Walton Important Quotes

Sometimes the things that happen aren't as important as the things you remember.

The important thing about being crazy is knowing that you're crazy. The knowing part makes you less crazy.

books as objects are not what books are, it's not what's important about them

She felt her strong young body that she had never appreciated when she had it, constantly worrying that she didn't meet standards of beauty and not understanding how standards of health were so much more important.

That everyone is of equal significance and that the differences between individuals are more important than the differences between broad classes?

Peace is better than war. There’s too much glorification of war and not enough glorification of peace, and especially not enough glorification of the importance of the doves.

In a science fiction novel, the world is a character, and often the most important character. In a mainstream novel, the world is implicitly our world, and the characters are the world.

He told us that he had made a mistake by leaving the word love out of the Pyramid of Success. And that love is the single most powerful and important word in our language and culture. And until we allow the power of love to supersede the love of power, none of us has any chance of success at all. There

The two most important words I ever wrote were on that first Wal-Mart sign: “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” They’re still up there, and they have made all the difference.

I tried to teach them [his sons] that about the importance of self-discipline, and that the culture of yes is built on a foundation of no.

The Bible considers it much more important to say that God has made everything work rather than being content to say that God made the physical stuff.

I still don’t know if you understand!” “That everyone is of equal significance and that the differences between individuals are more important than the differences between broad classes? Oh yes, I’m coming to understand that really well.” I

I learned from a very early age that it was important for us kids to help provide for the home, to be contributors rather than just takers. In the process, of course, we learned how much hard work it took to get your hands on a dollar, and that when you did it was worth something. One thing my mother and dad shared completely was their approach to money: they just didn’t spend it.

From these data it is easy to conclude that Adam’s sleep has prepared him for a visionary experience rather than for a surgical procedure. The description of himself being cut in half and the woman being built from the other half (Gen 2:21-22) would refer not to something he physically experienced but to something that he saw in a vision. It would therefore not describe a material event but would give him an understanding of an important reality, which he expresses eloquently in Genesis 2:23. Consequently, we would then be able to conclude that the text does not describe the material origin of Eve. The vision would concern her identity as ontologically related to the man.

when we adopt the biblical perspective of the cosmic temple, it is no longer possible to look at the world (or space) in secular terms. It is not ours to exploit. We do not have natural resources, we have sacred resources. Obviously this view is far removed from a view that sees nature as divine: As sacred space the cosmos is his place. It is therefore not his person. The cosmos is his place, and our privileged place in it is his gift to us. The blessing he granted was that he gave us the permission and the ability to subdue and rule. We are stewards. At the same time we recognize that the most important feature of sacred space is found in what it is by definition: the place of God’s presence. The cosmic-temple idea recognizes that God is here and that all of this is his. It is this theology that becomes the basis for our respect of our world and the ecological sensitivity that we ought to nurture.

These points of continuity and discontinuity should have an important role in our interpretation of the Bible, and knowledge of them should guard against a facile or uninformed imposition of our own cognitive environment on the texts of ancient Israel, which is all too typical in confessional circles. This recognition should also create a more level playing ground as critical scholarship continues to evaluate the literature of the ancient world.

Low self-esteem and confidence are closely related to your mood and self-image, so it is important to realize that beliefs are only opinions, they are not facts. They can be biased or inaccurate, and there are steps you can take to change them.

Mistakes to Avoid This story might tempt us to read between the lines, inserting plot details or expanding on the personalities of the characters. We must resist this inclination, however, because our focus needs to be the authoritative message of the text. We cannot read between the lines and then use our interpretive readings as if they carry the authoritative teaching of the text. If the author is brief on plot details and character development, it is advisable to assume that he omits these so we can concentrate on other more important elements. The author is not trying to warn us against family jealousies or to teach us humility. These may be good and useful lessons, but the text gives no indication that we should focus on these or that it offers authoritative teaching on these issues. We cannot use this story to talk about being helpers (Joseph with his father or with Potiphar), nor can we use this portion of the Joseph story to talk about trusting God when life goes wrong. We are not told whether Joseph was trusting God or not, though he resisted temptation and interpreted dreams, both in God’s name. The text tells us the Lord was with him, but it does not say Joseph knew or trusted that the Lord was with him.

