This entry was posted
on Friday, December 11th, 2009 at 1:00 am and is filed under It's Friday, Open Thread.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
296 Comments(+Add)
What is the motivation of people who not only don’t believe global warming but mock the theory? Is it the same as those who refused to believe the earth rotated around the sun?
Seriously. Is it because you don’t want to accept any responsibility in the care of Creation? Is it because you want to continue using resources with no regard to how it might impact the environment?
I don’t think we should be good stewards of the earth because of global warming or any other reason. However, I am very suspicious of those who actively seek to debunk and even make fun of something that has and does cause people to become more aware of their surroundings. The line in this song “you should have been choppiing more trees instead of hugging them” is very telling. Why is it funny to make fun of so-called tree-huggers irrespective of whether or not global warming is true?
Let me clarify the above. When I say I don’t think we should be good stewards of the earth because of global warming or any other reason I mean that as Christians we should be good stewards simply because it is our vocation as human beings as given by the Creator. We should be good stewards simply because. Whether global warming is true or not doesn’t really matter to me in the end. However, I see no point in making fun of or those who believe it and have adjusted their lifestyles accordingly.
Unless, of course, you are some conspiracy theorist and believe this is a plan for the “bleeding heart” Liberals to take over the world. Fear, fear, fear…
Liberals and conservatives oh my!
You can stand every human being in a 1 ft by 1 ft square and they could fit almost twice in Rhode Isalnd. I find it difficult that a small segment of those who own cars are ruining the planet.
I know the e-mails revealed corruption, but there is corruption and manipulation in everything. I do find curious the polar cap things and the atmosphere readings, etc. If it isn’t humans, it is cyclical and we cannot do much about it.
I do feel that we should be a sresponsible as possible, but, as usual, this issue has become fodder for labeling and attacking each other.
Politics strikes again!
Rick, I couldn’t agree more.
Some will no doubt say that global warming theorists are nothing more than charlatans trying to scam the world so they can get rich on “going green.” I say, “so what?” Someone is going to benefit no matter what you believe about global warming and no matter what side “wins” the debate.
At least one side of that debate is not getting rich off of raping the earth of her resources wherever they are found just so that we can consume even more.
I love the “open thread” title. It’s like having ten sheep sheds and calling only one a “sheep shed”.
Get it?
I like it because it keeps all the other threads focused on the OP.
The whole “going green” thing is actually something that I have to deal with quite often. We have done several LEED projects in my office, so paying attention to energy conservation and material types is something that I have to do all the time. (Ironically, these types of projects probably generates about five times the paperwork as a normal project…)
Anyway, I do think that there are plenty of “green” things that just make sense. For instance, it makes sense to replace a 100W incandescent lightbult with a 26W CFL that will give you the same amount of light. These will actually pay for themselves in a few months and start saving you money. Also, I think it makes sense to reuse and recycle as much material as possible. It doesn’t make any sense to be wasteful.
That being said, I am still very skeptical of claims of human-caused global warming. It simply seems to me that this particular issue is used as a political hammer more than anything else. The fact that its supporters speaks of it in near-religious terms really makes me think that we are not dealing with a pure scientific issue. It’s something that strikes at something else in the human condition, and that is the need for us to feel like we’re really in control. Now I’m probably one of the biggest supporter of free will here, but I also think that people have to realize that there are simply things we can’t control. I have seen no convincing evidence that says we can actually influence the climate on a macro scale.
One of the better books from a Christians perspective on this issue I’ve read is Matthew Sleeth’s Serve God and Save the Planet. Though he does go further than I’m comfortable going with the whole green movement, he does put things in their proper perspective. His basic point is that our responsibility to be stewards of creation ultimately has nothing to do with global warming and whatnot, but simply because it is what God has charged us to do.
That is a great book (the Sleeth one).
i hope this thread doesn’t turn into a petty, mean spirited “debate”…
Remember Creation is a great book by Scott Hoezee…no liberal he…
oh, yeah, Hoezee is actually “Reformed”…go figure…teaches at Calvin.
Re:7
Don’t you think, Phil, that some of the passion about global warming is surely a function of the fact that there are those that deny it?
I look at the passion with which people disagree with PB around here. The emotion is usually something like “how on earth can you claim that? Don’t you see how ridiculous you’re being?”
It’s not so much that you, or anyone else, have a particular passion for N.R. Wright’s orthodoxy. It’s more like you have a particular annoyance with the capacity of people to dispute the overwhelming.
I think that you could make a VERY strong argument that the TRUTH campaign, along with general anti-smoking/smoking education movements, border on the religious. There are many people who are absolutely overwhelmed that smoking is as prevalent as it still is.
Pointing to that, though, would be a really bad argument for why smoking somehow doesn’t cause cancer.
I meant N.T. Wright in the previous comment, obviously.
M.G.
That is a really great point.
i have no problem believing that there “may” be some global warming.
what i take issue with is the automatic assumption that it is anthropgenic and we’ve got about five years to solve it.
i get suspicious anytime any politician says we do not have time to really study something just trust them NOW.
Sure. I suppose that could be said about nearly anything, though.
I guess the thing that I find most troubling with the global warming thing is the type of rhetoric that is being used by the scientists now. I’ve heard several interviews with people talking about the Copenhagen summit, and they’ve said things like, “the fate of mankind rests in the decisions made at this summit”. Really? The fate of mankind depends on the decisions a small handful of world leaders make about CO2 emissions? There’s just no way a statement like that can be backed up.
I guess I’m saying that just because an ideological opponent makes an outrageous claim in arguing against you, it doesn’t mean that you have to make an outrageous claim to refute them. To me it seems like the argument left the realm of facts a long time ago.
Well, everyone knows that global warming is George W Bush’s fault. Dammit, why cannot we all just admit this?**
**This comment is not completely devoid of sarcasm.
PS–Chad, I don’t fear global warming nearly as much as do the politicians who think that my money will be required to fix it. I think people who accept global warming, and global warming poetry from poet laureate Gore, should pay for it themselves and leave the rest of us alone.
I don’t hate liberals. I just don’t think they have a clue what they are talking about.
Have a good day everyone.
By the way, I’d love to stay and hash this out a little, but I have to run and do some building inspections on this lovely 20-degree day. Were not the earth being warmed, it probably be even colder!
And the crowds asked him, “What then should we do?”
In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.”
- The Baptist
Just sayin’
Well I am waiting for some global warming, it is -9 here.
Despite the teachings of certain people, the earth is going to be completely destroyed with fire anyway. Talk about global warming. All who died in their sins will be cast into a lake of fire. Talk about global warming. We are not going to restore the earth, Jesus is. This is not to say we should run roughshod over the earth, and not be good stewards, but mother earth is not God, and we should live in all areas as to worship and glorify God.
I don’t know why these things have to digress into a liberal vs. conservative divide. As my comments above already stated this has nothing to do with politics for me. We are called to be good stewards of God’s creation – period.
If you are living in the USA you live in a country that requires taxes. I am convinced that there are a myriad ways the government uses these tax dollars in ways that I’d rather they not. I expect that of them as they are fallen entities just like all the powers. But if I have a choice of which battles to fight, I’d rather my tax dollars go towards things like preserving and caring for the environment rather than raping it.
I’m opposed to war of all kinds and you don’t hear me complaining about my money going to fund a war. I guess this is, in part, because I don’t believe it is my money to begin with.
PB- If God doesn’t care about the earth and is only going to destroy it, why should I care about it?
This is why. We are called in Genesis to take care of the earth, to subdue it, to be stewards of it for in it God has given us all good things. We are not to worship the earth, but by the way that we practice good stewardship of God’s good gifts we are worshipping Him.
That being said, no amount of driving suv’s using incandescent lights, and having decent hair spray will destroy the earth. Cow farts actually emit more greenhouse gasses. The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor- a by product of these ‘green’ hydrogen cars.
PB, does it ever strike you that your conception of God is the ultimate “Do as I say, not as I do” sort?
#24
What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
That would be utterly inconsistent, making God a liar. We must do as He says, and as He empowers us on this earth in the context of our limited abilities, do as he does.
Ummmm…put down the talking points and actually have thought of your own.
The cow fart emissions “talking point” comes from a report that uses ALL phases of cattle maintenance and processing. I.E. powering feed plants, fertilizer application, and processing centers.
While do contribute to the overall methane production they are not a major source.
Simple formula for you. If people contribute to “green house gases” and people cut back on what they use that produces those what happens to the green house gases? Clue: It’s easier to stop driving an SUV than to get a cow to stop farting. I suppose you could kill all the cows but then McDonalds would go out of business.
#26
Instead of killing the cows, should we just catch and use the gas like the Chinese do with pigs?
Seriously, there is more effect from nature than what man has created. Even if we dropped every nuclear bomb in existence, we could not destroy the earth. Give me a break.
while i do not hate them either (guess it’s gotta be said)
i do think they know what they are doing… they are leveraging fear to increase power.
chad,
i would agree – if the issue had not been demagogued by the left. and it’s not like some tax dollars going to war… i understand how that is upsetting… but the staked her are much higher… what they want to do is more significant than just taking money.
From here
Its all about the almighty dollar, not the worship of God or the stewardship of earth.
there are other interpretations of this verse. but then again, proposing interpretations other than yours is often tantamount to denying god’s truth…
PB,
You are correct that there are natural causes that create a large volume of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere.
In fact, without those greenhouse gases, the earth would be some 30 degrees cooler.
However, that has nothing to do with whether 1.) people are contributing greenhouse gases (they are) and 2.) whether those greenhouse gases could prove to be a tipping point, resulting in unwanted changes to our climate (they could).
If you visit the Grand Canyon on vacation, and someone pushes you over, do you blame the guy who pushed you, or yourself for being there in the first place?
I am sorry…it seems ironic that those who call into question the Creation account in scripture also doubt the veracity of the Lord destroying the earth by fire…but…I’ll bite.
How is this verse interpreted differently?
PB,
Leave it to you try to prove a point about the “worship of the almighty dollar” and stewardship by quoting a Forbes opinion piece
that uses a U.N. report. The irony is almost to much.
It neither refutes my claim nor bolsters yours.
but the answer to demagoguery is NOT to paint anyone who calls for some responsibility as worshipping “mother earth” or whatever…
Chad’s statement is not some wild leftist claim, but something grounded in a particular theological perspective about creation care…
PB,
do you know that when the Genesis account describes the care of the garden it’s the same hebrew word used to describe God’s care for us?
shamar..
why can’t people have this convo without devolving into painting the other side into a caricature or defensively going on and on and on about how “nobody should be able to make me feel bad about my choices”…
sheeesh…
this thread had so much potential…
peace out
nathan,
you are correct, and that is why i try an plot a course between chad and pastorboy (man – that applies on sooo many levels).
re 34: i NEVER questioned the creation account.
PB,
as far as your scripture reference goes…don’t you think descriptions of a restored creation in Revelation mitigate your proof texting by one verse?
the arc of Revelation, the restorative imagery from Genesis to Revelation…the potent claim of Col 1….
isn’t there room for seeing the 2 Peter verse in light of these other moves in the texts?
#39
Actually that wasn’t directed at you, it says that in the passage…
There will be a new heaven and a new earth. The old one is going to be destroyed, and in actuality is slowly fading and being destroyed day by day. What is left will be consumed with fire.
and another word on “liberals”…
the creative tension that rises from the “liberal” strand of Western thought and the “conservative” strand of Western thought is the source of the success and greatness of Western Civ…
the world would be hell if an unfiltered liberal perspective ran it…
but the flip-side is true…
conservatives are just as interventionist…just as shame driven…just as demeaning…only its on their pet issues…
so can we stop using “liberal” the way we protest the use of the word “emergent”? simply because the toilet of talk radio has taught some of you to believe that those with whom you disagree hate America, etc. etc. etc. doesn’t mean it’s true.
it means that they have different ideas than you about what is good/works best/etc.
i’m coming to a place where i see that it’s no good to spend energy on things that i can’t articulate a clear and rich theological perspective on..
I’m back from the tundra, and I see the discussion has headed down the predictable routes.
Actually, the earth won’t be utterly destroyed by fire – it will be purified. It’s like a metal is purified. Yes, there is a way in which it is destroyed in the process, but what it left is what is pure and valuable. So if we are to take God’s word that the original creation was good, than it seems that what will be left after judgment will be much what was there at the beginning. The judgment will be the elimination of all the effects of the Fall. The motif of restoration, healing, and re-creation is something that runs all throughout Scripture.
By the way, I never called into question the veracity of the creation account, either. I believe it’s true, I just don’t believe it was meant to be a literal description.
