to do more. A federal mandate would triple production from 2010 levels to 36 billion gallons a year in 2022. Most of the extra supply is to come from ethanol made with wood, grass and other cellulose.
Although meeting the 2022 target is unlikely, just shooting for it will mean more ethanol is available, and used.
•Estimates of natural gas reserves in shale formations continue to grow, and more of it could be used as a transportation fuel if more vehicles are built or equipped to run on propane or liquefied natural gas.
Such a transition could take years to make much difference, but other natural gas liquids are already a factor. Those liquids are a byproduct of processing natural gas for use to heat homes, and they can be used for petrochemicals and for some transportation fuel. One of them, butane, can be added to gasoline. Another is propane, which is used for heating and for a small but growing amount of transportation fuel.
All of those uses reduce the amount of petroleum products needed, and together they really add up. The Energy Information Administration in a report released in June said the United States produced 5.5 million barrels per day of oil in 2010. But there was an additional 4.2 million daily barrels of nonpetroleum fuels produced, including ethanol and natural gas liquids.
•U.S. oil production is starting to grow. One new source is oil locked in shale formations, including in the Bakken field in North Dakota and Eagle Ford in Texas. The fields combined could eventually produce 2.5 million barrels a day, nearly half of total U.S. production in 2010.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/08/01/3051001/us-dependence-on-petroleum-imports.html#ixzz1TxXOyxg6
- World’s tallest building coming to Saudi Arabia (jamilhussain.wordpress.com)
- Saudi Arabia’s Other Major Crisis (businessinsider.com)
- A US Oil Boom - Unless Greens Abort It. USA is on the Verge of a Golden Era in Oil Production.(gunnyg.wordpress.com)
- Open Areas to Drilling, Don’t Open the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (papundits.wordpress.com)
38 comments:
Any measure which has the potential to make the OIC application of political pressure irrelevant is welcome . . .Drill Baby Drill!
Anhelli - smart dad!
Consummately wonderful news!
Now, will the EPA regulate this to death?
it's about time!
hope sites are being utilized by US owned companies-using US citizen employees-
C-CS
I watched a good documentary on this topic, the figure is reached by local production, certain industries using natural gas and basically the habits of the population and business sector. It is a great result and if the economic crisis deepens or hangs around longer than excpected, could be the make-or-break difference for the economy as a whole.
As for the first couple of rediculous comments (with all respect to parents), it is probably one of the most mindless myths that Islam and Muslims live off oil and petroleum. Now I understand perhaps why so many think in such backward and ignorant terms when thier parents have no idea what lies beyond their own borders (or State).
So, go do some maths people, how many Muslim countries have actually oil?
I've been writing about this for several years:
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/06/america-has-enough-oil-to-be-1-oil.html
Damien, the sad truth, the absolute FACT is that for much of the arab world, and Iran, minus the commodity sales, and now the wealth management funds, we are essentially in 1890.
Would that they lead the world in revolutionary desalinization technologies, and the ancillary and corollary irrigation, and desert reclamation.
But that's not the case.
Take engineers out of arabia and bring them here, and they achieve. Leave them there and they are swimming with 50 lb weights.
Why?
Why did the ulama require the advanced observatory they had time coincident with Copernicus (or Tycho Brae, I forget which) to be dismantled?
We could state it's because the Ulama said the work was not 'islamically', CORRECT and that would be a fact, but in the end it doesn't matter.
Bereft of the oil commodity and wealth management operations, it's not what it should have been or could have been.
FACT
I'll bet the PRC owns all the mineral rights and will send that oil back to China.
Easy solution: stop selling food to the arabs. They don't grow shit and they can't eat oil.
I say, for every $1 of food we export, the arabs send $1 of oil. You'll see the price of oil back to $10 a barrel real fast.
EPA, a first point, my comment was about the foolish notion that the "Muslim" world is all financed or run on oil. That is obviously not the case. The Arab world would also be almost incorrect as well, the OPEC nations are 12 of which includes two non-Muslim nations and we can add Nigeria is not Arab. Indonesia was, they are no longer and were not Arab.
Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon and even Jodan are not swimming in oil. The Yeman is a basket case without oil, shall I continue?
Morocco though developing and with economic problems and the poor is rather looking very rich in comparison with its OPEC corrupt neighbour of Algeria, why is that? It is an Arab country that exports a bit of phosphate and vegetables but the remainder is hard-work by its inhabitants, tourism and French language call-centres.
Just to let you know, if you have not worked it out, I dispise generalizations and basic BS.
Which is why the explanations come across as logically tortuous excuses
;)
Come on.... substitute ..WHEREVER MUSLIM MAJORITIES HOLD SWAY ...
Just match up Nobel prizes and/or economic development compared to liberal democratic societies without resources as well, maybe to that most despised tiny group over there in the corner.
The one with one of the one of the smallest nations on earth, which is mostly a desert?
Islam HOLDS BACK HUMAN DEVELOPMENT by removing the ability of man's conscience to be sovereign instead being a slave to some imam or mullah's ulemic haram baloney pie.
It was Taqi al Din whose observatory in Galata was razed to the ground by the Janissaries by order of the mufti.
Taqi al-Din built an observatory, in 1577 CE which consisted of two large structures placed on a hill overlooking the European section of Istanbul. He made use of his newly invented observational clock to produce a zij, (an astronomic table) more accurate than those of his predecessors or contemporaries, like Nicolaus Copernicus. Taqi al-Din was also the first astronomer to employ a decimal point notation in his observations. He also invented a framed sextant similar to what Tycho Brahe later used in his observation. He wrote 33 treatises on astronomy.
On astronomical instruments Taqi al-Din wrote a comprehensive treatise titled; The Observational Instruments of the Emperor’s Catalogue. This treatise describes the astronomical instruments used in the Istanbul observatory, which included all ancient instruments, instruments by Arab astronomers, and several that he had invented himself.
In mathematics, Taqi al-Din made contributions in trigonometry, he was the first mathematician to determine the precise value of Sin 1. He wrote six books on mathematics, one on zoology and one dictionary on medicinal plants.
In The Muslim Observer, note of all this is made, but SIGNIFICANTLY they leave out the denouement.
Just one example, but an iconic one.
"Just match up Nobel prizes and/or economic development compared to " or "Islam HOLDS BACK....."
There is a huge problem with such an agrument, and that is why then are other non-Muslim developing countries equally in trouble, equally backwards, equally in some form of turmoil etc, ?
The response is that there are some interest groups and dumbification from the never-ending-self-supporting-internet-community as well as basic ignorance that results in such claims.
Also you can add a larger number of historic figures that have had a large input into the sciences, arts etc, just you wont find it on the type of blogosphere you are reading.
I repeat myself constantly, I am all for battling Islamists, just not based on BS.
{SARC ON}
Apparently your greatest pleasure is for me to abandon subtlety....
{/SARC OFF}
Blog influence free list one
Blog influence free list two
The chemistry prize was won at U. Cal. He is now an American.
There is nothing which stopped these nations who were at one time far and away the most advanced scientifically and philosophically ON THE PLANET from continuing, except themselves. For one reason.
That cannot be said of the culture, milieu or development say in, Vanuatu, the Solomons, Phillipines, Burkina Faso, etc.
The contributions made by the muslim/arab culture were cut short. Music is STILL verboten in many places. What kind of artistic contributions can be made by talented and yearning people when imams scraped the paintings off the walls of mosques (Bosnia)?
There is a distinct reason why the accomplishment differential is as great as it is, and it is NOT colonialism, not western imperialism, and not a difference in the IQ or aptitudes of the people.
"Music is STILL verboten in many places"
This is the example of the reality check needed, mostly by avoiding cr*p in the blogosphere.
I can think of three countries that have problems with "music" and I have been through the list dozens of times. Three!