Mistakes to Avoid This is one passage from which we might contend that the text does indeed want the readers to “be like Joseph.” His resistance to temptation is highly commendable, and the author develops the situation to reveal his reasoning, not just his action (39:8–9). Having said this, however, God’s work through Joseph is more important in the text than the character of Joseph. We do well to imitate Joseph in this regard, but the narrator is not holding up the character of Joseph as a model. We also must not generalize from Joseph’s experience to everyone else’s. God worked a certain way in Joseph’s experience, but he may not work in everyone’s experiences as visibly. The story helps us to understand that God cares for his people and that he is able to do all things. Our responsibility is to be faithful in hard times, whether or not God delivers us from them. It is best to treat the attempted seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife with discretion with the younger ages.

Mistakes to Avoid Even though Joseph was the instrument of God who brought deliverance from the famine, we need not think that God approved of everything that Joseph did or that we should imitate him as a biblical model. His policies for Egypt did not focus on sharing; they focused on redistribution. They certainly should not be considered a biblical model for economic policies today. One might also question Joseph’s strategy as he interacted with his brothers. He was not showing love to them; he was testing them. The text does not seek to approve or condemn—it simply reports. We cannot derive authoritative guidance from the text about how families are supposed to interact or how past wrongs should be confronted. God’s actions through Joseph are much more important than Joseph’s actions themselves. Joseph’s willingness to forgive his brothers is commendable; he looked beyond their treacherous act and saw the bigger picture of God’s plan. The text is calling us not so much to be forgiving as to look beyond our suffering to see God’s plan, which is far bigger than our hurts.

He meant to pass by them” (Mark 6:48). This wording might evoke some of the appearances of God to important persons in the Old Testament (Moses [Ex. 33:19]; Elijah [1 Kings 19:11]). Ghost (Matt. 14:26; Mark 6:49). The disciples were most likely thinking of an evil spirit rather than the ghost of a dead person. “It is I” (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20). This is the same statement used at the burning bush when God told Moses, “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex. 3:14). “You of little faith” (Matt. 14:31). Though Peter had shown more faith than the others—enough to actually climb out of the boat—it was insufficient. Son of God (Matt. 14:33). Recognizing Jesus as the Messiah is not as significant as recognizing him as the Son of God. Even though the Israelites were at times referred to as God’s sons, and kings were seen to be in father-son relationships with God, the use by the disciples went beyond these. They were designating Jesus as deity.

Mistakes to Avoid While it is always a good thing to draw students into the story, we must do it in ways that won’t distract from the point. In a story such as this one, it might be tempting to ask, “How do you think Peter felt as he got out of the boat?” or “Do you think that you would have gotten out of the boat?” But such questions focus too much on Peter’s particular experience, when the focus needs to be on Jesus. Attempting to make an analogy between the disciples’ boat and the students’ various forms of earthly security is also to miss the point. While it is important to encourage students to live a life of faith and take radical steps of faith, the point is recognizing who Jesus is so as to inspire our faith. Consequently, we must also avoid applications such as, “When we take our eyes off Jesus, we sink,” or, “Jesus can keep us safe, and when we call on him to save us, he will.” We miss the point if we rely on allegory and talk about the waves as our problems and the boat as our security. Finally, though all three Gospel accounts indicate that Jesus went into the hills to be alone, only Matthew mentions that he was praying. Since the others neglect to note that, we must conclude that prayer is not the point of the lesson.

