Forum Post: The New Christianity
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 29, 2011, 2:31 a.m. EST by puff6962
(4052)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I was recently having a visit with an Uncle who hails from Texas and I made a comment about their lack of rain, wildfires, and global warming.
My uncle, without hesitation, replied that global warming was not real and that it was all cyclical. I quickly went into my Inconvenient Truth mode and explained all of the information about climate change and how strongly the evidence supports it. My uncle, again without hesitation, said that the data had been manipulated.
Now, I don't like to argue with old men, but I suddenly realized that this man's boots could be melting and he would stick to what Fox news had told him was reality.
You see, I think that many evangelicals, such as my uncle, have merged their Christian faith with politics to such a degree that the one has subsumed the other. Christs teachings on charity, equality, forgiveness, and hope have been replaced with much darker messages. I don't hear my uncle speak about those sympathetic aspects of Christianity too much anymore.....in fact, he demurres from their mention.
Under his new Christianity, Jesus has been replaced by Ronald Reagan. Barry Goldwater was his John the Baptist and Moses has become William Buckley. His sermon on the mount is a call for a capital gains tax cut, his pharaoh is the New Deal, Christ's persecutors are the Liberals, his disciples are the neocons. His Book of Revelations is Glenn Beck. The apostle Paul has been replaced by Rush Limbaugh. David has become Newt Gingrich. His antichrist is any Democratic President and his Mary.....you guessed it....Ann Coulter.
Most of all, his new Bible is Fox News.
The world was a much better place with his old faith.
i do believe that you have touched upon a satirical truth here brother. i just spent some time up in northeastern washington visiting a rather conservative based christian community. while these are very good people and strive to do what they feel is god's will, it was quite evident how they have been influenced by the "christian conservative right" agenda. i went into battle every night and i would like to think that i was successful in pointing out that this movement, just like the "liberal left" has not and will not fulfill what they are claiming. i would like to think that, but i know it isn't the truth, which brings about another thing that i would like to share with you, the more that one invests in a lie, the less likely that he will receive the truth. the ego is a powerful thing, the moment it is threatened, it goes into attack mode. only the humble could bear to accept that they have been wrong in their investment (and i am not talking monetary investment). i feel that we live in the time that all lies told in the darkness are being brought to the light so that everyone can see clearly. now what they choose to accept and not accept is on them, but no one with have the excuse of "i didn't know" or "i was not informed".
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
also did you know you could give all 7 billion people on the planet a house and a yard and all of it (the house the yeard the people) would fit into the state of texas. less than 1% of the earth is paved. we are not over populated. the elites love population controll and they want the world to themselvs. and make everyone else serve them. thats why there is flouride in the water and chemtrails and BPA. its softkill weapons. the earth is fine with 7 billion people. we do need to end our dependence on oil but we are not over populated. excuse my typos
I think that the "elites" are not worried about a growth in the world's total population. They are, instead, terrified of how easily they can be misled.
Yes, the elites want fewer servants out there because that will mean they have to pay them more....Huh?
The growth of our population must be slowed just so that we can absorb the increases that have already occurred.
I didnt say all the people living in "utopia" would have to be payed more. In fact they will be taxed more cause unless you just have a really low population. Half of every married couple has to have 2.1 kids to equall population growth. Im not saying that there is no such thing as population growth im saying we arent there.
the reasons all those animals died is because of chem-trails that the goverment is spraying. look it up.
It's the fluoridation of the water, dammit.
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/2011/10/26/seminary-is-great%E2%80%A6-seminary-loans-suck%E2%80%A6-young-pastors-are-slaves/
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht. My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
Read "Kingdom Coming" by Michelle Goldberg if you want to be afraid.
Read "Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement that Shattered the Party," by Max Blumenthal if you want to be very afraid.
I have and its scary. Were also in a religious war with these thugs and we cannot afford to lose because at heart these people are totalitarians.
Yes. That is why I posted this topic. Republican Gamorrah is another great book that delves deeper. American Theocracy is written by Kevin Phillips (who was, ironically, the architect of Nixon's Southern Strategy) and is overwhelming but probably the compendium on the topic.
Phillips "American Theocracy" and ""Bad Money" are both excellent. We need another about now.
Rereading American Theocracy now. It's frightening how much of this book I see in the Iowa caucus.
Yes, it's scary. I don't own that one. I do own bad money and what is going on in Europe keeps reminding me of it. We have turned into a two class society, 50% in poverty and another 30% near to it and sliding into it quickly and the aristocracy.
Ron Paul's recent success should split the GOP, libertarians vs evangelicals, Gets weirder and weirder.
Consolation: Only about 150,000 show up in Iowa for the caucuses so they aren't all like that. A few are better.
Both excellent books. He's a very thorough author. Do you realize that he is also the originator of our modern style of politics? It was Phillips who developed the idea of Nixon's "Southern Strategy." In other words, Phillips taught the world that, if you feed people's inner demons, they will reward you at the ballot box. He has be repenting ever since.
Not many of us are flawless, parents are reminded by their children. He was young and smart and idealistic. If you do what you think is right, it may actually turn out to be right sometimes. Nixon started the EPA. That was one in a row. His other streak was longer.
I admire Phillips' analytical skills, his ability to communicate with clarity and his character, for acknowledging his past with honestly. These are in short supply.
Ya, I'm always surprised that "Bad Money" hasn't gotten more attention......it predicted so much of what has happened these past three years.
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
The lack of rain in Texas is what the early formation of a desert looks like.
You guys are going to have to start wearing turbans.
everyone wants to be an expert, never mind the facts. Groupthink is a terrible thing
How many articles reviewed by competent peers have appeared in any reputable scientific journals disputing that the earth is significantly warming and that this change correlates with rising CO2 levels?
still an unproven hypothesis, scientific fact has nothing to do with consensus.
Cite the periodical that your fact appeared in.
science has to do with evidence. where is yours?
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire, I own a mansion and a yacht.
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
Weather is weather and climate is climate .And the dust bowl wasn't exacerbated by the wrong farming techniques?
Would you care to elaborate on any of that?
My family lived through the dust bowl and the is a fairly recent book about it, by Timothy Egan called The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl. I could tell you lots of the family stories,
Here the review on Amazon: The dust storms that terrorized the High Plains in the darkest years of the Depression were like nothing ever seen before or since. Timothy Egan’s critically acclaimed account rescues this iconic chapter of American history from the shadows in a tour de force of historical reportage. Following a dozen families and their communities through the rise and fall of the region, Egan tells of their desperate attempts to carry on through blinding black dust blizzards, crop failure, and the death of loved ones. Brilliantly capturing the terrifying drama of catastrophe, Egan does equal justice to the human characters who become his heroes, “the stoic, long-suffering men and women whose lives he opens up with urgency and respect” (New York Times).
In an era that promises ever-greater natural disasters, The Worst Hard Time is “arguably the best nonfiction book yet” (Austin Statesman Journal) on the greatest environmental disaster ever to be visited upon our land and a powerful cautionary tale about the dangers of trifling with nature.
But the book which is very consistent with my family's experience, identifies the economic drivers of the horrible farming practices that exacerbated the weather conditions that were part of a climate cycle. The point is that the planet isn't stable and climate varies over time and there what looks like noise on the climate data. That is the weather, but the dust bowl clearly demonstrated that if you can do exactly the wrong thing on a large enough scale you can make parameters swing more wildly than the otherwise would. This is consistent with the chaos models that give rise to the story about the butterfly flapping its wing triggering a hurricane. Plowing up the sod that kept the underlying fine soil and what we called "blow sand" from being picked up by the wind, was stupid. And plowing up more and more, and abandoning it to blow is what resulted in huge dense clouds from Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas to actually block out the sun in Washington DC and Baltimore and New York City, enough to close down businesses and even Congress. It was literally impossible for government to deny what was happening.
When I was a boy we were adding terraces, and wind breaks and low impact tilling, and guess what with similar conditions in subsequent droughts, much less dust, people not dieing from it or widespread starvation of people and animals. Yes, it was La Nina made many times worse by greedy, unregulated banks and people farming, who weren't farmers.
I've seen film of the soil blowing into what looks like brown snow drifts. It was terrifying and deadly to farm animals. Unknown numbers of people had to flee a huge area to survive.
My family was from Chelsea and Enid, Oklahoma. I've heard the stories and have seen the pictures of what the area looked like before the hedge trees were planted.
It's odd, but WWI caused the dust bowl. Food prices spiked and farmers planted every inch they could.....mechanized farming made this possible. But, following the war, prices collapsed and farmers....who had borrowed to purchase their equipment.....now planted every inch just to make ends meet.
The result, the land was stressed, fields were not rotated, and increased production only pushed down prices further.
The Great Depression began in 1919.....if you were a farmer.
The two things that stand out in my mind were the promotion by the banks and railroads of the "opportunity," and lending money with the intent to foreclose on the land and the resulting abandonment of the farms (grassland) and lack of any effort to "save" the land, stop the soil erosion. It was a bubble based on corruption like we have today.
The real farmers stayed and coaxed the land back to supporting grass, farming in strips, rotating crops terracing to hold moisture and stop erosion, wind breaks of bands of drought resistant trees and plants. They nursed it back to life. They ended up with something like black lung disease similar to miners. What's happening now in Texas and Oklahoma is terrible, and would have been much worse if the practices of the dust bowl were still used. In some cases people have forgotten some of the farming lessons that we thought had been learned. It is always possible to make a bad thing worse.
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
Sounds like your uncle is a jerk.
No, he's just become a fascist of the spiritual variety.
True Christians would not tolerate either Republicans nor Democrats who engage in war crimes killing others without due process.
Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya. Obama gave orders to bomb without congressional approval: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/
Fact check: Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/
Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U
An interesting perspective by Noam Chomsky: --Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm
Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44
Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ
Did you know that Obama's health care reform is not public health care. After meeting with lobbyists (as reported by the NY times and Huffington Post), all it did was secure the corporate monopoly for a few for-profit health care industries especially the current health insurance corporations and BigPharma.
It's like Obama has just put into law that everyone must purchase their car insurance from a few corporations, who now have full power to set the prices as however they want. Did you know that a deal was made to CUT the public option and if Obama had persuaded at least 20 or so Democrats, there would have been a public option. So lose-lose to those who wanted a public health care option and also to those who favor the markets. ---Read the articles how Obama met with lobbyists to kill the public option. ---Consequently, patients in the long run will lose, doctors and health care workers lose as the health care industry is now run by a few corporations.
9 Is it better to give allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama OR your children. Two parties for two audiences, but same policies that serve the priorities of their corporate or wall street funders, maybe promising some bread crumbs after--each telling their own audience to demonize the other party providing examples of how 'racist,' or 'stupid,' the other party is, and thus get off free from bearing any responsibility or accountability.
You don't have to find people you agree with in everything, but the core things. Action speaks louder than words.
just my rant. sorry for the misleading title.
While I got your attention... Here's a Political Solution to Satisfy Progressives and Conservatives; Socialists and Libertarians http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-solution-to-satisfy-progressives-and-con/
And what do you think of the Robin Hood tax? Bill Gates wrote a report to support it and wanted the G20 nations to address it. Even UK conservative PM Dave Cameron ran his campaign on it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/03/gates-urges-g20-to-introduce-tobin-tax
Do you really want a return to States Rights? The issue of States Rights was settle in 1865 by force of arms. And I for one am grateful for Abraham Lincoln.
States rights is always a deception. The notion simply represents a strategy of "divide and conquer," and somehow states rights issues are usually oppressive and undemocratic.
It is a lie told to children who think that if one part of this country has the right to do something that our federal constitution really does not allow.
im a christian and what you just could not be more true. power to you man thats great! good thinking. should be common sense but today its not
Thank you. We agree on something.
[Removed]
For a good person to do bad things, it takes religion......who said that?
Your uncle is a brilliant man.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news
Television is a pulpit from which you can shout at the whole world; when you shout falsehoods couched as unassailable facts, you warp the very fabric of society. If the FCC had the same legal authority as the CRTC to require any "news" program to only broadcast true statements we wouldn't be in this mess. Sure, Fox would still be doing their damnedest to spread fear and misinformation, but at least we'd be able to retort, "You know that wasn't actually a NEWS show you heard that lie on, right?"
Disinformation is the same as yelling fire in a theater that is if we can get people to understand it that way.
Amen. Propaganda just takes longer to have its effects.
Ronald Reagan...Repealed the "Fairness Doctrine" which made Faux News possible..
NateNine...............Ronald Reagan is the one who made Faux News Possible..............Reagan repealed the "Fairness Doctrine" which prevented news broadcasters making propaganda without clearly identifying it..........................Prevented lies being broadcast as true and from biased reporting without the opposition being allowed to rebut it.................So thank Ronald Reagan for the destruction of the integrity of our system of information dissemination.
Yes, I agree with you. But, my point if more broad than just a condemnation of Fox news. My point is that if you go into any evangelical megachurch and began speaking of Christian charity or of a social safety net, you would probably make heads turn.
You see, here is the paradox. When I was a kid, Baptists thought they were different than Methodists and Methodists thought they were different than Presbyterians. You held a core set of beliefs in your faith that you felt separated you from those of another denomination. There was no similar segmentation of political beliefs....you could be a Democrat and be a suburban Methodist. In fact, I can recall good, spirited, discussions of politics among members of my old church. The key thing was that these discussions involved very conflicting political views.
Today, there is a homogeneity of spiritual beliefs....the Baptist no longer sees himself that different that either the Methodist or the Presbyterian.....but there is a very strict, codified, set of acceptable political beliefs and any deviation will set you apart.
I'm generalizing, of course, but sometimes generalizations are generalizations because they are generally true.
I think democratic attitudes to religious people caused this.
When you are attacked you will look to give your support to those that will protect you. I think many religious people simply picked a side. The same way that many socially liberal people picked the opposite.
It's the main reason why both parties have been able to keep in power for so long. As long as they appeal to these bases it's very hard for another party/individual to gain traction on purely economic grounds.
The religious didn't pick the Republicans, the Republicans picked the Religious, by manufacturing story's the religious are prone to believe. Like this is a "christian country.the ten commandments are the basis of our laws" they feel their under attack because we have a constitution that supports separation of church and state. The Republicans reinforce this lie and get the religious support.
Chicken and egg, I'm not sure which came first if I'm honest. But even if you are correct democratic policies made them receptive to Republican politicians.
Adversus...Just what policies...?
Health care, care of the needy, love of thy brother, tolerance, and hope are not Republican or Democratic issues, they are moral issues. It is the height of hypocrisy for the Republican party to subsume Christianity and then for a Christian to say that this should be admissible because somebody else chose the other party. Burn your Bible now, you haven't understood a word of it.
Most conservative Christians that I know believe very strongly in and practice the charitable acts that you're talking about. However, they believe that those acts should be the responsibility not of the federal or state government, but of churches, communities, individuals, and local organizations, using funds donated voluntarily in order to make those monies more efficient and well-spent.
They tell themselves that so they don't feel guilty locking the doors of their BMW's when they park too close to a black person.
Are you fucking kidding me? Go look at the books of your suburban temple and see what percentage actually goes toward helping the poor or the needy. Hypocrites! Children telling yourselves lies. Read, "Tempting Faith," by David what's his name and see what your faith based initiatives look like.
Government took over most functions helping the poor because religious organizations NEVER took care of the poor. What a short memory we have in our civilization. Do you really believe your congregation could feed a thousand poor, stinky, homeless people tomorrow? How about house them? How about do it 365 days a year?
You tell yourselves these lies because you can't stand what the gospels truly demand of you.....you cannot stand to pay the taxes it requires to protect the most vulnerable so you create these fairy tales.....somewhere in Reaganistan, churches and communities and local organizations should take care of these services themselves........but, you forget, the reason these groups can't provide for the poor is because they don't have and fucking money.
Hypocrite. Go read the Sermon on the Mount for the first time. This is all I will say to you. Do not respond.
Read it. I see a lot there about not advertising your giving in order to impress others, and not worrying about food and clothing, but seeking God's kingdom first, knowing that God will provide for your needs, as he knows them before you ask. Also, there's plenty about obeying the spirit and heart of God's Old Testament laws, and not just the letter.
You may have been referencing a passage where Jesus tells the rich young ruler, upon being asked how the ruler can be saved, to "sell all you have and give to the poor, and then you will have treasure in heaven" (Matthew 19). It's not part of the Sermon on the Mount, but a very important passage.
Later here, Jesus says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is not because wealth is inherently evil, but that wealth is the greatest tempter toward idolatry and self-worship (1 Timothy 6). Christians are expected to give to the poor and each of us who violates that will be judged for it. As for my own giving, that is for Him to judge.
My point was not to excuse the American church for its violation of this command, but to point out that local communities have their finger more on the pulse of their "widows and orphans" (James 1:26) and can discern who is violating the command that "those who are unwilling to work shall not eat" (2 Thess 3:10). This second part is what is missing in a larger government structure where money constantly passes through pairs of hands that all take their fair share before the last $.20 or so out of every dollar arrives at its intended recipient. When it finally gets there, who's to say whether it's benefiting a "widow or orphan" or someone who is "unwilling to work."
Sorry if I came off as bombastic or aggressive. Just trying to shed some light on the other point of view. Hope I've done my due diligence in understanding yours.
Read, "Freedom From Fear." It is a work describing the American people during the Great Depression. You will then understand why the mayor of Chicago told Hoover to either send food to the city.....or to start sending troops.
Faith based charities are an inefficient hodgpodge and have been insufficient throughout ALL of history.
I agree the Republican party is hypocritical, they use religion to win votes just as the Democrats use social liberal issues to win votes.
My point is that the reason why Christians support the Republican party is that they are being attacked by the left and therefore turn to the ones that support and defend them.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend".
The Christians that vote for the Republican party probably don't agree with most of the economic policies of the right but feel forced to vote for them to defend their faith. This is how the republican party maintains their power base.
The democrats do the same thing with Social Liberals (which I am).
Personally I don't think any of the politicians care about any of these issues.
Democrats support social issues because that's their platform and beliefs. The Republicans believe that social issues take money away from the market and opposed them for their ideological beliefs.
Democrats support social issues because that's where their power base comes from i.e. public sector workers (especially those at the top) and those companies that make money of public contracts.
Republicans support the private sector big bosses because that's where their power base comes from.
Both hide their true motives behind ideological beliefs.
It's all about money and power on both sides.
Adversus...Your wrong again, Democrats support social issues because most are Liberals............Modern American liberalism is a form of liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.
You've drawn me in again. Those people where great men.
So where Lincoln and Eisenhower.
The problem is modern politicians both right and left.
Adversus.... Modern Politicians that follow the Christian Right philosophy are the problem....... Tea Party Republicans to be specific......... Eisenhower would have been run out of the Republican party today, He said..."a well paid worker is the free markets best costumer"
Adversus................Just who is attacking Christians?..................I've never heard a Democratic attack Religion or Christianity.............Are you referring to the United States Constitutions Separation of church and state............If you are the your a believer in Dominionism.....................................Dominionism is a term used to describe politically active conservative Christians that are believed to conspire and seek influence or control over secular civil government through political action, especially in the United States, with the goal of either a nation governed by Christians, or a nation governed by a conservative Christian understanding of biblical law.
I think that what one calls a "liberal," today, would have been called a "moderate" thirty years ago.
Remember, that Barry Goldwater was pro-choice. Hell, his daughter had an abortion. Remember that Gerald Ford vetoed a tax cut because he didn't think that it was responsible.
We live in a world of extremes. There is the extreme Right and the extreme moderates. If you want a good definition of an "extreme moderate," all you have to do is create an antithesis to the positions of Fox News. That is a liberal today....anyone who disagrees with these guys.
Adversus, your "just as" is incorrect. They both use tactics but they really aren't ethically equivalent.
Your second point depends on a chronology that is suspect and doesn't fit with recent research on psychology and brain function (See Pictures of the Mind).
Your third point is exactly right (correct) and that bundling was consciously crafted.
Number four: I don't quite see this either. What is the mortal sin issue that the Libs link with the economic one that is seen as inconsistent?
Pols? I agree. They have all sold their souls, or whatever they actually have, for power and money.
I think your views are slightly colored by if you agree or not with the social issue so to you one is more ethical than the other. To the Christian they would be the same but obviously on the opposite side.
But i'm making a general point that politicians use emotive social issues to win votes (e.g Obama saying he will close Guantanamo or bush banning embrionic stem cell research) while avoiding answering the questions regarding their handling of the economy which has become very corrupt on both sides.
I actually think we both agree on that main point.
Probably so on the mutual agreement. Being an old guy I can remember before the polarization go so bad. In the 60's I was a libertarian, Didn'y go to Nam, qualified fir deferment, married with two kids, full tile college student and full time employed in defense. Didn't use any of them, number never came up.
Goldwater started the polarization era, I think. that came out of McCarthy.
The war added momentum, but it was really the evangelicals, who were paranoid about everybody while the sleepy Methodist etc. mainstream had no clue what was happening until the erosion got very obvious.
That is why I believe I saw the alienation of the evangelicals first imagined, then real, that started it. The mainstream was slow to react and many still haven't, turning into congregations of old people too complacent to react.
Too me the head scratching difference is the ability to keep people voting against their own interests on an ongoing basis by packaging the economic interests of the rich with the go-to-hell social issues.
.
Divide and conquer.
That's what the 1% have been using to divide America for the past 50 years, why do you think it's become so polarized?
You are both fighting the wrong enemy. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Most religious people, even most Tea Party members are good people who simply want the best for their country. You may disagree with them which is fine but now both sides have essentially taken an idelogical view and closed their minds to the arguments of both sides.
Because ideology without complexity is what they use to divide and hide behind.
The truth is in the middle and it's been proven that a healthy society oscillates slighty round the center.
btw - I'm not just talking about their politicians either. ;-)
No. The right has initiated challenges to the separation of church and state only because they know that they will lose.
That is the key. If the courts come down against school prayer, the ten commandments in a courtroom, and etc. then it is seen as an attach against believers.
What you must understand is that is what they want!!!!
There is no easier way to unite people behind you then to convince them that they are being attacked. Herman Georing said it best:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
THE NEXT TIME A PASTOR, POLITICIAN, OR A MEDIA DEMAGOGUE TELLS YOU THAT CHRISTIANS ARE BEING SINGLED OUT, OR CHRISTIANITY IS BEING REMOVED FROM AMERICAN LIFE, THEN REALIZE THAT YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED.