Because caricatures are so much more fun!
It’s true, we are told to care for the earth and even the animals. When God told Adam to name the animals and have dominion over them it wasn’t simply that he could be their boss. It implies a level of deep care.
As far as the economic issue of “green” things, I’d say there are many things that make sense, but I do think there are some things in the marketplace that are really people trying to take advantage of uninformed consumers. I guess it’s like anything – you really need to educate yourself before mindlessly buying into something.
There are of course all sorts of political ironies involved. One thing I’ve found sort of funny in Pennsylvania is that a few years ago, the legislature passed a law that required the electric companies to be deregulated within a certain time period (something I generally support, btw). Well, that time period is set to end soon, and now there are certain legislators trying to force the utilities to phase in their rate increases, thereby pushing back the time when people will actually start paying the real amount for the electricity they consume. So, in theory, the legislature is concerned about Pennsylvania going green, and yet they are delaying perhaps the biggest thing that would encourage people to save energy because they are worried about their own butts. Those are the types of things that make me very skeptical of the government’s ability to manage the green revolution.
Re comments 41,
42,
44,
and 2 Peter 3:
FYI
1) I believe that there is data which shows that the earth has been warming over the past 160 years.
2) I believe we should be incredibly careful in being good stewards of the earth.
3) I believe that CO2 (as a cause of GW) is highly marginal as a cause, but that its utility is more in the societal aims of politicians leveraging GW, and that even if we heavily reduced it (which would have a negative impact on trees/plants, mind you), it would have negligible impact on the temperature of the earth
4) I believe that man’s impact on global temperatures – as demonstrated by the long-term trends (particularly involving sunspots and solar radiation) is pretty much nil
5) IF – a big IF – we needed to alter the global temperature, there are incredibly inexpensive geo-engineering solutions available to us that do not involve indulgences (like cap-and-trade) or transferring vast amounts of cash to the third world
6) I think that “climate science” as practiced by those involved in ClimateGate, Gore, etc. is actually a religion, and not science.
7) My only reason for posting the video on the open thread was in preparation for an article I’m writing on point #6.
re 47: let’s try not to get off on some irrelevant tangent on what was not said in the pericope.
Chris,
If you heavily reduced CO2 (say by 50%), wouldn’t you just bring it down to levels experienced before the Industrial Revolution?
Were all the trees dying in 1750?
Bingo. Plain-and-simple.
We are witnessing a crusade of sorts, and for Christians to get dragged along is pitiful.
It’s a New Age cause, just like PETA, Greenpeace and the like. It goes well beyond what you see on the surface.
When Al Gore quits rocketing around the world in first class or private jets, perhaps I’ll pay more attention. But as his carbon footprint alone probably outsizes small cities, I’ll ignore him.
Looking forward to the article.
I am more inclined to join PETA than for or against global warming.
All me are liars.
I think I would have to echo what Chris said. So much of what is being trumpeted as the science of global warming (or many other things for that matter), when the evidence is examined, has a very weak case.
Whenever, something new is discovered in a scientific area, I am immediately skeptical UNTIL I can read the data collection methods used, the manner in which the data was interpreted and then if I reach the same conclusions as the researcher.
Sometimes I agree with the researcher, sometimes I don’t. The thing that really bothers me is when we are told to not even ask questions, just accept the conclusions.
Blind fanaticism anywhere just makes me itchy…
Duh.
Of course it is. This isn’t something new. It’s a form of pantheism… as old as dirt.
The question is, who cares?
The mistake is to make generalizations and assume that everyone who accepts the theory of global warming are leftist, godless drones who worship the earth. Some are, like your friend Rob Bell, simply affirming truth where they see it. Taking care of the earth is a good thing – plain and simple. If politicians are doing so as some sort of “religion,” so be it. It’s a better religion than war mongering.
Your thoughts on “generalizations” work both ways. The average person who sees through the “theory” promoted by Al Gore and his type are not voting for the wholesale destruction of the Earth… they simply see the ruse for what it is.
If the whole thing was as bad as some really say, then why do they have to distort the stats and figures and fear-monger?
Sounds a lot like the decision to go into Iraq to me. Politics, politics, politics. Greed, greed, greed.
If you want to admire the Emperor’s New Clothes, feel welcome.
BTW, personally I absolutely love nature and we teach our children a deep, deep appreciation for creation in all forms.
I actually don’t believe that most politicians who talk about global warming actually give a rat’s behind about the actual issue itself. I think they see as a way to keep themselves in power and to keep certain parts of their voting base appeased. Perhaps that being too cynical, but I don’t see any evidence to the contrary. If they really believed it was as a big a crisis as they make it out to be they would have put their money where there mouths are by now.
I’m all for affirming truth. The issue with the whole global warming thing is that the truth is obscured behind many layers of other things.
I believe the idea that we should care for the earth and be environmentally conscious is true, but I also think that many of the things put forth as solution aren’t really solutions at all.
Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure it’s the case for some but not all. But my question is the same: So what? They are politicians. I don’t place my hope in them anymore than I do someone like Tiger Woods. I’m not shocked or disappointed when either lets me down.
Maybe so. But if the issue raises people’s consciousness about the environment and their role in her care than that’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned.
It’s really no different than other politicians making a religion out of the free market or defense. If we are comparing ideologies I’ll take the so-called lefts over the rights any day.
As I said in the very first comment here, it is ridiculous to conclude that just because there may be some fraud at work with respect to global warming than we should have been “chopping down trees instead of hugging them,” as the song in the clip sings.
It is as if the people behind the song want to make the argument: Well, since global warming is a lie lets rape and pillage the earth!
chad,
i think the chopping down trees reference was meant to mean “doing more research.”
I agree it’s ridiculous to conclude that just because there may be some fraud at work with respect to global warming the issue should be ignored.
i think it equally ridiculous to think the issue is as grave as those in copenhagen (and capitol hill) say it is… and it’s naive not to assume they have ulterior motives.
Agreed. But with one caveat: I’m sure there are some there who truly believe in what they are doing and are convinced that this is a life or death issue. Believe it or not, there actually are people in politics who believe in certain things and aspire to make a difference for the good.
A lot of ink is spilled around here about not assigning motive to writers. Who are we to judge? Bottom line is, I can get behind people who want to reduce our fingerprints on the earth by finding new ways to use energy and encourage people to consume (gorge) less.
I’m all for encouraging people to consume less or make wise decisions. What I’m not for is passing laws that try to force people to buy certain things or outlaw certain items, such as incandescent lightbulbs, for instance.
I also am particularly skeptical of people who act as if human beings were not meant to be on the earth. I have heard some environmentalists talk as if the best thing that mankind could do for the planet is commit mass suicide.
i agree… in fact i think it will eventually be capitalism in all its “glory” that solves the problem.
Why?
I’ll assume this was sarcasm. Or at least hope it was
Since it’s open friday allow me to plug something. I’m running a marathon in Feb to raise money for orphans in Sudan. You can read about it here and find out how you can help:
Hope for the Children
Well, specifically for the lightbulb question, my answer is as follows. First, even though I’d say switching to CFLs is a no-brainer in most applications (I’ve actually done this cost analysis many times for clients), there are some instances where the older technology of incandescent lighting still makes sense. For example, though it is possible to get dimmable CFLs with screw-in bases, the ballasts in these lamps are still very iffy and have a high failure rate. They will get better, but right now it could actually cost a homeowner more if they have to buy a CFL to replace a failed one.
Also, the fact is that even though CFLs have improved a lot, they still don’t match the color-rendering capabilities of incandescent bulbs. This is important for all kinds of people who need the ability to see colors as they truly are. Granted, at the moment, only the 100W bulbs are on the chopping block, and a lower wattage bulb would work, but it’s pretty much already established that all incandescent bulbs are targeted (I could show you articles in professional lighting journals if you don’t believe me).
From a philosophical and political perspective, I simply don’t think it’s the government’s job to tell citizen’s what they can and cannot buy. I generally don’t trust the opinion of a few self-proclaimed experts over the wisdom of the market (except when it comes to music – I wouldn’t be too upset if country music, nu-metal, and Nickelback were made illegal…)
Ok, so on one level your reasons are practical, as if to say if the options were good it would be OK.
But then you veto that with your philosophical/political issue. But why? You are required to buy car insurance, aren’t you? You are prohibited by law from buying drugs, right?
Should the gov’t allow everyone to buy uranium or assault rifles just because I have a “right” to do as I please?
Well laws requiring car insurance are actually meant to protect other drivers, not the driver buying it. I believe that most states, if not all, only require that drivers carry liability insurance by law. This is so someone you run into has a way to recover damages.
The same principle could be stated for the other things you mentioned. I actually would not be against the loosening of some drug laws, but I think generally most hard drugs should be illegal simply because of the potential harm to others their use can cause.
I don’t see how anyone can harm another person by buying incandescent lightbulbs, though…
In other words, Chad, I’m for the government doing its job of protecting one citizen from harm from another, but I’m generally not for it trying to protect people from harming themselves.
Here’s the thing:
- Is it right to abuse animals and treat them solely as “production units” (ie: Monsanto)? Absolutely not. But in its efforts, PETA goes to extremes. A good cause gets elevated to the only thing that matters, and people are more concerned with Mountain Gorillas getting killed in Rwanda than they are about genocide.
The same thing with climate change. They use fear-mongering, evidenced by the dramatic commercials – “Your kids will all be dead in a generation unless we do something now!!!!”
Let the world have its fun and its causes.
But ours must be for the cause of our Lord, praying and hoping for the coming of His kingdom, wherein dwells righteousness and the curse is lifted.
Here’s something to consider: the earth will ultimately unravel because of God’s judgment against sin, not global warming.
Re: 69
So the tragedy of the commons is a myth?
While I’m sympathetic to your view, I find it a bit simplistic.
Phil – But if the ones who make the laws to buy those bulbs are convinced that this is a matter of life or death than they are acting within the purview that you allow for gov’t – the laws are made to protect everyone.
fixed it.
Which is ironic, because I find the alternative very simplistic. I find it very simplistic to think that we can fix a problem just by telling or forcing someone to do something. To me that’s saying that we don’t really trust people or the marketplace to develop solutions.
I’m not for anarchy or extreme libertarianism. I just happen to think that people like engineers, architects, etc., know more about their given fields than a politician. Most congressman don’t even read beyond the title page of most legislation that passes. I can show you specific parts of the energy code legislation that are there simply because a company had good lobbyists. It’s not that I don’t think there shouldn’t be laws. I just don’t think they should be dictated by businesses trying to get an unfair edge over their competitors – which is what a lot of “green” legislation is.
Not necessarily – CO2 levels were significantly higher during the Medieval Warming Period and in other periods in ancient history.
Methane and other similar gases have a much greater impact on global warming than CO2.
Again, not necessarily, but the periods of greatest growth are correlated both to temperature and CO2. For plants, though, CO2 has a high correlation to growth, as it is the primary component of air they “breathe”. Plants take in CO2 and put out O2 (the opposite of humans).
The decision to regulate CO2 as a preventative for “global warming” above other, far more effective “greenhouse gases” was a political one, not a scientific one. What the Climategate files (particularly the programs – not the emails) reveal is the systematic “confirmation bias” at play in trying to force a correlation between observable temperature data and CO2.
not at all. when it gets to the point that there is a real crisis, not just a “maybe there is a crisis” – that is.
human nature (the positive aspects) and capitalism (the positive aspects) will kick in and solve it.
the positive human nature is our ability to solve problems.
the positive aspect of capitalism is rewarding the one who solves the problem.
so, no, i was not being sarcastic at all.
If this had anything to actually do with “taking care of the earth”, you might have a point. Regulating CO2, Cap-n-Trade, etc. are not “taking care of the earth”, but rather measures to counter the “sin” of utilizing natural resources. For the politicians involved, the issue is all about power and pretty much nothing to do with “taking care of the earth”.
We could reduce CO2 to 1700 levels and still do nothing to positively “take care of the earth”.
If avoiding a change in climates (which does happen naturally – both warmer and colder) is at issue, there are ways of geoengineering solutions (see SuperFreakonomics for examples).
That the earth has been warming for the past 150 years is not at issue – it has been. That man has had one iota to do with it is pretty much in doubt, even more so after reading the leaked/hacked data.
Yes, Neil – because the most obviously “fraudulent” data was already identified before the Climategate files were released – Tree ring data from northern Siberia that were cherry-picked to give historical data (though tossing out any post-1960 data that did not conform to the scientists’ pre-conceived conclusions). The “chopping down trees” reference was in specific reference to this.