Importance of Moses and Elijah (Matt. 17:3). Moses (Exodus 34) and Elijah (1 Kings 19) both had experiences of encountering God on Mount Sinai. Jewish belief at the time of Jesus expected the appearing of a Moses-like figure (from Deut. 18:15, 18) and an Elijah-like figure (from Mal. 4:5). Jesus identifies John the Baptist with Elijah (Matt. 17:11–13), and he himself is the prophet like Moses. This is perhaps indicated by the voice from heaven that says, “Listen to him” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35)—the same instruction as given in connection to the prophet to come in Deuteronomy 18:15. The intertestamental book 4 Ezra indicates that a sign of the end of the age is that people will see those who were taken up and did not taste death (6:25–26). In all these ways, the appearance of Moses and Elijah indicated the coming of the kingdom of God.

Spoke of his departure” (Luke 9:31); “Tell no one . . . until the Son of Man is raised from the dead” (Matt. 17:9; cf. Mark 9:9). Though in different ways, each of these Gospel writers makes clear what the transfiguration was about. Coming after Peter’s confession, there is affirmation from heaven that Peter has identified Jesus correctly (“This is my Son”). Coming after Jesus’ prediction of his death, there is indication of the resurrection and ascension. The subject of the discussion is at least as important as the glory of the event.

The ziggurat was the most dominant building of the temple complex, so it is no surprise that it draws the attention of the author of Genesis. In summary, the project is a temple complex featuring a ziggurat, which was designed to make it convenient for the god to come down to his temple, bless his people, and receive their worship. This understanding of ziggurats makes an important point drawn from the ancient Near Eastern context to clarify the biblical text: the tower of Babel was not built for people to go up, but for the god to come down.

The gods’ needs were not cared for just so that the people would be graced with good harvests. The temple was the control center for order in the cosmos and that order had to be maintained. The deity needed to be cared for so that he/she could focus his/her energies on the important work of holding forces of chaos at bay. The rituals, therefore, served not simply as gifts to the deity or mechanical liturgical words and actions. The rituals provided a means by which humans could play a role in maintaining order in the cosmos.

Yahweh did not reveal an alternative cosmic geography to Israel in the Old Testament. But there can be no discussion of creation or many other important issues without presupposing some sort of cosmic geography. With no alternative presented, and no refutation of the traditional ancient Near Eastern elements, it is no surprise that much of Israel’s cosmic geography is at home in the ancient world rather than in the modern world. Nevertheless, as I. Cornelius indicates, theological distinctions did arise in the way that deity was seen as operating within the familiar system. The Hebrew Bible uses central concepts and ideas typical of the cosmology of ancient Near Eastern times. . . . However, the biblical writers seem to have given their own interpretation to many of these concepts. Heaven and primeval ocean are no longer divine powers, but only the creation of YHWH. YHWH is the one who upholds the pillars of the earth; he alone created the heaven and stars and can decide who goes to the underworld and leaves it. The biggest difference lies in the fact that according to ancient Hebrew thought, YHWH established the earth through wisdom.[1]

In the view offered in Genesis, God does not operate within a society of gods, and people function in a different role. The role of people will be explored in chapter 9, but here what is important is that the order imposed through the creation narrative in Genesis 1 sees people, rather than the gods, as the keystone in the definition of order. The biblical text repeatedly offers the formula “it was good” to describe the successful setting of each piece in its ordered place. The functions described are designed for the benefit of humans.

The most important aspect of the role of cities is to be found in their relationship to the temples and the gods. The patron deity of a city was typically considered the one who founded, built, and sustained the city. So the prominence and prosperity of the city and its god were inextricably intertwined. “Each Mesopotamian city was the home of a god or goddess, and each prominent god or goddess was the patron deity of a city.”[9] In Mesopotamia the gods were attached to cities, and temples were only in cities.[10] Worship as we know it therefore took place in cities. The archaeological record shows no evidence of sanctuaries in the mountains or plains, and no rivers or trees with cultic significance.[11] Likewise in Egypt there was an integral relationship between cities and gods. “The sum of landowning temples and deities embodied the state. . . . Just as the totality of deities embodied the political concept of ‘Egypt,’ the individual landowning local deity embodied the concept of ‘city.’ An Egyptian city was always the city of a deity.”[12]

Through our combined efforts the kids received your everyday heartland upbringing, based on the same old bedrock values: a belief in the importance of hard work, honesty, neighborliness, and thrift.