So the above comment is just pure misguided and ignorant rubbish.
You prove my case no end.
Damien,
What do you mean by this:
.... why then are other non-Muslim developing countries equally in trouble, equally backwards, equally in some form of turmoil etc, ?
The response is that there are some interest groups and dumbification from the never-ending-self-supporting-internet-community as well as basic ignorance that results in such claims.
Pastorius, as you have probably noticed I am as anti-Jihadist as anyone else, I just cannot stand people basing their arguments on pure and utter cr*p.
Thus my comment is against one of the typically meaningless dribble that was posted by one of you regulars who - as usual - attempts to put Islam as the excuse for every wrong and negative they can think of.
In this case it is a well-worn comment that defies logic - that Islam is the cause of backwardness, lack of economy and other miseries. That of course does not stick even slightly with the even the most basic argument squashing such nonesense - that being the return question of why then are there so many other developing nations equally backward, equally violent and chaotic, corrupt etc, and they are not Muslim?
My last comment is that much of this rubbish simply comes from an element on the internet - those with agendas and a terrible lack of self-control (and self-estime if you ask me). The uncontrolled internet breeds exagerations and lies because no-one is accountable and the anonimity invites morons and children to vent even more rubbish (and of course encourages sometimes the insane to cross the line as we have seen recently).
I have not blamed this blog as being one of those sources, as I am sure those that I am referring to here get thier sources from the rubbish-dump locations on the net.
For the umpteenth time, wage war on those that wage war against us, point out the disgusting radical Islamists, terrorist, anti-integrationists and the like, but base it on credible proven facts, academic works and not on baseless assumptions, distortions, exagerations, contextual abuse and most of - utter cr*p. The rule is simple, two wrongs do not make a right.
Damien,
You write: a well-worn comment that defies logic - that Islam is the cause of backwardness, lack of economy and other miseries. That of course does not stick even slightly with the even the most basic argument squashing such nonesense - that being the return question of why then are there so many other developing nations equally backward, equally violent and chaotic, corrupt etc, and they are not Muslim?
I respond: There have been forward thinking Muslims over time. Muslims in the U.S. seem to do pretty well. But, there are NO successful Muslim nations, and there never were, other than Turkey, which sits right on the cusp of Greece and Europe.
In my opinion, the Protestant Reformation introduced the single ingredient missing from Europe's progress towards freedom, and that is the idea that man does not need an intercessor between he and God. Instead, each individual has a direct relationship with God, and is therefore, to work out his will in accordance with his understanding of God's will for his life.
In other words, the Protestant Reformation gave the individual the right to say, once and for all, to all Priests, Kings, and Prophets, MY WILL AND NOT YOURS BE DONE.
The Protestant Reformation gave individual human beings the right to say, I am an individual Free Creative being, created in the Image of God, and I am enough on my own. I am a will unto myself.
From there, it should have been obvious that the age of Kings, in Europe, was on it's way out.
So, there is an example of how an idea can change the history of the world. That is an example of how an idea can foster great nations, who creativity becomes their commerce, instead of a commodity-based commerce.
Islam has not produced that idea, Damien. You know that that is true.
Africa has not produced that idea either. Africa's roots are in Animism and Ancestor Worship. Those are traditionalist religions where the individual is diminished.
Hinduism has within it, the seeds of revolutions as well, and so, it does not surprise me that India is doing well. Does it surprise you that a people who believe they are all pieces of God, dancing in a ring of brilliance, are willing to stand up and say, I MATTER?
But, Muslims do not have that right. Islam tells Muslims how to behave in every instance. It tells them to step into a room with this foot, step out with that foot, if you fart, you have to start washing over again, wash your nose this way, was your ass with you left hand, etc. etc. etc.
This is not a religion of Freedom, it is a religion of Obsessive Compulsion.