A) It’s none of their business.
B) The new bulbs have incredibly awful downsides – particularly if they break. Example: EPA regulations specify that if they break on a carpeted surface, you need to cut that section of carpet out, bag it, and contact a hazardous waste disposal unit.
Another example: Reduced-size regulations for toilet tanks for “green” reasons actually results in more wastewater from toilets than the old ones because they have to be double (or triple) flushed, whereas the old tanks only needed one, on average.
76 – I think it is naive to put faith in either human nature or capitalism.
I fail to see how that is a Christian worldview.
Why?
While I agree that passing laws regulating what is otherwise free behavior is usually a bad option, when you’re dealing with a serious negative externality, it may just be the only option.
Along these lines, I’ve enjoyed reading Nudge by Sunstein and Thaler. They propose a “libertarian paternalism” which strives to respect human choice while realizing that human behavior can be “nudged” in ways that benefit the actors and society. Interesting read.
I remember Jesus speaking death over a tree, and it withered. Hmmm…not so much of an environmentalist.
Believeing or joining with the government, even in good things, is antichrist.
Rick,
I also recall Jesus saying God cares for even the sparrow and the lilies, so much so that we can be sure he cares for us.
I disagree with the “even in good things” of your assertion. Government is a fallen power like all else. It can be used for the purposes it was created for. Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
BTW -Those of you that demean President Obama, please contact Mrs. Schlueter, she will gladly join voices with you.
It is goofy to suggest that hyumans have altered the planet in such a short time.
It is an outrage to see believers all up in arms about the earth when humans in Africa and elsewhere die tragic and painful deaths daily.
Government is antichrist. Muderes, thieves, boasters, adulterers, hedonists, pluralists, and it worships the god of human power.
There has actually been progress in this area. They now make “dual flush” toilets which have two buttons for flushing – one for, uh, light loads, and one for, let’s say, heavier duty. So that way you’re not flushing 4 or 5 gallons away when you don’t have to, but the bigger flush should be big enough to get everything down.
A free market solution to a government created problem…
it as much a Christian worldview as it is to expect gov’t enforcement to solve the problem.
i’ll pick capitalism over gov’t any day when it comes to solving problems.
exactly… the free market will create the best solutions.
There really is no such thing as a “free” market.
Jesus was no capitalist. The man that worked from 6:00 AM got the same as the one that only worked one hour.
The first shall be last and all that jazz.
true – but ya know what i mean.
i don’t think that parable has anything to do with economic systems. but i agree, it’s not like capitalism is more biblical… contra what some may think.
But the problem is, with most “green” regulation – particularly in building codes – you’re not dealing with a “serious negative externality” – you’re dealing with a religious opinion disguised as a public concern.
While I get the sentiment of this I always find that “Keep the government out my house” argument to be a bit ridiculous.
We invite the government into all areas of our life with no complaint. Most other area’s it’s for the protection of society as a whole. So if it is deemed to be unhealthy to use certain lights over others why would we not expect the government to regulate it.
We do it with cigarettes, alchohol, property laws, drivers, etc… Not saying that the evidence is there for the lights but rather that we’ve created a mushy line of how government protects it’s citizenry.
Agreed, Chris.
I bet the same people who say its none of their business are the majority of the people wishing the gov’t would make sure gay marriages never happen.
“None of their business” is code for “It’s not an issue I agree with.”
or, to add to the above, the same people who think abortion should be illegal.
I have no interest what the government does – on any issue.
Rick,
There is a long history of prophetic voices, within Scripture and without, that care deeply about what those in power are doing, especially when they act unjustly.
Exactly. While there are plenty of things in building codes that make sense and actually are there to ensure the safety of occupants, there are a lot things that are because people greased the palms of the right people. For instance, dealing with lighting again, if I build a 1500 sq ft. bank, I’m required to limit the lighting in that building to 1 Watts per sq. ft. However, if I build a 50,000 sq. ft. casino, I can basically put as much energy inefficient lighting into I want to. Large portions of that building are considered exempt from the energy code. Why is that? It’s for the simple reason that casinos are big money makers for state and federal governments. And that’s the whole point. The overly-restrictive codes are generally a lot more burdensome for small builders than the big guys. So that’s just another reason why I laugh whenever I hear a politician say he’s “for the little guy”.
Also, as far as the “safety” of a 100W bulb (or any incandescent bulb), there’s nothing unsafe about them. They’re really just as safe as any other lighting. They do get hotter than a CFL, but they’ve also been used for over a hundred years. Safety isn’t the stated reason for taking them off the reason, anyway. The stated goal is energy savings.
I’m not against progress being made and new technology replacing old, but historically, the leaps in progress have not come through government intervention. There are plenty of energy hogging products that have been made obsolete simply by the market deciding they weren’t the best.
Which is why you shouldn’t sit back and encourage those with the power to try and grab more power, invading every area of everyone’s life. God didn’t create us to be wards of the state.
I disagree. It’s not about more or less but about responsible use.
And Phil, this is not a fair characterization of what is going on and I think you know that.
Do you feel that way every time you buckle your seat belt?
That’s a matter of perspective. I could argue that we are created to be “wards of the Church” which is a state of being and doing irrespective of how big or small the government is. And as a ward of the body of Christ my task is to speak up when the government, no matter how small or big, is acting unjustly.
I’m no more a “ward of the State” because I have to buy certain lightbulbs over others than I am a “ward of the state” because I can’t buy heroine at WalMart or because I have to buckle my seat belt when I drive.
Historically, the more power a government holds, the more tyrannical and dictatorial it becomes. Power does breed responsibility. That’s why the people who wrote the Constitution were so concerned about concentrating the power of government into any single branch. They had first-hand experience with the corruption that power can bring.
Well, not each time I buckle my seat belt, but I do think when I am designing a building for someone, and I have to tell them they can’t put a light fixture in they want to (that they would pay for, and pay the electric bill for) because the building code doesn’t allow.
As far as I’m concerned, those who have asked for government intrusion in every area in the name of “safety” or “security” shouldn’t be surprised when that same government tells them who they can and can’t marry. They’re getting what they asked for.
True. Which is why we should be speaking out against this sham. Especially the CFL law, requiring us to put something that we know is dangerous in our house, risking harm to our children and ourselves.
I’m not asking for government intrusion in every area. But your problem works both ways. THose of you who claim this stuff is none of the governments business want the government to legislate morality in other areas – marriage, abortion, drugs, etc.
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Actually, if you would have read what I wrote earlier, you’d see I don’t. I would actually be for the legalization of some drugs and the lowering of the drinking age. And generally, I’m not for the government telling people who they can and can’t marry. Abortion, though, is taking the life another person, so it’s akin to murder in my opinion. It should be illegal.
You can’t legislate morality, but you do need have laws that prevent one citizen from harming or killing another one. This is why drug and alcohol laws are not as cut and dry as they appear. A drunk driver or driver on drugs can easily get in his car and run down an innocent person. So it’s not a matter of drug user only being harmful to himself.
Phil, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by those quotes.
In my best Allen Iverson impression, let me say: Lightbulbs?? We’re talking about lightbulbs here? Lightbulbs? Seriously?
it is not ridiculous at all, when you take into account the Biblical role of government: Common defense, Civil order, Justice
A) because it’s outside the purview of the government’s Biblical role
B) Because the “deeming to be unhealthy” of numerous things is specious, at best – be it lightbulbs, seatbelts, car seats, toilet tanks or motocycle helmets. The role of government is not to play the role of Nanny to the people.
I don’t smoke, but I oppose no-smoking laws.
I don’t drink, but I oppose blue laws (though not DUI laws – which are an issue of civil order)
I don’t own much property, but I support property (and intellectual property) laws, because they are part of civil order
I always wear a seat-belt, but I oppose seat-belt laws.
I don’t own a motorcycle, but I oppose helmet laws.
The government is not my big brother to watch over me…
The government’s only civil interest in marriage is in: a) procreation – which maintains civil order by providing a steady supply of labor and production; and b) child rearing, which provides the moral underpinning of civil order.
Gay marriage does nothing to provide (a) and it is doubtful/debatable that it can consistently provide (b).
Personally, though, before I’d have the government sanction ‘gay marriage’, I’d just as soon they got out of the marriage business.
Speak for yourself. See above – there are a whole lot of issues I agree with (ex. “smoking is bad for you”) that I still think is none of the government’s business (particularly when it comes to private establishments).
Apples and oranges. Abortion is murder, and thus falls within the purview of justice, not personal privacy.
Phil, were you quoting Jefferson when Bush invaded Iraq?
generally? What does that mean? Are you in favor of the gov’t saying anyone can marry anyone they like, that it’s none of their business?
As for abortion there is the same underlying principle in play. You think it’s murder and a violation of the rights of others. Those on the “green” side of this issue also feel it’s a life and death situation therefore certain things need to be made “illegal” for the protection of the citizenry.
As i said before, “none of their business” is just code for “it’s not an issue I agree with”
New Testament Christianity makes a new creation, untethered from governments and kings, and completely supernatural. This is what happens when the salvation of souls is just another tenant of the faith and not the absolute core.
And the American government is a murderous, hedonist, and pluralistic construct that bows to the desires of fallen men and wields power over the serfs that elected them. And the greatest and most profound deception of all is that it has hoodwinked the proletariat into thinking they have a voice.
Is it noteworthy that the overwhelming majority of congessman and senators are wealthy? I think that speaks volumes.
Lightbulbs themselves are not the point. The point is that if the government feels it needs to legislate something as inconsequential as lightbulbs, it certainly will not stop when it comes to passing laws dealing with more consequential things. And it has. You can probably point to almost any consumer item in your house, and there is a regulation saying what can and can’t be in that item. Some of them actually make sense – no one wants their kids playing with toys with lead in them. But others are simply the result of a lobbyist convincing enough congressmen that their product is “safe” and their competitors isn’t.
The fact is that through these seemingly innocuous decisions, the government has injected itself more and more into the market. The laws can literally put one company out of business and make another one rich. They are the definition of laws catering to special interests.
You obviously don’t know much about the effects of second-hand smoke.
Allowing gay marriage is not going to undermine anything but perhaps the moral sensibilities of the “right.”
I’d assume they would to. So you are against the Republican move to make marriage between a man and woman constitutional law?
What in God’s dear name does it matter what the government considers “marriage”???
The church probably should refrain from seeking governmental approval on man/woman marriage. Of course it would cost us our god – money.
Yeah, like insurance company lobbyists.
Same can be said of passing green laws.
Chad is correct in this: If global warming is true, not solving it is future murder. And if we go to Afghanistan to kill people to defend our citizens, and if we really believe unborn babies are being mudered, then why should we not kill abortion doctors to defend our citizens?
The logic is remarkable.
Chris L, I just think your position has far too many holes in it.
For instance, you are against smoking and drinking laws and yet you think abortion should be made illegal because it’s a justice issue for the unborn. And yet you don’t seem to consider the ill effects that smoking and drinking has on a fetus if done by the mother.
Yet to take your position to it’s logical conclusion, the fetus has rights and it’s a justice issue, therefore we SHOULD pass a law that says pregnant woman cannot smoke or drink. BUT, your philosophy of government won’t allow you to do that because that is “none of their business.”
For the most part. Christians really shouldn’t worry too much about what the government says about marriage. It’s a God-ordained institution, so if a government claims that two people are married, but they really aren’t, than it’s really a moot point.
It’s simply a fact that under the majority of circumstances a fetus en utero will grow to become a living, breathing human being. Terminating the pregnancy ensures that will not happen. There is direct link between cause and effect there.
On most of the claim that the sponsor of “green” legislation make, there is no such link. They are operating off of false assumptions, and they are simply taking away freedom from citizens.
Would you think it was “none of their business”, Chad, when governments told people of color where they could go to school, whom they could marry, or couldn’t vote. I suspect you would say that government had no right to do those things. And you would have been right. The government does not grant anyone rights. It has abused its power and taken away rights of citizens throughout history, though.
If you trust a government to protect you on one hand, you cannot be surprised when that same government oppresses you on the other hand.
Which is more reprehensible:
Killing an abortion doctor whi is in reality a serial murderer for hire.
OR
Dropping bombs on villages in northern Afghanistan hoping to get some terrorist but killing scores on innocents as well?
I get the sense that your dancing around this issue. I’ll be clear: I think anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to get married as far as the gov’t is concerned. Do you?
Apples and oranges. Again, you are already declaring a verdict that is undetermined: That how we use our resources has no bearing on the safety and wellbeing of others, not in this generation or future ones.