Self-awareness is about understanding ourselves and knowing what pushes our buttons and why. Our past and our self-image play a large part in how we choose to interpret other people’s behaviour. More importantly, it also determines the way we act and the effect we have on others.

If you want the people in the stores to take care of the customers, you have to make sure you’re taking care of the people in the stores. That’s the most important single ingredient of Wal-Mart’s success.

If we ever get carried away with how important we are because we’re a great big $50 billion chain—instead of one store in Blytheville, Arkansas, or McComb, Mississippi, or Oak Ridge, Tennessee—then you probably can close the book on us. If we ever forget that looking a customer in the eye, and greeting him or her, and asking politely if we can be of help is just as important in every Wal-Mart today as it was in that little Ben Franklin in Newport, then we just ought to go into a different business because we’ll never survive in this one.

EI is based on an important feature of relationships: ‘behaviour breeds behaviour’. Our own approach may be the cause of others’ reactions. Emotional intelligence requires us to be mindful of the effect we have.

Also while I was at Missouri, I was elected president of the Burall Bible Class—a huge class made up of students from both Missouri and Stephens College. Growing up, I had always gone to church and Sunday school every Sunday; it was an important part of my life. I don’t know that I was that religious, per se, but I always felt like the church was important.

At Wal-Mart, if you have some important business problem on your mind, you should be bringing it out in the open at a Friday morning session called the merchandising meeting or at the Saturday morning meeting, so we can all try to solve it together. But while we’re doing all this work, we like to have a good time. It’s sort of a “whistle while you work” philosophy,

These points of continuity and discontinuity should have an important role in our interpretation of the Bible, and knowledge of them should guard against a facile or uninformed imposition of our own cognitive environment on the texts of ancient Israel, which is all too typical in confessional circles.

The incarnation would have happened, even if there had been no sin for which to die, because the incarnation was an important step in the advancement of God’s presence.

The plot line of presence is more important than the plot line of salvation (salvation history). Jesus did not just become human so that he could die for us; he became human to establish God’s presence among us as one of us—so we would learn more about how we should live in God’s presence.

And this is a very important point: without the computer, Sam Walton could not have done what he’s done.

The theological view arising from a focus on the sovereignty and omnipotence of God that God must be in league with the Satan is deeply disturbing. If God is capable of destroying ten children and stripping Job of any human dignity on a bet—on a dare—then he is, to my mind, a very immature, highly insecure, and deeply troubled god, certainly no better than our worst view of the Satan. There is a better solution to the theological conundrum presented by the events in the Divine Council. If we read Job 1–2 with the idea that the Satan has charged God with serious misconduct, then God is also subject to investigation and must allow such investigation to proceed against his will. The withdrawal of all Job’s blessings and the imposition of suffering are much more than an investigation of Job’s state of mind; they are, more important, an investigation of God.31

Understanding the varied use of the term ʾādām is essential to sorting out the early chapters of Genesis. But before we even get to that issue, there are two important observations to make. The first is that the word ʾādām is a Hebrew word meaning “human.” Regarding this observation, the fact that it is Hebrew indicates that the category designation (“human”) is imposed by those who spoke Hebrew. Adam and Eve would not have called each other these names because whatever they spoke, it was not Hebrew. Hebrew does not exist as a language until somewhere in the middle of the second millennium B.C. That means that these names are not just a matter of historical reporting, as if their names just happened to be Adam and Eve like someone else’s name is Bill or Mary. Although I believe that Adam and Eve are historical personages — real people in a real past — these cannot be their historical names. The names are Hebrew, and there is no Hebrew at the point in time when Adam and Eve lived. If these are not historical names, then they must be assigned names, intended by the Hebrew-speaking users to convey a particular meaning. Such a deduction leads us to the second observation. In English, if we read that someone’s name is “Human” and his partner’s name is “Life,” we quickly develop an impression of what is being communicated (as, for example, in Pilgrim’s Progress, where characters are named Christian, Faithful and Hopeful). These characters, by virtue of their assigned names, are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. Consequently, we can see from the start that interpretation may not be straightforward. More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history.