What are these instances you refer to?
I remember someone trying to ban the display of the "Ten Commandments" in a court room which while I can understand due to the fact it's a public building it's also true that most of our own laws are derived from the commandments and showing it just reminds people of where we came from. Is that really a separation of Church and State issue? If they where calling for Deuteronomy to replace our civil laws or something then I may have a bit more sympathy.
As for the School Prayers? I think I might remember someone trying to ban this from faith schools which I don't agree with. If parents want to send their child to a faith school then that's their business and the state/government shouldn't have the right to interfere and determine how they bring up their kids. Surely that is a more constitutional view to take?
But to go back to your point those cases actually are not the right initiating the attacks, it's the court system brought by social liberal atheists looking to remove Christianity and public life. If that's not an attack on Christianity, what is?
But I totally agree with the Georing quote, I don't think either side of the political divide care about these issues. They use them to get elected while hiding their economic policies which the do care about and few would agree with.
Adversus...........................Your total igroance off our system of laws is mind boggling......Where did you get the notion that our laws are based on the ten commandments......Nothing could be further from the truth................................................In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The most important source of law is the United States Constitution. All other law falls under and are subordinate to that document. No law may contradict the Constitution..........................................The Constitution was based on the theory of Enlightenment....................................The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was an elite cultural movement of intellectuals in 18th century Europe that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. It promoted intellectual interchange and opposed intolerance and abuses in Church and state.
I answered something similar to this in another post, I wish this forum had a way of viewing other posts by someone.
Anyway I'll keep it brief but succint. Hopefully.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" quoting the constitution. Go on try and find the phrase "Separation of Church and State". It's not there and even Jefferson's letters which first use the phrase don't mean what you think they to mean. It's about putting one religion over another, not eliminating it altogether. They didn't want an organised church running the state or the state running the church. Like what you had in Europe at the time and still do in Britain. That's about where the power is.
As for if religion is already used in a court house? People swear on the Bible, Koran, Torah? Whatever their belief. As someone said even on our money it says "In God We Trust".
Even Atheisists still have many of these "fundamental" beliefs however that's from growing up in our society.
Now you could argue that these are laws that naturally come about as a society grows and order needs to be maintained (in fact that argument also applies to religion in general) and I agree with that. However our/western society is definitely derived from "The 10 Commandments" and Judeo-Christian beliefs. That's the beginning of our law system.
As religion breaks down you will see society begin to act in a more selfish way as people with no longer a reason (Heaven or Hell) to act in the common good begin to act in their own interests and entropy will destroy the society from within unless something can fill the moral vacumm.
Are there those that use Religion for their own destructive goals?
Well offcourse but that doesn't justify an attack on all religion which trying to ban it from public view is. If a judge wants to display it in his court room then let him. Why do we have to start banning things?
If you actually open your mind to the possibilty that there is a lot of truth in Religion and much to learn maybe you might also might also see that the issue of "Separation of Church and State" is more about not allowing a certain church run by men have precedence over others thus allowing prists and popes to act as the gatekeeper and essentially loot the system.
But I suppose someone with my mind boggling total igroance off your system of laws might well say that.
Adverdsus..............Our system of laws are based on old English law and the philosophy of enlightenment. The Founding fathers had enough of Religious finger prints on everything........................You said......."As for if religion is already used in a court house? People swear on the Bible, Koran, Torah? Whatever their belief. As someone said even on our money it says "In God We Trust".......................You left out that people also do not use any religious text to swear the oath.....................The Constitution says no religious test shall be made for public office , contracts, and other documents.......As for "In God we trust" on our money, that was put there during the communists purges of McCarthy in the 1950's, so its purely an ideological statement.................................................You said that............."As religion breaks down you will see society begin to act in a more selfish way as people with no longer a reason (Heaven or Hell) to act in the common good begin to act in their own interests and entropy will destroy the society from within unless something can fill the moral vacuum"...................................This is a logical fallacy......Our morals do not come from the Bible quite the contrary,.............. if we used the bible we would have slavery, genocide , human sacrifice, just to name a few. Our Morals are a development of evolution, our environment and parents and community.............And yes you are totally ignorant of the basis for our laws, but I don't fault you personally. It is your indoctrination by your religion that thought you all of those things.
You are talking about Article 4 which while it doesn't require swearing on a religious text for example, it also doesn't ban it. (or displaying the 10 commandments for that matter)
I'll paste the actual phrase you refer to for clarity:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Notice the use of the word "required". That's the point you aren't getting or maybe you do but putting that in was simply inconvenient for your argument.
Now any other interpretation by a judge is simply legislating through the back door.
As for religion and how it relates to morality and society. I think you are naive about human nature and if anything the direction a lot of modern society is moving in is proving me correct not you.
I have no problems stating religion is a product of evolution of thinking of society's leaders or want to be leaders and also that religions only succeed in gaining popularity if fundamentally the people then accept them as the best way forward for society in general.
I'm not religious and there's certainly a lot of progress we have made regarding liberal policies but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There's also a lot we have lost and we need to recognize that also.
I think you suffer from the problem that you can't give ground because you feel they won't, therefore you have to fight fight fight. That adversarial approach is wrong.
We don't need more debate we need dialogue.
btw - my tag is Adversus because it means "Against". I'm against the worst of both sides.
Advesus...I stated.."..Our system of laws are based on old English law and the philosophy of enlightenment. The Founding fathers had enough of Religious finger prints on everything".......You replied nothing on this, the Main subject...............Why did you not respond?.........As for the word "Required" I am dumbfounded as to what you are talking about....There Is no Back door where the Supreme Court is concerned..This is a red herring..All the ear marks of changing the subject, because you have no answers for my arguments and points of fact...........As far as my personality is concerned I fight for the truth, when I'm right I'm right...So prove me wrong...You haven't been to successful so far...
I've already stated numerous times that my point is that judges should not have the power to redefine laws (define yes but not rewrite them) and I'm not going over it again.
This isn't directly related however it's taken from the first paragraph of wikipedia on the issue of the "Separation of Church and State"
"The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947."
This is what I'm talking about when I say it's done through the backdoor i.e. judicial decision.
They are unelected and they shouldn't have this kind of power in a free democracy.
Anyway we're not going to agree so lets leave it at that. You are obviously arguing an anti-religious point which I couldn't give a damn about and I'm arguing a pro-democracy point which you refuse to acknowledge because you feel it will weaken you anti-religion argument.
Adversus...Because you think the Supreme Court shouldn't have the powers it has. Is not good enough of an argument.
Our monetary system has "In God We Trust" printed right on it so yes they are linked together.
barb....."In god we trust" was put on our money in 1954 during the McCarthy era..... It was by the Republicans to show up the Communism ideological position, and has nothing to do with our founding... Please stay on subject.....
The Judge who displayed the Ten Commandments in his courthouse, Roy Moore, is now a very highly paid speaker at evangelical and teabagger events.
You have to understand, the goal of these people and religious groups in trying to interject religion where it doesn't belong is part of a broad strategy. THEY KNOW THEY'LL LOSE. But, when they lose, they can shout that religion is under attack, and they consolidate their followers and, subsequently, the leaders are made more powerful.
They demonize secular Judges, moderate politicians, and those who understand the meaning of the separation of church and state.
But, they grow stronger with each step and the bar keeps shifting more and more in their favor.
It is a brilliant strategy....wholly unchristian....and evil.....but these people truly think that God is on their side. They never ask, however, if they are on God's side.
Bullshit. I am a Christian and I hear the rhetoric every Sunday. Christians can justify the shallowness of their beliefs if they believe that there is some outside force limiting their ability to realize some utopian evangelical vision.
So why do you continue to go?
btw - The constitution simply states "'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The phrase "Separation of Church and State" never appears.
So given that, I have no problem with the display of the ten commandments, or the Koran or Torah or whatever for that matter.
Adversus....I already schooled you on this subject!........The Supreme court ruled in 1947 that "separation of church and state are implied in the 1st Amendment"
As I said in my oppionion that's legislation through the back door and therefore anti-democratic.
Once you start allowing people to say something is "implied" you are taking the power away from the electorate and that's a slippery slope.
If the electorate feels strongly on the issue then a bill can be brought forward and voted on.
Offcourse the problem they would have is that there would be no popular consensus for that to happen.
Adversus....Supreme Court decisions cannot be overturned by legislation. Only constitutional Amendments or Supreme Court decisions.
Adversus.....It would be wise to research your opinions and not look the fool................The concept of the separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. ............................................................................The United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level; indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947............................The Age of Reason is a deistic pamphlet, written by eighteenth-century British radical and American revolutionary Thomas Paine, that criticizes institutionalized religion and challenges the legitimacy of the Bible. Published in three parts in 1794, 1795, and 1807, it was a bestseller in America, where it caused a short-lived deistic revival. British audiences, however, fearing increased political radicalism as a result of the French Revolution, received it with more hostility. The Age of Reason presents common deistic arguments; for example, it highlights what Paine saw as corruption of the Christian Church and criticizes its efforts to acquire political power. Paine advocates reason in the place of revelation, leading him to reject miracles and to view the Bible as an ordinary piece of literature rather than as a divinely inspired text. It promotes natural religion and argues for a creator-God.
I actually answered someone else saying much the same things except.
As you said it was to stop ONE organised religion over another having the power to control the state. Therefore giving a church of men the power to rule and act as gatekeepers. As you said due to their experience with how Europe was run.
It was not to eliminate all religion from public life which is what it's come to mean by people with your view. Which in my oppionion is a distortion of what they meant.
The Founding Fathers where very religious people.
It's amazing how two people using the same facts can come to completely different conclusions. :-)
What I would say is that I think I kept more to the words themselves "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
No laws that are made for one religion or a one banning a religion.
Simply the legislature takes no notice of it.
How exactly does that mean that a law banning a religious text should be allowed?
The fact it's a religious text being banned on religious grounds totally goes against the second part of that statement.
Or maybe you thought they meant to say except in public buildings but simply forgot to put it in?
As you can see we both used the same points and words to make our arguments. Now can you see why it may not be a good thing to allow judges to "interpret" the law and have a broad scope while doing so. This is the job of the legislature who are ultimately accountable to the electorate. Judges aren't and therefore should not be able to do so because it's impossible for anyone to interpret anything without being influenced by their beliefs.
Whether the electorate vote the people in you want and therefore enact the laws you want is irrelevent. Democracy is too important.
Adversus.....you said that people like me want to..........."eliminate all religion from public life" ..........................I believe in the Constitution which states all men have freedom of Religion.......You said......"How exactly does that mean that a law banning a religious text should be allowed?"..................I explain the US Constitution to you and the role of the Supreme Court.................But you chose to ignore this and state.............."Now can you see why it may not be a good thing to allow judges to "interpret" the law and have a broad scope while doing so"...................................It may or may not be a good thing. That is a matter of opinion.......But we follow the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court this authority....................Are you advocating that we ignore the Court or change the Constitution?.......You said that interpreting the Constitution was................."This is the job of the legislature who are ultimately accountable to the electorate"..........................This clearly would be unconstitutional..........................So you basically have no basis for your argument, would you agree?
See my other posts about Article 4 and the word "required".
I phrased it wrong, I didn't mean that the legislator was responsible for interpreting the consitution just that it's job was to enact new laws that weren't explicitly in the constitution or even change it.
And yea I am ultimately advocating a reduction of the supreme courts' powers or give them a broader remit however make them elected and to serve terms however as you are already aware that presents other issues as the court should be above politics.
Adversus....Your lack of understanding of our system of government is astounding.........................The Legislature cannot change the Constitution..............And the...... Supreme Court..... is the THIRD Pillar of our Constitutional Democracy.
Adversus....None of what you said and the links provided support your previous statement.
Read this as it states how the constitution can be amended:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
The 3rd pillar is "An Independent Judiciary" not the supreme court and it's meant to be unelected and should be above politics.
The problem is that the Supreme Court isn't anymore because the politicians have been loading it along party lines and now they vote along party lines too. This presents a way to bypass the electorate.
http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/May/20080623204355eaifas0.4721293.html
OK now go away, you call me ignorant yet you are showing you have no grasp of the facts which quite frankly you can check out in 2 mins before posting.
Trolls like you should really stay of the internet and get a life.
As long as yours get equal billing? Will you assure that all other philosophy's get equal billing?
Why is separation of church and state an attack on Christianity? Apparently based on the contemporaneous documents it was what it was intended to mean, as was officially recognized in the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate with no dissent.
btw," vouchers" do not appear anywhere in it either.
The meaning of that wording was held sacred by Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and the vast majority of the architects of the Constitution. The founders lived in a time when there was a clear memory of colonies formed on the basis of Faith, sectarianism, and religious intolerance. They looked upon the Roman republic and Greek philosophy as their guide in reasoning and government.....not some religious ideology.
I don't think that is a decision for you. Instead, it is made by the courts bases upon the constitution and 200 years of precedents. It is a decision made by men who are chosen by their peers and congress on the basis of their wisdom and adherence to the constitution. And, those men (and women) say that you are injecting the sphere of your faith into public discourse in manners that would suggest the state's promotion of a faith (why are these injections always Christian?).
But, your leaders know that, and they know that with every setback, they grow stronger knowing that their stupid followers will become only more convinced of the righteousness of their cause. These are false prophets and they have you by the nose.
So if it's due to all those things you said. How come on almost all these kinds of issues do the courts simply vote along party affiliations.
I can't remember who it was who said this but it started in the 60s where liberals realized that the courts where more powerful than the legislator and therefore tried to pack the court, then the conservatives followed to the point where you have now.
Or it could have been the other way, can't really remember.
But btw the court doesn't bring the cases, private individuals or attorney generals normally belonging to a party do.
It's one of the big problems the right have, judges who are bypassing the legistator.
And you're right it's not a decision for me and as a citizen I have to obey the law but I can certainly have an oppion.
Are you beginning to see their point?
The ends don't justify the means, you may agree with their point in that you don't think the commandments should be shown in a public building but surely passing a law instead of circumventing the legislator using the judicury is the way to go.
What happens when it's a right given to you by the constitution that they go after next bypassing the legislator and therefore the electorate? I can think of another nazi error quote.
Do you really think the founders wanted to ban showing the "Ten Commandments" in a court room when they wrote that line?
"Arguing with the religious is like arguing with a child".....See how adversus...changes the topic to the personalities of the supreme court justices not the fact they have the authority to interpret the constitution.
I'm not religious. I defend the right of people to be religious in a free society.
I'm arguing that the court is unelected and therefore doesn't have the right to legislate through the back door along political lines right or left. Legislation is the job of the legislator that is then accountable to the electorate.
It's a question of democracy for me, not religion. Even if that means defending those beliefs that you might not disagree with.
Adversus...Your very thick, The Supreme Court is the front door. Its a branch of Government who's task is to decide court cases, if they are about the Constitution then it is the Supreme Court that makes the final decision...have you got that?
Adversus...What are you talking about.......being thick is not name calling its a specific personality trait that won't allow you to admit your wrong..........You've just moved the subject to me, which is poisoning the well........And you still have not address my point.........Just what laws Has the Supreme Court enacted?
Starting to name call. Tut Tut. What's the matter, ran out arguments you've heard other people recite.
The Supreme Court is a the front door to what?
Offcourse their job is to decide court cases, hence they're called judges. Their job isn't to create new laws through the means of legal precedent.
How can you not see the danger in democratic society of allowing that behaviour to continue without the electorate being able to throw those those that are doing it out of office, like we can with the executive and legislative branches.
Anyway we're going in circles and this is wasting my time. Once someone starts to name call like a child then there's no point in continuing.
No, they just didn't want the "Eighthfold Path" to be displayed.
Having courts interpret the laws protecting the minorities is always the toughest issue to keep independent. There is always pressure from the majority to just give in to the "legitimate" will of the people, and lynch some poor bastard who looks different. That is why passing legislation in the heat of the moment is even more suspect.
Both are bad outcomes that are weaknesses of the system, just different branches, but you are leaning toward one of them.
Responding to below,
I wasn't sure who or when the stacking of the court began, I was right it was democrats just wrong on the date.
The truth is that's irrevelent, it doesn't matter how or when it happened. It happened and that's the problem, courts being used to bypass the legislator.
And I agree the founders where imperfect but tabling a bill or an amendment is the way to correct those issues, not by bypassing the elected representatives and therefore the voters.
If it's simply because there isn't the votes to win then too bad that's democracy.
And yea offcourse political evagelicalism's main goal is prevent rulings that are leading to a total ban on religion in public which is their ultimate goal.
I'm a ceo, christian socially liberal, fiscally conservative weed smoker, trust me I have my own views other than Fox News :-)
But I'm not American, I'm here simply because Wall Street is screwing the world.
The founders were imperfect. They allowed, and many owned, slaves.
You do have it backwards. The court has been a hand puppet of politicians going back to Egypt. However, in America, a politician has traditionally been viewed with disfavor if he selected ideologues or an apparatchik to the court. Look at the history of FDR trying to stack the supreme court.
Politicians have therefore been wary of selecting someone who was clearly known to mirror their views until...................the moral majority, the christian coalition, and the rise of political evagelicalism demanded it.
The right now sees this as their most important long term function. It will reshape every progressive law passed since 1902. It already is......CITIZEN'S UNITED.
I'm not going to change your mind, but you really should rely upon something besides Fox news for your outlook on the world.
You are right of course, its all Dominionism now, they want the US then the World. The Christian Right is more dangerous than Muslim radicals.
I concur. They don't even realize how dangerous they, themselves, are.
If Satan wanted an army, he would compose it of dutiful christian soldiers doing what they thought was best.
Amen
Baptists... not a good choice for your illustration because they ARE different.
My Catholic friends are just as dogmatic.
Tell him that Jesus Christ himself was the first person to OWS against the money changers. And that Jesus would never have been a republican. Good points in the article.
Hello hero's of the earth. Everything being said in this thread criticizing USA Evangelical and Fundamentalist religion today are generally true (I didn't have time to read all 489 comments, but a bunch). But I'd like you all to know that there is a reform movement within USA Christianity that has emerged because many of us began to see what you guys are talking about, and we began to notice 18-35 year olds streaming out the doors of the churches, and the more we asked why, we realized that these kids were seeing what you are seeing and commenting about here, and they were leaving. This reform movement, called by different names like emerging church or emergence Christianity has been growing over the last decade and is very broad and amorphous - it is a bunch of pastors, and seminary academics and local church deacons and whoever all getting together online, through conferences and books and basically realizing how much we f'ed it all up and trying to figure out a way to return to the simple teachings and life of Jesus. We've been around long enough now to be attacked by the powers of the various institutions and we've been fired, and excommunicated and generally cast to the fringes (which is probably the best thing). We are all very excited about what you are doing, and many of us all across the country have joined with you.
I just wanted you to know there is hope for religion, and throughout history religious people have had cycles of getting too rich and too powerful and losing sight and f'ing it all up, and then reform movements come forth to get back to basics - just as USA citizen's have allowed so much to go wrong and now are rising up to reform through Occupy.
One more thought. People organize. It's just in our nature, we figure out that we can do things better by all pitching in and organizing, by not reinventing wheels over and over. We're learning new ways to do it right now through you guys, but we do organize. That reality is true of spirituality. Spiritual people will always end up getting together and organizing, and so "organized religion" is just the way humans roll. But just as you are learning to organize with horizontal structure, and you're manifesting online community ways into the real world, so can new forms of religion organize in more healthy ways. Right now when so much of organized religion is unhealthy, many people will stay out of it on the sidelines and enjoy their own private spirituality. But we are all in this together, this earth. And so eventually my spirituality will affect you socially and vice versa, and so it will seem right to find ways to organize it for mutual health...the cycle will continue, humans will organize. We just have to have big conversations to figure out how to do it the healthy way.
I started as a fundamentalist evangelical (their not necessarily the same thing, but sometimes combine), and now I work with poor people and gather with those of other faiths in interfaith worship...my parents and old friends think I'm a lunatic heretic...But I'm just one of the 99 who likes hanging with the other 99. Bless you all.
Kursonis...........................................The Biblical God is real..................................
There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.
The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those others, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature. ........................... MATTHEW 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus endorses the mass murder, rape, slavery, torture and incest written about in the Old Testament.............................................
Why is it such a problem for you to accept God? I didn't know that accepting or believing in God was such an inconvenience for you. More so, why is it such a problem for YOU that OTHERS might accept of believe in God?
Your Mathew analogy is disgusting, and your interpretation is taken out of context. If you tried to tell me that in person, I would fucking slap you.
blurdoghunter....................
The claims about nature contained in the Bible are identical to the false beliefs held by the men who wrote it. Ancient man in the Mediterranean area was convinced that the sky was blue and leaked water because it held a body of water identical to the sea and rain was caused by openings in the sky. They also believed the moon was a dim source light and that a flat earth was the center of the solar system. Based on limited knowledge and limited vantage points all of these beliefs made perfect sense. However, if the Bible was the inspired word of an all knowing god then it would not reflect these outdated assumptions about nature. It is clear that the knowledge provided by the Bible is limited by the extent of ancient man's knowledge and beliefs.
Genesis 1:6-10 "And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day."
I can respect someone who might not believe in God, but I will not fucking respect ANYONE who can't at least appreciate the concept of God, or appreciate those that believe in the concept towards a better way of life. FYI, not everyone who believes in God believes in literal interpretation of the Bible. Your comments are ignorant and nieve. You are a fucking worthless human being who takes your own exsistance for granted. The rest of us can't wait long enough for you to die.
bluedoghunter.....So Christian of you, thanks for the thought.
Very christian of you.
Who said I was Christian? Pretty ignorant, and typical of you to make that assumption.
Hmm.
"Why is it such a problem for you to accept God?"
"Your Mathew analogy is disgusting, and your interpretation is taken out of context"
"but I will not fucking respect ANYONE who can't at least appreciate the concept of God"
Which god are you talking about?
You missed the point completely if you are trying to reference my beliefs as it relates to my most. The POINT (since you are an idiot) is that there is a DIFFERENCE between not believing in something, and condeming it.
If someone doesn't believe in God, fine. But to go out and condem God and the people who believe in God is shameful.
Whatever you say, skippy.
Ever met anyone that called you on your bullshit that wasn't an idiot?
Sorry fuck stick, I don't get in the habit of telling people what TV station they most closely resemble. If that's bullshit, I'd hate to see what reality looks like. Now go back to your TV show, you lazy fuck. The rest of us have actual work to do.