Not everyone agrees with you about the “false assumptions,” Phil. There are plenty of people far smarter than I who are convinced this is an issue of justice as much as abortion is.
I don’t trust nor expect the gov’t to protect me.
“I get the sense that your dancing around this issue. I’ll be clear: I think anyone who wants to get married should be allowed to get married as far as the gov’t is concerned. Do you?”
Yes.
I don’t know how much clearer I can be, really. It’s not the government’s place to say who can and can’t be married. The only exceptions I can think of are the one’s dealing with incest. That’s why I said “for the most part”.
Phil, I think you said you read the Sleeth book, right? Did you not find it amazing where he shared his findings as a doctor about the number of cancer causing agents found in the cord blood of new borns today as compared to a few decades ago? That was what prompted him to rethink his vocation. He is convinced that it is because of how we treat our environment and the ways we have abused the earth’s resources.
Now, tie that with your sanctify of life views as it relates to unborn babies. IF unborn babies have rights and we should care about their well being (which I agree with), and IF how we live in the world (i.e. what things we consume or use) can have negative impacts on their wellbing, than shouldn’t there be some legislation about what is safe and what is not?
How do people who claim to be pro-life reconcile that position with so many other issues like these? (Rick already pointed out the illogics of war).
Do you care what the Argentina government does about gay marriage? Why not? I get it, only your own moral ambiance is at stake, so it’s not a principle it’s a environmental moral issue.
If you really believed that violence is appropriate to save lives and defend Americans you would have the guts to kill abortion doctors and not just give lip serviced outrage.
You cannot straddle the fence.
There is already plenty of legislation and regulation dealing with these issues. I grew up near Pittsburgh in the 80’s, and I remember going to the city, and it was generally a very dirty, industrial city. Well, now, I can go there, and it’s completely different. It’s much cleaner, and it’s actually a nice place. So I think that existing regulation has worked to big extent (also, the fact that so much production has simply shipped overseas has helped, too).
What the current regulation being discussed would do, though, is nothing to actually reduce pollution. It would simply extract money from the biggest polluters. It would allow them to continue to pollute at the same level, but pay more money in the way of “trades”. It’s not about the environment – it’s about the government lining its coffers.
You seem content to judge these laws based on their stated intentions rather than their real and projected outcomes. If the stated goal is one thing, but the outcome is something completely different, it seems only logical to me to question the validity of that legislation.
I don’t disagree with this entirely. That’s why I said the line is mushy/blurred as to where government is allowed and isn’t.
My consistent view has been (at least I’ve tried to be consistent) that I’m opposed to legislation that regulates morality. As in the lightbulb issue, as you’ve said, people are making it a moral argument/religion. Which isn’t accurate. Only because the data isn’t there to support it doing harm to the globe.
Does that mean that I should recklessly live with abandon and not do what I can to lessen the effects? I don’t think so.
So you would be in favor of the gov’t passing laws that would reduce pollution, even if it infringed upon someone’s personal “freedoms”?
On most issue we must depend on research from others that usually contend for oppositie ends of the question. I have done the research on global warming (for example) so who doI believe?
The one which my political cronies espouse.
I have not done the research on global warming.
I do. Some are overblown, some are legit. Notice, though, that I specified “on private property” (which includes privately-owned restaurants). If you don’t want to be exposed to ’second-hand smoke’ in a private restaurant, don’t go there. Don’t ask a politician to make it illegal for their patrons to smoke. Talk about arrogance.
Whatever. It does nothing to provide civil order or to stabilize society, and requiring those with moral opposition to it to recognize it as legitimate (and in some areas, protected) status goes beyond even “civil order”.
Which is why – other than for property/custody issues – I’d rather see the government get out of the ‘marriage’ business than legitimize a perversion of it.
Sometimes I have to wonder if you actually believe the crap you write. Killing a child is murder. Cutting down a tree, screwing in an incandescent lightbulb, or installing a 4-gallon toilet tank is not. As for stuff like “cap and trade” and anthropogenic global warming, I’m willing to examine the science (if we ever actually get around to practicing climate science) and accept most all geoengineering and (potentially) minor policy solutions.
Rick – there are a good number of geoengineering solutions available if GW is true. However, if this is (as it seems to be) a natural warming cycle, as experienced by the earth for thousands (or hundreds of thousands, if you’re not a YEC) of years, it will ’solve’ itself. The high priests of global warming don’t like geoengineering solutions, though, because they do not institute enough pain for the “sins” of humanity.
I consider these – but I’d also note that it is not currently illegal for women to smoke/drink when pregnant – unless they want to do it in a private establishment where the local nannies have outlawed it. Smoking and drinking do have a negative impact on unborn children, but they are not 99.999% fatal – which abortion is.
No – because it is only a risk, not a guarantee, of death, we have to weigh the rights of both the woman and the child. Abortion, though, is a guaranteed death sentence.
No. Simply because I think that the current regulations are mostly sufficient. They just need to be enforced fairly and evenly across the board. Also, I don’t buy into the logic that an engineering problem is solved by the passing of a law.
It’s called basic logic and brain function. Abortion is nearly 100% fatal. The other things mentioned are not.
I also disagreed with Sleeth’s observations about cord blood for the simple fact that many of the substances he noted: a) had no analytical tests for identification/quantification decades ago; and b) are not all stable enough to last for decades in frozen blood for testing today. In short, I doubt his ’science’ on the matter. I understand his point, but I think he was snookered on its significance.
The government cannot “legitimize” anything including marriage. The entire thing is some red herring that is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Chris L. – That is what happens when you believe the ngovenments view of anything means something. It doesn’t.
Why not? I’m sorry Phil but this doesn’t make sense.
You don’t think lowering pollution is a good? You yourself said that Pittsburgh is much cleaner and now a “nice place” because it has less pollution (and it is a healthier place to live) and yet you would not be in favor of laws to ensure pollution continues to decline or that other cities get have the same results? Why?
Why don’t you think lowering pollution is a justice issue?
So the gov’t should only pass laws that restrict the KILLING of babies, not the maiming of them.
That makes a lot of sense.
So when someone neglects their child by not feeding them or keeping them warm the laws should not touch them so long as they don’t kill them.
Your logic has holes all through it.
Again, this makes absolutely no sense if you care for the wellbeing of a child, born or not.
I think car seat laws for children should be repealed because it is only a RISK that they will die in a car crash, whereas abortion is a guaranteed death sentence.
All this to say, Chris L, that if you want to be consistent about your pro-life stance than you must insist gov’t make it illegal for pregnant women to smoke or drink or do anything that might harm the life inside them -one that can’t speak for his or herself.
But you won’t say this because it messes with your view of government, which seems to take precedent for you when it comes to making certain choices.
What an odd sort of place to be.
We agree on something!
I think they should be repealed because they are no more effective than seat-belts (proven in a couple of studies, and observed in all available crash statistics over the past two decades).
And here I was trying to avoid going the “moron” route again. Please reread Phil’s and my comments until you understand that abortion is 100% fatal (thus, murder), whereas all of the straw men you keep coughing up (as usual) are simply risks, not certainties.
Not an odd sort of place to be – just a fantasy one created by morons who can’t comprehend basic logic.
#140 – One cannot have it both ways. Either the government is a divine instrument or it is not. What you have here is “The government is good and necessary if it agrees with me”.
The government is merely a collaboration of fallen men with fallen motives attempting to govern more fallen men with fallen motives. What a mess which historically has proven to be the single most satanic force upon this earth.
Yeah, try putting an infant in just a seat belt. In any case, I could have just as easily said seat belt laws instead of car seat laws- same principle.
Yeah, it would be nice if you could have a conversation without name-calling. I’ve come to expect this of you, though (sadly).
I know abortion is 100% fatal. Duh. That is not the point. The point is you don’t seem to care about the wellbeing of an unborn child even when admitting that smoking and drinking has bad effects on them and CAN lead to death.
If a mother neglects her infant baby and does not feed her or clothe her should the law only get involved when the baby is dead?
That’s the point.
Caring for the overall well-being of children is not synonymous with supporting laws to force parents to do everything that might be best for their “well-being”. Preventing the certain death of a child is not an issue of “well-being” – it is an issue of existence. If you can’t comprehend this, you cannot comprehend the basics of law – God’s or man’s.
Intentional maiming of children is illegal – the government does (and should do) both. Abortion is an intentional taking of life. Smoking while you’re pregnant should be discouraged, but not outlawed, as it is not an intentional harm being done to the child (and it is not 100% sure harm, either).
Lowering pollution can be an issue of common order when it is clearly established as a menace to the common good. The problem with 99/100 environmental regs is that their impact has no real bearing on a ‘menace’ to the common good or clear science to back their claims.
Oh, so as long as one can claim it was an accident…
“Your Honor, in my defense, when I got in my car after drinking those beers I had no intention of crippling that person who crossed the street…”
No real point, at all. To follow your logic, then we must also ban pregnant women from driving while pregnant, walk down steps or even get out of bed in the morning because all of those things CAN lead to death. Abortion is not a risk, it is a certainty. Laws preventing choices which lead to a certainty of death are just and Biblical. To make this congruent to laws that prevent people from taking measured risks is just stupidity or contrariness.
I certainly care about women taking care of their unborn children and avoiding risks that could harm them. Passing a law forcing them to avoid those risks is not an expression of care – it is one of control. There are many legitimate ways of influencing pregnant women to care for their unborn children which require no laws. However, laws which prevent them from murdering their children (which is not an issue of risk or ‘well-being’) are both compelling and moral.
In other words, drinking while driving should also be discouraged, but not outlawed.
Death is inevitable for everyone.
If it were determined that the mere act of driving or walking while pregnant caused brain damage or some other disease to the baby than I wouldn’t be opposed to laws that restricted such activities.
That is the difference. Smoking or drinking don’t need an accident to happen in addition to those activities to make them harmful to the fetus – they are harmful just as they are.
They really don’t teach basic logic skills at Duke, do they?
There is no “right” to drive, whereas there is a basic right to procreate (and be a parent).
When one chooses to drive, they are utilizing a common good (a public roadway) for which they need permission (a license). If they choose to exercise another right (to be intoxicated), their license does not give them permission to use the common good (the public roadway), because they are then a public menace who makes the common good unsafe for anyone using it around them (not just themselves or those in their legal care). Therefore, drunk driving laws (which are about the safe management of a common good for which the individual has no ‘rights’, but only permission to use in controlled circumstances) are not at all congruent with discouraging mothers from drinking while pregnant.
Another straw man, and a pretty stupid one, Chad.
As are scads of other personal choices mothers make (some known and dozens probably not known). They do not lead, though, to certain harm, and because they do not cross the line to causing certain harm or death, the right of the mother – as a parent – supersedes. The right to kill the child, though, is not at all congruent to engaging in risky behavior – any more than shooting a child is congruent to smoking with him/her in the room with you.
Yes it is, but it is not up to us to decide when it will come. I do support the laws (God’s and mans) against that…
blah, blah, blah, blah.
The bottom line is drunk driving laws are there to protect people are are harmed, unintentionally so, by the driver’s poor judgment. If you want to argue that the fetus has rights just as much as a pedestrian crossing a street, than you have to outlaw drinking smoking or other drug use that harms, unintentionally so, the baby.
But the bigger point, of which your little demonstration causes problem with, is your language or “rights.” You claim driving is not a right (I agree).
Building something is not a “right’ either. Certainly, at least, not in public domain. For the government to pass laws about how can or cannot be built or to require permits that allow for only certain things to be used in those buildings for the purpose of creating a safer environment for others is not dissimilar from the law requiring a license to drive and for those who drive to abide by the laws established for the good of the public.
I disagree.
There is a difference in the effect if we are talking about a fetus vs. a child. For instance, a mother drinking has no ill effects on a child physically who is already born. Not so with a fetus. But also, the child has a the right to leave the room if old enough of another person could remove the child from the room if they thought harm might come. Not so with a fetus.
Chris L, perhaps you missed this question the first 2 times I posed it:
Should the law have any say in matters where a mother isn’t feeding or clothing her baby? Or should the law only come into play once the child is dead?
Guess those straw men didn’t work out for you, huh?
*Sigh* Stupidity truly knows no bounds sometimes. I have to make no such arguments, because they are apples and oranges. When pitting the rights of the mother vs. the rights of the child, pre- Roe v. Wade, the mother has a set of parental rights that extend up to the point where they infringe upon the right of the child to live. In the case of drunk driving, the rights in conflict are the “rights” of a driver to use a common good in an inebriated state vs. the rights of individuals completely unrelated to the driver to use the common good without fear of impaired drivers. In that case, the public right outweighs the private right. In the case of the unborn, the private right of the child outweighs the private right of the mother where life is concerned, but not where risk is concerned. Why? Because the mother is the legal guardian of the child, and assumes risks on his/her behalf until he/she becomes an adult.