That does not mean that there are not lights shining through the cracks in Islam, as it has existed. That does not mean a new form of Islam, which can accommodate modernism, can not be born. These things can happen, but they have to start with ideas unique to Islam.
What ideas are those? Do you have any idea?
I told you I believe the Islamic concept of Ijma could lead to Democracy. But, the truth is, it can also lead to abject Tribalism.
I am not going to tell you why I said that. I want to see if you are capable of being flexible and playing with ideas, instead of simply righting negatively critical polemics against us.
Damien, when you wrote this:
.... why then are other non-Muslim developing countries equally in trouble, equally backwards, equally in some form of turmoil etc, ?
The response is that there are some interest groups and dumbification from the never-ending-self-supporting-internet-community as well as basic ignorance that results in such claims.
IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE TRYING TO BLAME CRITICS OF ISLAM FOR THE FAULTS IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD.
In other words, the way I read that is, why are other non-Muslim nations backward? Because of interest groups and dumbification from the internet.
Apparently, that is not what you meant. But, even with your explanation, I still do not understand.
I might be having a slow night. Sorry, but I am not understanding.
detPastorius,
I critique illogic and baseless arugments, that is all.
Your comments about the reformation - even though I am Catholic - is very much correct and that is certainly a major component on what makes the West the way it is.
The argument I put is that the targetting is wrong and there are those that have agendas or misguided ideas on Islam and thus they base their arguments incorrectly - as well by some at a bigoted level. I make no excuse for coming down hard on it.
Thus we come to the argument that Islam is the cause for poverty, backwardness etc, which I still believe is wrong but the arguments why it is are exactly the same for all the other nations that are not Muslim. That is the simple point I wish to make.
Your said "But, Muslims do not have that right. Islam tells Muslims how to behave in every instance. It tells them to step into a room with this foot, step out with that foot, if you fart, you have to start washing over again, wash your nose this way, was your ass with you left hand, etc. etc. etc."
Actually you are both wrong and write and that is why it must be pointed out as misleading. Christians are also told how to walk, talk and breath and we chose to ingore it, the only difference in the Muslim World is that most tend not to ignore it and even some of the societies enforce it. That is sad, wrong, an issue and a cuase, but let us again get the facts right. There is a tendancy, as you have shown with that statement, to assume a generalised view based on the hard-line and your reading of texts and what their clergy says ,but not exactly in context or what is the reality on the ground. Most people on the planet actally wash their backsides with water and their left hands, not only Muslims. Muslims with access to sit-up toilets and paper actually use that.
Most Muslims walk into a room with whatever foot comes first but probably most Muslims say "bismillah" when they do so. As for your comment on washing, that has to do with ablusions before prayer, if they "fart" they have to do it again before doing their prayers. Context, Pastorius, is very important if your argument has to be sound.
I have only seen clerics (Imams, Ayatollahs, Mullahs) and ultra-conservatives do everything according to what they think and believe is Islamic instructions, most simply do not and thus I cannot accept your argument that they are not free to do as they wish, because the proof is always in the pudding and only a Salafist and Spencer would call the bulk of Muslims as not being really Muslim.
Pastorius, you may think I am some form of troll or into apeasment. Both accussations I would dispute.
I am here because I want to know how people think and there is much to learn as well as to discuss. The troll argument does not stick, I only comment on those areas I see worth arguing and I do not respond to every item.
Radical Islamists, hard-liners, Salafi and Wahhabis are for me the current scum on the planet that we need to be alerted to. I have a particular "bee in my bonnet" over anti-integrationists over here in the West that I believe should be deported if we legally can do so. I condemn Western Muslims for not speaking-up and thus it is their fault that the void that their silence has made is taken up by other forms of radicals, such as popularist-nationalism causes and questionable interest groups whom will target broadly or even in a bigoted fashion.
I make no bones that I have many Muslim friends through work, social connections and interests. You may not see it because of the differences between our nations, but I am an active member of the British Conservative Party - and the Gibraltar Social Democrats (there is no real Conservative party here only an alliance) and was part of the founding of the Faith and Globalisation initiative. That means I put my politics to the side and support the work of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation.