You're being paid well for this mindless vitriol, I take it?
[Removed]
You're not a heretic, you're just completing the one duty of Christianity.....
to be Christlike.
By the way, take a look at my tongue in cheek new forum topic.....Welcome to the United States of Reaganistan.
im a christian and i could not agree more. the teachings of jesus has been changed and it makes me so sad. i dont go to big churches anymore they are all teaching us to sumbit to goverment. while i dont beleive in man made global warming i do agree with everything you said. i have done my own research and come to my own conclusions. im downwith ows. we do need change. i just wish more people would come to God and not go to these big churches. i can see why so many people the christianty is one big bunch of lies. its because the word of God has been twisted to what man wants it to be. God Bless
there is only one way to the father and we do not need a middle man to decipher god's word, nor do we need a building for the true path to knowing god is to know him inside of you by doing his will. there is strength in numbers but far greater strength can be found in coming to know the father.
Christianity has been subsumed into the Republican political machine all in the name of the vanity of religious leaders.
This is very interesting and well thought out article. My father suffers from the same dillusions. Some how Fox has manipulated christians in a bad way to think they are the "good guys". Its strange hearing him repeat exactly what they say even though they could be completely wrong. Ignorance is bliss i guess.
It is said that we can't serve two masters. Either you will love one and hate the other or you will love the other and hate the one. Pretty simple idea. The only good commandment is to treat each other as you would want to be treated. I'm no longer religious but I think that the Golden Rule is the only law we need. Now all we need is for people to learn and understand it.
What if you're a masochist? Would you then treat others as a sadist? What if you were abused as a child, would you then abuse your children (that is what tends to happen)?
The Golden Rule is simple....too simple....and requires empathy. In our society over the past thirty years, particularly after the arrival of Fux News, there has been a systematic de-empathizing happening in America.
The Golden Rule does not work when it is every man for himself.
As Dick Nixon so aptly put it: "People react to fear, not love. They don't teach you that in Sunday school, but it's true."
The Right has therefore been selling fear for the past 100 years, and they've gotten better and better at it.
You know what's funny about your Nixon quote? He was a Quaker back when it was different then they are today.
A Quaker or a Cracker?
Quaker. That must have been hard on him with Vietnam going. He's actually one of my more favorite presidents, he was pretty interesting when you read into him. Everybody thinks Watergate, but there was much more to him then that.
Uriah.......You mean Nixon...............Was more than a Crook and a Traitor.....
He was a genius with a chip on his shoulder. He created his own social club at his college, almost coined the term pinko (his first congressional race was against a female), found the issue that would catapult him into the national spotlight, survived the puppygate incident, developed the southern strategy based upon backlash against civil rights, decimated his rivals, made enemies lists, turned man against man, and ruined his party for moderates.
Without Nixon, there never would have been a neoconservative movement. Chuck Colson would never have roused the evangelical right. Cynicism towards government would not have exploded.
He may be one of your favorite presidents, but it would have been better if tricky dick had never been born.
I enjoy Chuck Colson actually. He also reinvented himself as a excellent statesman after being president. I always thought it was interesting that people who said they knew him, NEVER really knew him. Hard nut to crack.
Read Republican Gamorrah or Tempting Faith.....Chuck Colson is a fascist, perhaps a Christian fascist, but a fascist. He knew he was done is conventional politics and this was the route that he took. Nixon seemed to attract these sulfur emanating personalities like a magnet.
That whole crowd was interesting, in a clinical sort of way. Listening to the tapes is great for Halloween parties. Every new set that is released provides ten class years of psych grads with master's theses.
I think it is interesting that foxes are notoriously sly.
Yes, Fox news is very sly. In a past life, I studied the history and the methods of propaganda. I think it is that awareness that has made me loathe the Right and it's tactics.
It has tried to deligitamize two presidents, discredit medicare and social security, and bends every piece of news to it's purposes.
It sells fear, frustration, and hate as if it were crack cocaine. It creates scapegoats for vague social issues which will never be fully assuaged.
I personally know someone just like your uncle. He told me OWS was a bunch of Marxist Communists. I said really who told you that? The Lord brother the Lord. My reply, The Lord told you they are all Marxists? This is a very diverse crowd and you should watch how you quote the Lord. A real Christian would support them or at least dwell amongst them and set an example to what Jesus did for them. A real Christian would oppose corruption and support the victims as Jesus did 2000 years ago.
One could argue, that Christianity adopted the Gospel of Reagan to accommodate the new found wealth of many of its followers while concomitantly appealing to the resentments of other followers who had not found wealth. That, coupled with the wedge issue of abortion, will maintain the vast of majority of Christians within the Church of Reagan for some time.
did you just call Neochristianity a ponzi scheme.
I am not quoting the Lord. I am saying that many Christians have replaced him with Ronald Reagan.
Wonderful post, thank you.
Thank you. I think it is the most important topic that most people fail to see in their politics or in their church.
It's MADDENING, isn't it! I have the same issues with my father, sister, and a few friends. You can put all of the scientific facts in front of their faces and they just call it "New Age Propaganda". And it kills me how they call the OWS protesters a bunch of "Spoiled privileged kids". They all need to wake up. It's very hard to remain calm when dealing with this. I get very upset. But we need to figure out a way to wake them up. The world is in a trance.
Have your relatives read, "Idiot America," by Charles Pierce. Maybe they will understand, at least, what methods are being used to deceive.
The essential property of a fascist movement is the impenetrability of logic, facts, and evidence among it's members. In many ways, fascism is like a cult. Contrarian evidence is treated as suspect and the work of corrupted minds.
While it is true that we are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.
However, in the modern age.....when corporations fund their own "studies" and corporations fund their own "think-tanks," we are losing that distinction.
Honestly, I think this has happened because they really thought Jesus was going to descend from a cloud and make all their troubles disappear. Like, when do they grow up and take responsibility as adults? Protestants are the worst, because they believed that Grace alone would save them. Catholics, at least, had some idea that you have to do good. But overall, I think the Jews knew best because they didn't fantisize some far-off heaven, like both Muslims and Christians. That Mankind needed to mend and repair it to "make good" after eating from the Tree of Knowledge.
Tikkun Olam!
Interesting. I think that faiths which require introspection by their members while producing a group conscience have the best possibility of producing true worshipers of their faith. Such believers are able to reconcile modernity with the tenets of their faith. They are able to be compassionate for the right reasons. Their ethics are based upon a systematic examination of what is most right and most wrong. They are secular, yet religious.
They were also our founding fathers.
In 2007, a British court ruled that Al Gore's film was partisan and had numerous inaccuracies. Quick, delete this post.
A British court determined in 2007 that Al Gore's film is partisan and has numerous inaccuracies.
Ya, the guy who cleans our pool said the same thing.
I commend him for taking the time to follow this issue and seek the opposing viewpoint. Only way to have a proper debate.
Finding a chink in a popularized rendition of a very well studied issue is not having a debate.
Lets talk about the other station,
I guess your a rachel madow fan.....she is a brain washer too....
You can ignore liberal pundits, but the last decade would say that you do so at your own peril.
The Bush Tax Cuts
The War in Iraq
The Patriot Act
The Corruption of K Street
Feel free to add you own.
I think pundrity is something to be avoided, but there is such a thing as misguided.....and then there is dead wrong.
Fox News viewers would be better off getting their information from the dropout son of their hairdresser.
Deuteronomy 15 The Year for Canceling Debts
1 At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. 2 This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. 3 You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. 4 However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, 5 if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today. 6 For the LORD your God will bless you as he has promised, and you will lend to many nations but will borrow from none. You will rule over many nations but none will rule over you. 7 If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. 8 Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need. 9 Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for canceling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward the needy among your fellow Israelites and give them nothing. They may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. 10 Give generously to them and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. 11There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land.
Luke 12: 13-21
The Parable of the Rich Fool
13 sSomeone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, t“Man, uwho made me a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, v“Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” 16 And he told them a parable, saying, w“The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself,x‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ 18 And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my ybarns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up zfor many years; relax, aeat, drink, be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, b‘Fool! zThis night cyour soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, dwhose will they be?’ 21 So is the one ewho lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.”
Matt 19:16-24
The Rich and the Kingdom of God
16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[a] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
You guys are LOL funny. Just the pot calling the kettle black, except that the Uncle has more life experience.
So you're playing the race card? You little imperial wizard, you. What's under that robe pinkey?
links; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b77baa3VdhM&feature=related Rothschild the lying bastard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMdlPQSmEj8&feature=related and there you go, co2 release is normal. But it is true what your uncle said. It is just the normal events and actually earth is cooling off veeeerrryyyyy slowly at the moment and therefore the co2 levels are rising at the moment, naturally as they have always done. It is the normal cycle. If you want to know what the government does then look at fracking in USA and Europe and combine that with flaming off of gas in Niger Delta and you know they diliberately are trying to pollute the countryside in all countries so citizens go to the city and stay there. It is David the Rothschild who is the one claiming there is global warming. And he and his are the ones causing all the things he talks about that are supposed to be signs of global warming. Buy a good wintercoat, we are cooling! The other thing christianity, well they want a one religion policy and a one currency and a one...well everything. http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/128/215-med-revolutions-tyrants-and-wars/ link to their religion. The pope is one of em and he is thus a devilworshipper. He has called for a one world bank under the vatican. OPEN YOUR MIND! search for the truth on the internet. Listen to old and wise people.
In the multiverse, this belongs in one of the galaxies that we cannot see.
Christianity was designed for the broadest possible appeal. That means there is something in there both for the sympathetic pacifist, and the brutal thug. That's why it has never really been a succesful tool for promoting "equality, forgiveness, and hope" because the way it's designed, anyone can take it any way they want and just use it to justify whatever they wanted to do in the first place.
There isn't anything new about this phenomenon, I guarantee you would have been far more horrified by the Christian mob that ripped Hypatia limb from limb with their bare hands than you are by your uncle. Christianity has had both a good streak and a bad streak from the get-go, and that has never been different.
For a good man to do something evil, it takes religion.
I'd say all it takes is an ideology that purports itself to be the fountain of goodness and ethically correct behaviour. Religion can certainly fit that bill, but so can non-religious ideologies.
Ideologies become a religion to the zealot.
I agree. Just pointing out that it doesn't have to be a supernatural belief system. With that caveat, your statement about the good man holds very true.
I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.
Conspiracy is a con Controversy is a con and the contrived will prosper! http://dreywrites.blogspot.com/
God is with the rich
“Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."
nonsense of the bourgeoisie
The poor bourgeoisie. Why do you have to wait two minutes for these posts?
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” ~ Sinclair Lewis
Since the dawn of mankind it has always been the 'Shaman' that was the power behind the 'Leader'. The Shaman was eventually replaced by 'Religion' and the Leader became known as 'King, President etc.'. As long as individuals 'Fear' the unknown they are easy prey for sociopaths claiming a knowledge of the nature of existence; ie God etc.
If you look at it from the perspective of raw Capitalism, religion in all its forms is a great money maker.
Religion was once the basis of education. It was once the institution of moderation. It was once the source of hope. Of course, that period lasted only from about 1900 to 1970, but it did happen. What changed was the invasion of politics into religious life. And, now, religion provides an ethical release from all of the ills that we face.....global warming, the poor, the corrupt, and the wars.
Climate change is indeed cyclic, do some research the whole solar system is undergoing climate change, we are nearing the end of a 26,000 year cycle, coming to the peak and an alignment of equators of our solar system and our galaxy. Aside from that the software used to predict human involvement in climate change is mathematically flawed and omits all data prior to 1907, it was tested using a random number generator and gave the same result no matter what the input was. During medieval times the co2 content in earths atmosphere was more than 4 times greater than it is today. Read these http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html http://www.biocab.org/Global_Warming.html http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html
You have been conned.................AGAIN!!!
The World would be much better off without Religion........Religion has held back mankind for centuries, with it's superstitions and Dogma....Its anti science position is easy to understand.....Evolution makes god obsolete.
But from what did we evolve?
puff6962....Take a course in Evolutionary Biology....
I am an evolutionist. But, from what did the Earth evolve, our galaxy evolve, the big bang evolve?
Science does not have the answers, but they are working on them.....That doesn't mean you fill in the gaps with god.....
There will always be a gap for a creator and there will always be the question of whether he knows that WE exist.
puff6962....The God of the gaps is as old as mankind.....first it was the god of lighten, that was solved, then the God of the Oceans , that was put away...The god of the gaps has slowly but surely disappeared as science progress's this will be no different..
There is just to much silence in science. A little morphine for the masses is not such a bad thing.
puff6962....Not standing for the truth can lead to unexpected consequent-sis....
News channels are just a business, they do not sell what is important. They make money selling stories that are fearful, because consumers who watch TV buy them by watching them and their advertisements. This creates a world who thinks that being afraid and fighting against everything is the answer and is important. Try looking at the bright side of human nature, there are so many good things :)
Part of, not all, of climate change is somewhat cyclical. The Earth's orbit is not circular but it is elliptical and so it changes. At some points it is closer to the sun and at others times it is farther away from the sun.
There is also what is called a polar shift that also is suspected of creating the Sahara Desert.
This does not mean that humans have not increased the effects and made them even more acute. There is another theory about one of the mass extinctions that is tied to climate change.
I have little time for fools such as you. Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
Have you ever been inside of a greenhouse?
Do you realize that weather patterns have never changed so drastically and in so many places as they are now?
The Earth has a wobble about it's axis, but if you are suggesting that any derivations in our orbit or axis or rotation are producing the changes we see today, then I have some beachfront land in Arizona to sell you.
Speaking facts does not make one a fool, ignoring the facts does.
Educate yourself: http://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_shift_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
No wonder this country so fucked up. We have semi-educated morons that can't combine climate change with other factors. Is it because you are stupid and think that because there are other contributing factors that climate change should not be taken seriously?
Climate change has to be taken seriously if we are to survive the next Milankovitch cycle. What we are doing will make the next cycle way worse that it is going to be anyway.
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. you are contradicting literally hundreds of the best scientists in the world.
Beat that head against the all you want, it doesn't make you smart.
Why is it shit-for-brains, such as yourself, glob onto stuff like this while refusing answer a question about self-responsibility?
I guess the term that describes you idiots best is right winger. I am conservative on some issues and liberal on others. There is no God(s) so I don't really fit any type.
Answer this, why is it idiot shits like you demand a person be responsible for the,selves but do not hold yourselves to the same standard?
blah blah blah Glenn Beck blah blah blah Sean Hannity blah blah blah Rush Limbaugh blah blah blah Koch Brothers blah blah blah blah.
you are so lonely that you need somebody to argue with just to feel alive.
OWS: a bigger harm than good...plain and simple. and the fact tahat today you people want to rally together and shut down wall street and occupy the subways and have a "light ceremony" is not helping....its hurting. By shutting down Wall street you are stopping the flow of money that is HELPING get this country out of debt. Also what are you celebrating by have a light ceremony?? you have done nothing but reveal to the people that this country is full of more hippies and commies that we thought.(see your list of demands on your website!) You people are actually helping then why havent you actually helped us.....
Wall street is a casino. It stopped functioning as an engine for capital and the expansion of American industry about 30 years ago.
It still drwas money into american companies that pay taxe and dobate and help people around the world even in your country.....go figure!
Yes! I see this happening in many churches. The Republican message is actually very anti-Christian. Jesus Himself would be labeled a slacker and a drain on society if He tried to preach to a Republican. In a time and place where Christianity was not the favored religion, Republicans would abandon their faith and join a religion and church with more pull. I don't see them as Christians, just opportunists. Believe it or not Christianity is not what Fox news is preaching.
puff6962 & jadedgem.....your both out of your minds............The Religious Right is the Tea Party and the Republican party is a tool of the Tea Party.......This is not my opinion........all you need to do is open your minds...the Church is upset that the United States Government does not endorse their hate and bigotry........................They are superstitious and hateful, preach their discrimination every Sunday. Religion (Christianity ) is not being repressed their hate and bigotry is....Do some research and not rely on your or others opinions.
Hi, I'm from OH, Occupy Houston. They are avoiding the word Jesus there like the plague. Houston's movement is not moving. We could benefit from some direct help. Some person who claims to be running for president in 2012 posted some interesting DEMANDS there. He smells like a snake to me. I'm going to look around and see if laid his bait here. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Oh, and I was born in New York. Thanks for this post.
Try using Jehovah instead..lol
There is only one demand: Get Money Out.
If you remove big money from politics, and curtail lobbying, you are half way down the list of what needs to be done.
Look at Dylan Ratigan's petition:
http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Right, but all of them have lied to us. ALL of the candidates and most of the presidents. In this day and age, we must become so very aware.
[Removed]
I have some carbon credits for your Coprophilia.
[Removed]
That is so true. I have relatives that quote right wing propaganda as though if it were scriptures from the Bible
I have relatives who will argue about scripture but will accept the Good Book of Fox News line by line.
It is kind of scary in a way. Many of the people I know used to be real common sense and logical based Christians.
What the hell could happen to poison their minds? Many of them talk about killing, torture, and war as if Jesus endorsed it personally
Then they come up with some bullshit rationalization that shows where the Bible OKs it?
Are we witnessing state of the art brainwashing or what?
FutureNow....Religion has always caused grief and war.....There is more Religious violence today than at the time of the crusades.
Yes, you are watching brainwashing. There is no other explanation for it.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.....Sinclair Lewis.
One of the components of fascism is the impregnation of beliefs into to populace to such a degree that no argument, however rational, can appeal to their remaining logical mind.
Nazi's at Nuremburg were asked how they could treat humans in such a way. Their reply was that they were Jews. When confronted with the facts that Jews were humans, the stalwart Nazis would trip into a line of reasoning dividing humanity into dominant and subhuman races. When asked for the basis of these beliefs, the Nazi would divert into stereotypes and pejoratives about the Jewish people. No matter what evidence was presented to show no biologic difference, the beliefs in this segmentation of the races was unshakable.
I do not enjoy comparing Republicans to Nazis, but the certainty of their beliefs, no matter the contrary evidence, is frightening.
And, in the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes...."Certitude is not the test of certainty. We have been cocksure of many things that were not so."
Holmes also once concluded that..."Where there is certainty, there will be violence."
A question for you. You really seem informed. I am totally amazed and impressed. Did you study this on your own or was this part of a major.
If you don't feel like talking about it, I will understand.
I will say I am very glad a person like you takes the time to enlighten us.
By the way, take a look at my new forum topic....The United States of Reaganistan. It's a work in progress.
I was an MD. Just read a lot. Thank you, by the way, for the compliment.
Your 100% right...keep them words going..
Thanks.
It sounds like I need to read more. Thanks
Hey, take a look at my newer forum topic...The United States of Reaganistan. It's still a work in progress.
Sad, isn't it.
Feel free to send this to your uncle. I recently read the world population has reached 7 billion people... 7,000,000,000! Wow, that's a lot of people! I began to think... How much air does each of us get? If you take the earths entire atmosphere and divide it equally by 7 billion, how big would each persons "box" of atmosphere be corrected to sea level (14.7 psia)? (I'll put the math at the end.)
The answer is 22,704,000,000 cubic feet per person.
That's a box 1 mile X 1 mile X 814.39 feet high. That's it!
To put that into perspective... If your piece of the atmosphere were as wide and tall as a football field; your "box" would be 300 feet wide, 300 feet tall, and just under 47.8 miles long.
Imagine that! Seriously think, what if all the air you have for your entire life were in a box 300 X 300 feet, 47.8 miles long, and everything you do to your air stays in your box.
What kind of car would you drive? How would you heat your home? How far would you drive every day? Would you protect the trees in your "box"?
Because what you do to your air in your 20s would determine what you breath in your 80s.
I honestly believe my 25 mile commute to work would have serious consequences over the years, even with my very efficient, and underpowered Corolla.
The sad truth is the only reason those of us in the developed world can live the way we do, is because most of the world isn't developed. There's a farmer in Bhutan whose simple low impact life means the rest of us get a slightly bigger "box". That said we in the developed nations should all realize how lucky we are. We have a responsibility to be thoughtful in the decisions we make that impact the atmosphere, because one thing is certain. If everyone in the world affected the atmosphere like the typical American, we'd all be in trouble very quickly.
The math...
The atmosphere has 11,353,000,000,000,000,000 pounds mass of air (source Wikipedia - or you can calculate it by multiplying 14.7 by the number of square inches on the surface of the earth)
At sea level 96 F dry air is 14.005 cubic feet per pound mass, and 78 F saturated air is 14.003 cubic feet per pound mass. It's less at colder temperatures. (source Fan Engineering book eighth edition by Buffalo Forge Company)
Multiply the mass of the atmosphere by 14 and you'll get total cubic feet of the atmosphere at 14.7 psia between 78 and 96 F depending upon humidity.
The answer is 158,928,000,000,000,000,000 cubic feet.
Now divide that by 7,000,000,000 people.
You'll get 22,704,000,000 cubic feet per person.
5280 x 5280 x 5280 = 147,197,952,000 cubic feet per cubic mile. Divide that by 22,704,000,000 and you'll get 6.48335 people per cubic mile of atmosphere.
5280 feet / 6.48335 people = 814.393939393939 feet for 1 mile square
300 feet x 300 feet = 90,000 square feet. (height and width) 22,704,000,000 cubic feet / 90,000 square feet = 252,266.667 feet. (length) 252,266.667 feet / 5280 feet per mile = 47.777778 miles (length)
True Christians belong in Hell. They are a bunch of lying cheating, dirty scumbags. Don't bother replying, whether you agree with this or not.
It's like discussing sanity with an insane person... Nothing you ever say will get through.
Jesus said to obey authority, the system . He was executed by the government of the time for insurrection as were his disciples. So what lessons are learned from this.