Please do us all a favor and stick to deluding your flock and stay out of the Duke’s law school…
But now you mistake the “common good”. We are now talking about goods being produced/consumed in the private sector (not in the public commons), and the “safer environment” is not only unestablished, but is (rather) highly specious and based on (a) political favors; (b) junk/flawed science; (c) religion (aka “warmism”/”radical environmentalism”) and/or (d) baseless, political opportunism. There is no question that some regulations are needed for the public good – but the threshold of proof ought to be high enough that there is little question that it is truly a ‘public good’. That is not the case with cap-and-tax and other warmist nonsense (like lightbulbs).
FYI – Drunk driving is not illegal (nor should it be) when you’re driving on your own private property. Heck – driver’s licenses are not required if you want to drive on your own property.
Drunk driving is only illegal if it is on public property (roads, etc.) or on property not belonging to the individual (a mall parking lot, for example). Granted, that is the case in Indiana, though it may be different elsewhere.
The basic difference between you and I, Chad, is that you seem to trust that elected officials have the wisdom and competence to write and pass laws for the true benefit of the public. I simply do not. It is necessary to have a certain baseline of laws on the books, but it is not necessary that there be a law covering every minute detail of our lives.
When it comes down to it, there is nothing the government can really do to stop one citizen who’s determined to kill another from doing it. Someone could kill a person with a regular dinner fork if he wanted to. The government could not stop it from happening. However, the government can use its power to punish the offender and prevent it from happening again. Hopefully this prevents other would be murderers from doing the same. But, when it comes down to government is powerless to change the hearts of people, and that is what you are asking it to do.
Passing a law does not really make anyone safer in any real way. It creates the illusion of security, but in reality no one is kept safe by the law. People only live safely and peacefully with one another because of mutual goodwill to one another. The government can’t enforce this.
The law at its most basic is a restraining force, not an agent of change.
By the way, if politicians really cared about the welfare of the citizens, particularly the poor, they would automatically do away with things like the lottery and legalized gambling, which are essentially taxes on the poor (and stupid). But they would never dream of that. Heck, in PA, a big part of the state budget hinges on gaming revenues.
There is an element where the common good is served by having an educated citizenry, so requiring that children undergo education – in the home or at a school of their choice – I do not see as a problem (though I would rather see schools provided privately than publicly).
Attempted murder, though, should come into play – which is something that happens ‘before a child is dead’.
In general, though, I support the rights of the mother – as a parent of her child – up until she purposely harms, or intends to harm that child. She is the child’s legal guardian, and makes legal decisions on his/her behalf until he/she is an adult.
Not true. Drinking is a root cause for a number of types of abuse and neglect toward children. Even so, we don’t outlaw drinking in the home – but we do prosecute neglect and abuse after they happen.
Sorry, Chris, but I am making it a habit to just stop reading your comment when you can’t be civil. For your good and mine. In the future, keep your personal attacks at the end of your comment to ensure they are read.
No, I don’t. But I am willing to listen.
It sounds as if you are not so much against the passing of laws so long as they are laws that you agree with. I know nothing of lightbulbs. You sound as though you do. You sound as though you would be in favor of some green laws just so long as you were convinced they did what they aspire to do, right?
The collective body of Christ was called to be a redemptive entity, living in a mystery and operating within an invisible kingdom. Instead we have a right/left political force unrecognizeable within the context of society.
We do not act or speak any differently than the liberal/conservative unbeliever that lives down the block. Our concerns are the very same as the unregenerate actvists, and our calling has become marred and mired in earthly matters.
And in a startling metamorphosis, the body of Christ shows trust, deference, and even a tortured allegiance to nations and their governments. And with all this, life goes on in the midst of a society whose Christ followers number themselves in the millions with very little to show for it.
The greatest persecution we can drum up is some governmental intrusions into our western lifestyles. We are pitiful.
The majority of parents who neglect their children are not doing so because they “intend” to “purposely harm” their child.
The same can be said of those mothers who drink or smoke or use drugs while pregnant.
Why should the law be enforced on mothers who malnourish their born children and yet not be enforced on the mother who malnourishes her child by drinking or smoking?
You are inconsistent at best, Chris L.
That’s another issue entirely and I think you know what point I was making. Drinking in the same room as a child does not have the same physical impact on a child as when that child is attached to the mother. Unless the parent is force feeding their baby liquor, than we might be talking about the same thing.
Actually, there would be two requirements:
1) That the “green law” was actually for a demonstrable, needed public good, with broad support. (i.e. water entering a manufacturing plant should be no ‘dirtier’ exiting the facility than it is exiting the manufacturing plant.)
2) That the “green law” would actually accomplish the ends for which it aspires, in an equitable manner, and does not exceed the bounds of (1).
Most “green laws” don’t meet #1, and even fewer go on to meet #2.
With each new law comes:
* Creative ways to circumvent it.
* Out and out disobedience.
* The necessity of new laws.
* New penalties.
* And a disproportionate arrest of poor and disadvantaged people because the more wealthy can break the law in clandestine ways.
* More jail time for the poor and the minorities that still are burdened with the residual effects of history.
Democracy 101.
163 – that was a question to Phil, not you. But whatever.
Assuming that #1 was met (which depending on who you read or listen to, is met), then, you should not be saying of the gov’t. “It’s none of their business.”
You have more or less conceded that it is their business, so long as they meet your requirements.
Which was my point from the very beginnig. “None of their business” is just code for “I don’t agree with how they are doing it.”
Well my degrees are in Architectural Engineering with an emphasis on lighting and electrical design. So I know more about lightbulbs than a normal person should.
It not so much that I’m against laws that have the goal of making things generally safer and better, but I think that you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns on legislation where the writing of new laws become and end in and of itself. People always complain when Congress doesn’t do anything, but I think in one sense deadlock is better than just doing something for the sake of doing something. I think some people take the attitude of “well, at least they tried”. To me, though, that’s very odd. To me the standard isn’t so much if a law “aspires” to do right, but if it actually can be shown that it does work. There have been many things that had the best of intentions that failed miserably.
We don’t enforce laws on mothers who malnourish their born children, until an actual level of abuse/neglect has been established (not simply the risk of abuse/neglect via malnourishment). And even then, the primary means of redress are via social work, not criminal prosecution.
Drinking/smoking have nothing to do with “malnourishment”, but rather with potential developmental defects. Just the fact that you keep stupidly equating outlawing these as equivalent to outlawing murder says far more about your lack of logic and morality than it does with my lack of patience in responding to your idiocy.
I think a law should be passed that prevents Democrats from having children – that’s a type of abuse isn’t it? (I kid, I kid…)
My grandpa, who’s an old-time Pentecostal preacher, will be a Democrat until the day he dies. He’s just convinced that anyone else is “for the rich”…
I really am not that political of a person. The whole “green” thing does get on my nerves though, because, as I’ve said, it’s something I deal with, and it actually has effected our projects at work. It’s hard to sit back and listen to people say one thing about something when you’ve actually done analysis that contradicts what they’re (by people, I generally mean politicians or industry reps for “green” products)
Which is just as untrue (and stupid) when you repeated it. “None of their business” means that they’ve exceeded the Biblical mandate of government. If you’re going to equate outlawing prenatal alcohol/tobacco use as congruent with outlawing the murder of that infant, you’ve already demonstrated your moral bankruptcy (which we’ve already established, though, on many other occasions).
“None of the business” is just that. There are a number of ways I WISH the world worked, but “more government” isn’t the solution to them.
I think Zero’s handling of Afghanistan has been dithering and stupid, but I agree that we need to send more troops, and that it is our business (at this point). But hey, I’ve got a service to go play in and a Christmas show up at Purdue tonight, so adios…
seriously, Chris L and Chad, you guys need to do a cyber-relationship “re-set”…
Now I’m “morally bankrupt.”
Wow. Is Chris L capable of disagreeing without stooping to such lows?
I must really have hit a nerve.
Phil, re:166, I agree with all of that 100%.
” If you’re going to equate outlawing prenatal alcohol/tobacco use as congruent with outlawing the murder of that infant, you’ve already demonstrated your moral bankruptcy (which we’ve already established, though, on many other occasions).”
Wow. Even congress doesn’t engage with such virulence.
Sure they do Rick. The term “my esteemed colleague across the isle” is code for “the morally bankrupt idiot who opposes me”…
The just use different words
#174 – Or in England:
“Does my right honorable gentleman know that he is a morally bankrupt idoit?”
at least my teeth are straight
“Does my right honorable gentleman know that he is a morally bankrupt idoit, which we’ve already established, though, on many other occasions?”
Order, order.
it’s sad, Rick…really, really sad…
Replace a few words here and there and you get an ODM blog thread. I continue to suggest more similarities than differences.
Since this is the open thread, here is an article I posted entitled:
God Loves Adam Lambert
Thank you. I’ve been saying the same thing for a number of months. Especially when it comes to Chris L.
Hey, at least I’m not the one trying to create moral equivalency between prenatal smoking and murder…
If being opposed to murder and having a lack of patience with consistent, uncharitable straw men is ODM-like, then I’ll go with it. After all, like stopped watches, ODM’s are right on occasions.
Justification (or devaluing) of murdering the innocent does tend to hit a nerve, yes…
Sorry to be a troglodyte on defending the truly innocent, but someone’s got to do it, and it seems to be the Christian response.
“Justification (or devaluing) of murdering the innocent…”
Chris, seriously, is Chad pro-choice? I believe he was making a point without devalualing or especially justifying abortion. He may be somewhat over the top on some issues, but justifying innocent murder?
Come on…
And let us be clear, you are not “defending the truly innocent”, you are just defending a position. Murdering an abortion doctor is defending the unborn.
Chris L –
You have misunderstood. I am not devaluing the innocent nor making smoking and murder morally equivalent. You are seeing only what you want to see.
I am opposed to abortion for all reasons.
Let me summarize how we got here:
You said you were opposed to smoking laws and blue laws because it is one more thing the gov’t has no business to legislate. I know you wish there was a law making abortion illegal. We all agree abortion is murder – that is not the issue. What I want to know is why you seem to only care about whether the unborn lives or dies and seem to care nothing about his or her flourishing.
If you really cared about the rights of the unborn who can’t speak for themselves (as you claim to) than you wouldn’t be opposed to laws banning smoking and drinking by pregnant women since it is FACT that those practices are harmful, even fatal, to the unborn.
Your morality won’t allow a baby be killed but your politics will allow it to be crippled. Why? Because you feel the “rights” of a mother outweigh the “right” of a fetus to be born without brain damage. Which begs the question: How much do you really care about the life inside her to begin with?
If you believe in war to defend your citizens, and if you will not stop the abortion doctor with violence, then your “abortion is murder” is nothing but lip service. You really do not believe babies are being murdered, except in the abstract.
You cannot espouse defense violence piece meal. What does it say about your view when you will defend the murder of 300 (mostly adults) by killing tens of thousands (including many innocent), sacrificing several thousands of American lives, having tens of thousands of Americans wounded and maimed, and plunging the country into economoic distress – BUT – you will only use words to object to the murder of MILLIONS of unborn babies??
It means you really only believe the unborn fetus is an actual human being in the discourse of moral politics but without the corresponding action that would reflect the depth of such a position. You are standing by and watching the sysytematic butchering of unborn infants but you openly support troops to kill murderers in Afghanistan to kill potential murderers.
That inconsistency cannot be explained away except in your own mind.
“when you will defend the murder of 3000 (mostly adults)”
I will ask you this: Although it is wrong to shoot and kill a person, if that person is attempting to murder you neighbor it is leagl.
So why is it wrong to murder an abortiona doctor who is attempting to murder your neighbor’s unborn child? And if you have some “two wrongs don’t make a right” subscript, then how can you defend war?
Ingrid is correct in this fact – there are now more unborn babies murdered in the US than all those who have died world wide in WW II. If you saw the nazis come for your Jewish neighbor to kill him would you stop them with violence if you could? If so, then your abortion position combined with your violence position is hypocritical and incongruous.
Bottom line: The pro-life position is nothing more than a college dormroom chit chat. To believe in self defense violence and to stand by and do nothing is disgraceful and indefensible.
Rick – I think you highlight a very valid inconsistency.
I believe in non-violent resistance and am against war and murder or killing of all kinds, and therefore do not find myself painted in the corner that you so accurately describe.