The point I am making is that yes I believe there is no clash of civilizations of Islam and the West, but that their is certainly a clash of politics and social agendas using and abusing the name of faith on both sides. Yes there is a war on terror and a war declared on us by radical and militant Islamists and yes we should return the favour, but it is not Islam. I will argue that point and continue to do so.
Even my own Church follows and supports that view, it considers Islam to be an Abrahamic Faith and now concentrates on what we share in common (both as a faith and for society) and targets dialogue and constructive engagement with the Muslim World. My role in an EU/ASEAN legal forum is similarly based in spirit - working towards compatibility of family and social laws.
This is to get things into perspective from my viewpoint. Target what you like, but get the facts and reality element correct and either I will say nothing or even support you. In fact you would be suprised in how much I can tell you about the dangers out there.
Damien,
I don't think you are a troll. I do think you are a guy who looks at the world very differently than I do. And, you express it, and sometimes you jump to conclusions, just as sometimes I jump to conclusions. I could not figure out what you were trying to say with that last comment, and I still can't.
In my opinion, Islam is only an Abrahamic faith in the most cursory of ways.
Ishmael was the son of Abraham. But, here's something for you to think about:
What is the primary Sacrifice story in the Bible?
What is the Pre-Echo, the foreshadowing, of that Primary Sacrifice story?
I will not tell you my answer. I want to hear what you have to say.
"Music is STILL verboten in many places"
Fact.
Try it in Bosnia, or Kosovo.
Just put that stereo up on your shoulder and stroll down the street with 'fitty cent' on. Let's see how long you last.
Every time you think you know what you are talking about, you are way off. The entire problem with silent people of HUMAN CONSCIENCE who happen to be muslim FEAR.
Fear of the guys with the canonical backing who COMPEL silence as Frank Nitty could. The same guys who make it UNWISE to stroll down the street in a lot of places ..LIKE FINSBURY PARK(?) in the midst of 'incorrect' behavior. They have untrammeled consciences to commit acts with a canonical wink and nod winning out over secular law.
So take the list of three places and give it the baleful eye.
I don't speak off the cuff, and I don't run away with facts.
In fact, thought YOU have little cause to know, we are very self correcting here, and unafraid to admit error when confronted by fact.
HOW ABOUT YOU?
EPA, when you talk about "verboten" then it implies sanctioned against the law or sanctioned by authorites. Then there is what you are suggesting, local community inspired bans. Either way, your talking through your hat and nothing logical. Which of "those blogs" did you get his laughable rubbish from EPA?
For a start, I have been to Sarejevo, a nice city, modern, bars and street cafés with lots of music. Bosniaks in fact like Music and tend towards Sufism so they also play religous music, chants etc.
What I think your getting to is perhaps some rubbish report because there was perhaps some jihadist-prone clerics from either Uzbekustan or maybe even Saudi - either way, a one-off situation has nothing to do with what we or even you were talking about.
The conflict in Kosovo encouraged radical militants and hard-liners to flock to fight the "Crusaders" as they call them and when they have guns they control the lives around them. Kosovan Muslims are mostly ethnic Albanians, again very Sufi, enjoy chants and they enjoy music in their cafés as well. So much for your questionable sources or reading them out of context.....
Now back to some reality. The arguments often put about restrictions in Islam is mostly exageration and you can with a little bit of effort see the flaws. You argue that for example Islam bans and in the same breath call Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran hard-line states and yet Music is accepted in Iran, as long as it is religous, but yet there is a strong under-ground Music scene and foreign based Music channels and even religious channels that allow music. Pakistan is becoming hard-line but yet it has music all the time, as soon as the Taliban left areas in AFghanistan and Pakistan, music shops opened - why is that? Are they bad muslims? There are in fact more Music and dance based Music satellite channels then religous ones, why is that?