As usual, some of our critics—mostly unions in this case—took a shot at me for this idea. They said I was wrapping myself in the flag and pulling a typical Sam Walton promotion to hide the fact that we sell a lot of import goods. These folks, I’m afraid, are really living in the past. They don’t believe in a free market. They’re not interested in new solutions. And they only care about jobs if they are union jobs, many of which, frankly, have priced themselves out of the market either with unrealistic wages or total inflexibility.

Viewing Adam and Eve as priestly representatives in sacred space who brought the alienation of humanity from God’s presence may lead us to frame differently our questions about our current status in the present. This will be explored in the next chapter. At the same time, it changes nothing about the need we have for salvation and the importance of the work of Christ on our behalf. Perhaps, however, it will help us to remind ourselves that salvation is more importantly about what we are saved to (renewed access to the presence of God and relationship with him) than what we are saved from. This point is significant because too many Christians find it too easy to think only that they are saved, forgiven and on their way to heaven instead of taking seriously the idea that we are to be in deepening relationship with God day by day here and now.

God’s creative work is defined as bringing order to this non-ordered existence. This will be carried out in stages through a process. Even as God brought order, there were aspects of non-order that remained. There was still a sea (though its borders had been set); there was still darkness. There was an outside the garden that was less ordered than inside the garden. The order that God brought focused on people in his image to join with him in the continuing process of bringing order, but more importantly on ordering the cosmos as sacred space. Yet, this was just the beginning. This initial ordering would not have eliminated natural disasters, pain or death. We do not have to think of these as part of the ordered world, though they are not beyond God’s control, and often they can be identified with positive results.4 All non-order will not be resolved until new creation. In Revelation 21 we are told that there will be “no longer any sea” (Rev 21:1), no pain or death (Rev 21:4) and no darkness (Rev 21:23-25). There is no temple because God’s presence will pervade all of it (Rev 21:3, 22), not just concentric circles radiating through zones of diminishing sacredness. God will be with humanity and be their God (Rev 21:3). Relationship is conveyed through the imagery of husband and wife (Rev 21:2). This is not a restoration of Eden or the return to a pre-fall condition. New creation is characterized by a level of order that has never before existed.

What does it mean to say that a god exists or comes into existence? The question of ontology (what it means for something to exist) is important for understanding both theogony and cosmogony because we cannot productively talk about how something came into existence until we define in some way what it means to exist. In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name. So the Ritual of Amun from the second half of the second millennium identifies creation as beginning "when no god had come into being and no name had been invented for anything." The first god arises on his own from the primeval waters (separates himself from them) and then separates into millions. Out of this fairly restrictive sense of ontology emerges the oxymoron of nonexistent entities. Prior to creation there was a unity expressed by the statement that there were "not yet two things." The realm of the nonexistent remains not only at the boundaries but throughout the cosmos, and that realm can be encountered. The desert and the limitless waters are two examples. The gods exist on earth only through their functions. "On earth...the gods live only in images, in the king as an image of god, in cult images in the temples, and in sacred animals, plants and objects." ... Since their ontology was function oriented, a god who does not function or act fades into virtual nonexistence.

SO WHAT ARE THE CULTURAL IDEAS BEHIND GENESIS 1? Our first proposition is that Genesis 1 is ancient cosmology. That is, it does not attempt to describe cosmology in modern terms or address modern questions. The Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their “scientific” understanding of the cosmos. They did not know that stars were suns; they did not know that the earth was spherical and moving through space; they did not know that the sun was much further away than the moon, or even further than the birds flying in the air. They believed that the sky was material (not vaporous), solid enough to support the residence of deity as well as to hold back waters. In these ways, and many others, they thought about the cosmos in much the same way that anyone in the ancient world thought, and not at all like anyone thinks today.[1] And God did not think it important to revise their thinking.