Seeveral years ago I found that striking inconsistency in my own life. I had a choice. So after reinvestigating the Scriptures, I repented because I found my “sometimes violence” stand as unscriptural and unJesus.
Where you and I part ways, Chad, is in our view of government. Would I join with Manson to leverage a child seat belts law? Absolutely not.
I consider the government as a hedonistic, immoral, and muderous entity that passes laws of convernience, wastes taxpayers money, takes bribes known as “lobbyists”, and is complicit in many murders both here and abroad.
I will not be complicit in those crimes against humanity. The system is antichrist.
Rick,
I am sympathetic to your position. If I had a choice between all in or all out I’d be right beside you.
I just don’t believe it has to be so black and white. I believe that government is a “power” and like all the powers it is fallen (Eph. 6; Col. 1). But I also believe that they were created and for a purpose (through and for Christ – Col. 1). Like humans, the power of gov’t is fallen but is not hopeless. There are ways it can be used as a good.
For me, to say government is antichrist (in an ontological sense) and I will not join with it for any reason is the same as saying humans are antichrist and I will never join with a human for any purpose, good or not.
I want to make another point. We all must rely on second hand (at best) information. The global warming is an excellent example. All of us rely on information from others.
Sides usually form, and those side demonize the other and defend their position. I have heard many interviews and heard the dtat and I am skeptical but I am not sure. I am sure that men like Gore really believe it, although like us his lifestyle is inconsistent with his beliefes.
Remember the e-mails that people like Ingrid pounced upon as proof of a grasssy knoll conspiracy?
Here is another report.
And to reiterate, whose to say this is true or false or that these conclusions are accurate? And when do you actually have the entire picture? That is the core problem with politics, you must rely on subjective advocates at best and liars at worst. And all that convoluted mess must be proceesed by your own subjective, environmentally altered, and peer group biased mind.
Chad – I said THIS government is antichrist. I would “join” in some things if the governmental system here was different. We are like a frog in a boiling pot, we do not see the open evil that is promoted in this government and the so called “good” laws are only conscience salves and self serving.
Scooter Libby commits a felony and he walks the tsreets and earns millions. The black kid who grew up in a family horror gets caught with two pieces of crack and he is behind bars becoming a better criminal. You tell me where I can “join” with this kind of government.
* The proportion of minorities on death row is revealing because more white people are convicted of the same crimes.
* Genocide is being committed in several places, and yet we invaded Iraq because of lies and a presidential personal vendetta.
* Abortion is a billion dollar industry that is protected by the Supreme Court.
* Congress is passing a bill to promote a college football playoff while millions of Americans are in dire straights financially.
I could go on for hours but what’s the point. Unless people place their present “convictions” on the shelf and do a new and painful inventory their opinions will remain the same.
Well, I guess it depends on what you consider as “joining.” My role, as I see it, is in the Church. I know the gov’t will do what governments do, without much if any interest in what Christ would do. But where they appear to be venturing into redemptive or good areas (like health care or ending a war, etc) I will commend them and call the church to be supportive or such measures. Where they deviate from their created purpose (which is more often than not) I will speak.
As for now, this morally bankrupt pastor must go speak.
peace.
Both the Bush and the Obama inauguration spent well over 100 million dollars. (of course I am relying on other reports and attempting to sort through the partisan reports).
Obscene, completely obscene.
The flaw in your logic is that the solution to every problem is not to create a law against it, nor is injecting more government the only valid demonstration of “caring” about a problem. It is moronic to suggest that a lack of opposition to ever-oppressive laws against any unsafe behavior is somehow a “lack of caring”.
See above. I would note that nowhere in the teachings of Jesus (or Paul, or the OT) are “potential” crimes (thought crimes) given a rule of law with a proscribed punishment/prevention. For example: Coveting and pride are the roots of most sins, but they are proscribed a preventative or given a punishment until they manifest themselves in theft, murder, etc.
My politics have nothing to do with not supporting the creation of government as “big brother” – that is just basic Biblical morality and respect for the God-given boundaries of government.
More apples and oranges. The biblical prohibition is against murder, and deaths that occur as a result of war are not categorically “murder”. The choice not to murder an abortion doctor is one made in light of two conflicting commands – to submit to your authorities (who control the system of justice) and to prevent murder. The arm of justice, according to Scripture is ultimately God’s, but has been delegated to our earthly authorities. We are not given carte blanche permission for vigilantism.
Because of our submission to the rule of law of our earthly authorities. This submission is only trumped if we are directly required to violate God’s laws (i.e. if we were commanded to perform an abortion by law, we could – and should – refuse). The authority to slay the abortionist is not one given in the system of justice to which we submit, per Paul’s instructions.
Because of our submission to the rule of law of our earthly authorities. This submission is only trumped if we are directly required to violate God’s laws – and in the case of war, we must determine if we are being commanded to violate God’s laws against murder, or if the determination of “self defense” by our earthly authorities is a just one.
Perhaps we should just genuflect to the government and send our children into the hands of its
fisting“Safe Schools Czar“… Hope and change, baby.*Your government at work for you. Keeping your kids “safe”.
*- content warning on those links.
Well, Chris, I think I’ll just second the opinion of someone who emailed me:
You are more Republican than Christian.
#199 – That is probably the most illogical dodge that I’ve seen in a long way. Are you suggesting Corrie ATen Boom should have obeyed the Nazis and not hidden the Jews because she was under the authority of the government?
Defending citizens against foreign terrorists verses defending citizens against domestic terrorists (abortion doctors) is “apples and oranges”?
Wow. The excuse logic there is extremely obvious. Come on, Chris, you must admit at least there SEEMS to be an inconsistency. You will not even admit that?
Chris – By your interpretation the entirety of Scripture is placed in a nationalistic context. Jesus not only did not make murder/killing acceptable in some instances, He said that there is such a thing as mental murder.
Where does “Do not render evil for evil” have an asterisk?
Which wars are justified and in that justified in killing?
Soviets invading Afghanistan?
Soviets invading Poland?
North Vietnam against South Vietnam?
Argentina attempting to reclaim the Faulklands?
Are all wars in which America was engaged “just wars” from God’s perspective? If it is a “just war” God allows men, women, and children to be
murderedkilled?Hiroshima was “justified”? Less deaths = justified in God’s mortality tables?
And most significantly, someone guide to the “just war” verse that allows a nation to rise up and kill it’s parent nation because it does not like the taxes. Can New Jersey secede and overthrow Washington?
Oh yea, we’ve already tried that – 500,000 deaths later. Which wars were just before 1776?
Wesley wrote a letter to the colonists saying it was immoral to wage war because of taxes and encouraged them to not revolt
Houston just elected a lesbian as mayor. Some religious groups openly opposed her because of her sexual orientation. The paradox is that both she and her oponent are pro-choice.
Talk about your political compromises!
Chad – Wesley was so soft on the issues! If only he had supported the righteous rebels, Washington or Jefferson might have lent them a slave to help him!
I feel strongly about the national/violence issue. Chris Lyons is not an entrenched person who never changes. In his own words he has come a long way.
I trust he will examine this issue in the future and at least begin to open up to some of the issues. I trust Chad will also see the unchristian alliance with the government, regardless of the “end justifies the means” principle in getting some things “done”.
trust Chad will also see the unchristian alliance with the government, regardless of the “end justifies the means” principle in getting some things “done”.
Rick, if by “means” you mean doing something unethical to accomplish some good I would agree with you. But I know this is not what you mean. What I disagree with is the a priori assumption that any collaboration with the government as a “means” is necessarily wrong.
As I said earlier, government is a power like any other and was created for a purpose. It can be used for good or evil ends. There is a wide spectrum of actions that are viable here, as I see it.
Human beings are antichrist and their minds are hostile towards God. Does that mean we should never make any alliances with other humans for the purpose of achieving something good? This would make marriage sorta difficult to do.
Political party (R, D or Libertarian) is independent of Christianity. Even so, I would describe my political philosophy as more Libertarian the Republican, with the primary differences being a willingness to consider morality of laws in limited circumstances (rather than an amoral view of laws apart from natural law).
As for your anonymous friend, I could care less.
Your problem (in this particular discussion) is that you have not the capacity to separate the basic difference between natural law (which uses the law to enforce only the basic liberties/rights – such as the right to life) and facism (which uses law to enforce its desired societal norms). That’s your problem, and not mine.
Not at all – her choice was between protecting someone – in her power – to be killed or to take an active role in their untimely death. In such a case, the law she was commanded to obey was immoral, so she was right to disobey. She did not participate in killing the Germans who were searching for Jews (a parallel to your hypothetical killing of an abortion doctor) – she chose to disobey a passive order by an occupying power in order to prevent murder.
Sorry, Rick, there is no inconsistency. I believe in the doctrine of just war, supported by theologians across the spectrum of Christianity for centuries. Just because you choose to simplistically misapply “thou shall not commit murder” doesn’t mean I have to play along with the misapplication.
Jesus did not nullify the rule of earthly government – and, in fact, Paul affirmed it in multiple places. He did not add an asterisk for disobedience in times of war. Instead, I would see this as something that falls within the bounds of liberty – whether to participate as a soldier, to object but serve in a non-combat role, or to object and refuse to serve.
The command is “you shall not commit murder”. Killing during a war is never classified, or considered, as murder within Scripture. It is not my problem that you are incapable of discerning the difference.
“Just war” has a specific set of provisions (see the linked wiki article) that need to be met. I would include the American Civil War, WWI and WWII (including Hiroshima, which prevented casualties & deaths – by 2-3 orders of magnitude) within the bounds of “just war”, and I would consider some of the wars since then as within the realm of debate on “just war” or not.
As for the American Revolution, I wasn’t there to fully understand the circumstances, and IIRC, the states did not initiate the gunfire. Your rendering of the circumstance, as simply being a tax revolt, is rather simplistic, nonetheless. Even so, it is water under the bridge, and I’m not going to second-guess them. To do so is pointless, 233 years after the fact.
A fact you demonstrate wonderfully.
I thought my problem was that I was morally bankrupt? Make up your mind, Chris L – this moron can’t keep up with all your twists and turns
Apparently you don’t understand English – one can be a Christian Democrat, a Christian Republican, a Christian Libertarian, etc. I would consider myself to be Christian first, with Libertarian/Conservative political leanings.
I could care less if your friend sees my views as un-Christian, as I’m pretty sure your “friend” has about the same grasp on what is “Christian” as you do, which is to say, pretty much no more than an average fourth-grader.
The moral bankruptcy (whether in teaching folks they get a post-mortem “re-do”, or playing fast and loose with most of Scripture) in this particular conversation is your inability to discern the moral difference between risky behavior and homicidal behavior.
Sorry you can’t keep up. I’ll try to use smaller words next time.
Yeah. I disagree. But that is your problem, not mine.
LOL. Out of respect for him, I won’t say who said it. But you have no idea how funny this is.
I would consider that a compliment. Your approval would worry me far more than your disdain.
I admit to an expectation that Chris would not even admit that there SEEMS to be an inconsistency; not about the murder/killing, but about the refusal to protect the unborn with violence.
Oh well, I was once where you are. (not a slight)
Which is a farce.
It assumes humans, let alone gov’t., can determine what is “just” or not as it pertains to war. What is laughable and highly ironic about all of this is how you’ll trust to make “just” war but not trust them in other areas.
Conservative administrations have a better potential for assessing “just wars” than do liberal administrations.
#217 – I was there once myself.
I used to be in the military (more than Chris L can say) and was as red a Republican as you can imagine. I remember dating a girl who I told unless she switched from Dem to Rep I couldn’t date her anymore because Republicans were big on war and defense and Dems were weak. Ha!!!
When 9/11 happened I was just 4 months out of the Navy and rather than my first impulse being to pray for peace I was seriously contemplating re-enlisting so I could go get some revenge.
How naive, worldly and profoundly un-Christian I was and still am in many ways.
BTW – Is a pre-emptive strike considered just? Can we initiate the bombing because we “believe” they “might” do something?
Rick – I will agree with you on the seeming inconsistency with the absence of used force in protecting the unborn. THAT is something I struggle with.
#222 – Thank you. I admire you, Chris, for your studiousness and commitment to truth. You also have a wonderful family. But you are wrong on this issue. I will keep pecking!!
Let’s see…
I have two choices:
1) Read, understand and agree with a historic church doctrine that has been debated at length, refined, and treated with a good deal of latitude and grace over the centuries.
OR
2) Listen to the judgment of a universalist (with an absence of basic logic and common sense) from a Christian “divinity” school with a Muslim on staff.