Somalia - though we cannot call it a government, bans music. Saudi Arabia bans public music except for "state-sanctioned" events which means that they will have a relgious element to it. The third location that bans music other than "officially sanctioned religous music" is the Sudan.
Every other Muslim nation, including Iran, has Music on the streets albiet Iran choses "at times" to control it more strictly.
Of course, in areas under the control of radical-Islamists, sure they will enforce their rules, but that dissapears as soon as they do.
EPA, get real.
Pastorius, the Muslims's version of biblical stories is rather different, if you wish to call it cursory, it is one way. Either way they believe in the same one true God which is more than often refererred to as the God of Abraham. Their belief in all the Prophets that Christians do confirms this. Of course, their non-acceptance of either the divineness of Jesus in the Trinity, the Crucifixion and Ressurection is what in fact makes the greatest difference. Mind you that is also one of the strange elements, because many groups who attack Islam religously do so and yet do not give the same criticism to Judaism, why is that?
Damien,
I asked you a question about the "two primary sacrifice stories in the Bible", one being in the New Testament, and the other being a "foreshadowing", and you don't seem to know the answer.
You don't even seem to have an opinion.
Instead, you answer by telling me that Muslims believe differently.
Why are we discussing what Muslims believe, when I asked you what you think?
And, why don't you know the two main sacrifice stories in the Bible?
Do you not know the Bible?
I have a feeling you do not.
Your feelings are your own Pastorius, the topic was in fact about Muslims and thus I concentrated on that. You were attempting to make comparisons.
The greatest or many sacrifice stories in the Bible actually are indeed two. That of the willingness to obey God's command with Abraham and his son Isaac. That is, by the way, followed also by Muslims and is the basis behind their greatest religious celebration, it is covered in Genesis 22:1-14. The second is of course in the New Testiment and God sacrificing his only one true Son Jesus for the benefit of mankind. John 1:36 and Peter(I) 1:18-19 are the best reading here.
As for the definition of Forshadowing, though I do not consider myself expert in religoun, the entire Bible both Old and New Testiment is is based on the examples of the great, gifted and divinely inspired - let alone God's Messengers - as well as events that prepares us for the Day of Judgement. Remember the Church of Rome views "forshadowing" mostly based on Luke saying how Christ forshadowed his own crucifiction and Isaiah reminding us of his suffering so that we can understand how to suffer. The Church of Rome, however, does not put strenth into what say Baptists, evangelicals will concentrate on, such as Christ's baptism forshadowing our own.
Pastorius, I avoid going into religous discussions because it ends up being a "pissing contest" or a "prosthelitizing" event (or blamed as such).
Damien,
It is not a pissing contest, it is a Literary Criticism contest, and a Reading Comprehension contest.
I don't care if you believe in God, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, or whatever. If you have read the Bible, you ought to know the answer to this question.
For instance,
1) In The Sun Also Rises, what is Nick's war wound, and does it have any bearing on the theme of the story?
2) In Moby Dick, is it important that the Literary voice is Ishmael, and that he is a inactive, observing character, not an active character?
3) Does it mean anything that in Heart of Darkness, the progress is upriver, not down?
4) What character traits do the four brothers embody in Dostoevski's Heart of Darkness?
5) Is Proust's encounter with the Madeleine and the resulting excursion upon which he embarks and exercise in nostalgia or active memory reshaping his psychic world?
I could go on and on.
You portray yourself as intelligent. I'm quite sure you are more educated than I am. So, I think you ought to be able to answer my question.
Pastorius, you have lost me now on what actually was the particular question you wanted me to answer.
You mentioned the preeminent Sacrifices in the Bible and I responded as to what I have learned, you have talked about Foreshadowing, I pointed out what I what I understood it to be and how there are different emphasis.
Though scrolling back I see you mentioned pre-echo, which I can only assume you are discussing writing/subject growth in narrative. To be honest, though I regularly go to Saint Mary the Crowned every Sunday and my school up to University was Church-run it never came up or I simply was looking out the window at the Gibby.