True Christians would not tolerate either Republicans nor Democrats who engage in war crimes killing others without due process. Independent Human Rights investigation of Obama and NATO crimes against humanity in Libya. Obama gave orders to bomb without congressional approval: http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/10/11/sarkozy-cameron-obama-al-thani-and-the-suffering-of-the-children-of-sirte/ Fact check: Romney vs Obama: who lies more? -- quite similar. http://www.factcheck.org/barack-obama/ http://www.factcheck.org/tag/mitt-romney/ Top 20 recipients of Wall Street Funds: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=M&sortorder=U Historically, which party receives more from Wall Street? http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=F07&cycle=All&recipdetail=A&sortorder=U An interesting perspective by Noam Chomsky: --Noam Chomsky on the State-Corporate Complex: http://chomsky.info/talks/20110407.htm Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 Noam Chomsky on why Obama is worse than Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mA4HYTO790 and Obama's imperilstic policies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiwAFIgGCkQ Did you know that Obama's health care reform is not public health care. After meeting with lobbyists (as reported by the NY times and Huffington Post), all it did was secure the corporate monopoly for a few for-profit health care industries especially the current health insurance corporations and BigPharma. It's like Obama has just put into law that everyone must purchase their car insurance from a few corporations, who now have full power to set the prices as however they want. Did you know that a deal was made to CUT the public option and if Obama had persuaded at least 20 or so Democrats, there would have been a public option. So lose-lose to those who wanted a public health care option and also to those who favor the markets.
Republicans were in power at one point and Democrats were in full power just recently up until midterm elections---the difference? Obama's budget for military spending per year was higher than that of Bush's. In fact, Republicans probably kept calling Obama a socialist to keep him in power as he continues to serve the will of Corporate America and the Big banks as both parties do. .. while offering the illusion that you're winning the fight from a false dichotomy. 9 Is it better to give allegiance to Caesar whether it be Romney/Obama OR your children. Two parties for two audiences, but same policies that serve the priorities of their corporate or wall street funders, maybe promising some bread crumbs after--each telling their own audience to demonize the other party providing examples of how 'racist,' or 'stupid,' the other party is, and thus get off free from bearing any responsibility or accountability. NEITHER REPUBLICANS NOR DEMOCRATS have been representative of the people. CHOOSING BETWEEN THE LESS OF TWO EVILS IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY. DON'T BUY IT. The reason why change may not happen is not because of Republicans but us who fail to say anything. You don't have to find people you agree with in everything, but the core things. Action speaks louder than words. just my rant. sorry for the misleading title. While I got your attention... Here's a Political Solution to Satisfy Progressives and Conservatives; Socialists and Libertarians http://occupywallst.org/forum/political-solution-to-satisfy-progressives-and-con/ And what do you think of the Robin Hood tax? Bill Gates wrote a report to support it and wanted the G20 nations to address it. Even UK conservative PM Dave Cameron ran his campaign on it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/03/gates-urges-g20-to-introduce-tobin-tax
Roboposter.
I am, but it needs to be heard. More copy and paste, but still.
Here's one of Obama's drone strikes hitting a girl in Libya (or by NATO). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4R3sFvy1zGg&skipcontrinter=1
Did anyone see THAT letter from a Wall Street worker? Here's my response: http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=5665
Wow! 416 posts so far and what have we learned? Hmmm? Come on? Anybody?
Nevermind.
Can we please focus on implementing some fixes to the government of the US. that will be significantly better than what we have now?
It doesn't have to be perfect. There seems to be some doubt that any of the governments that have been formed since ours is perfect. So, it is OK to look at them for ideas but don't get hung up trying a wholesale switch, unless you can convince about a quarter of a billion people in a pretty short time, cause that is all the time we have.
Can we just leave religion out of it? We can see how all of the ones that are perfect are bringing so much peace to the planet. Last I noticed, there are several of them represented here. And if you think getting agreement to significant changes to this government is going to be a bit challenging, consider converting the faithful, to your (obviously) superior flavor.
We have some people who need help now. Thanks.
What does believing in Christianity have anything to do with being skeptical of global warming. There are scientists who are not on board and have brought about lawsuits against Gore for being fraudulent so this isn't just FOX news. And some ABC networks have debates so its not like they (or at least they shouldn't be) 'taking sides' but merely presenting the news.
Oh, just shut up. There are a handful of scientists who seek notoriety by being skeptics of climate change. Nobody, now, denies that the earth is warming rapidly......
What is interesting is that well educated people who watch Fox news and describe themselves as evangelicals are much more likely to deny climate change or a human contribution.
Correlation does not prove causality, but your response seems to be indicative of the "can't prove that" mentality of the cult of climate deniers.
Damn fool. The Bible instructs us to be good stewards and that is not accomplished by refusing to believe in a problem.
Don't respond. I have had it with imbeciles such as yourself.....and my uncle.
That's right. Close your ears to anything you don't like to hear. Thanks for the shut ups. I feel much more empowered now. Sorry I didn't become a cheerleader for you.
If you are a person of faith, then you believe that, somewhere down the road, you will meet your Maker and there's some sort of judgment involved. Just as Pascal had his dare, do you think that your callous dogmatism in the face of extraordinary evidence (and it's effect upon future generations) will be one of your positives? Is benign neglect a sin?
I was assigned in college to create a memorable quote.....we had a semester to let it jingle in our heads. I looked through books of quotes for ideas and was stumped. I then came upon a reading from MLK and was inspired to read more.
The day before we were to turn in our snippets, it came to me:
Where there is the duty to act, and the ability to act, the failure to act is an abuse of power.
Maybe that reality will find you before you meet your Maker.
Ha, I'm a hardcore atheist. But I don't spend time hating Christians and trying to make them sound like idiots either. Religion doesn't need a god. Some people can be religious about celebrities or ideologies. Or even science for that matter. Religious dogmatism doesn't need a god honestly.
Atheism carries the same inerrant certainties as does a fire and brimstone television evangelist. You're not a hardcore anything. You're a loner who tries to relate through interesting sounding ideas or philosophies. Believing in something takes work and I doubt that you have ever mustered the discipline to figure out what you believe. It's much easier to concoct conspiracy theories than to study the hard data and research on global warming.
I have new for you. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth from you....you're just stupid.
You really know how to make snap judgments. I never said I didn't believe in global warming. I said there is a debate and some don't buy it. You're the kind of person who thinks if they don't agree with everything you believe, then they are just lost somewhere. Thanks for calling me stupid too. You're very good at those rational sound civil debates especially when I did no insulting of any kind. Enjoy yourself now.
Read a book called, "Idiot America," and you will understand how controversy about strong certainties....cigarettes, global warming, big foot.....are manufactured and marketed.
A long time ago, somebody figured out the people will believe whatever they want to.....all evidence to the contrary.....if you gave them the thinnest rationale or pseudoscience they could rest their belief upon.
As Demosthenes noted, "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true."
They have a term for that: SHEEPLE
http://pastebin.com/MAbRDAS2
Ha lovely analogy, but truth is hard to discredit, so people like Micheal Moore and Al Gore just give some parts of the picture so that first glance appears so. Like any sort to midterm prediction of the future you need to look to the past. If you don't look at this event as meteorologist, but as a historian a paleontologist and a geologist. In the past the the carbon dioxide was hundreds of times higher and much warmer, and life flourished. The entire planet was covered in ice three times, yet life survived. In fact because there is a permanent landmass covered in ice (Antarctica) we will eventually return to an ice age. Just look into The Year With Out a Summer (1816)
Climate will "ALWAYS CHANGE" it doesn't if the human race vanished all together the habitats will change and animals will adapt and go extinct. So instead of worrying about the world 500 years from now worry about the world 5 years from now. More importantly worry about your self
Horseshit.
lol go ahead use some critical thinking look beyond their words do your own research you'll be surprised
I begin hunting every year on Nov. 1st. Have so for 35 years. Every year, it is warmer, there are more leaves on the trees, fewer birds have begun migrating, etc.
Do your own research.
True except for the last few years right
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
WOW! That is SO true! (about some christians) I myself come form the old ways....of mother nature..... Global warming is happening at an alarming rate! I tune in every day during my lunch hour to see what is transpiring around the world....and yes, some have profited from the topic (shame on them!) but it is very real....just back in July I believe it was, did you know that thousands upon thousands of animals instantly died for no apparent reason? (birds fell from the sky in Georgia, dead fish were washing up on the shores in almost every country, etc etc....and strange that wasnt broadcasting around the world....) Anyways, the world is way to populated.....I welcome change ....and after the change, its times for Greek Senate....free healthcare for all...buying and trading locally.....giving back what we take from the land.....and the list goes on.....this world is coming to a screeching halt/beginning...I can feel it....lets make it a better world....the time is now..... Also, check out the documentry "Blue Gold"......information you can not live without.....
I'm from Texas. Sound like my ex-preacher Granddad. It's so weird how they spout some Ayn Rand type of shit, too. Am I Not MY Brothers KEEPER!!! They scare me and hurt my feelings. lol I guess we need to get down to the meek inheriting the earth, not he most corrupt and evil indoctrinating the ignorant.
Anyone who thinks the political parties are any different is a fool.
Hi Puff, Another good post. I see this trend of religion/right wing thing everywhere. Best Regards
yea your Unk should Google this link -- http://www.osjspm.org and get a hart.
I like what betsydoula and amen88 pointed to in their comments about the ego. It is our selfish ego that drives us to do what it takes to feel that we are better than others, and especially in our American society, our ego combines with our materialistic consume, consume, consume environment to push us to win at any cost, even at the expense of others and of Nature. Doesn't this seem to be the base root of all of our problems?
Of course it makes sense that the ego, "me," once it seemingly feels threatened in some way, goes into attack mode, like this Uncle and nephew, who shut down communication on certain topics. It is natural for all of us to want people to agree with "me," and so it is this closed box way of thinking and acting, our egoism, that is actually what needs to be examined and risen above.
The wall that exists between us all when we act and think by way of selfish "me" mentalities dissolves when the shift to altruistic "we" mentalities occurs. Therefore, it is the protection of the ego that keeps us all divided into "right versus wrong" boxes, against one another, instead of uniting us all together for the best benefit of everyone in our common, global human family.
If egoism is the root of our problem, then how do we move away from our natural, yet selfish egoistic way of thinking about "me," to the altruistic, giving and loving actions that result from thinking in terms of compassion and empathy for the best unified results of our collective human "we" family?
Maybe this is where "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you," comes in, as davidprosser said in his excellent comment about religion in general, the golden rule of "loving our neighbors as we love ourselves." So many religions and philosophies put forth this concept, but who actually keeps it? All the religions, philosophies, and self-help books talk about this "golden rule," but how do we practically go about actually putting it into practice? As randart said below, “The only good commandment is to treat each other as you would want to be treated. I'm no longer religious but I think that the Golden Rule is the only law we need. Now all we need is for people to learn and understand it.” :-)
Perhaps in order to "love our neighbors as ourselves," or to at least begin with "don't do to others what you, yourself, hate," we need to trick our "me." How? When "me" transitions to "we," "me" works for the best benefit of the whole human society and all of its systems, of which "me" is an integral part. Then as a natural outflowing consequence, "me" automatically becomes taken care of by each and every “me” that also simultaneously acts in altruism. There is a mutual reciprocal agreement at work when altruism is practiced by everyone in a group over egoism, and the natural flow from this agreement is that everyone in the system has their basic needs, their true needs, met.
A good analogy found in nature for this is to look at how the cells of the body group together collectively to form organic mechanisms that work for the best benefit of the whole body. If every single "me" in humanity looked after the best benefit of others before itself, for the best benefit of our great human family, then the natural consequence of this is that its “self” would automatically be taken care of as well. In this way—appealing to our ego's interests—it allows "me" to become convinced to work for "we," since this is in "me's" best interest. Thus in effect, we rise above our natural egoism, and we flip it to work in the system of altruism. Let's start putting this into practice to transform ourselves first, rather than looking to transfrom others. If more and more egos do this, make these agreements, our environments will become more and more supportive of altruism rather than egoism, and our world will change for the good.
This was actually predicted in the bible. Your poor uncle is being deceived.
Matthew 6:24
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
Timothy 6:9
But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.
1 Timothy 6:10
For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
2 Corinthians 11:13-14
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Timothy 2:15
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Romans 8:7
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
1 Corinthians 10:13
No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Titus 1:15-16
To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
John 4:1
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Yes.
I am agnostic-- I don't as yet subscribe to any religion. But I do sometimes draw on their wisdom where I find it and occasionally ponder the meanings of some of the more mysterious concepts. And I've come to think that "Antichrist" is not meant to be a literal person. I see the concept of "Antichrist" as most accurately reflecting this perversion we see today that stands in polar opposition from the original teachings of Christ and seems to want to run this world straight to hell in a handbasket.
by "this perversion" I am talking about how Christianity has been used & abused by the hard-Right in a blatant attempt to gather numbers... even though all the things Christ taught (love, compassion, humility, care for fellow man) are completely at odds with hard-Right ideology of hate, contempt, egotism, disregard for fellow man's welfare. They saw that there were large voting-bloc-sized numbers of Christians in this country, corrupted the meaning of the religion by focusing on negatives and twisted it to fit in with their greedy agenda by using words like "prosperity". Thankfully by now, more and more Christians are starting to see the gross underbelly of the "prosperity" rhetoric and how that is affecting America and they can no longer reconcile the difference. The hard-Right has had to come up with totally different tactics now to win supporters.
I agree with you. As a born again christian I am appalled at how my faith has been perverted. You are very wise.
The Greek alphabet has symbols that overlap with those used in the numeric system. The antichrist was Nero.
Revelations almost didn't get into the "bible" that we read. It competed with other apocalyptic visions of the day and was chosen to scare the hell out of the peasantry. It was the original Nightmare on Elm Street.
It doesn't matter what the origins were. It doesn't matter if you believe Nero was the antichrist. There are scores of people who believe we are at the end and that is the problem. All your history lessons will do nothing to change that. You have to learn to speak the language to help people decide if what they hold dear is true. You have to find their latitude of acceptance.
The Lord of this Universe is over 13.5 billion years old. I think that, if he is truly able to see the future, then he would have either never created man or he has the hope that someday we won't be so foolish.
Yes, I would agree he or she probably wishes we were not so foolish.
i think you will like this blog post then, a good thing to share with those who are following what you call this new christianity. here it is: http://adamaecompton.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/occupywallst-wwjd/
You SEE well!
It is all so very sad.
It's the same story for 2000 years. That's OK. Truth and love always succeed! The same small minded thinking brought us the inquisition, slavery, Jim Crow, Apartheid, etc. WE occupied every time and we changed the world, human consciousness, and the church. This is our latest spiritual project--to bring love into the economy. Elohim-Allah and the Universe are with us. Be happy and confident! The arc of the moral universe is bending toward justice!
You know my friends, there comes a time when people get tired of being trampled by the iron feet of oppression ... If we are wrong, the Supreme Court of this nation is wrong. If we are wrong, the Constitution of the United States is wrong. And if we are wrong, God Almighty is wrong. If we are wrong, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a utopian dreamer that never came down to Earth. If we are wrong, justice is a lie, love has no meaning. And we are determined here in Montgomery to work and fight until "justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream."
And all God's people said, "Amen!" Thanks for posting. It was great to read this again after so many years.
christianity has always been a mind control mechanism since it started, this has simply become more and more apparent as time has gone on and as it has been consistently used as a tool to control people over assorted issues.
Christianity is a death and genocide war cult, its always been evil, fascist, and totalitarian.
What we see is that as civilization starts to fall apart due in no small part to christianities influence, that everything has been blended and bled together. All of the mental cages of the far right are laced into each other and braced into each other.
the new christianity is merely the old christianity unmasked.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
I think what happens is that the elite commandeer religions for their own end.
Personally I think the reason why Jesus spoke in parables was to make us think and come to a personal oppinion on the issues that effect our lives. i.e. The opposite of mind control.
obviously. Christianity is a fine parable to consider when we think about co opting. Within 4 years after Yeshuas death the system had moved to co-opt his movement and within 100 years they had fully used his movement and fully co-opted it. from that point onward it was always evil and fascist. It was golden while he was alive to lead it, but evil the moment it became co-opted. We need to not make the same mistake.
I agree.
It's interesting that the Koran tried to ban organized religion and said that no one should interpret the words, that didn't work either. Basically it split as soon as Muhammad died into two factions that wanted power and they've been fighting ever since. Humanity is a joke.
I agree I don't think organized religion is the answer.
its a harsh thing because atheism is just being stuck without access denying the reality. Over all the evolutionary direction for religion is psychonautics; the science and psychology implications on systemic self handling.
there is one uni verse a cosmic song; it transcends every description of it and yet it itself is a very simple scalar fractal equation of valence and orbit and polarity.
Organized religion is a way to keep us from experiencing that; meditation is what brings us closer to that , and then there are the 4 states of consciousness multiplied by waking and sleeping versions of those states to target to obtain.
talking to god is just a waking theta brainwave state. Bringing it down to objective science allows us also to allow for the poetic experience; why cross over? just become aware of the objective science and transcend religion by all of us gaining access instead of trance being used to bind us all mentally it could be the shape of our wings.
? :-)
"There is no spoon." Lol
No. The old Christianity found it's way and opposed slavery. The new Christianity enacted Jim Crow. The old Christianity believed in social justice, the new Christianity believes in an end to capital gains and estate taxes.
The old Christianity was northern, the new is southern.
the old christianity supported slavery, not sure how you got those facts twisted.
We can still see remnants of how that logic worked in Racist Rhetoric. Supposedly adam and Eve were white and everybody else was just animals thta happened to be in the garden when they arrived. They twist it all up to do whatever they like by it.
The old christianity was always an evil and fascist tool of feudalism, entirely putting a human authority between people and god and entirely subjugating people psychicly in order to deny them access spiritually to waking theta brainwaves or thus their ow legit spiritual experiences.
The old christianity was always fascist, always a mind control scam, and always suppressed and oppressed and prevented contact with god rather than facilitating it.
It may have been better than the new christianity, but it was always garbage evil fascist religion, ever since about 4 years after they killed yeshua.
Yeah Yeah the same old evil Fox news shit, It seems to me that they all throw the spin one way or another.
An Inconvenient Truth is full of lies and distortions. As silly as your uncle may be for watching FOX, at least he doesn't believe Al Gore is the new prophet.
I am amazed that you would compare Al Gore to a prophet. Very smooth diversion.
The author of this article uses the same analogy. I figured I'd apply it in my comment.
What about thousands of scientists? Are they part of a conspiracy too? Nutcase.
Scientists want to work and the billions of dollars being poured into climate research want a bottom line that CO2 is a major factor in climate change. Besides that, there are thousands of scientists who argue against AGW.
The problem is most people don't understand that the climate is such a complex system that no one can say for sure what is going on. Just look at your local meteorologist on TV. They can predict the weather, sometimes. They can usually tell when something is coming a couple days ahead of time, but even then they are not always accurate. Beyond that, they are almost completely unable to tell you what next week is going to look like, outside of a educated guess. Fact is, a complete understanding of climate change is going to take more than a blaming of all problems in it on one trace gas.
Scientists get their funding from peer related groups. Do bad science, get no money. Scientists don't care what idiots like you think.
Name TEN published (real publications) climate scientists who say that global warming and human contribution are not occurring. Name TEN.
Yes, climate is complicated. That is why there has been a growing amount of research over the past 60 years and why careful scientists felt that the evidence was too overwhelming to start sounding alarms.
No, you can't tell what next week will look like. Just like movements of individual stocks is the market, day to day variations are almost purely random. However, if you know how to analyze companies, read financial reports, identify competent managers, and limit yourself to companies with a durable competitive advantage, you can almost predict with 95% certainty that owning a share will be good for you in the long run.
With climate, scientists know the variables, have a good idea how they interact, and have a pretty good idea that the complex that they are seeing right now will not be good for us in the long run.
IN FACT, THE STUDY FUNDED BY THE KOCH BROTHERS IN ORDER TO SETTLE WHETHER THE WORLD WAS ACTUALLY WARMING CONCLUDED THAT THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY WARMING.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html
Now, your arguments will now shift according to the classic Republican strategy.
First, deny that there is a problem. Second, when that becomes impossible, say that it is unclear what contributes to the problem. Third, when those variables become clear, say that it is impossible to do anything about it. Fourth, when that doesn't work, say that it would be too costly to do address it. Fifth, when public will finally shows you to be a Charlatan, move on to a new town or get tarred and feathered.
You've been doing it on every issue from the Great Depression, social security, World War II, civil rights, medicare, the homeless, and etc.
Don't you ever get tired of being led around by the nose?
I am not denying that the climate is changing. I just don't see how it could be caused simply by ONE THING!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
There's loads of cases like this. There's whole industries that stand to benifit from carbon free energy.
I wouldn't if I was you blindly believe the arguments you or your political group agree with either.
Even the link you sent stated that even there was climate change however it's not definitely caused by man.
Personally I don't have a strong oppionion as I haven't any first hand experience or know anyone I trust that does.
And the earth may not definitely circle the sun next year, but all of our past evidence suggests that it will. Douche.
Once someone resorts to name calling you know they have no more arguments. :-)
btw - The earth doesn't circle the sun, it's an eliptical orbit.
Oh I have a lot more arguments, and a lot of other things to call you.
By the way, KY works better than Jergens. Everybody is tired of you smelling like a candle shop.
:-)
Here is the problem the greedy heartless sucabuses use Christ's name to invoke sympathy to their selfish causes. It is not Christ's fault after all it does say in the bible that their will be wolves in sheep clothing and many false prophets and Christ's. I just think that people have to be extremely cynical and sarcastic in modern times but if they believe in Christ the bible is by far the purists source. I do believe in climate change but I also believe in some scientific conspiracy theories as well so I get the best of both worlds. Something worse then a full lie is a half truth coupled with lies. Call me crazy I don't care.
Every scientists who publishes in a peer reviewed journal has no greater fear than that he has erred somewhere, that he has made a mistake, that others will not be able to replicate his experiment and get the same results. That is something that I've said over and over here. Scientists don't give a crap about what you think. They only care what other scientists think and a mistake in their work will sink their reputation and will kill their career.
It has become vogue for those of faith to ascribe some sort of conspiracy on the part of science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science doesn't care what religion thinks of it and hasn't since Galileo.
It you can be swayed by conspiracy theories, which seems to be a uniquely human trait, than you leave the door open for a lot of quite dubious people and groups to manipulate you.
Reagan be with you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
Obviously he cared what non-scientists would think.
btw - My wife is working on her Phd so I'm fully aware of how the scientific academic system works and it's certainly not as pure as you are leading people to believe.
Tell your wife I'll be a little late tonight.
I know science doesn't give a damn about religion and obviously it doesn't give a damn about human dignity either just look at the latest slew of science experiments that are coming out lately. But lets face the facts whether a scientist creates something is not bad but if it ends up in the wrong hands then it is bad. My conspiracy theory has more to do with something ending up in the wrong hands then the age old argument of religion and science. i think that that is a very reasonable thing to worry about but if you don't think so than that is you.