The larger truth that I failed to see turned out to be another of those paradoxes—like the discounters’ principle of the less you charge, the more you’ll earn. And here it is: the more you share profits with your associates—whether it’s in salaries or incentives or bonuses or stock discounts—the more profit will accrue to the company. Why? Because the way management treats the associates is exactly how the associates will then treat the customers. And if the associates treat the customers well, the customers will return again and again, and that is where the real profit in this business lies, not in trying to drag strangers into your stores for one-time purchases based on splashy sales or expensive advertising. Satisfied, loyal, repeat customers are at the heart of Wal-Mart’s spectacular profit margins, and those customers are loyal to us because our associates treat them better than salespeople in other stores do. So, in the whole Wal-Mart scheme of things, the most important contact ever made is between the associate in the store and the customer. I

In the ancient world, legacy is more important than history, and history is seen primarily through the eyes of legacy.

To them, the events of history represent only a small slice of reality, and arguably not the most important slice. Reality, to the ancient mind, is a much larger category than that of “event.

In the ancient Near East people refrained from killing one another because it disrupted order in society, and the gods required order. The same could be said of Israel, but we would have to add that, more importantly, Israelites were to refrain from killing one another less out of obedience to specific divine instructions and more because their perception of the nature of Yahweh would suggest that they, as his people, were required to hold a respect for life.

Evolution can be defined as an interpretation of the world around us that posits a material (phylogenetic) continuity among all species of creatures (biological and genetic, not spiritual) as the result of a process of change over time through various mechanisms known and unknown.1 It is not inherently atheistic or deistic. It has plenty of room for the providence of God as well as the intimate involvement of God. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss whether evolutionary models are correct or not. The more important question is whether the conclusions of common descent and material continuity are compatible with a faithful interpretation of the Bible. Today

In Gilgamesh, Uta-napishti is “settled”22 there, whereas the word used for the placement of Adam is even more significant, since it is the causative form of the verb “to rest” (nwḥ). In God’s presence, Adam finds rest—an important allusion to what characterizes sacred space. Both Adam and Uta-napishti are placed in sacred space, where they have access to life.

The image of God as an Old Testament concept can be understood in four categories.10 It pertains to the role and function that God has given humanity (found, for example, in “subdue” and “rule,” Gen 1:28),11 to the identity that he has bequeathed on us (i.e., it is, by definition, who we are as human beings), and to the way that we serve as his substitute by representing his presence in the world. When Assyrian kings made images of themselves to be placed in conquered cities or at important borders, they were communicating that they were, in effect, continually present in that place. Finally, it is indicative of the relationship that God intends to have with us.

Except for reading my numbers on Saturday morning and going to our regular meetings, I don’t have much of a routine for anything else. I always carry my little tape recorder on trips, to record ideas that come up in my conversations with the associates. I usually have my yellow legal pad with me, with a list of ten or fifteen things we need to be working on as a company. My list drives the executives around here crazy, but it’s probably one of my more important contributions.

We can be (and will be) eternally grateful to God for providing deliverance from sin and justification before the Father through Christ. We dare not neglect this important point. But what God is doing is bigger than our personal salvation, so we also dare not make Scripture all about us.

Of course,” said Gwydion. “For the inside of a man, which cannot be seen or touched, takes many years to change even a little; while the outside of him that can be seen and touched, and which most people therefore think the more important, can be very easily changed or even destroyed altogether. You must remember that.

Perhaps, however, it will help us to remind ourselves that salvation is more importantly about what we are saved to (renewed access to the presence of God and relationship with him) than what we are saved from. This point is significant because too many Christians find it too easy to think only that they are saved, forgiven and on their way to heaven instead of taking seriously the idea that we are to be in deepening relationship with God day by day here and now.