I think I’ll go with the proven #1 over the bleeding-heart without a whit of discernment.
I don’t know that either end of the spectrum has a lock on “just war”.
IIRC, the last easily definitive “just war” (WWII) was declared and managed by a Democrat administration.
LOL
Silva/PBChris!!!Yeah, cause church dogma is never wrong.
Its amusing to watch you unravel the more you type.
” un-Christian I was…”
I am switching to “unJesus”.
“Read, understand and agree with a historic church doctrine that has been debated at length, refined, and treated with a good deal of latitude and grace over the centuries.”
For the record, that means absolutely nothing to me. Historical positions have been wrong many times.
Rick – I think this is quite debatable under “just war” doctrine. If “they” have declared that their intent is to attack “us” with weapons built at site XYZ (or we have verifiable intelligence which indicates this), I think it might fit to bomb site XYZ before it was operational. (Here, I’m thinking specifically of Israel’s bombing of the Syrian nuclear weapons site, developed in conjunction w/ North Korea. Israel did quite a bit to limit civilian casualties and to limit the attack only to the site in question.)
That is not war. Our invasion of Iraq was war based upon faulty intelligence and considered a pre-emptive strike, not at suspected sites, but to remove a dictator and occupy a country for a while.
I do believe the 100,000 Iraqies that died may have preferred Hussein to the eternity they now inhabit.
No “unraveling” here.
There are malicious nation states in this world who, from time to time, act in ways to oppress the masses from other nation states. The purpose of “just war” doctrine is not to justify the use of force, but to limit it both in narrowly-defined circumstances and in narrowly-defined ways, so as to best protect the innocent and to contain the damage as much as possible.
Of course there is church dogma which is wrong-headed (ex. the Regulative Principle of Worship), but much/most of it is sound, and your ignorant, naive pronouncements do nothing to change that which is sound. In the case of JWD, the broad spectrum of acceptance across normally opposing factions within Christianity does more to affirm, than question the legitimacy of JWD.
I believe that the decision to invade Iraq was rushed. At the same time, I was not (and still am not) privy to all available intelligence from the time period, and from the available intelligence, it may have been justified, though I would cede that this is debatable. Even so, “you broke it, you fix it” applies now, and cutting and running is probably not the best course of action.
But Chris, the inconsistency of America’s “policy” is breathtaking. We are at war in Afghanistan because they harbor terrorists. When will we go to war with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, etc.?
It’s all because of the sensational aspect of 9/11. It is a major tangle.
And I believe it is unconscionable to drop drones in northern Pakistan because we have “intelligence” that some terrorist is there but are willing for innocent people to die accidentally.
That cannot be Christian on any level.
The point, Chris L, is that this is not something for the church to get enmeshed in. Gov’t will go to war and they will always find ways to justify it. That is what they do this side of the Fall.
Those who know Jesus and call themselves his Body do not make war or justify its use – period.
“The point, Chris L, is that this is not something for the church to get enmeshed in.”
Chad – Expand your field of vision on that principle.
“Those who know Jesus and call themselves his Body do not make war or justify its use – period.” (II Opinions 3:14)
Chris L. – Would you consider something new? How about I post as a guest with a Scriptural and logical article on pacifism with all the things we’ve discussed today, and you post your view? I promise not to attack or demean anyone personally.
It would take me about a week. If not that’s OK too.
That’s fine w/ me, Rick…
Good. I will e-mail it to you first. I am considering the title:
“Chris Lyons is a Blind Moron”
I’m not married to that title, though.
That title works for me…
I’m sorry, I should have been more clear.
The above is true unless you are more Republican than Christian.
I suggest we save more comments for the coming posts. That way we can address certain points made by Chris and me.
Please remember I am older than Chris, I am German, and other obvious IQ issues.
Rick, I look forward to reading what you come up with.
I have an article I wrote a few years ago calls Waging War with Pacifism that you might find interesting.
My e-mail address is on my blog. Feel free to forward information to me.
My current post is:
“God Loves Adam Lambert”
or
(”God Loves Lady Ga Ga, etc.”)
Redemption is sooo liberal! (no, Chad, not that liberal)
What stupidity. Just War Doctrine was developed centuries prior to the existence of America or its political parties, and your naive and stupid polemics have nothing to do with political affiliation. Your quotation from II Opinions is as “Christian” as the first page of the owner’s manual for a TV set.
Chad – I am not sure why you use “Republican” instead of “American”. Would it be different if Chris was a “Democrat”?
Chris – I will send you my post, but it may be more than one because of its length. You are to be commended for allowing a decidedly different viewpoint on your blog.
I will also post my and your post(s) on FJL and I am going to announce the coming dsicussion and invite people to visit PPP to participate. As I have said before, although this issue is not cardinal to redemption, it still affects the way we live and the way we manifest Jesus.
What will seem as mocking your position must be interpreted as a reasoned assessment and a charitable appraisment of a Scripturally debilitated view.
Chris L and Chad,
i’ll say it again…
you guys need a re-set…
Chris L, i’m particularly disappointed by your words…
you help lead/publish this blog which started to expressly speak out against the kinds of comments you just made.
both of you need to work hard at laying off the digs…
Rick, re: 246: I’m only saying Republican because I am talking to Chris L. “American” works just as well.
Good catch.
nathan – I agree. I’m trying very hard not to return sticks and stones.
Nathan,
I’m pretty much willing to give the benefit of the doubt, when it is given – and even much of the time when it is initially not.
However, Chad’s idiotic BS which immediately equates disagreement with him to some sanctimonious straw-man analogy – like clockwork – is something I’m just not willing to deal with all of the time.
Sorry. Yup, I’m human.
Guess what?
Hating abortion because it is murder and supporting laws which classify it as such, all the while being unwilling to play fascist with the rest of a pregnant woman’s life isn’t “unChristian” or illogical.
And guess what else? Seeing the “green” movement for what it is – a corrupt, fascio-socialist scam – isn’t “unChristian”, “Republican” or illogical.
And for that matter – supporting the notion that wars can be justly declared by a government, or that Christians can support the government in such wars is not illogical or immoral.
So, once Chad climbs down from his high-horse, I’m perfectly willing to “re-set”. Until then, he can be as sanctimonious and full of crap as he typically is.
Oh – and for good measure – hoping that King Zero fails spectacularly, and that the ideals he espouses end up on the ash heap of history (unless he takes a sudden “U-Turn”) is neither “Christian” nor “un-Christian” in and of itself.
Yes, it is a political position. And, it is also one that I believe is, and can be, morally supported. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I will give much of liberalism the benefit of the doubt for “good intentions”, even if they will not reciprocate. However, good intentions, particularly misguided ones, do not translate into good policy or freedom – but rather to mismanagement and tyranny.
And if some limp-wristed divinity student wants to classify this as “more Republican than Christian”, he can continue to dream. (Besides which, if he’s right and I’m wrong, I’ve got nothing to worry about, cuz there’s no such thing as hell, ya know. Eat drink and be merry, cause good intentions are all that really matter…)
i don’t have a dog in this fight Chris…you certainly don’t have to explain where you’re coming from…
i just don’t think “re-setting” is dependent on “him first”…
just say’n…
our comments crossed…
“And if some limp-wristed divinity student..”
that’s just unneccessary, man.
and “unfair” to boot…
Nathan, I realize fully well – and sometimes I’m more willing than others. On a number of occasions with Chad, I’ve offered positions of allowing just “agreeing to disagree”, but that has never been good enough, and has just been thrown back in my face with more inane insinuations/comparisons. Sometimes I’m more tolerant than others, and this week isn’t one where I’ve got an abundance of patience.
My apologies for not just dropping it.
On a separate note, I’m not sure why “limp-wristed” is unnecessary/unfair. Would “milquetoast” have been better?
chris,
i think you know why such characterizations are unnecessary and unfair.
you may see Chad as a “bleeding heart”, disagree with him, etc. etc. etc, but such language is emasculating and directed at his person. “milquetoast” included.
you’re a smart guy, Chris, you challenge me to think about many things with your articles…
i just don’t think that kind of approach helps you or Chad…
Understood, Nathan.
Chad – my apologies for the personally-directed/emasculating verbiage. Seriously.
Stay classy, Chris.
hoping that King Zero fails spectacularly
This, perhaps even more than your classy language above, is why I agree that you are more Republican than Christian.
For starters, it is a willful snub of Paul, who said:
Your hope for his spectacular failure comes more from a desire to see your political idealogy vindicated than from any sort of theological position. It is rooted in the way you think the world ought to be politically structured and has little if anything to do with the Kingdom of God – the reality in which Christians ought to be concerned with foremost.
Your hope for Obama’s spectacular failure, along with all his ideals, shows in a rather twisted way just how dependent you are on Caesar. Someone who speaks with such venom towards their political leaders has far too much invested in the system.
Personally, I think you’d have far less animosity towards him and his “ideals” (whatever those are) if he were white. But that’s just my own observation based on many past discussions.
Calling the dually elected president “King Zero” is decidedly unchristian and is Limbaughesque. I cannot understand, when presented with the obvious inconsistency, we as believers will not see our transgression and adjust our speech, if not our hearts.
Politics affects all of us and what you listen to most will be what enters your heart. God has no politics and does not care about America as a nation, only the people who live upon this designated piece of earth.
Our concern is not whether Obama succeeds or fails, but whether we as followers and imitators of Jesus fail or succeed in that calling.
Inasmuch as Obama’s agenda includes creating new federal programs and entitlements that will speed the bankrupting of the country, I hope he fails to. $900 billion here and $900 billion there adds up pretty quickly, you know.
I truly don’t understand how you can accuse anyone of bowing to Caesar, Chad, when you want that very system to have more and more power over the citizens. I suspect that if a Republican president were initiating these power grabs, we’d hear unending complaints.
Perhaps this is the thing that annoys me most. While Bush was president, I heard many Christians say we need to be the prophetic voice, “speak truth to power”, protect the weak and powerless, etc. But yet, now, not even a year later, these people seem more than willing to bend over and grab their ankles. What I want to see is some consistency. If you are going to criticize one political party harshly, than you have to be willing to criticize the other just as harshly. For instance, where are the people criticizing Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan? Where are the people criticizing his acceptance of just war theory while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize (irony of ironies, there).
As far as the race thing goes, some of the most pronounced pockets of racism I’ve seen are in rural areas where the people are white union members and Democrats. Race probably played a bigger role in the primaries than it did in the general election. I was listening to NPR before the election, and they followed a few democrat get-out-the-vote people who were knocking on doors in some more rural areas, and many of the doors they knocked on were white Democrats who straight out said they weren’t voting for Obama simply because he was black. It’s the Democrat party’s dirty little secret.
My point isn’t to say to say my party is better than yours, but I’m not really willing to listen to anyone who blindly supports either party.
“anyone who
blindlysupports either party.”Chad would do well to avoid the race card on almost every issue.
*PING*
Congratulations, Chad – you made it 259 comments this time before injecting race into an issue in which it has no part.
Keep on trying, little buddy… I know you can make it next time.
You suspect wrong – at least about me.
I care about issues, not parties. I don’t care whether gov’t is “big” or “small” but only care about how Christians respond within whatever system exists. This means that I don’t really worry about what you call “rights” being intruded upon. That is an American obsession, not a Christian one.
Paul lived during a far more intrusive and “big” gov’t than we have today and yet his response was simply to give thanks, to pray for those in power and to concern ourselves with how the Church loves. You don’t hear him having a cow over Rome infringing upon his rights – even as he was in prison.
The reason I say Chris L bows to Caesar is because he is obviously so invested in one political ideology over another – so much so that he hopes one fails miserably. I, on the other hand, could care less.
As for blindly supporting Obama – I don’t. I am opposed to his latest moves and I find “just war” a farce from a Christian standpoint. Like I said, I care about issues, not parties or persons. To be honest, I feel sorry for any President. They are captive to a power greater than themselves and as such they must make choices that I am sure they would never wish to make apart from that office. So whether it be a Rep or a Dem or anything in between who is in office, I pray for them. It’s not a great place to be.
I play the hand dealt me.
263: That couldn’t mean less to me if Jim Crow said it. That’s not to say your breed of racism is the same as Crow’s, but the principle is the same.
Just don’t do that around 0bama’s “safe schools czar“.
I agree, Phil. It is rather funny how most of the writers here got pigeonholed as “liberals” during the W years, since I think all of us were critical of his administration (or Christian obsequiousness toward it) on some fronts. Yet, when we do the same toward his 0-liness, we’re “more Republican than Christian”.