I would trust a scientist with my child, but I wouldn't let Pat Robertson near my neighbor's dog (and I don't like that dog).
Scientists are usually pretty aware of history and, that whole Nazi experimentation thing, kinda bounces around in their minds.
Every human, and most animal, study usually passes through a review by a panel of Medical Ethicists. A person of faith is usually a member of such a panel.
But, the day will come when it becomes possible to create a Frankenstein and, when that day comes, I just hope the Lord Reagan will guide us in our decision making.
Who the hell is Lord Reagan?
Because Jesus Christ kept wanting lunch breaks to feed the poor, he was outsourced and replaced with the Lord Ronald Reagan who says freedom for all and pass the capital gain's tax cut.
Lord Reagan has been very busy improving the message of our past Lord Jesus. The poor are poor because they don't want to work. The needy are guilty of bad decisions. The meek, well they're just gross. The sick shouldn't be healed, they should call their HMO (if they can afford insurance). Give unto Caesar has become give unto your 501k or rightwing PAC. Most of all, salvation comes in the form of being loyal to your Republican leaders, no matter how stupid, corrupt, or ineffective they have become.
I agree, we should tax the poor and middle class more to gain revenue to buy more carbon credits.
You're really stuck on this carbon thing. You must suffer from coprophilia. Get help with that one, it seems so messy.
lol all you have left is ad hominems
Puff, is puffed with pride. Pride for his own religious dogma called liberalism. You are no different than your uncle, but are just on the opposite side. You are consumed with catch phrases and labels that over simplifies the gravity that our country is in. Neither side will come together to solve the problems that we face until it is too late and then we are forced to act.
You and those who follow your thinking are in a bubble as many on the "Fox News" side are. I would rather stand outside the bubble and question all political dogma to find a true solution before it is too late. Why? Because I do not want my children to inherit the folly that our leaders have wrought.
Al
I go to church every sunday and I read everything I can.....and you are using the anti-intellectual attack that so characterizes your mindset. If you are shown incorrect, if your facts end up really coming from the back of a corn bran box, and you are called out, then it must have been some liberal elite who made you feel so stupid and if only they could be like us "average" Americans.
There is no scientific, or liberal, conspiracy against you. You're just stupid. Again, I'm sorry. There's just no other way to break it to you. Your religion has nothing to do with Christ's teachings and your knowledge has nothing to do with the progress society has made over the past 500 years.
Puff, my religion is Christ's own words. Show me how my "religion" is not consistent with Christ's words. "Let the righteous strike me. . .I shall not refuse it."
you all should read "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists."
Troll.
I'm familiar with the book and with the scientist. His name is Roy Spencer and he has crackpot ideas that clouds will save us from global warming.
Of note, do you realize that Mr. Spencer is also a proponent of intelligent design. That is all you need to know. Here is my favorite dumb thing that he has said: "We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."
If Reagan didn't make man through the process of evolution, then he missed a good bet.
Also, why did the Lord Reagan make all of those fossils and billions of other galaxies with billions of stars each?
Don't waste your time here.
Don't waste your time here.
Don't waste your time here.
Don't waste your time here.
It's time to take down the misinformation. www.occupyFoxNews.com
Don't waste your time here.
Look at who the money goes to and also look at which companies have the most to gain.
The weather isn't man made it has to do with the earth.
Take for example the midevil warm period and the little ice age.
That's all fine and well, but look at the pattern over the past 80 years, the curve is steepening. Trends in equilibrating systems don't tend to do that. That is the reason for most true scientists' concerns.
Do you believe that polar bears can swim?
I really don't give a rat's ass about Polar bears. I do care if we can feed 7 billion people when there is a shortage of water.
without polar bears, there would be more seals and whales, if there were more seals and whales they would eat more fish, if they ate more fish other species would die off, yada yada yada, which would eventually make the humans suffer. Its all a chain....the circle of life.... Without nature and our animals, human kind doesnt have a chance.
Well if you think Global warming is real wouldn't there be more water because according to the cooked numbers the polar ice caps would melt....see what I'm talking about?
No water shortage.
Salt water that is. Dumb you are.
Stop nitpicking you said there would be a water shortage ,and I caught you out on it with common sense.
Salt water can be turned into drinkable water it has been done and will continue to be done with filters and distillation processes.
You're right, I was incorrect. I should have said, "Truly dumb you are."
Do you know how expensive, inefficient, and polluting it is to run a water conversion facility?
I hope you are some campaign director for Herman Cain or something.
Here's where I am: If someone wears the labels Evangelical Christian or Fundamentalist, I am very suspect. If I am in church and the pastor says one word about politics, I'm out the door. As Paul did when he walked out of Antioch, I "shake the dirt from my feet" and will never return to that church. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state. Christ was not political. He came to bring salvation, and that's what should be the church's message.
Read "Conversations With God" the trilogy.
You'll get a feel for the truth of our existence here.
With regards to your Uncle, I don't blame him. Some to most of the people in his generation like their stability, and like getting their personal truths from others. Some people, any age, can't depend on themselves or think themselves as unworthy to profess any kind of universal truth. It's just how they were conditioned.
My grandma is the same way. I don't try anymore. lol
The problem is that I see this dynamic in all generations at my suburban church. My uncle was noteworthy because, in his younger years, he was something of a rebel....growing his hair long, opposing the war, and chasing tail. It was his transition into this thing that believes whatever Fox news is spouting that truly struck me.
Even in his rebel years, you see, my uncle was deeply religious. Only, then, his faith took him on a course that sought inner truth and social justice. Now he is just a grumpy old guy who has Fox on 24/7.
Even though I feel for those people (even the worst of them), it's a little bit useless to get through to them, but worth a shot. I believe this is all a result from making our child-bearers a child-raiser. Our early people still don't know much about life, or how it works, or what their inner truth is. So they depend on what they've been fed to feed to their child. What else can they do?
Oh man, this world SERIOUSLY needs a clean-up.
this is an excerpt from wiki: "In contrast to historical aristocracies, Plato's resembles a meritocracy of sorts. In it, a big government state keeps tracks of the innate character and natural skills of the citizens' children, and then directs them to the education that best suits those traits. In this manner, nothing would impede a child with a gold soul to be born to parents with silver, bronze or iron souls, and conversely, from parents with gold and silver souls, a child may be born with a bronze or an iron soul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_five_regimes
His idea would counter the problem you point out. it's just an interesting thought; not a suggestion.
No, actually, I've learned about that recently and it was a very interesting read.
I've always thought that if we could ever advance to this, that we would eliminate much childhood traumas and developmental gaps. I think our children should grow up with the Elders of a community (in my plan, by that time we wouldn't have major cities or nations, we would all be together in spread-out communities), but of course always have access to their parents. They would establish that intimacy and loving connection with their parents (or, life-givers), but they would learn their wisdom and principles of life from the elders. The parents can come with them and be aware of everything, of course. And, of course, by then there would be no dysfunctional principles or corruption within our lives.
This would not be possible now. And not for a very long time.
I think the idea of a Waldorf school is good, too. Of course, this is all assumed that by then our primitive ways of deception, corruption, and greed is long put away.
I am not religious, but after hearing, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions," and reviewed my history i would not want to delve too deep into social engineering. After reading, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences (Discours sur les sciences et les arts), 1750, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. i was even more certain. there are so many combinations of wrong who are we to know what is right and who is wrong.
They could start by critically reading the Bible....or just the Gospels.
They could drive to a soup kitchen and volunteer.
They could turn off Fox news.
They could actually know the good and the bad of American history.
They could stop the kitch movements that offer wisdom in slogans and soundbites.
They could teach ethics instead of ideology.
They could try and imagine what the world was like before universal suffrage, child labor laws, social security, the voter's rights act, medicare, and etc. and why we should never be influenced into going backwards.
And I bet you anything that, late at night, when they can't sleep, they probably consciously or unconsciously think of a couple of those things you listed.
But they're full of fear and doubt and information from all other sources than themselves.
Benjamin Franklin said it beautifully:
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
The problem is that I see this dynamic in all generations at my suburban church. My uncle was noteworthy because, in his younger years, he was something of a rebel....growing his hair long, opposing the war, and chasing tail. It was his transition into this thing that believes whatever Fox news is spouting that truly struck me.
Even in his rebel years, you see, my uncle was deeply religious. Only, then, his faith took him on a course that sought inner truth and social justice. Now he is just a grumpy old guy who has Fox on 24/7.
My question is... do you plan on occupying a church ?
Where organized Christianity stands in the way of basic social justice....yes.
However, social justice, income inequality, helping the poor, and etc. are not issues that most pastors / priests verbalize and they are careful not to be seen as hostile against these issues. It is a form of benign neglect for these components of Christianity.
Wow . Just as I thought. You people don't give a crap who you hurt in what ever your doing. You wont be just fighting a church , for it's land , but a community. You wont win even if you tried it. I can tell you if you showed up at a church here where I live , and planted your butts on property that you didn't ask for permission to do so. The church , the community would come together and make sure you left. Exodus 20:17
What if your Church supported candidates who let children go homeless and unfed? What if your Church allowed for a Cross burnings? What if your Church had immigrant members, but supported politicians who would tear apart families based on whether they had been born here or not? What if you found out that your Church spends 96% of it's money on itself and only 4% on charity of any form? Be careful what you defend.
Total idiocy. The lunatic environmentalists allege global warming is man made by way of CO2 emissions. Hmmmm total bunk. This is presumably an undisputed fact in the scientific community. So since this is now considered law that CO2 100% causes global warming, it should be reproducible in experimentation. And if it is reproducible, then, you should be able to tell me how many ppm CO2 it takes to raise the atmospheric temperature 1C?
Go to Venus and see what runaway greenhouse effects look like. Idiot.
You never answered my question...how much CO2 does it require to raise atmospheric temperature 1C? (And Venus is 25 million miles closer to the sun, but I guess that doesn't count). Idiot.
Why is Mercury cooler than Venus, even on it's sunward face?
In the past 60 years, the world has warmed up about a degree C. Now, that is an overall average. If you run the numbers by regions you can see some fairly startling shifts. During that time, CO2 levels increased about 80 ppmv. So, in answer to your question, the magic number at this phase of the curve is about 80 ppmv. But the relationship of CO2 to warming is not linear, so the next degree uptick will likely occur prior to another 80 ppmv increment.
My Reagan, it's just faster to paste a reference. You won't understand it anyway.
To avoid a global warming of 2.1°C, it is estimated that a concentration of less than 450 ppm needs to be maintained if other gasses were to return to pre-industrial levels. Currently a global warming of 0.7°C is measured, with another 0.6°C increase expected even without any further increased concentrations because the oceans are still being warmed along with the atmosphere. At the current accelerated growth rate, exponentially extrapolating the Keeling curve, this concentration will be reached in 22 years. Even with constant concentration growth, with the current 2.2 ppm/yr, this concentration will be reached in (450-390 ppm)/(2.2 ppm/yr)=27 years. These timescales are so short with respect to the timescale of the evolution such there is little doubt these concentrations will be reached soon barring any drastic behavior changes.[citation needed] Indeed, the lifetime of for instance power plants can be 40 to 60 years.[32] To avoid these concentrations, an immediate reduction of the concentration growth of 3.5% per year rather than a growth of the concentration growth of 1.7% per year needs to be achieved for the foreseeable future. Reducing the concentration growth can be done by restricting emissions or with carbon sequestration.[citation needed] The concentration growth is dominantly affected by the net human emissions.[citation needed]
The current increase to 386 ppm from 280 ppm causes a radiative forcing of 1.66 W/m^2, and 1.34 W/m^2 from increases in other gases, totaling 3.00 W/m^2.[33] The current concentration of greenhouse gases already have a heating power equaling that of a concentration of (386−280)×3.00/1.66 + 280 = 472 ppm C02-eq (carbon dioxide equivalent). Therefore, the current concentrations are high enough for over a 2 degrees Celsius temperature rise.
To be able to reduce carbon dioxide concentration with Carbon sequestration back to pre-industrial levels, (390−280 ppm)/390ppm/(50%/100) = 70% of all the existing air needs to be scrubbed of any carbon dioxide, where 50% is the percentage of carbon dioxide residing in the atmosphere (and not in the oceans), removing about (390−280 ppm)/(50%/100) = 0.03% of the air, an immense task.
You are assuming I don't believe in greenhouse gases. That would be absurd, otherwise our planet would be an iceball. It is just that CO2 is not the culprit nor do I believe man is the culprit. This scientific psychobable you have posted still doesn't not show how much CO2 it requires to raise atmospheric temperature 1C. There is absolutely nothing in this post that shows definitively a correlation. It is all based on assumptions and uses terms like "estimated" and "expected"....translation: we don't know for sure. Even this article states the relationship of CO2 to warming is not linear. Translation 2: we can pull the wool over the eyes of the general public. We are supposedly in a period of time where the CO2 concentrations are higher than they have ever been and yet the 10 year period of around 1999-2010 showed a leveling or even a reduction of global temperatures. And lets see..hmmm...what happened during that time? The sun was experiencing a solar minimum. Very interesting....when the sun is more active the earth is warmer! WOW...interesting concept. Once again when you show me exactly how much CO2 raises atmospheric temperatures 1C, we can talk. To think that a gas that comprises .03% of the atmosphere will make the planet bake is insanity. Lets talk water vapor which comprises more than 100 times the amount of CO2 and your logic is more believable. The whole CO2 thing is and environmental wacko fabrication that was contrived to destroy capitalism and take us back to driving horse and buggies. The good thing is the whole idea has been exposed as fraudulent with the manipulated data from East Anglia and others.
No, I think that you are a paid operative on this site who can spout some question that you know a scientist would not try to precisely answer. The reason a scientist would not try to answer your CO2/1 degree question because the number will depend upon a number of factors.....most importantly, where you are on this planet.
You seem to be very focused upon these global warming questions. Why aren't you posting on other issues? Do you honestly believe that variations in solar output explain the warming we have experienced?
Have you ever stood in a greenhouse (maybe you've been smoking some of your own) in the spring and noted that it's warmer inside that glass enclosure than it is outside? How thick does the glass have to be to raise the inside temperature one degree?
I just hope that they are paying you very well.
LOL...if CO2 causes temps to elevate it would do so regardless of location. Global warming is based on bad science and in fact is not science at all for a simple fact that you cannot design an experiment to test the hypothesis. Its an idea not a plausible scientific hypothesis. I do believe in global warming.....that is the natural ebbing and flowing of temperatures over time. Man made global warming is a fallacy because: 1) 89% of Temperature recording stations were improperly placed (next to AC exhausts, on roofs etc) 2) The data was tampered with by the scientists themselves (East Anglia) 3) The sun is the source of heat and its changes initiate changes in earths climate (ex. there were little to no sunspots from 1645- 1715 or so causing what was known as the little ice age, solar minimums drop temperatures an average of .2C and solar maximums increase temps an average of .2C) 4) Water vapor is far more efficient at holding heat than CO2 and is 100 times more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. 5) CO2 is one of the least efficient of the greenhouse gases with NO2 being nearly 300 times more efficient 6) The Flora of Earth use CO2 ...plant more trees for those of you who wring your hands about the evil CO2 emissions 7) It cannot be shown that a particular concentration of CO2 will elevate atmospheric temps (bad science) And no...I am not being paid...if only I were! And there are many more reasons Man Made Global warming is a fallacy.
You are way too interested in this topic. You are using Spencer's little quack ideas about cloud protection. Do you believe in intelligent design? He does. He also thinks that God made the environment self correcting in all situations. Would you like to debate intelligent design for a while, or will the Koch's not pay you for that one?
Just like exposing fraudulent ideas that will bankrupt this economy. And who are Koch's? You have wandered into the giggle weeds my friend....
Life's simply too short do deal with conspiracy theorists......you've invested so much in being a contrarian that you hold onto the last shred of questionable data that may prove you not a buffoon.
You can never disprove a null hypothesis and that is the key to a true snake oil salesman. Despite supreme consistency and consensus among climatologists on this topic, you know better....someone is trying to suppress the truth....you will be proven correct some day.
You simply have to face, again, the fact that there is nobody trying to deceive you.....you're just stupid.
Intelligent response....LOL. And no ...there is no "supreme consistency among climatologist:" This is a totally false statement as there are thousands of scientist who stand against this fallacy. You might watch throwing around the "stupid" remark when you make statements like that.
1) Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician 2) Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, 3) Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University 4) William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: 5) William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology 6) Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa 7) Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada 8) Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University: 9) Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia 10) Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
There you go....this is just the tip of the iceberg...there are literally thousands opposing the man made global warming hoax...Hope your crow tastes good...but I'm sure you will say these are not "respected" scientists for the one reason...they don't believe the global warming bunk. Also Roy Spencer was a former climatologist at NASA....
Take a break from selling snake oil and name TEN respected scientist who contend that global warming is a hoax and that man has nothing to do with it. TEN.
This is an Emergency Notice to all members of occupy James Damiano the very person who's been for over twelve years fighting the law firm that represents Goldman Sachs has been banned from this forum. Mr. Damiano is probably one of the most knowledgeable members and has contributed a wealth of information pertaining to the issues at hand in the Occupy forum
For more information e-mail thestealing@gmail.com or see http://wikileaksyola.yolasite.com/
--
Isn't that sad? It makes me think of a clip from Michael Moore's movie; Capitalism: A Love Story. http://youtu.be/xm5V940Qiug
People can justify greed in an ole way. I,personally, am sick of all the people defending Corporate Greed and calling it capitalism. This is the toxic Crony Capitalism. I wonder what the conservatives and those who think that Corporate America can do no wrong think about BOA and JP Morgan dumping over $150 Trillion of toxic derivatives (fake assets) and sticking it to the U.S. tax payer in the near future.
The bible has been the most abused and misinterpreted book in all of history. But let us not forget that it does say in bible (2 Timothy 4:3) "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." And there we have it. Itching ears do hear what they want to hear.
BTW, I mentioned corporatism and greed because alot of conservatives and Republicans who religiously watch Fox news support a Laissez-Faire Government that doesn't interfere in business operations. I say that this is a breeding ground for out of control greed. Corporations need to be held accountable for unethical business practices. No one (and no organization) should get a free pass in this country.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it. --Frederic Bastiat
agreed, this guy must have been from the french revolution.
There is a line from a movie (based on a John Grisham novel) that I really like-"The Rainmaker." The protagonist, a young ambitious lawyer, wins a landmark case against a health care company. Instead of going into law practice, he walks away and instead takes a position teaching law in a University. The reason was he wasn't happy with some of the things he did to win that case that was highly unethical. Here is a line he says that really speaks to me." Every lawyer, at least once in every case, feels himself crossing a line that he doesn't really mean to cross... it just happens... And if you cross it enough times it disappears forever. And then you're nothin but another lawyer joke. Just another shark in the dirty water." It exactly like he says that line disappears in time and people are completely blind to it. They justify their behavior and don't see how unethical it is in the first place.
Occupy your church and demand that you can read the Sermon on the Mount... if allowed stress the word "hypocrite", the third most used word in that section after "a" and "the"..
If not allowed go to the steps of your church and read out the Sermon on the Mount to the congregation entering. Repeat this as long as necessary.
I'm liberal as hell, but It is scientific fact that global warming is cyclical. Just saying. I'm not saying we as a species didn't speed things up a bit, but don't attack your uncle on this one point. I do, however, think we are dumbasses for not preparing for the whole polar ice cap melting thing though. It's inevitable, and I think this is the point you should have made. Also, i really don't see what this has to do with Christianity at all.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
"During the past billion years, the Earth's climate has fluctuated between warm periods—sometimes even completely ice-free—and cold periods, when glaciers scour the continents. In this article, climate scientist Kirk Maasch offers perspective on these historic changes, including the likely causes of the last great ice age—which contrary to common knowledge, we are still in the midst of." via: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html
And I'll leave this here as well, via the American Institute for Physics, which if points out the cyclical factors, and then supports the global warming argument: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
@puff6962 I didn't say you were wrong about climate change and that your relative was right, I was simply trying to point out that I felt you were arguing the point incorrectly. That really didn't require bashing the "faith" I really don't have. ;)
There has never been a time when the world heated up more quickly than in the past 40 years.
Yes, nature has cycles that invert over thousands or years, but there has again never been a time in earth's history when change occurred so quickly.
It is real and it is man derived.
I'm not saying we didn't have an impact, I made that point clear. I'm just saying you should not attack your uncle for making this very scientific point, and I still am still curious what this has to do with Christianity. Being raised evangelical I understand that most would deny it is even happening, after all the earth is only 6000-7000 years old right (according to my father). Your uncle sounds more educated than most of his faith when it comes to natural science. I also believe your logic is fallacious. I feel your point should have been "Why are we denying global warming rather than preparing for it?" Don't tell him he's wrong, ask him why isn't doing to prepare for the climate change. Not doing something about it is like not buying a coat for winter.
You probably believe that Adam was riding around on his pet triceratops when Eve game him the apple.
Read "Kingdom Coming" to understand your faith, how it has been poisoned, and where your church leaders wish to take you. It is Christian fascism. Period.
If you won't read "Kingdom Coming," at least read "Tempting Faith," by an evangelical, David Kuo, to at least get some grasp of how dumb the Republican leaders truly think evangelicals are.
Actually, I am VERY openly atheist. I just pointed out that I was raised evangelical.
So was I, but I realize that my uncle's point was based on flawed science largely funded by oil interests. I know that the world is older than 6k years (archaeological evidence from societies as old as 14k years are known....the universe is about 13.5 b years old). Finally, you may not have had this conversation, but you cannot convince someone of a solution if they do not admit to the problem.
Christianity started out as a pacifist resistance movement to violently authoritarian states, which based their rule on force & fear. It really had nothing to do with repressive ideas of personal morality.
The tyrannical states that early Christianity was a thorn in the side of then got smart, accepted it, embraced it, & gradually & skillfully rewrote it to wrap around their own interests, this being the ability to control large numbers of people by some means other than just sheer force - which had become inconvenient, considering the greater & greater numbers of people the new political/religious states in Europe (& beyond, w colonialism) wanted to control.
