Conservatives hampering global warming prevention? Not so fast.

[Alma]

Yawn,

Even if we presume global warming is a myth, isn't the underlying motivation behind preventing it inherently better than the underlying motivation behind not preventing it?

I think zags response to this queston nailed it.

Uh, no it doesn't. They're two separate questions.

At any rate - wouldn't a Christian be wise to side on the possibility of global warming, so as to be a better steward of the gifts God has given him or her? How is good stewardship possibility enhanced by rejecting the idea that man is hurting the creation?

 

[Yawn]

zag,

One other thing: If you're a Christian and you live under the delusion that you should pursue your faith without criticism or challenges - if you actually believe there'll ever be a day (or that there should be a day) when people aren't trying to stomp out Christianity - you need to read your Bible a little more.

He didn't say there wouldn't be that. He just doesn't have to appreciate its existence.

He should.

Romans 5:3-4:

"Nt only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope."

Well, the only universally applicable answer to "what is the will of God" is that all of humanity is saved. Oh, and you're right, "Blessed are the persecuted" and "Blessed are those who are insulted in my name."

 

[Yawn]

Yawn,

Even if we presume global warming is a myth, isn't the underlying motivation behind preventing it inherently better than the underlying motivation behind not preventing it?

Alma, even if we presume Christianity is a myth, isn't the underlying motivation behind it -- love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others -- inherently better than the underlying motivation of the crowd who spends all of their time trying to stamp it out of our lives?

See how easy that is.......

That depends on whether you truly define the underlying role of Christianity as "love thy neighbor." It also depends on what you define as the underlying role of those that "want to stamp it out."

I'll be happy to answer any question you have -- but you didn't ask me one, at least not in this post.

Exactly. You avoided answering it in the previous post.

Yawn,

Even if we presume global warming is a myth, isn't the underlying motivation behind preventing it inherently better than the underlying motivation behind not preventing it?

Alma, even if we presume Christianity is a myth, isn't the underlying motivation behind it -- love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others -- inherently better than the underlying motivation of the crowd who spends all of their time trying to stamp it out of our lives?

See how easy that is.......

That depends on whether you truly define the underlying role of Christianity as "love thy neighbor." It also depends on what you define as the underlying role of those that "want to stamp it out."

So, how do you define those terms? How is it that you came to the definition what Christianity's underlying role is?

A lawyer - an intelligent man, which you'd be quick to identify with - asked Christ of all the laws, which are the most important. Actually, Alma left off love God with all one's heart, mind, strength...but for obvious reasons - those that don't believe can at least identify with the second commandment he spoke of, equating it to the former: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

 

[Bubbler]

This thread is a train wreck, but an incongruently hilarious one.

Observing Alma argue the Christian ramifications of global warming with Wile E. Coyote and the Incredible Hulk is akin to training a squirrel how to use a condom.

An honorable, if 100 percent futile, gesture.

 

[Alma]

This thread is a train wreck, but an incongruently hilarious one.

Observing Alma argue the Christian ramifications of global warming with Wile E. Coyote and the Incredible Hulk is akin to training a squirrel how to use a condom.

An honorable, if 100 percent futile, gesture.

Neither have answered the question, either.

IMO, a Christian would do better to embrace the possibility of global warming than to reject the possibility of it.

The one argument provided - wuh, what about Christianity? - was a naked attempt to change the subject, thwarted by the fact that it actually supports my position.

Now we're arguing verses.

 

[Yawn]

There's a chasm between the politically-motivated approach and being good stewards of the earth.

But if we get too biblical, Bubbler will really get confused, which is his primary irritation with this turn of the thread.

 

[jgmacg]

Another non-answer.

 

[Bubbler]

This thread is a train wreck, but an incongruently hilarious one.

Observing Alma argue the Christian ramifications of global warming with Wile E. Coyote and the Incredible Hulk is akin to training a squirrel how to use a condom.

An honorable, if 100 percent futile, gesture.

Neither have answered the question, either.

IMO, a Christian would do better to embrace the possibility of global warming than to reject the possibility of it.

The one argument provided - wuh, what about Christianity? - was a naked attempt to change the subject, thwarted by the fact that it actually supports my position.

Now we're arguing verses.

I'm in total agreement. I've never understood anyone who didn't buy into the fact that God created everything around you, and because of that, you should treat the world with respect.