Sackcloth (Jonah 3:5). Sackcloth was rough material worn to indicate mourning. It was designed to be uncomfortable. Jonah’s refusal to go (Jonah 1:3; 4:2). As Jonah indicated (chap. 4), he did not want to go because the sequence of events was entirely predictable. He knew that the Assyrians would respond with their appeasement techniques and superficial repentance to his judgment message, but that God would be gracious and relent. He was angry about this easy grace. Object lesson (Jonah 4:5–8). God put Jonah in Nineveh’s shoes. Just as Nineveh faced an impending disaster, Jonah faced an impending weather situation. The Ninevites tried to protect themselves with repentance and Jonah tried to protect himself with his hut. Both were inadequate. God provided extra protection for Jonah through a plant. Then God did to Jonah what Jonah wanted him to do to Nineveh—removed his protection. Jonah was not happy about losing God’s gracious compassion when it was he, not the Ninevites, who had received it. This is how God made the point that his compassion is given as an act of grace. Once that is understood, we realize that if we overestimate the Ninevite response, we minimize the element of God’s compassion. The whole point is that God responds with compassion to even the smallest steps in the right direction. Background Information Nineveh. In the mid-eighth century BC, when Jonah lived (2 Kings 14:25), Nineveh was a major city in the Assyrian province of Nineveh. At this time the kingdom of Assyria was fragmented with provinces acting as almost independent entities. The city was about two and a half miles in circumference, about the same size as Jerusalem. About fifty years later (700 BC), Sennacherib made Nineveh the capital city of the Assyrian Empire, bringing it to prominence in the ancient world. King of Nineveh. One would generally expect the text to refer to the king of Assyria. We would not expect a king of Nineveh, but we would also not expect the king of Assyria to be in Nineveh, because Assyria was fragmented and Nineveh was a province, not the capital. More likely, the ruler of the province would legitimately have been identified with the Hebrew word translated “king.” Mistakes to Avoid Many mistakes are made when teaching the story of Jonah. The inclination is to make Jonah a missionary who brought a message of hope that was followed by a great conversion among the people of Nineveh. But a prophet was not a missionary preaching good news of hope. Jonah did not have a missionary calling, message, or attitude. His message was only one of judgment. The story is also not about salvation or going to heaven. Eternal life in heaven is not set forth in the Old Testament. Therefore, we cannot use the story of Jonah as one to tell our friends about Jesus or about leading people to salvation. When teaching about Jonah’s reluctance to go to Nineveh, we ought not to conclude that his reason was political resentment or prejudice. Furthermore, though it is certainly true that if God is intent on a person doing something or going somewhere, his plan will be irresistible, but the point of the story isn’t that we cannot run from God. God did not allow Jonah to escape the commission, but that does not mean that God will always act in the same way. Focusing on such things detracts from the very important theological message that the book offers: God responds with compassion to small steps in the right direction. God wants people to be responsive to him. New Testament

I don't vote. The 2 guys you get to pick to "run the country" are there as a charade to make you think you have choice. And to be fair, I'm sure these people make a lot of the day to day decisions that don't matter very much. But when you get down to it, if someone from the Rockefeller family, the Rothschild family, the duponts, or some of the other true owners of the country want something to happen, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. If they want you to have a car and house that run on oil or gas, then that's what you are going to get. Because those families own oil and gas companies. They own all the important land, they own the hospitals, the schools, tv stations that make the Grammys, x factor or American idol seem much more important than real events that you should actually care about that affect you. They own a huge chunk of the federal reserve, they lobby the congress, the senate, governors, judges, etc.to get exactly what they want when they want. You won't find these people on the Forbes list, because they don't fucking want you to know what they own and what they control. They want you to think the "walmart" Walton family are the richest family. Haha! Vote if you want to, but in reality it's like voting for Ronald McDonald vs. Grimace instead of the true executives of mcdonalds that actually run the company and make all the important decisions.