Damien,
I owe you an apology, because somehow (dealing with over 200 comments yesterday and this morning) I missed your paragraph that reads as follows:
The greatest or many sacrifice stories in the Bible actually are indeed two. That of the willingness to obey God's command with Abraham and his son Isaac. That is, by the way, followed also by Muslims and is the basis behind their greatest religious celebration, it is covered in Genesis 22:1-14. The second is of course in the New Testiment and God sacrificing his only one true Son Jesus for the benefit of mankind. John 1:36 and Peter(I) 1:18-19 are the best reading here.
Damien,
Yes, there you go.
Your answer to that question would be the same as mine.
So, here's my point.
Muslims say Abraham sacrificed Ishmael.
Muslims say that Jesus was not sacrificed on the Cross, and, although it is not specified in Islamic scripture, many, if not most, Muslims believe that Judas took Jesus' place on the cross.
Now, just as Literary Criticism, both to those distinctions CHANGE THE STORY DRASTICALLY, do they not?
We're talking narrative consistency here. We don't need to discuss whether they believe in the divinity of Jesus, or not. We don't need to discuss the existence of God at all.
We just need to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference in meaning in the Bible.
And, if you believe as I do that the Bible is the story of man's evolving relationship with God, and that, as man comes to understand God better through the ages, his perception of God changes from that of a Jealous Angry God to a loving God who asks that the sacrifices to him be a contrite heart and help given to the widows and the orphans (or, as it says in the New Testament, the "least of these"), then you can see God's asking his friend Abraham to sacrifice his first son is an important point, and even moreso, it is extremely important (once again, as a narrative point) that God would sacrifice His Son to re-establish a one on one relationship with the humans He Loves so much.
Pastorius, I would agree with that perspective-argument that you make.
From my upbringing-perspective-faith I was taught that the sinngle most important and central foundations in our faith is in fact Sacrifce.
The Sacrifce actually comes throughout the Scriptures but these two key events are not the most important examples but in fact are the lessons we need to know. That incredibly suscinct and poignant message regarding Abraham. That is to understand that God IS God and if one worships Him then that willingness to sacrifice the most important thing is in fact worth it. Equally that one must understand that loving and holding dear anything still arrives from Him. The Sacrifice from Our Lord Jesus is equally if not more applicable to us, that He showed us the power of forgiveness and love.
Anyway, I am committed to not spending my time talking Church. Not because there may be non-Christians or aethiests but simply put, when we talk Church or God, it becomes THE topic and will fill this and other threads.
Sorry, to get back on topic and your comment.
As you and I believe in the Bible, obviously other texts are not going to fill in any gap or make sense. I actually read other texts from other faiths, I try and understand why or the context and then I do not go further. For me it would be futile to attempt to compare, critique or even judge simply because " I do not believe" and "I do not have faith in".
It can start and endless task.
I understand that you think it is only fair to understand Islam as it exists, and not in comparison to Christianity or Judaism. That is fine.
And, that is my point.
It is only an Abrahamic Faith in the most cursory of ways.
It is certainly not a faith related to Christianity.
As a Christian, I find it, not offensive, but, revealing that Islam twists the two primary Sacrifice stories (and, by the way, I agree with you that, "the sinngle most important and central foundations in our faith is in fact Sacrifce ...") in the Bible into unrecognizable form.
That's right. In my opinion, Islam takes the primary scenes in the Bible and twists them into unrecognizable form.
Being that I believe in a Living God, who is the God of the Bible, I find this revealing, because it tells me something about the actual author of Islam.
I am a Jungian, in a sense. I believe that stories work along archetypal tracks, and these archetypes are born in us, in our individual selves, and in our collective selves.
I believe that Islam, as it was revealed in the Koran, is a religion that goes in exactly the wrong direction. It is a story of self-immolation as Sacrifice, and it is blood sacrifice. It is more akin to Voodoo and the Aztec religions, than it is to any of the other major religions.