I can't decide whether the resistance to the concept of global warming -- or as you said, the resistance to preventing the causes of global warming regardless of its severity -- betrays the fact that some Christian sects are self-centered well past the point of parity, or, if there's a guilt/denial factor because global warming is the elephant in the room that proves man, not God, controls his destiny on Earth.

Be that as it may, have fun trying to get the Trojan on the squirrel's **** with these fools.

 

[Yawn]

I've answered it. There's a difference between wise utilization of the earth's resources and adhering to a politically-motivated theory that on those merits, will never be universally accepted, by people or nations.

 

[zagoshe]

Neither have answered the question, either.

IMO, a Christian would do better to embrace the possibility of global warming than to reject the possibility of it.

The one argument provided - wuh, what about Christianity? - was a naked attempt to change the subject, thwarted by the fact that it actually supports my position.

Now we're arguing verses.

No, you missed my point all together -- I was simply saying -- and for the purpose of proving how many religious bigots we have on this board -- that you can use the same logic you did for why we should automatically go green even if global warming is a myth -- on a lot of different subjects, religion being one of them.

In other words, the underlying motivation for a lot of things that may or may not be true are likely noble and in many cases likely to produce positive results -- but that isn't a reason to adopt them universally.

 

[zagoshe]

zag,

One other thing: If you're a Christian and you live under the delusion that you should pursue your faith without criticism or challenges - if you actually believe there'll ever be a day (or that there should be a day) when people aren't trying to stomp out Christianity - you need to read your Bible a little more.

Never said that, nice try though.

 

[jgmacg]

I've answered it. There's a difference between wise utilization of the earth's resources and adhering to a politically-motivated theory that on those merits, will never be universally accepted, by people or nations.

Describe that difference. That would be an answer.

 

[forever_town]

So much for Yawn taking a break from the board...

 

[Yawn]

One is based on a commandment, which is also good sense, to follow. Call it a principle if you want.

The other is based on an inconclusive theory that ignores centuries of climate change when man didn't have the industry to affect it.

 

[zagoshe]

That depends on whether you truly define the underlying role of Christianity as "love thy neighbor." It also depends on what you define as the underlying role of those that "want to stamp it out."

I'll be happy to answer any question you have -- but you didn't ask me one, at least not in this post.
[/quote]

Exactly. You avoided answering it in the previous post.

So, how do you define those terms? How is it that you came to the definition what Christianity's underlying role is?

Well now that we actually have a question I'll answer it.

I said underlying motivation, not underlying role, a big difference. I define christianity as those who follow christ and his teachings and the basis for all of Christ's teachings is "love" --- love for christ and love for your fellow man.

 

[Yawn]

So much for Yawn taking a break from the board...

Why should I leave it to whiners who want to censor thought - like yourself?

 

[Bubbler]

In other words, the underlying motivation for a lot of things that may or may not be true are likely noble and in many cases likely to produce positive results -- but that isn't a reason to adopt them universally.

How do you think that line of thinking would go over with God?

"Hey God, what's happening? I've heard there's a new car coming out that's emission-free and will actually replace the ozone we've lost in the atmosphere. I've heard that if it were widely adopted, we'd make the Earth you created a better place for every creature you call your own. Really!

"(slaps God on the back) Ha, ha! Let's not get too hasty, though. You can pry my Hemi out of my cold, dead hands!"

 

[zeke12]

When did we convene the Talmudic Council of Fail?

 

[zagoshe]

In other words, the underlying motivation for a lot of things that may or may not be true are likely noble and in many cases likely to produce positive results -- but that isn't a reason to adopt them universally.

How do you think that line of thinking would go over with God?

"Hey God, what's happening? I've heard there's a new car coming out that's emission-free and will actually replace the ozone we've lost in the atmosphere. I've heard that if it were widely adopted, we'd make the Earth you created a better place for every creature you call your own. Really!

"(slaps God on the back) Ha, ha! Let's not get too hasty, though. You can pry my Hemi out of my cold, dead hands!"

How do you know that global warming is not a part of God's natural plan for planet earth? Do you know this for sure? Perhaps going green is interfering with his plan, did you ever consider that?

 

[Yawn]

When did we convene the Talmudic Council of Fail?

Wrong room. Zeke. Just go anywhere else and proclaim, "I'm here" and you'll be in the right place.