The Kings, Aristocrats, & Popes couldn't send an army to every house & field, so they sent a philosophy which had been rewritten into a fearful one, which carried a built-in, psychological fear that contained a kind of Ultimate Chill Factor : the (neatly unproveable to those alive here) threat of an eternal hell for those who would not conform. And this revision has been an outstanding success, turning Christian Europe into the very tyrannical, conquerer state it had set out to change. It's earliest intent - which was simply a revolution of kindness over cruelty - had been thoroughly rewritten into something else by organized churches...they became the 'Roman Empire' they had sought to change.
The Old Testament would seem to contradict your train of logic. But, you are right. Christianity has evolved, no pun intended, to conquer or to incorporate whatever opposed it.
In fact, one could argue, that Christianity adopted the Gospel of Reagan to accommodate the new found wealth of many of its followers while concomitantly appealing to the resentments of other followers who had not found wealth.
Government, that Satanic force, was of course to blame.
Dude, i have often thought that. it always irks me when those that are true believers of anything are always the most cruelest.
I think the Old Testament was itself written by the equivalent of official newspaper reporters who had adopted the the draconian beliefs of their times. Early, early Christianity worked outside the box of any official beliefs & reportage, & in cells as well.
Now, corporations have discovered Christianity.
Related link: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org
And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left
But there can still be legitimate arguments about what global warming means and what we should do about it. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html?pagewanted=all
Your uncle might like this by conservatives on how government has a proper role helping with security, family, and prosperity (though it leaves out the value of health and community to happiness): http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/
The fact is, our religion is never seperate from our politics. But we can try to have more productive civil discussions about that. See: "Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate" http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html
And this essay has some ideas about how to talk with your uncle in terms of proposals he might appreciate or at least tolerate: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_market.html
Amazing! I've been saying this for years.
The evangelicals have been "lemmingized" to believe impossible lies.
The earth is 6000 years old.
Saddam had wmds.
Abortion is murder.
We must to tap your phone.
Send me money & I will pray for you.
We are fair and balanced.
Hitler had his lemmings
Rush has his lemmings - he calls them dittoheads
Ronnie had his lemmings
And of course, George had his yellowcake
check out this brilliant ex-evangilist who tells you - FROM THE INSIDEl http://www.frankschaeffer.com/
FROM THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS: Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the "cause", in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing.
These old brains are incapable of learning anything new. They are 2 years old and brats. Its really a War of the Generations and always has been.
Look, correlation does not = causation. The whole solar system has been heating up.
Luckily, we have all that CO2 that will protect us from all that heat.....really? Have you ever studied entropy...the second law of thermodynamics?
Don't you realize that the information you are spouting is contrary to every respected scientist going back 400 years? Did you get your facts from the back of a Cheerios box or from your hairdresser?
According to your logic, the earth should be the temperature of deep space....do you know what that is?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm
http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Study+Acknowledges+Solar+Cycle+Not+Man+Responsible+for+Past+Warming/article15310.htm
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
This is pseudoscience. Have you ever heard the idea of "peer reviewed" research? You have to understand that scientists really don't give a crap about what the public thinks. They do care a great deal, however, about what other scientists think about them. That means that they are meticulous, honest, and produce research that others can replicate and get the same result. That is the nature of being an expert. This rubbish you are citing is put next to research on Adam and the Chamber of Commerce's opinion on climate change?
You remind me of Steve Martin in the movie, "The Jerk." Martin's black father shows him shit and shinola to demonstrate the difference. You are showing me shit and you don't understand shinola.
Yea, you believe what you want.
The truth?
Sure if thats what you want to call it.
We can have our own opinions, but we can't have our own facts.
just a note, i talked with a geologist about this global warming issue and what she had to say was that the earth does normally go through cycles. what has got all the scientists anxious is the fact that normally we would be going into another cold (ice age) cycle but the opposite is happening, the earth is getting warmer. she did attribute this warming to all of the people on the planet, gases, deforestation, etc.
Six thousand years ago, north america was much warmer than it is today. There may be cycles, but the transitions have taken thousands of years. What we are seeing today, rapidly increasing CO2 and an average change in world temps of just over one degree is astonishing over the course of 50 years.
Summers have gotten hotter each year over the past twenty years and aberrant patterns have become the norm.
The point is that, if you speak about this to evangelical Christians, they are likely to spout the propaganda of Fox news and nothing based upon peer reviewed science.
So, WHEN DID CHRISTIANITY GET ASSOCIATED WITH A CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUT.....OR OPPOSITION TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
How did we get here?
that is a good question. the best answer i can give is that it did not happen overnight but slowly over the past 2000 or so years gods original message has been distorted to suite agendas. people justify all kinds of things with the bible, even murder. i do believe that if one were truly following christ, they would end up on the opposite side of those arguments then the christian right finds itself on time and time again.
Yoda: YA Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice. Luke: Vader... Is the dark side stronger? Yoda: No, no, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive. Luke: But how am I to know the good side from the bad? Yoda: You will know... when you are calm, at peace, passive.
thanks for that one, enjoyed it very much i did.
If one truly believed in Christ, one would not enter most modern churches.
lest one were to knock on their door asking for a place to rest, as my brothers and sisters did back in the 70's and early 80's. it is good that these churches are called to support true missionary work.
Scientist are all under the control of demons.Simple. If all them there teabaggers ever figger out theys all bin hornswaggled I'd hate to be a Koch bro. They got most of the guns.
Yes, scientists hold Satanic rituals before each experiment. They chant while they carefully collect data. They drink the blood of a slaughtered chicken prior to analyzing their results. They stand in a pentagram before they make conclusions. Finally, they prey to Ronald Reagan to give them the strength to publish their results to an America who won't believe the information anyway.
As Shawn Hannity would say, you're a great American. Praise Ronald!
Sean Hannity is St. Peter....as in, a dick. The guy couldn't even graduate college and yet you pray to him each night. Reagan bless you!
That was meant to be satirical.
Contemptuous of wealth, [the Essenes] are communists to perfection . . . as with brothers, their entire property belongs to them all. . . . They possess no one city but everywhere have large colonies. When adherents arrive from elsewhere, all local resources are put at their disposal as if they were their own, and men they have never seen before entertain them like old friends. . . . Among themselves nothing is bought or sold. — Josephus, The Jewish War, c.75 AD
Yes. Jesus was a pro-life socialist.
The complete marriage of politics and religion for the people and the marriage of politics and money for the corporations. The two walls which should never be breached.
I agree. It has felt to me, in my suburban surroundings, that being Christian means being Republican.....and that has almost the corrosive effect as does all of the corporate greed and corporate influence in our elections. It's evil.
They aren't Christians but "Saint" Paulians. Paul is irrational ("confess with your mouth that Jesus has risen from the grave and you'll be saved"), jesus (if he existed) was the Logos (John 1:1) or logic of god: that which is not logical is not of god. Jesus also told his disciples to go forth without money and said, "U can't serve god & money, U'll either love the one and hate the other . . . " but the Pharisees, who loved money heard all this and scoffed." -- Luke 16.
http://666ismoney.com/MoneyQuotes.html
First Power, Then Change.
I'm not sure where Donald Trump or Herman Cain would fit into this.....there aren't too many comedic characters in the Bible.
I wrote this early in my experience on this site and, after much reflection, I would probably have incorporated Libertarians into this metaphor. I have seen no other group of people who have such certainty in screwball beliefs. It is a religion.....for good people to advocate something evil, it requires religion.
But it is true what your uncle said. It is just the normal events and actually earth is cooling off veeeerrryyyyy slowly at the moment and therefore the co2 levels are rising at the moment, naturally as they have always done. It is the normal cycle. If you want to know what the government does then look at fracking in USA and Europe and combine that with flaming off of gas in Niger Delta and you know they diliberately are trying to pollute the countryside in all countries so citizens go to the city and stay there. It is David the Rothschild who is the one claiming there is global warming. And he and his are the ones causing all the things he talks about that are supposed to be signs of global warming. Buy a good wintercoat, we are cooling! The other thing christianity, well they want a one religion policy and a one currency and a one...well everything. http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/128/215-med-revolutions-tyrants-and-wars/ link to their religion. The pope is one of em and he is thus a devilworshipper. He has called for a one world bank under the vatican. OPEN YOUR MIND! search for the truth on the internet. Listen to old and wise people.
Stay away from sharp objects.
[Removed]
not one mention of Zionism? Christian Zionism is the new Christianity and it is sweeping the nation.
Yes, the Republicans have sworn allegiance to our 51st state, Isreal, because it gives the evangelicals a chubby. We are currently being led by our noses by Benny Netanyahu because nobody wants to be seen as unfriendly to Isreal. It is rather criminal.
I think you are not aware of the humanitarian criticism of global warming theory. It is that the idea of global warming was originally developed by super wealthy people to prevent the development of third world countries as well as to turn back progress in places like the US.
Remember that industrialism was a major aspect of the original American revolution. That is, you need to be able to make your own stuff if you want to be independent.
Global Warming is absolutely man made, Scientific study of Global Warming has proved this to a reasonable degree. The anti-global warming studies are all done by Energy back company's or their equivalent.....This information is readily available to anyone who is so inclined to look at it.......most comments to the contrary will be by Ideological driven people that don't look for the truth.
What about "climate gate" that happened some time ago? I don't remember exactly what it was about, but it had something to do with hacked email messages showing the falsification of data.
It was a supposed Email from one scientist to another trying to convince him his position was wrong. Then it was blown out of proportion by the Big Oil company's as science disagrees, cover up.
Dude. You really should go back on the Lithium.
Look around you sometime and take not that some people here are able to have discussions without being insulting or demeaning. People will always have disagreements, how you work through them is the key to progress.
You're a conspiracy theorist who is used to blabbing this stuff so you can sound smart to your scientifically illiterate friends.
I used to be a green, I have numerous green friends and relatives. Although I don't agree with them any more, I would appreciate you not referring to them as illiterate.
Sure you did.
I swear it, and I'm not the only one. In fact, I think it was a founder of Greenpeace who quit the movement to become an advocate for nuclear energy.
You probably drive a Hummer so that you can give yourself hummers while driving your Hummer.
Catholic Bishops Prepare Religious Liberty Fight (from Huff Post)
The mood among many U.S. Roman Catholic bishops was captured in a recent speech by Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia. His talk, called "Catholics in the Next America," painted a bleak picture of a nation increasingly intolerant of Christianity.
"The America emerging in the next several decades is likely to be much less friendly to Christian faith than anything in our country's past," Chaput told students last week at Assumption College, an Augustinian school in Worcester, Mass. "It's not a question of when or if it might happen. It's happening today."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops meets Monday in Baltimore for its national meeting feeling under siege: from a broader culture moving toward accepting gay marriage; a White House they often condemn as hostile to Catholic teaching; and state legislatures that church leaders say are chipping away at religious liberty.
Many Catholic academics, activists and parishioners say the bishops are overreacting. John Gehring of Faith in Public Life, an advocacy network for more liberal religious voters, has argued that in a pluralistic society, government officials can choose policies that differ from church teaching without prejudice being a factor.
"Some perspective is needed here," Gehring, a Catholic, wrote on his organization's blog.
Still, the bishops see themselves as more and more on the losing side of these disagreements, and they are taking steps they hope will protect the church.
In September, the conference formed a new committee on religious liberty that will meet for the first time this week in Baltimore. Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the conference, will oversee that work, which will include hiring a lobbyist. Picarello had worked for seven years at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm based in Washington, and also served on an advisory committee for President Barack Obama's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
Among the bishops' top concerns are religious exemptions in states that legalize same-sex marriage. In Illinois, government officials stopped working with Catholic Charities on adoptions and foster-care placements after 40 years because the agency refused to recognize a new civil union law. Illinois bishops are suing the state. In New York, the bishops, along with Orthodox Jewish leaders and others, have complained that the religious exception in this year's law allowing gay marriage is too weak to be effective.
On health care, the bishops have been pressing the Health and Human Services Department during its public comment period for a broader religious exception to the provision in Obama's health care overhaul that mandates private insurers pay for contraception. Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, which broke with the bishops to support the administration's health care plan, said a proposed exemption is so narrowly written it would only apply to "the parish housekeeper."
PART 2
The conference is also battling the agency on another front: The Health and Human Services Department recently decided not to renew a contract held since 2006 by the bishops' refugee services office to help victims of human trafficking. The American Civil Liberties Union is currently suing to stop the agency from making grants to groups who "impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services" for human trafficking victims. The women are often raped and forced into prostitution by their captors.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the bishops, has called the decision discriminatory and a case of "ABC," meaning anyone but Catholics. Agency officials vehemently deny any bias and say the sole criteria for evaluating potential grantees was which group could best serve the victims. Administration officials note that the vast network of Catholic social service nonprofits, including the bishops' conference, receives hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding in amounts that have increased in the last couple of years.
Last week, Obama met with New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the bishops' conference, an administration official said. The independent National Catholic Reporter said the two men discussed issues that have created tension between the administration and the Catholic hierarchy.
The closer focus on religious liberty comes as bishops are becoming more outspoken on preserving the religious identity of Catholic colleges and other institutions, and publicly calling out Catholic politicians and voters who don't follow church teaching on abortion.
Scott Appleby, a prominent religious historian at the University of Notre Dame, says many church leaders have recently adopted "a more pugnacious style, much more of a kind of culture-wars attitude." At the same time, the bishops' have been stung by their loss of public influence from the sex abuse crisis and the years of bruising revelations that many dioceses moved guilty clergy among parishes without alerting parents or police.
"The church no longer receives deference or the hands-off attitude that it once had for many years. That's gone," Appleby said.
Critics of the bishops view the closer focus on religious liberty as another sign that church leaders are turning inward and away from promoting the church's teaching on social justice.
Steven Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats, pointed to the agenda released ahead of this week's meeting, which included no public discussion of poverty despite the state of the economy. In the 1980s, the bishops issued an influential pastoral letter on Catholic principles and the economy, which church leaders reaffirmed in statements and education programs over the next decade.
"I think this certainly will represent to a vast majority of Catholics a tone-deafness on the part of many, many bishops," Krueger said.
Fox news? Really? That is your new reality? You are a narrow minded one.
I'm sorry, so many trolls attached to this page that I can't tell what you are responding to.
The power atheists and liberals give Fox News is astonishing.
I would like to point out that I myself am an atheist and I feel that people on the news network are morons. As well as all of OWS people.
No. The power the misinformed abdicate to Fox news is.
How many among the left do you think Fox has owned over the years? 100, 200 million world wide? Maybe more?
'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'
Fox news is the propaganda arm of the Republcan party. By linking corporate money to the power to control a narrative, they have given perhaps the most dangerous ideologues I have seen since before the Civil War an iron grip on half of our population.
What is the draw of Fox news....Well that one is easy. It is not news. It is a narrative....and like all effective lies, is it suffused with the truth. Unfortunately, Fox tends to appeal to those who cannot tell the difference.
Somehow am not as concerned with Fox News viewers as much as some of the far left kooks I have seen on the videos. One OWS calls for the destruction of America and you are worried about Fox News? I am Not saying that is what OWS stands for, but you are naive to think only one side harbors the kooks.
RexDiamond....Would you elaborate on left wing kooks and the audience they reach.....
OWS has an amorphous group of nonconformists....and that is inherently terrible if your goal requires focused, articulated, and disciplined answers. Nonconformists tend to describe themselves as "easygoing" but, in movements, they all become chiefs.
OWS has no hope of destroying capitalism. But, they can have a huge role in reversing the anti-union efforts currently ongoing as well as calling for the removal of big money from our political process.
Those are not radical, antidemocratic, issues. In fact, they're moderate issues.
So, the question is why to Rightwing medial have had a field day painting these naive future martyrs as forces of the antichrist?
I hear what you are saying. Both my parents were teachers. One union, one not. I think unions have a purpose. However, I also think many of the public sector unions are overstepping their bounds and actually causing some real financial issue. I see both sides of the argument.
Unions are not necessarily overstepping, they just enjoy the advantages that ALL labor once enjoyed.
In the 1960's, even if you were not in a union, you benefited because your company was afraid that, if they didn't treat you well, then you and your coworkers might unionize. The result was The Great Compression. Read Krugman on this.
Unions are singled out today because the difference between their treatment and those of nonunionized workers has grown so stark.
If they go away, that difference will disappear because corporations will have free reign.
How come when one person disagrees with another, especially about things even scientists disagree about, the other is a religious zealot?
Also, I think demonizing Republicans, or any specific group of people, is against the Forum rules.
frontieteg...Demonizing is sometimes the work of the group...........they by their actions are demonizing them selves..........Pointing this out is not demonizing them ................Scientist don't often have large disagreements, that's because their papers have to go through a peer review before they are published..........................you will always find a odd ball who disagrees but they are in every organization.
That's like saying that a herbalist who says that the best way to cure a the plague is with crushed parsley and horsepoop should be given the same scientific credence as 999 scientists who have studied for 50 years, recorded literally billions of data, and have only gradually built their conclusions while looking over each others' shoulders.
Horseshit.
Will you be starting your own religion? You seem like you've formed a belief, instead of a scientific theory.
Read "Rabbi Jesus," by Bruce Chilton and you will understand why Christ was a the prophet of the underdog. That is what I believe now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
Sounds like your uncle know what he is talking about! Would love to meet him!
Ya, you guys can go attend an execution together.
LOL....typical liberal response...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
Remember when Reagan sold weapons to Iran, secretly, during an arms embargo, just to aid some anti-government conservatives in South America? Google: 'Iran-Contra'. Good history lesson.
Ya, I was 24 then.
I'd like to make a few points on religion in general.
If we just look at all the major western religions we can see that they all see "love thy neighbor as thyself" as the golden rule. But how do they interpret such a rule or end up implementing it?
And no doubt we have all heard the argument that, "Well it's a beautiful religion, it's just so and so who are the problem (radical sects, isolated individuals/sub groups, etc.)" But the most important point to remember is that if not for people there would be no religion.
The idea that a religion stands somewhere outside the realm of human interaction, perhaps untainted by us, may be a pleasant thought but how can we ever come to measure such a thing? So, without such evidence, I must propose then that religions are really not beautiful if they claim their chief principle is "love they neighbor as thyself," and fail to implement it.
So what is such a rule, in the context of religion, good for? Pride? Only those within a particular religion bonding through it?
And couldn't it all be so much different, if religions were allowed to grow and to expand as we see the world, regardless of religion's say, does? And indeed some religions do this, or really usually subgroups of a religion.
But the main point I wish to make is that if a religion stands in a persons way of uniting with others then that religion, that list of ideals and practices which a person keeps within them and not something hovering in the ether, is outdated and out of touch with the world we live in.
It is out of touch because the most important thing is that golden rule, "love thy neighbor as thyself." And if religions pay heed to that rule and truly seek to explore what it actually means, and actively seek to implement it, then religions can come to serve a purpose.
But until that veil is removed, which covers that religions have failed to create this atmosphere of communal/societal love amongst us all, which they claim is their goal, then religions will not aid society in bonding but continue to be its thorny side.
For example: If one already thinks that they are loving others as them self, under the guise of said religion, then if they are not, then their religion is causing them and others great harm by promoting a false picture within that person and others, "Ah, so that's how you love others as yourself. They act like (fill in the blank.)" Or just as easily one could be impressed with, "See how that person acts!" The latter example is just as harmful as the first because both perceptions, created by the religious person who says that they love others as them self, causes a false perception of "love thy neighbor as thyself" to be perpetuated.
And this bonding/uniting, through that golden rule, is the most important thing that any of us can invest our time, our thoughts, our energy, and our full support towards.
And because this is the most important thing which faces us, all of us, then we can not currently look to religions to guide us because they are unable to implement it.
The time of flowery language devoid of quantifiable action, that which shows measurable results, has ended. We need to, all of us, investigate this golden rule and seek its implementation here and now before it is too late. And we should all remember that this rule, if it is to be effective, and not hypocritical, must include everyone.
There is a difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is a human construct designed to control the masses. Spirituality is the connection between all living things (and the living universe of which we are a part).
I think of it a little differently. Religion is is what organizations do. Religions sell themselves to governments as a means of controlling the populations. Spiritually is where you go off alone and pray for guidance and look within for your answers. Religion is when you look without to others to be told what to believe. Spirituality is when you believe the divine has a home in your own heart and you need not look to others to know your heart and God's will.
I am not very religious, but maybe there is truth in the verse. "love thy neighbor as thyself" illustrates that those who don't love their neighbor don't...
You know, religion just gets in the way of Christianity. Granted, when you're Christian you'll likely want to pay tithes, go to church, ect... but it's because of a personal relationship with Jesus, NOT religion. If one day you get born again, you'll know it.
I am a Christian but I do not wish to go to church. Tithes were not originally in the Bible, you can thank King James for those. I see people who think they know what God wants because of a quote from the Bible and yet they never bothered to ask Him. If God wants you to give away some money, He'll let you know. If God wants you to oppose Gay Marriage, He will let you know. So far, I have not been called to do any of those things. I sometimes feel called to talk with someone. I sometimes feel called to give something to a poor person who asks for it. I have never been called to oppose Abortion or bomb a clinic.
I think that I've seen a few too many "born again" experiences to believe that one must pass through some quasi-delusional state in order to know Christ. I would suggest that you judge someone's true faith by whether he knows and follows the teachings of Christ. In this regard, I would find very few Christian leaders who are guiding their flocks to salvation. Instead, they seem to be fomenting a Church / state relationship that is unchristian at it's heart and fascists in it's possibilities.
That personal relationship you're talking about....it seems to be with the Republican party and you must be born again into the image of Ronald Reagan.
It's a mathematically proven to be true by John Nash. Check out "Game Theory", at the time it went against all convential wisdom.
Actually it's not a theory, it might not one day be proved wrong. Only something proved by maths is really correct.
Basically Christ says we should follow this and the first commandment and not worry about anything else, all the laws created by the elite of the day aren't neccessary and at worse are used to control and enslave us.
Not bad for a Carpenter 2000 years ago.
btw - It's the foundation stone of almost every religion. It's known as the Golden Principle.
Adversus..............Actually Jesus said to OBEY the laws . He was very specific about that...........MATTHEW 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."................................................................MATTHEW 8:21 A man sought to follow Jesus, but he wanted to bury his recently deceased father before he went. Jesus replied, "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." Jesus ignored the man’s grief..........................................................................................MARK 4:10 In Jesus’ parable of the sower, he told his disciples that he spoke to others in parables so they’d remain confused..."otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."..............................................................................MARK 7:10 Jesus taught that any child who cursed his parents should be killed according to Old Testament law.............................................................LUKE 12:47 Jesus warned that a servant of God who does not heed his master will be "beaten with many blows.".......................................................................................MATTHEW 11:21-24 The cities of Korazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were not impressed with Jesus’ great works, so Jesus said "Woe to you" and cursed them to a fate more unbearable than that of Sodom..........................................................MATTHEW 10:35-36 Following Jesus meant the possibility of turning a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, etc. "…a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.".......................................................