I studied Philosophy and Religion in college in the early days. I love Hinduism (which I find to be the religion which has most in common with Christianity, though this is a subject which is far afield from this blog) and I love Buddhism, and I love Judaism, which I considered converting to, before I returned to going to Church at the age of 35.
In other words, I love the world's religions. I think them worthy of study, and even, especially in the case of Judaism and Buddhism, PRACTICE.
In fact, I have incorporated Buddhist and Judaic practices into my daily spiritual program.
So, the point of this diversion is I am not a hater of religions which are different from the one that I believe in. On the contrary, I believe I am a lover of ideas, but, I also believe that unlike many "lovers of ideas" I actually do think critically about ideas, and I do dislike some ideas, which I think are dangerous when put into action.
One of my early mentors was a professor who taught the class on Hinduism which made me fall in love with Hinduism. In fact, he HATED Hinduism in much the same way I hate Islam. That is to say, he thought the Caste System and the Vrindivan Forest were abominations. And, I think he is right about that.
However, I think it is absolutely impossible, when studying the later Vedas (I no longer remember the names of the texts, sheesh), to say that Hinduism is, as a whole, a retrograde force. The concept Atman is Brahman gave birth to Buddhism. And, that is, in my opinion, the highest form of religion, though I, like any other Christian, do believe there is a distinction between the Self and God, I think that in ecstatic form, which God encourages, there is no separation, and that is beautiful. But, this is mysticism.
So, once again, back to the point; I don't hate religions. I just think Islam is terribly dangerous, and I think the truth of that is born out in the world, just as I think the truth that the Communist Manifesto is a dangerous set of ideas has also been born out in the world.
Your arrogant assumptions are getting a bit nauseating.
My information is DIRECTLY from a an american convert to islam who SPENT MANY YEARS THERE .. a shia.
Sunday is my day off and I have promisses to my grandchildren to keep.
Just a comment to EPA, you can base your thoughts and arguments on individuals all you like, it is when you use the reality of the populations as a whole and in context that you will in fact gain credibility in your comments. So far you have not.
Pastorius,
for my faith is a very personal thing as well as a collective spirit of the population.
Though I admire much in Buddhist and Hindu theology, I must reject the totallity because of their rejection of the One True God. However, having said that, I must acknowledge Islam's belief in that same One True God and I try and concentrate on the shared values and similarities.
Interestingly those Muslims and thier philosophical views that I most appreciated have been Sufis.
A person who will welcome Muslims and reject Buddhists is a very odd bird, indeed.
From a theological point of view, why is it that for example, Muslims who believe in the same One True God, the same prophets and at least accept Jesus as being divine, are rejected and yet Judaism that rejected Jesus out of hand, are not? Budhists and Hindus reject the entire Old Testiment as well as the New.
Now, come back to me and explain your comment again?
To be very frank and finger pointing, the reason why everyone is so anti-Muslim is because of the jihadists, the war on terror, soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq and most of all September 11.
Before that, it was constant anti-semitism.
Before that it was the "reds under the beds".
Before that, it was anti-Japanese and anti-German and that lasted for decades with exactly the same effort, albiet without the power you have today of the internet.
I see no difference to be honest, the effort and frankly lame excuses are still contextually incorrect, tiresome comparisons and pure conjecture to what "most of you are", and that remains fringe with the greatest lame excuse of them all, is that the MSM is somehow less accurate than the Spencers, Ye'ors and other selft-proclaimed fringe anti-jihadists.
The alternative is in fact logical and constructive in outlook and thus has a better chance of success (because of that logic).
Blame, attack and condemn with facts. Work based on being right not wrong, ignore personal agendas, interest groups that profit and siding or supporting bigots, racists and ultra-nataionalists.
When you can do that, you may step out of the severely bad-smelling swamp of fringeness and actually be listened to.
Post a Comment