Quite true. And as you demonstrate with that hand, projection and denial are neuroses to be pitied, not embraced…
As for Obama’s race having (or my desire to see “my” political party vinidicated) to do with my desire to see him fail, it is quite apparent you weren’t around to hear me during the Bush Sr. (whose social policies I loathed, for the most part) or Clinton (whose thorough corruption I loathed) years. IIRC, neither of them was black, and about the only public figure I remember supporting wholeheartedly in the 90’s was Clarence Thomas…
Actually, Paul did appeal to his “rights” as a Roman citizen in Acts 16 after he and Silas were wrongfully imprisoned, and he used it in his trial before Festus where he appealed to Caesar. He took advantage of the rights he had.
I don’t know about that. There are things the federal government has the capability to do now that the Caesars could only dream of. It’s not primarily about the government infringing on our rights that I’m concerned about. It’s the view that looks at the government as some benevolent provider, as the entity that meets our needs and is responsible for our security. In other words, I’m concerned about people making an idol out of government, and I’m concerned about anything that promotes more dependence on this idol.
Your actions certainly don’t seem to indicate that you could care less. I specifically remember some of our conversations regarding health insurance. You certainly seem to be invested in one party’s agenda over the other. And I’m sure your answer will be that you believe that part of the agenda will do the most good. But the plain fact is that there are a lot of people who believe that part of the agenda will cause more harm than good.
Getting back to the original kinda-sorta point of the alleged open thread (
), I saw this post on Greg Boyd’s blog regarding the whole global warming thing. I like his summary of situation:
Paul didn’t appeal to his rights in Acts 16 – he merely stated a fact about his citizenship as a way to make a point to those who arrested him.
But regardless, I’ll tell you what- I would have no problem whatsoever if you are beaten and imprisoned for proclaiming the resurrection and ask for a fair trial based on your status as an American citizen. I would do the same, probably.
This is a far cry, however, from Paul obsessing over people asserting their “rights.” Surely you can see that.
I have NEVER even intimated that gov’t is the entity that meets our needs or is the basis of our security. That is the way Chris L historically mischaracterizes what I say.
I am not advocating dependence on the gov’t or making it an idol anymore than you are by supporting your governments “just war” tactics or anymore than you are by allowing public schools or using the Postal service. However, I WOULD argue that supporting “just war” theories or fighting tooth and nail for “free” market systems or for other “trickle-down” theories is a product of one’s political ideologies rather than a worldview informed by Christ.
Besides all of this, it doesn’t change the fact that Rome was as intrusive as the people of the 1st century knew (they had no knowledge of a future federal gov’t 2000 years down the road). As far as they knew – it sucked and it was tough going to be a Jew or a Christian in that world. Yet you don’t hear Jesus or any of his early followers (up till Constantine) arguing for “rights” or making political affiliations.
Phil – re: Boyd’s summary, see my comment #2.
But I’m just a limp-wristed idiotic moron who is morally bankrupt. What do I know, right?
I’m not saying that Paul ever took the tact that he had to stand up for his rights, but I am saying that he acknowledged the fact the under the laws of the Roman Empire, he was entitled to certain rights, and he used these to his advantage. So there is nothing wrong with that.
While most of the time I think Christians who claim they are being discriminated against for whatever reason don’t have a leg to stand on, I do think that there are certain advantages that we have as a citizen of the US that we can take advantage of and even claim as a right when we need to in cases of clear discrimination when we need to.
I generally find just war theory lacking. I am not naive enough to think that the government will ever cease making war prior to Christ’s return, but I don’t think the church should ever endorse any war.
As far as the postal service and public education, I’d say that the way those things are supported and taxes are levied are much fairer than anything I’ve seen regarding the health insurance issue. I suppose people could make an idol out anything, but I don’t see education or mail service becoming an idol to most Americans anytime soon.
As far economics, I’d say that just from history, supply-side economics seem to produce more prosperity for more people across the board than the Keynesian alternative. I suppose that part of the Obama’s administration economic plan could be to teach Americans that we all need to get by with less, which is a valuable lesson.
I would say that I agree with Boyd’s comment as well. The only thing is that saying we should be good stewards is kind of vague. There can be honest debate as to what that actually looks like. For instance, am I automatically a bad steward if I drive a car that gets less than 20 miles per gallon?
I also think that we need to be careful using guilt and shame as a motivator, which is what many green campaigns seem to do. That is perhaps why I found Sleeth’s book refreshing. He went out of his way to say he didn’t judge those who didn’t go as far as him, and he realized that people have to internalize an ideal before they can be forced to make a change in their lifestyles.
Phil, it seems you and I are more in agreement than we are not. Perhaps you should take this up with Chris L, not me.
No more than I see a public option for health insurance becoming an idol for anyone anytime soon. Rather, I think people who can’t get insurance now will be grateful that they get to go to the doctor just like you and I do (sort of like I am grateful that I can send my kids to public schools because I could never afford private tuition, but I don’t feel beholden to Caesar because of it).
agreed.
re:272: I agree.
I’m writing up my response to Rick for next week. I do believe in just war theory (seemingly about the only thing I agree with 0 about), but I do not think that one’s support or rejection of that particular doctrine makes one more or less “Christian” – or, to be more specific, makes one “more of an American/Republican/Democrat than a Christian”.
That’s just Phariseeism…
I think so, as well, since it appears that the public option is dead (again). With a bit of luck, the whole thing will die and we can reset with something sensible (like tort reform, interstate competition, etc.).
Yeah, you are probably right. What we support or reject has no bearing whatsoever with how well or how poorly we follow the way of Jesus.
How convenient for us all.
Phil,
I must say I’m quite confused by your contention that a requirement of not being beholden to any particular political party is some devotion to equal criticism for different leaders.
Does that mean that Christians who were critical of Neville Chamberlain before World War II needed to be instantly as critical of Winston Churchill?
Different leaders require different criticisms. Obama has ceded too much control to Congress (which I don’t trust any farther than I can throw), passed a stimulus bill that was middling at best, and looks likely to pass a healthcare bill that is middling at best as well.
George W. Bush started a war on false pretences.
Pardon me if I think the latter is worse than the former.
Also, for me at least, one thing I like about the religious left more than the religious right is there is less insistence that party affiliation is a very strong indicator of one’s salvific faith.
Whatever it is they believe in at CrossTalk, I’m unsure if you can really call it Christianity anymore.
I hope Chris L’s article will enlighten us as to what other “particular doctrines” don’t really matter when it comes to following Jesus.
I wonder if abortion, homosexuality or stewardship will make the list? Or as far as theological concerns, I wonder if resurrection and idolatry will be on there?
I wait with baited breath.
I said nothing about “equal” criticism. All I’m saying is that I’ve not seen much in the way of objectivity when it comes from the religious left. I see just as much blind devotion to Obama from his supporters (if not more) as I did from W’s supporters to him.
This is true, but I remain unconvinced that a Democrat president would have done any different. Has everyone forgotten Colin Powell’s (who is now an Obama supporter) to the UN? How quickly Democrats forget that the Iraq War Resolution passed the House and Senate with a good number of Democrat votes in each house (actually a majority of Democrat senators voted for it).
In other words, I don’t believe that Bush was working all by himself in going to war in Iraq. An argument could be made that it was the influence of the more hawkish members of his administration, but historically, both Republicans and Democrats will go to war when they feel they need to. Democrats simply like to say they’re a bit more hesitant about it.
I’d say there’s some truth to that. I really don’t think that the people on Crosstalk represent a majority of Christians who are more on the right of the political spectrum. I certainly know many more conservative Christians who wouldn’t hesitate to call Ingrid a nutjob.
Paul leveraged his citzenship to be brought to Rome to preach. Aftrer Paul inquired about scourging a Roman, the Lord revealed His plan.
“And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.”
This was not to have Paul claim his rights per se, and eventually it would cost him his life. Much different that the way American citizenship is used by evangelicals.
BTW Chris L., if Paul was black you would criticize him.
Agreed. Paul (and the entire Scriptural corpus) would find language about “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to be absurd, not to mention idolatrous.
It is inevitable, that after a period of time in which believers are politically active, they will unwittingly move away from gospel exclusivity and into an unholy alliance designed to command morality, wealth, and more cultural freedom. In other words, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In a word – hedonism.
And in two different governments, the Chinese church has flourished spiritually while the American church has flourished materially. God’s Spirit has no interest in government styles, He moves in and out of any.
In some ways democracy became a narcotic to the church. That which costs little soon becomes of little value to most people.
Actually, it is funny but I have a friend who just came back from doing missionary work over there and he will tell you that the Chinese church is very political. They are hoping to get Christians into the higher political positions so that Christianity can become the official state religion.
Was he doing work in state churches or house churches? The Chinese church is political, but the underground house church network is illegal. Just last month 5 more house church leaders were sentenced to jail for illegal assembly.
That was in addition to the 60 that were arrested in February.
There are many more incidents in 2009 of imprisonment and persecution. And Samuel Lamb, a pastor imprisoned for 20 years, echoes the spirit of the Chinese house churches. He commented on the persecution in 2007:
“More persecution – more growing!”
I have not read much evidence of the Chinese house churches being involved with politics. We do know they have grown expiditiously under a decidedly undemocratic regime.
#286
Accurate depiction.
I have been blessed to work with the Chinese church here in the US, expatriates who have come over here to be educated, they get saved, and they return to serve in underground churches. Though there are some good government licensed churches, most are very political and lack the permeation of the true Gospel going forth.
Hence the underground church, which rejects the government authority in the church.
I have a hard time believing that the underground has any interest in the government, unless it is to overthrow it.
That is the same experience I’ve had recently when talking to Christians from overseas as well. Specifically, there are some people from Trinidad that come to a Bible Study I lead, as well a guy from Ghana. They all say they want more Christians in their governments, and they are more adamant about passing laws against things like homosexual marriage than most American Christians I’ve met. I’m not saying they represent all Christians in those countries, but I think sometimes we tend to romanticize the “persecuted church”.
As far as the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” not being Biblical rights, I’d say I agree, but for different reasons. The Biblical authors would not something like the concept of natural law to go by, for one. Jews would certainly say that God is author of all that is good in the Universe and that anything that tries to deprive a person of freedom is against the will of God.
Personally, I have no problem with the idea that the government should not do anything to deprive its citizens of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. I agree that these aren’t things that these aren’t things we should necessarily seek after, but I also don’t think it’s God’s will that people live under oppressive regimes that try to deny these things from their citizens.
It appears Joe’s friend was hoodwinked and taken on a state-sponsored tour of the church. The state-run church is modeled on the Soviet-bloc style church… no true Christianity is offered, just a sanitized, safe version that just so happens to chord with the ideology of the government.
Hey, sounds like a lot of churches in the US, but whereas they are forced, Americans are tricked.
But the true church is growing in China and other countries where genuine worship and discipleship are outlawed.
BTW, can anyone shed some light on when the last “Just War” or “War of Necessity” was waged? I can’t think of any in since I’ve been alive. Could be wrong though.
Laughable. Of course, coming from someone who’s never faced a lick of discomfort. I suggest reading on what happens in countries like Eritrea or India.
Having acid poured on you, followed by gang rape is not my idea of “romance”. Or being imprisoned for years on end in a shipping container near the equator is not my idea of an “all inclusive” vacation.
Paul,
You simply come off as a judgmental ass in much of what you write. I’m sure none of us here can live up to your standards of the “true church”, even you hardly know anything about us.
I never said persecution didn’t happen or lessened it’s severity. All I’m saying is that I’ve heard many American Christians speak of it in a positive light, and they really have no idea what it’s like. I’m sure those who have experienced these horrible things wouldn’t wish them on anyone.
Phil, you’re the one that made the statement about people romanticizing the persecuted church. Not being judgmental at all… You made a statement and I simply illustrated that what you see as romanticized is not really the case in reality.
That’s why I used the word “laughable”.
These type of events (solitary confinement, labor camps, imprisonment in sweltering shipping containers with dozens of other people, interrogations, acid attacks, rape, etc) are common in some parts of the world.
If anything, I think we don’t pay enough attention to these cases and consider the cost that following Christ demands in some parts of the world.
Paul,
I would suggest that the most easily argued “War of Necessity” in the 20th Century was WWII…
Thanks, Chris L, for hearing me out.
i wasn’t able to come back to the site for a bit…so…
i hope things can stay honest, but simmered down a bit…
Chad, i think Chris L has tried to step back…you probably should too…
i think you both could actually learn from each other…despite not being so convinced right now…
If the joy and faithfulness of brothers and sisters under persecution cannot challenge and convict us, what will? It is much worse that we can portray.