I'm not saying he wanted to abolish the law but rather the law can be summed up in the first two of the 10 commandments.
The 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day:
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).
A reflective reading of Christ's teaching reveals that the first four commandments given to the children of Israel are contained in the statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." It continues that the last six commandments are enclosed in the statement: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
I'm not saying he wanted to abolish the law but to simplify them as they had been corrupted by the religious elites of the day.
This is why they feared him, he was removing their power as the gatekeeper and ultimately why they killed him.
I'm surprised a man like yourself with such a strong religious knowlege omitted that passage.
Adversus.....You say ..........."I'm not saying he wanted to abolish the law but to simplify them as they had been corrupted by the religious elites of the day"............. But Jesus says .............Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"................Jesus is very clear in not changing the law, by even one pen stroke............................In your original posts you said..........................................."Basically Christ says we should follow this and the first commandment and not worry about anything else, all the laws created by the elite of the day aren't neccessary and at worse are used to control and enslave us"....................Adversus ......this statement cannot be true according to Jesus....
The fact that there's so much in the bible about whether Jesus is there to change the law tells you something. The people did think what he preached did go against it and therefore they where asking for clarity.
As you rightly asked "How can these two things not be contradictory?"
It's very simple, the religious elite had created loads more laws that they said where interpreting the law of moses and forced people to obey them. (sounds quite like our Supreme Court argument actually :-).
This is what he was abolishing, not the law given by god to Moses but the false laws created by man.
To help man understand this further he tried to simplify even the law given to Moses to distil it down to the first two which essentially covers everything.
Why do this?
To take away the power from the religious elite to control man and therefore they killed him.
Don't allow those in power to impose laws even if you agree with them unless they do it through the electoral system as that's a small step towards tyranny.
Adversus.....How'd you come up with that?..................... Matthew is very clear Jesus is not changing any laws. .Matthew 5:17-20 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven".
I didn't say he was changing the laws of the prophets but the laws and practices that religious leaders of the times had then derived from them. Read this answer:
http://www.enotes.com/history/q-and-a/why-were-religious-leaders-angered-by-jesus-288614
He was trying to free Jews from the organized religion of the time as they had subverted the law for their own end to attain and hold power over others.
There's a big difference between organized religion and religion.
It's actually the whole point of the New Testament, it's the rewriting the Old Testament i.e. Torah. You can understand why the powers that be might not like that.
I'm not a 100% sure but I think they (the Sadducees and Pharisees etc) had created something like an extra 500 or so Jewish laws by about that time. They where also as well as being religious bodies they where also the political forces at play at the time.
On the issue of the Fouding Fathers and Religion, remember Thomas Jefferson wrote the Jefferson Bible, a book that tried to remove all the supernatural out of the New Testament trying to distinguish between the baby and the bath water.
Personally I find it amazing a peasant uneducated man living in Judea 2000 years ago could be so insightful although maybe it's an example of collective wisdom and due to the darwinism nature of the acceptance of ideas that a philosphy/religion could grow to dominate the world, and how in many instances it's then subverted by those in power.
As you can probably tell I don't like authority :-), it only ever benifits the 1%. Same then, same now. Only by embracing democracy even when it gives you a society or at least laws you don't neccesarily agree with can you take that power from them.
Adversus...Your link said...". Jewish leaders felt that Jesus' teachings were sinful because he disregarded traditional Jewish religious laws"..........This a false statement according to Jesus himself." Matthew 5:17-20".........................................................................................................Specifically what laws was he changing?.................And why did Jesus not mention the changing of any laws?.........But just the opposite in Matthew 5: 17-20....................................The Pharisees where practicing the Laws of the Old Testament, I know of no other laws they would be following................Jesus said he was not changing the laws of the old testament, but had come to fulfill the Prophets teaching's.................No where is it mention that the New Testament was anything but the story of Jesus, not a new Law......................................As far as Thomas Jefferson is concerned, he was a deist and their version of god is not a personal god.
You keep using the same references and try to make the same point which I'm already explained.
The reason you know of no other laws is because you aren't educated on the subject. Come back to me when you have been.
Adversus...I think its because YOU don't know any new laws, you just made it up so you would have an answer to Matthew 5:17-20
Check out Mark 7:1 to 7:13
Basically in that passage he chastises the Pharisees for keeping the traditions of their elders. This particular tradition regarded cleaning their hands before eating.
A law that probably arose to cut down the spread of desease.
In 7:13 Jesus said:
"You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many such things.”
That's one specific law, as Jesus said there where many. How many I'm not 100% certain though.
Traditions are not the laws of the Old Testament.
I said as you stated above in your post
"Your link said...". Jewish leaders felt that Jesus' teachings were sinful because he disregarded traditional Jewish religious laws"..........
I never said he wanted to abolish the law of the Old Testament but rather rewrite it, explain it and simplify it plus he wanted to eliminate the laws given by men via the traditional Jewish laws.
He wanted to explain why people committed the crimes in the first place i.e. their human nature lead them to it, greed, anger, lust etc.
Ultimately it's not for a Church leader to impose their interpretation and laws on people but for the people to control themselves and take responsibility by recognizing when they are thinking sinfully which is something a church can never police and account for by creating new laws but every individual should police themselves.
But infact a lot of historians believe he was an ultra Jew and Christianity the religion corrupted his message for their own ends i.e. The Early Church Fathers and then later the Roman Emperor Constintine.
Anyway I don't really know if that is or isn't true, it was along time ago and to argue on those kind of details IMO misses the point which is the central theme of his message i.e. selfless love.
Take what you want from it, if you want to argue the details feel free.
Just not wih me ;-)
I would think about it, but born again vote republican and balancing what the bible says and what republicans do causes too much cognitive dissidence. I was never good at double think.
Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire. Confucius
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/c/confucius.html#ixzz1cPe8hFj4
Another very smart guy.
Dude, the Lithium. You have to take it daily.
As a system of ethics, love thy neighbor has only worked when your neighbor has helped you as well.
The problem is that there has been a systematic attack upon empathy for the past 30 years. That attack has been led by the hard Right and, now, even by the "Religious" Right.
With me it boils down to respect. If I don't respect your tactics, I have no love for you.
What if you very gently, politely, and painlessly screw over your neighbor? Polite tactics can be used to do very evil things.
Again, that may be a tactic for some but most of my friends see right through that fake-ass-shit. So it is in my interests to keep it real. Besides, when I find someone using that tactic in their dealings with me, I terminate my dealings with him. And because i'm so adamantly opposed to that behavior, I make it a point to refrain from it. I'm far from middle class, and I'll tell you one thing it's more rational down here then it is up there. I learned that living in a dorm.
What was this, a term paper assignment?
This is my favorite religious leader.......
http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/02/26/robert-tilton-is-pastor-gas/
He reminds me a great deal of Rick Perry. See if you agree.
Your Bible is MSNBC, and the Gospel according to Al Gore. This winter will undoubtedly be brutal, a result of global warming. When dealing with crises, one prioritizes the problems and deals with the biggest probelms first. GW comes in at number 782. We first have to deal with the taxation and uncertainty that are strangling the economy. Fair Tax, here we come! Everybody get on board the Herman Cain train!
oldfatrobby....MSNBC .....doesn't lie and make up stories out of whole cloth like Fox News does....Check out "Fox news lies" on U-tube......There are hundreds of videos of fox telling lies.
My Bible is any work of ethics, hope, charity, and justice that promotes ultimate wisdom. For instance, one of my favorite teachers is Robert Kennedy, a man who understood 2500 years of wisdom and tried to apply what he knew. Read this snippet, and tell me of one politician today...or speaker today...who could produce such words.
o "On the Mindless Menace of Violence", speech, City Club of Cleveland, Cleveland, Ohio (5 April 1968)
wow, so impressed.
The Kennedys, to the last, including Robert, were a group of thugs without conscience. To the murderer Teddy, the philanderer and plagiarist John, and the thug Robert: good riddance.
And that snippet? Sounds like a ninth grader's civics essay to me. Grade? C+.
oldfatrobby.............Your compassion is unmatched, you slimy troll.
You really need to work on your flexibility a little more. That way you will be able to play with your little suckstick.
Show me one smart thing ANY republican president has said in the past 30 years.
How's that train running right now? If your ideology is a joke, then your candidates aren't much better.
Yes, winters are changing as well. That is why it is called climate change. Extreme weather has mushroomed around the planet.
I hope Herman Cain is the candidate. It would demonstrate how powerful the Koch brothers have become and how empty your ideology truly is.
the ego is a powerful thing, the moment it is threatened, it goes into attack mode. That is what amen88 posted within her comment to this original post. I would have to agree wholeheartedly. Without it where am "I"? We need our ego, but yet imagine if we could speak from a different place, that we could replace the I with we? As I read through the rest of the comments here, it is apparent that religion divides us, politics divide us, and opinions divide us. Yet, we are all here with our thoughts and energy contributing to this forum because we want to communicate and we want to connect with other people. Those of us that are here because we support OWS all arrived for a different reason. But we are ALL HERE. It doesn't matter that we have differences because if you turned us inside out we would all be the same.
No, the ego and our actions make us very different people.
This is an Emergency Notice to all members of occupy James Damiano the very person who's been for over twelve years fighting the law firm that represents Goldman Sachs has been banned from this forum. Mr. Damiano is probably one of the most knowledgeable members and has contributed a wealth of information pertaining to the issues at hand in the Occupy forum
For more information e-mail thestealing@gmail.com or see http://wikileaksyola.yolasite.com/
--
Absolutely no one follows what their faith preaches to them of the person they should be and are a bunch of judgemental hypocrites. It amazes me when people think that GOD will come back and fix the destruction we have done to this planet. Newsflash! We make our bed and we will lie in it.
Well, you certainly don't know what Christianity is, but you do tell me alot about the movement.
I think the Christians at OWS would be more concerned with the homeless there then anything. When I read people here that are concerned about the homeless taking the OWS winter clothing or eating the OWS food and complaining about it, again, that tells me much.
These people will be there long after you're not even a memory.
That is really sad. There should be no homeless. :(
Jesus said there always will be, and I believe it.
I'm calling "Poe's Law".
Thank you. You just taught me something new. i wasn't sure if Uriah's post was satire or not.
Poe's Paradox?
Touché, my friend, touché.
The homeless are only there because it is better than anywhere else they can go.
Yep. Some of them are homeless cause they don't want to work, others are homeless cause they lost everything. Some are inbetween. I've talked to alot of them over the years and people are homeless for a variety of reasons.
As far as being better, I don't know that area very well, but I'd think if they can get a warm meal they'll be there. Not a problem with me.
I DO think how you treat the homeless speaks volumes about you.
the Inconvenient Truth AKA Gore's entire new career was founded upon SHODDY science. Extremely weak and unsubstantiated. This doesn't mean we're not experiencing warming... but it is across the entire galaxy. And NOT from the carbon foot print of humans. This doesn't mean we aren't destroying our planet at an alarming rate, we ARE! but not the way this entire industry of "global warming" would have you believe.
Religious folk are typically uneducated in the practical application of current knowledge and science. And they believe in things like virgin birth, resurrection, and a terrible war with God - Satan and YOUR SOUL mauahahahahahaha!!! It's all primitive in thinking.
radicalhumility....You may find this interesting..............One of the biggest opponents of action on global warming has been the fossil fuels energy industry, and particularly the oil industry, such as ExxonMobil, which regularly publishes papers minimizing the threat of global warming. In 1998, the company started providing financial support to organizations and individuals who disagreed with the scientific consensus that human activities were contributing to climate change. One of the groups that received funds from the company was the Competitive Enterprise Institute. ExxonMobil also helped create the "Global Climate Science Team" whose members were active climate contrarians. According to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil dispersed roughly $16 million to organizations that were challenging the scientific consensus view. After heavy criticism from the press and environmental groups in late 2006 and early 2007, ExxonMobil began distancing itself from these organizations.
In 2005, the oil giant opposed a shareholders' resolution to explain the science behind its denial of global warming.
I don't disagree if there is global warming or not. I just know that even the "global warming industry" is just that, an industry, that employs large groups of people dependent on it continuing. Remember the polar bear picture that was completely misleading and placed in false context? Propaganda. I don't take an "oh screw the conspiracy theorist" position, cause I am one of those. In pretty much most things. I just know there is misinformation and disinformation to support what makes people money. It's on both sides.
And at one point I'm sure 90% of scientist believed everything we've now accepted across the board was the opposite. You know, earth being flat, washing your hands before surgery... I've seen compelling evidence on both sides, and certainly can't dismiss the london courts findings on Mr Gores bold movie.
There are many theories that go beyond global reasons even.
radicalhumility.....You are wrong on all counts.......It was the church that declared the earth was flat....and persecuted scientists for their beliefs...........Also your equating hand washing, to 90% of global warming scientists as being wrong.....and they some how have a vested interest in promoting this....I find your argument childish and grasping..........Scientist are men of integrity and to paint the whole with the brush of incompetence is foolhardy.....................Scientist must present their conclusions to peer review which are demanding.............Too have a 90% peer approval is astounding................There is no compelling evidence to support natural causes of global warming.......The organisations promoting this are funded by Big Oil...................and they do have a vested interest to confuse the matter.....................A reply with factual counter points is eagerly awaited.
It's not needed. your faith in the entire scientific industry as being so impeccable is clearly naive based on history. It's not only the churches that have upheld the status quo. It's every industry in a monetary system. I care not to go back in forth with someone as already convinced in everything like yourself. If science was so impeccable the FDA and big pharma and every other industry giant using scientific research and development would be out of business. Best to you brother.
radicalhumility.....Sorry to prove you wrong again....But that's what happens when you take the wrong side....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm
The galaxy is very slowly cooling. That is the nature of entropy.
Gore's presentation was supported by every accepted expert in the field. However, if 99.9% of what somewhat states is factually correct and .01% is debated, then....by your logic....the person's argument is dubious and should be ignored.
Read the book, "Idiot America," by Charles Pierce. You're in it.
puff6962...Read the above post from me your in it..
Hardly. The science was flawed, no contest. There's the status quo if you mean that. You know, what you subscribe to. Just like the fools that once thought the earth was flat. It's not my logic. Watch/Read/Inform yourself from ANYTHING non mainstream. I dare you.
radcalhumility....Does 90% of scientist agreeing its caused by human activity impress you at all...
Go read a thousand books written by wise men and then we can have this discussion.
"We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff."
I think ERROR 2 and ERROR 10 shine the most co2 on the flaws that generally create the strongest global warming beliefs from the movie. It's not that I wasn't disappointed too when I learned the extremely compelling opposing arguments, I just also tend to stay open to new information and have a much easier time than some about finding the truth as opposed to being right.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
Science is very controlled by what's been accepted as true in the scientific community and is often anything but "scientific." Those who disagree with the group are deemed quacks and can lose societal status, funding etc.. Scientists are not always free from having to report how they are paid to.
Your not being truthful
You really just don't get it. Scientist don't give a rat's ass about what you or the public think. Scientists only care what their peers think about them.....they desire to be respected in their fields and to be experts in their field of study. That means that, whatever study or experiment a scientist does, must be very well described so that his peers can replicate it. If they cannot, then he is labeled a fraud and his career is over.
This ability to replicate results is what defines science from the idiocracy that you worship. For Christ's sake, you probably believe that the earth is 4000 years old because you heard that on youtube. All evidence to the contrary is some sort of conspiracy.
The world is not trying to hide information from you, you're just stupid. Practice some of that radical humility and go back to 7th grade science.
That's nice. Real mature. I think you are speaking well of the concept of science and the concept of a true scientist. That has little to do with the scientific industry which requires money to thrive and continue whatever it's being funded to work on in this capitalistic system. Your ad hominem attacks speak low of your character and I have zero further interest in your argument. And you seem to think I'm religious or something. 4000 years! Thanks for the humor. Good LUCK in life.
Puff is implying that scientists don't have egos. I also think that puff may rely a bit TOO much on the opinion of others he/she has read.
If you want to understand a political philosophy in the modern world, all you have to know is from where does it derive it's funding....
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also, (Luke 12:34) sums it all up pretty well.
Libertarians, Conservative Republicans, etc. speak in this utopian, theoretical, gibberish that has no firm bases in reality.
It reminds me of sympathetic intellectuals who were pulled into communist ideology in the 1930's, only to later learn of Stalin's excesses.
The difference is that modern leaders espousing libertarian and conservative whacko principles, never seem to learn....or even recognize.....the excesses and failings of their own system of thought.
I believe that there is simply so strong a financial and ideological backing for these beliefs that they approach fascism in America. That is why I began this thread. Billionaires have funded think tanks to create and push this dribble. Billionaires funded the "grass roots" uprising of the teabaggers. Billionaires have created their own economics department at George Mason university. Billionaires are funding generic anti-progressive legislation at the level of the states and are buying state politicians to promote it. These are evil men, and they are winning.
So, no matter how lovely the words of the maiden Libertarianism may be, remind yourself of who wishes for this system of beliefs to win....for there is where the treasure lies, and there is where your heart will be taken.
The one factor, once absent, from turning this crazy system of thought into a truly fascist movement is religion. As Sinclair Lewis once said, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”
Note, I said "once absent." I have another thread where I expressed my belief that this transition has already occurred and Christ has been replaced by Ronald Reagan in most congregations. There, you can disagree on your religious ideals and be accepted, but if you begin expressing liberal ideals you will be stoned at the doorsteps of the church.
Fascism has come to America. It is currently amorphous, scattered like a virus throughout a host. But, it's symptoms are already plain.
Old Jesus wouldn't have legislated social programs. He would have told the disciples to gather in appropriate numbers and handle the situation in kind. Their action through faith would have made government obsolete.
giving oneself to christ is emancipating rather than we all become his pawns. i don't believe that he would have told his disciples to do anything. what i feel that he would have said is to do what you feel god to be leading you to do. if you check it out, jesus was never about giving orders. the process of repentance is freeing, it is not enslaving. up until that point we are actually enslaved by our desires. we are not truly free until we, in fulness, give ourselves to him.
Agreed
Give unto Cesar.
Everyone conveniently leaves out the remaining quote. Give unto God what is Gods. God commands disciples to, themselves, feed the poor, care for the sick, clothe the naked. Show me the passage where God says to legislate social programs? The burden of proof is on you, since you would seem to be indirectly making the claim.
You can't just pull a few words out and contextualize them to mean whatever you want them to mean. I mean, I guess you can, but that's commonly known as dishonesty.
That sounds like separation of church and state to me, which means that the Jesusmeister left room for a church and state.
Except you're trying to use Jesus to prove your statist point, when it's convenient for ya. It's not both. Pick one.
Jesus never meant for Christianity to be a method of ruling people.
Then what part of "then don't use his teachings to reinforce your government ideas" do you not understand?
You can't say "Jesus says we should pay more money for welfare" on one hand, and then "Jesus never meant for Christianity to be a method of ruling people" on the other.
I'm not using his teachings to reinforce my ideas about government, I'm saying that his teachings have very little....besides lip service.....to do with modern Christianity. We are complety devoid of his teachings and that void has been filled with conservative ideals that are not necessarily Christian. It that clear enough. I don't want to ride on an even shorter bus.
It is true that many who call themselves "christians" are not. Look at how many run around saying they are "educated", or "in shape". Or, if not, they'd justify it by saying "Well at least I didn't kill anyone."
The original Christians likely were communal and gave up or shared all possessions. So, if they were the most proximal to Christ's life and teachings, should we all live on communes? Should we be communists?
I can see the bumper sticker now, "Jesus was a Pro-life Socialist."
lol, the true "emancipation proclaimist"
Do you walk to school or carry a sack lunch?
I drive the short bus that picks you up for school every morning.
Is it faster to DC or by bus?
i believe what jesus' answer to all of this would be more towards the ends that you had mentioned before, communal living. if everyone in the occupy movement were to say, "forget it, we don't want your money, we don't want your wars, we don't want anything that you represent, we are from this moment on repenting of our selfish ways and working towards the betterment of the human condition", now that would be powerful. the problem with the church is that the original message of christ has come to a watered down, take what sounds good and leave the rest message. in the early church the people were giving all that they had, except for a couple of poor examples that held back who where subsequently made into toast not by the hands of men, but buy the hand of god. now that original 100% has come to 10%. the missing 90% is very important when one is to contemplate the eternal.
read:
Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction by J. David Kuo
I used to think like you. You would be surprised how many scientists out there have debunked global warming. On the other hand Al Gore is a non scientist that stands to make a fortune in green house taxes. Also the globalists simply want you and me to live on a microscopic foot print while they live on 400 million dollar yachts. The problem is for you that you have a hard time comprehending that the global warming is such a big lie that millions of people could have been fooled by Al Gore.
Your Uncle is right and he isn't getting his info from the Bible. I have read most of the Bible and am also familiar with the scientists out there that consider global warming a bunch of propaganda.
http://newworldordersatire.com/
I think this article explains any controversy about Global Warming............................................ The global warming controversy refers to a variety of disputes, significantly more pronounced in the popular media than in the scientific literature, regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming. The disputed issues include the causes of increased global average air temperature, especially since the mid-20th century, whether this warming trend is unprecedented or within normal climatic variations, whether humankind has contributed significantly to it, and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements. Additional disputes concern estimates of climate sensitivity, predictions of additional warming, and what the consequences of global warming will be.
In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused mainly by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view, though a few organisations hold non-committal positions.
From 1990-1997 in the United States, conservative think tanks mobilized to undermine the legitimacy of global warming as a social problem. They challenged the scientific evidence; argued that global warming will have benefits; and asserted that proposed solutions would do more harm than good.
Only someone who is getting paid to dribble the dribble you are peddling could be so inane. Are you really so stupid? Do you think that scientists sit in dark rooms plotting ways of fooling you? Conspirators don't get peer reviewed.
I hate to tell you this, but there is no conspiracy to hide the truth from you......you're just a fucking idiot.
pffft. idiot
huh?
You jump from global warming, to Fox news, to Christianity. Could you be any more stereotypical? Here's a news flash idiot, not every repulbican lives and dies by the Fox News sword. In fact, most republicans take Fox News with a grain of salt. At the same time, you obvously have not taken the time to watch CNBC news.
All of your analogies are ridculous, generalizing, and insulting. You are a closed minded individual, and you likely have never taken an opportunity to listen to anyone.
You just get done talking about how you argued with your uncle, but then follow-up with "Now, I don't like to argue with old me". You're a fucking liar. I would trust you enough to have a conversation.
Tell me one belief that you hold that is not consistent with Fox news.
My comments wander because my commentators wander.
You're still picturing Ann Coulter as the Virgin Mary, aren't you pokey? Come on, run off another batch. Get base, dude, you're alone aren't you?
I cannot comment on how my beliefs fall into the commentary distributed by Fox News. For you to make that kind of speculation or comparison is ridculous. I'm sick and fucking tired of pieces of shit like you who DARE to categorize me, or make any type of generization about my belief, simply because I do not agree with you. You are a worthless human being.
You're so unique.....just look at your Myspace page.......and your cool tattoo! Oh, that one really hurt. Any some of my best friends are black people.
Tell me one thing you believe that contrasts with the propaganda of Fox news. It's sad being a scab, isn't it pokey?
Bluedoghunter? More like Blowjobhunter.....you like to give more than you receive, don't you pokey? Oooohhhh lick that peanut butter. Maybe later, I'll give you some chocolate sauce.
This one is pretty fun. :)
Tell you one thing that I believe in that contrast with Fox News? Are you fucking kidding me? Go get an education son, and come back when you've realized that people shouldn't not measured by TV. Get off your fucking couch, you fucking peice of shit. Try developinog an opinion of your own.
Still waiting for that unique belief there, pokey. Still waiting.
I'm on my phone.
You're new to this forum, aren't you Mr. Blowjobhunter. I have lot's of interesting ideas and you are my bitch.
I haven't given you any beliefs there fuck face. Keep waiting.
Come on pooky, can't you at least google something?
You really are rather pathetic, aren't you?
I hope you hunt better that you write.
I don't need to Google my beliefs. That's the difference between you and I. My beliefs are based on experiences. Yours are based off what you read on the Internet. Call me pathetic if you want, my path has purpose. Yours ends at the keyboard.
Stick to Google, it suites you.
My field of study is medicine, your's is scatology. But, I don't think there is anything to be gained by insulting you.....it's just too easy.
Field of study is medicine? What, medicinal pot? Are you trying to prove something by making that statement? It's fucking pathetic that you would actually try to use that statement as some sort of measure against other people. Does that automatically put you into some sort of elite category that enables you the right to look down on people? If you were a real Dr, you would know that such a thing goes against your ethical conduct. But you already know that right? You're studying the field of medicine. LMAO.
Of course, any first year college student who lists pre-med as their undergrad major could say that their field of study is "medicine", so I won't hold it against you.
"Um, excuse me, I'm studying medicine, back away please."
Hahahahah.
Apparently you think you have everything to gain by insulting me, because you the only one doing the insulting. In doing so, you're simply making yourself look foolish. Good luck with that undergrad "medicine" major. I'm really pulling for you to get into med school some day.
Too easy.
Your interpretation of what your uncle "believes" is about as accurate as OWS interpretation of what the 99% believes.
Your uncle might be gay and repressing his sexuality. This happens with men of his generation, especially those brought up by strict Christian doctrine.
If I were you, I would do a test. I would leave some books by mistake at his house. A small pile. Put one about homosexuality in there. Call him a few days later and tell him you forgot the books and you'll come and pick them up in two days. But then, go to his house right away. You'll most likely find him on the porch reading the book on homosexuality. Just say "It's OK, I'm here to help."
We should pass those books out to all of the males who watch more than 37 minutes of Fox news a day or who listen to Rush Limbaugh more than 8 minutes.
Those who listen to Glenn Beck should be given a book called "The Giving Tree" because they have simply lost all empathy with the world.
The giving tree is crap. I prefered "The little train that could". Man made global warming/climate change is a scam
raines...Your comment on global warming is idiotic to say the least....The evidence is overwhelming in support of man make causes....Yours is Capitalistic propaganda, The truth would cost them money.
Go back to your kool aid
raines....obviously you had no answers....that makes you a Troll..........................
There is no man made globalwarmimg/climate change.
raines.........what is your evidence..............
Do your own research.
raines.... I have and there is no evidence to support your opinions...Your responding like a Troll.
If you find no evidence then you're a bad researcher. They are not my opinions. The fact is there is no evidence of human cause global warming/climate change.
raines... ........................Is this enough research.. Global warming refers the completely natural phenomenon of rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries...................http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Wikipedia, where anyone can make an entry.
raines....Refute it then or.......Shut the fuck up..
raines.........Just as I thought you are a troll as evidenced by your below response.
potty mouth
Most Americans love conspiracy theories. That's how OWS was born. Whatever doesn't fit, must come from some evil unnamed governmental guys somewhere in some secret room.
thrasymaque.....The Congressional committee on the cause of the financial crisis of 2007-2008.....Is that a conspiracy theory.
[Removed]
Here's part II:
There is no reason now to be a skeptic about steadily increasing temperatures, Muller wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages, a place friendly to skeptics. Muller did not address in his research the cause of global warming. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists say it's man-made from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Nor did his study look at ocean warming, future warming and how much of a threat to mankind climate change might be.
Still, Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels.
"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said. Still, he contends that threat is not as proven as the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it is.
On Monday, Muller was taking his results – four separate papers that are not yet published or peer-reviewed, but will be, he says – to a conference in Santa Fe, N.M., expected to include many prominent skeptics as well as mainstream scientists.
"Of course he'll be welcome," said Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Lab, a noted skeptic and the conference organizer. "The purpose of our conference is to bring people with different views on climate together, so they can talk and clarify things."
Shawn Lawrence Otto, author of the book "Fool Me Twice" that criticizes science skeptics, said Muller should expect to be harshly treated by global warming deniers. "Now he's considered a traitor. For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."
And that started on Sunday, when a British newspaper said one of Muller's co-authors, Georgia Tech climate scientist Judith Curry, accused Muller of another Climategate-like scandal and trying to "hide the decline" of recent global temperatures.
The Associated Press contacted Curry on Sunday afternoon and she said in an email that Muller and colleagues "are not hiding any data or otherwise engaging in any scientifically questionable practice."
The Muller "results unambiguously show an increase in surface temperature since 1960," Curry wrote Sunday. She said she disagreed with Muller's public relations efforts and some public comments from Muller about there no longer being a need for skepticism.
Muller's study found that skeptics' concerns about poor weather station quality didn't skew the results of his analysis because temperature increases rose similarly in reliable and unreliable weather stations. He also found that while there is an urban heat island effect making cities warmer, rural areas, which are more abundant, are warming, too.
Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.
"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."
Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is chief author of an upcoming intergovernmental climate change report, said Muller's study "may help the world's citizens focus less on whether climate change is real and more on smart options for addressing it."
Some of the most noted scientific skeptics are no longer saying the world isn't warming. Instead, they question how much of it is man-made, view it as less a threat and argue it's too expensive to do something about, Otto said.
Skeptical MIT scientist Richard Lindzen said it is a fact and nothing new that global average temperatures have been rising since 1950, as Muller shows. "It's hard to see how any serious scientist (skeptical, denier or believer – frequently depending on the exact question) will view it otherwise," he wrote in an email.
In a brief email statement, the Koch Foundation noted that Muller's team didn't examine ocean temperature or the cause of warming and said it will continue to fund such research. "The project is ongoing and entering peer review, and we're proud to support this strong, transparent research," said foundation spokeswoman Tonya Mullins.
Did you see today where the study partially funded by the Kochs actually confirmed what every climatological scientist has been saying for thirty years?
Here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html
Here's part I
Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real
WASHINGTON — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.
The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.
Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.
What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.
One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.
Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.
"The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago," Muller said in a telephone interview. "And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias."
Muller said that he came into the study "with a proper skepticism," something scientists "should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism" before
[Deleted]
They are not melting...that's ice to liquid. Instead, the martian ice caps sublimate....ice to gas.
More importantly, the ice caps on Mars cycle regularly. They are mostly carbon dioxide with some water. They, like the glaciers of old, recede a little in the summer and reconstitute in the winter.
Yes, the climate of mars....like that of earth....is cyclical. These cycles are called spring, summer, fall, and winter. Idiot.
[Deleted]
Just leaving this here so others don't make the mistake of thinking you have a valid point.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
[Deleted]
Thanks for the honesty.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
[Deleted]
Hmm Inhofe's blog (to look official) linking to an old thoroughly debunked, misrepresenting, denialist article from Canada.
'But the report's conclusion features a quote from a prominent scientist: "according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth's temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
The prominent scientist quoted is Dr. Solanki.'
Read my original link again, tool. Also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385
The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.
The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.
You didn't bother to read anything I provided - Oh I see I didn't provide the link, thinking the quote would cover it: http://raisethehammer.org/article/536 Solanki's paper concluded it's greenhouse gases.
Also: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Raise the hammer, are you serious.really???..Canadian blog by Adrian Duyzer a computer geek. and you want me to believe him over Solanki or Abdussamatov.
Solanki's paper concluded it's GHG!
Again, this graph uses his data: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
[Deleted]
I understand that, ideologically, you need to believe that.
The topic of "belief in absurdities as forced move dictated by logic of ideologies" is very interesting.
Occam's razor, which clearly applies to:
"It's a massive conspiracy by governments, scientists, and the new world order."
Occam's razor - a.) it's a known empirical fact that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect (can be demonstrated in a jar) b.) humans produce massive quantities of CO2, c.) temperature is rising along with CO2... Hmm, CO2 might have something to do with climate change. Sorry to hijack your post, p.o.c.w. - can't reply below.
[Deleted]
You sent me the blog of a corrupt denialist senator. I sent you a convenient aggregation of the debunking that's easily discovered elsewhere of that particular (Inhofe) line of misinformation.
I know it's about your ideology because you don't just post in this thread, on this subject.
[Removed]
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
[Removed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
One scientist? Idiot.
Are you old enough to remember the summer of 1980? 1700 people died. Idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_United_States_heat_wave
[Removed]
One years rise in heat is a "heat wave." A clear rise in summer temps over 80 years is a trend. When you have deserts in west Texas and the southwest reconstituting, you have a problem. Idiot.
[Removed]
I posted that link because you said that, thirty years ago, which would be....1981....you said there was a "cooling" scare. Do you not remember your own post? The heat wave of 1980 was significant at the time, but because the trend of very hot summers has continued for the past thirty years....we don't particularly use the term "heat wave" so much.
You have to understand, there is not some conspiracy of scientists trying to hide the truth from you, you're just stupid. Sorry.
[Removed]
Ya, and tell your wife I'll be a little late tonight.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Aren't you angry enough? I really don't want to abuse you any further.
[Removed]
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
[Removed]
Keep telling yourself that one, it will help you through the mediation stage when she's taking HALF. What's half of 1%.....misery.
[Removed]
Mark my words, one percent boy. That glimmer in her eyes is not for you.
[Removed]
ah the tragedy of the sex negative. O well yr. own loss. Note: The Proper definition used in academic circles for the process more commonly known as "Global Warming" is Global Carbon Climate Destabilization. (say it with me kids.) Now if you can explain to me some of the bizarre weather patterns and isolated events that continues to occur with increasing frequency OR if you can disprove to me the effect of Chlorofluorocarbons on the depletion of Ozone around the Arctic & Antarctic (which are growing) then we may be able to move past yr. closed minded dogma and actually discuss some of the matter.
Na, really. I'm going to be late. While you're out trying to earn that extra few dollars that will keep her from divorcing you, she's just trying to figure out how to occupy her time until you drop dead from a heart attack.
I hope you live on beach front property.
[Removed]
Why don't you sit under me and read your right wing explanation of the world while I unload my carbon credit on top of you. I had frosted mini wheats this morning and I need to take a Reagan.
[Removed]
Well your satirical point is insulting to Christians. That said its an unfortunate consequence of the fact that humanism has become the religion of the USA.
Do Christian children own I-pods? Do they watch Hanna Montana? Do they spend an average of 7 hours a day on electronic media? Do they have sex at the same rates as other teens?
Humanism is that catchall phrase that the New Christianity uses to describe all of the things that it hates about itself. Liberal is it's sister.
Combined, the terms imply an attack on Christianity by outside forces. And, here's a pearl, 99% of the time when some leader tells you that unseen forces are attacking you, you're being manipulated.
Herman Goering said it best:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
I do not follow what you are saying. Humanism is a well defined vaue system focused on self and mankind. The US laws and court rulings have for many many years been devoid of Judeo Christian values. All under the guise of separation of church and state.
Upon what book did Thomas Jefferson take the oath of office?
An english translation of the Koran.
The courts were set up as a means of avoiding what Mills referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." Now, when evangelical Reaganites don't get their way, they say that it is because the courts are not Christian. The founders are turning over in their graves.
You and your Uncle must have alot of fun together
It's really sad. It's as if someone poisoned a great mind.
What did Jefferson have to say on separation of Church and state? Let me pull some quotes:
Among the most inestimable of our blessings is that ... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support. -- Thomas Jefferson, Reply to Baptist Address, 1807
From the dissensions among Sects themselves arise necessarily a right of choosing and necessity of deliberating to which we will conform. But if we choose for ourselves, we must allow others to choose also, and so reciprocally, this establishes religious liberty. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers, 1:545
The rights [to religious freedom] are of the natural rights of mankind, and ... if any act shall be ... passed to repeal [an act granting those rights] or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right. -- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:546 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)
Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion desirable? No more than of face and stature. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Levi Lincoln, 1802. ME 10:305
I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [that a bookseller is prosecuted for selling books advocatig what was then presumed by the statusuo to be pseudoscience] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If M de Becourt's book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose.... -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to N G Dufief, Philadelphia bookseller (1814), after being prosecuted for selling de Becourt's book, Sur la Création du Monde, un Systême d'Organisation Primitive, which Jefferson himself had purchased (check Positive Atheism's Historical library for a copy of the entire letter).
[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. -- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779), quoted from Merrill D Peterson, ed, Thomas Jefferson: Writings (1984), p. 347
I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799 (see Positive Atheism's Historical section)
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803
I agree with the separation of church and state, without question. I do not believe Jefferson or any of the founding fathers would condone the removal of the right to practice ones faith to the extent its been done by our courts. Jefferson would see that the religion of humanism is and has become the state sponsored religion of our government, the very thing he fought against, and so right he was!
Jefferson was the ultimate humanist. Do you know that he wrote his own version of the gospels? That he didn't recognize the divinity of Christ?
Jefferson recalled that his most proud achievement was not the Louisiana Purchase, not the Declaration of Independence, but was instead his insertion into the Virginia constitution a provision establishing a clear separation of church and state.
The easiest way for Christians to unite is to say that someone....here the courts....is attacking them. Rubbish. If you want to erect a religious symbol in a city square, make my kid pray in school, or put some religious script in your courtroom, in America you have to ask the question.....WHICH RELIGION? We are a plural society and that is why we have a public and a private sphere. You have essentially any way you want to worship at your disposal as long as you don't jam it down someone's throat. Only in America and secular Europe do you have such freedoms.
The paradox, only in humanistic societies does one have such religious freedom that they are capable of speculating that some unseen force must be blocking others from worshiping in the same manner as themselves.
Rubbish.
Not make kids pray in school, never. But to not allow those who want to pray is wrong and Jefferson would disagree with the govenrment denying that right to a person.
Who is blocking you from prayer? Doesn't the Bible instruct you to pray in private anyway?
ACLU has litigated successfully to stop even moments of silence, or after school bible study groups, and on and on.
As after school clubs never as curriculum. Many student groups have clubs that support their life styles and values. I for one would defend the right of students to have clubs that support their love of the arts, being gay or lesbian, whatever. Its the irony that the ACLU immediately fights students who want an aftershool bible study or religious sharing of any kind. The key words are after school
School bible studies? Public school bible studies? Do you understand the irony or your comment?
Nah... absolutely not. The thing that you have to understand about this uncle is that life circumstance has very likely forced him to thoroughly imbibe in this thing of common sense. It has nothing at all to do with Christianity and I think your insinuation that it does is rather juvenile - the man has a right to the god or gods of his choice regardless of his evaluation of science; this is simply NOT a religious issue.
The problem with you cock roaches is that you are not willing to accept that someone might have a mind of their own with which to seek out an independent truth. And who are you to educate either he or me?
No one in science has thoroughly ever accepted this suggestion that greenhouse gases are entirely responsible for global warming for one very simple reason - common sense would indicate that the very gases that serve to retain heat simultaneously diffuse and deflect the suns rays; - really, it's that simple.
Ok, so I've followed the recent European studies...
But it doesn't matter... the earth is warming, the seas are rising, and there is absolutely nothing man can do at the present time to reverse this process. Wake up..
betuadollar.....Your completely wrong..........Global warming refers the completely natural phenomenon of rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans and its projected continuation. In the last 100 years, Earth's average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 °C (1.4 °F) with about two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuel. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.
Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 2.9 °C (2 to 5.2 °F) for their lowest emissions scenario and 2.4 to 6.4 °C (4.3 to 11.5 °F) for their highest. The ranges of these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations.
An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, and a probable expansion of subtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall events, species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe, though the nature of these regional changes is uncertain. In a 4 °C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be preserved.
What is the hottest planet in our solar system? Don't google it, just answer.
puff6962........What are you trying to prove.......
The problem with you is that you don't google enough... Do your science, follow issues... stay informed.
You also fail to realize that people like your uncle were here long before you in the nature and form of the "Conservationist." And what he and I see, is that the very generation that is so busy promoting an entirely cerebral "environmentalism," as if some new found religion, are the very same people that are very busy littering our world. What we see is an incongruity, a juxtaposition... of environmental sentiment.
The answer, you imbecile, is not Mercury.....but Venus. You may remember, that Mercury is closer to the sun than Venus (or maybe you don't). The key to Venus' heat is it's atmospheric concentration of.....you guessed it.....CO2. Or, maybe you didn't guess it.
The notion that atmospheric gases deflect sunlight....really? Stop talking and pick up a book. You're like a child walking around with a loaded gun.
puff6962.............Are you saying Global Warming is not from the activities of humans.....90% of scientists involved in Global Warming research agree that the human hand is the main cause.
No, I'm saying that it is related to CO2 and human activity. The author I was responding to said that atmospheric gases deflect sunlight.....one of the most idiotic notions that I have heard in a long time.
And Venus is the hottest planet in our solar system because of it's high CO2 content. Mercury is closer to the sun, so one would think that it should be hotter, but not the case. And, if Venus' thick atmosphere could deflect sunlight, then it would be exponentially cooler than it is.
OH, Okay
Oh really... I put the same question to several German scientists and they promptly applied science. Study... and in the meantime, observe.
Also, make plans to unload the waterfront property.
Name your German scientists.
You know what we need to do here? We need to create a model and actually test it in perfect form. We can do this...
Name your German scientists? Couldn't find any on Google, could you?
This is personal and you have no place going there...
The lack of rain in Texas is caused by a centuries old phenomenon called La Nina a quasiperiodic climate pattern where the ocean temperatures of the pacific is unusually cold along the equator. This has been recorded for over 300 years. Before you start blaming everything from snow to rain on Global Warming do some research, be scientific before you denounce others opinions as being delusional.
Horseshit.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870?localLinksEnabled=false
Do you realize you have no proof , this is what you call credible the Kotch brothers? BTW science does not use Consensus, as it stands man made global warming is a debated unproven theory at best, CO2 being a driving force is just a questionable hypothesis. It is however a scientific fact that La Nina is here this year like last year and will result another Texas drought. This has been observed for over 300 years. Try again.
Skippy, it is a strange to be on an OWS page and to be so passionate in your conspiracy theories. Next, you'll be telling me that Camel cigarettes are good for you because they toughen your vocal cords. You're a scab....paid to pedal crap like this. There is a greater consensus among real scientists regarding the fact that the earth is, in geologic terms, warming at a phenomenal rate than there is about the age of the earth. (Of course, you're going to tell me that the earth is only 4400 years old and all of those fossils were put there by paleontologists looking for grants).
Tell your masters that you have done their bidding. Couldn't you at least have gotten a job as a telemarketer?
Once again consensus is not a scientific proof, science facts are not formed based upon consensus. The Fact is La Nina has been observed for over 300 years and is responsible for the dry winter in texas.
You really are stuck in Texas aren't you. Warming is occurring globally....the glaciers I used to hike up in Colorado twenty-five years ago, structures that had been there for thousands of years, are GONE. We have to push back our hunts in Canada now because it is too warm in late October.
Consensus is not scientific proof? What cereal box are you reading off? That consensus is based upon billions of pieces of data, analyzed meticulously, and all under the scrutiny of your competition. That is how science works.
I'm sorry, there is no conspiracy. You say this stuff either because you're getting paid to.....in which case you really should die early....or you are profoundly stupid and this stuff is just something you latched onto so that you could sound interesting at redneck cocktail parties.
In either event, you seem like somebody who can at least put a sentence together. Please go back to telemarketing or something.
the world once had a consensus that it is flat, thanks to science we know better. Mountains and the atmosphere is dynamic meaning they are constantly changing, that is not proof of "man made global warming" I am stuck on Texas because that is what your post stated as your main evidence of man made global warming, that is false.
Ok, Rick Perry. It's ironic that you bring up a flat earth. You obviously know more than all of the PHD's in the world who have studied the subject. Gosh, I wish you had told them all the news, you would have saved them 50 years of research. I guess I can buy that supercharged Hummer now.....thanks Pinkey. I feel a lot better.
You are the entire basis for this thread.
He's an Alex Jones infowarrior. The have to believe climate change is a socialist+fascist+zionist conspiracy by David Rockefeller and the Bilderbergers to implement one world government. If you take out any element in their meticulously-constructed narrative, the whole house of cards tumbles down... Actually, it doesn't; nobody's as good at (re)constructing narratives from fantasy as conspiracy theorists, but, they cling to their dogma all the same.
Interesting.....it always astonishes me to meet someone who is sometimes wrong, but never in doubt.
thank you for being unable to prove your hypothesis of man made global warming, of CO2 being the primary driver of this, and that Texas having a dry winter is in any way connected to man. Go back to school
Please cite the periodical from which you are relaying your information.