How can you tell who someone's god is?

August 31, 2006

This by author Orson Scott Card

How can you tell who someone's god is? You look to see whose name they invoke as the cause of all things, good or bad. By that standard, the god of the devout Left is Global Warming; here is the Psalm of Al, from which the faithful constantly quote (King James Version):

1. Great storms ravage our cities, and the wise man saith: Global Warming hath done this.

2. Drought keepeth all storms at bay, and the wise man saith: This also hath Global Warming done.

3. Global Warming maketh the oceans rise; it maketh deep snow to fall;

4. Flood and fire, feast and famine, typhoon and tornado, hail and lightning, all things good and bad that come from sky or sea, Global Warming hath made them all.

5. And when our homes are beneath the waves, we shall know that Global Warming in its wrath hath seen our sins.

6. For our vehicles that glut themselves on oil, for the trees we cut and land we clear,

7. For the cooling and heating of our houses, for the plowing and harvesting of our fields, we are punished.

8. Whenever we burn carbon and release it into the air, we shall know that Global Warming seeth it, and is wroth.

9. O man! Thou hast flouted the great god of the sky, and by three degrees of temperature we shall be burned,

10. For Global Warming is a jealous god, and small and annoying is man.

September 1, 2006

I knew I like OSC for a reason. Most of his list of the best films ever made are also mine. LOL

September 9, 2006

Har.

Has Algore fixed the gravity problem yet? Not to mention the general hardening of the earth I have noticed as I get older. Let me know when he gets this fixed. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

oG

September 9, 2006

Hmmm, last I checked this forum did not say "{edit: conservative mutual admiration society}" up top .... (*checks again*) ... nope, still Club Adventist.

Peculiar.

[Edited for content by Bravus - personally I don't have a problem with the sentiment, but the expression is (depending on usage and environment and background - and remember as mods we have to consider everyone's) borderline pornographic, so...]

September 9, 2006

No problem Bravus, I understand. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

September 9, 2006

I think it well established that global warming is taking place. And obviously this isn't the first time if the glaciers from the ice age melted away.

What is disturbing is that the leaders of the modern-day environmental movement do appear to have made environmentalism into a form of false religion. Of course that is not new either. Men have been worshipping the creation for many years.

September 9, 2006

Shane that's another bit of politicking fluff that simply isn't true. No one has made a "religion" out of environmentalism, except in the minds of those who want to totally discount the concerns environmentalists raise. And why do they want to discount it? Usually so they can make more money or have what they want for themselves. It's totally selfish. If you ask me, those making "having what I want MY way and whether I can make more money" (whether on the individual level or the corporate) into a false religion FAR outnumber any environmentalists doing so.

September 9, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Nicodema said:

If you ask me, those making "having what I want MY way and whether I can make more money" (whether on the individual level or the corporate) into a false religion FAR outnumber any environmentalists doing so.

OTOH, does having the lesser of two evils make the world a better place, or just prove to be more apt to entice away from the reality of the best?

To answer the question posed by the title to this thread___,

[:"red"] "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." [/]

John 13:35 ASV

[:"red"] " But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?" [/] 1 John 3:17 NASB

September 10, 2006

LHC, I consider that a cop out by those with a vested interest in preserving the lie that the greater of two evils still has something to offer. They do not.

September 10, 2006

If the God of Creation is our God, would we not have an interest in protecting and conserving His Creation?

September 10, 2006

Thank you Bravus! Doesn't God call on us to be good stewards of all that He has given to us? I have a hard time believing that people can look at all the junk we put into the air and water and think that is compatible with good stewardship.

September 10, 2006

Exactly. Doesn't Revelation 14:6 have something to say about this? And is that not the first of this infamous "Three Angels' Messages" which is supposed to be something like the very definitive reason for the SDA church's existence in the first place???

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

If the God of Creation is our God, would we not have an interest in protecting and conserving His Creation?

Absolutely, and Adventists who are preaching the Three Angels' message, a call to worship the Creator, should be leading the conservationist movement in the world much like we have been leading in health reform. In fact, vegetarianism overlaps with conservation. Animals raised for meat consume more than 50% of the world's food. And their waste pollute streams, rivers and ground water.

Many that have got caught up in today's environmentalism are, in fact, cought up in a form of false worship. It is one of the oldest forms of false worship there is. Man have long turned from worshipping the Creator to worship His creation.

We are to be good stewerts of the Earth but not all life is equal. The false religion of environmentalism enbraces evolution as its basis. It believes life on this planet came about by luck. It believe man evolved just like any other animals or plants. Man has no more right to use the Earth's resources than does a field mouse or a dandilion. Man must take his place as just one of many creatures and not violates the rights of other life forms on the planet.

The Bible teaches that God spoke all forms of life into existance except man. He formed man with His hands and breathed the breath of life in his nostrils. Moreover God gave man dominion over the animals and placed him in charge of the garden to keep and care for it. So man is not equal to other life forms and in fact is given a divine responsibity to care for the planet.

September 10, 2006

Shane, environmentalism is a socio-political cause, not a religion. I think some of you folks have been sold so much "right"-wing negative rhetoric about causes primarily populated by people leaning more "left" that it seriously clouds your understanding at times. It's as if you cannot embrace what is noble and true without attempting to denigrate those who were doing so a long while before you and whom those you have supported have opposed.

September 10, 2006

Political causes have become religious numerous times throughout history. The line isn't that hard to cross. For me, before returning to Christ, politics was my religion. Many of my friends (who were not religious) made such comments to me and I know they were right. Once I returned to the church I left politics for about ten years before I got involved with them again. Now I keep Christ first. The Church actually helps me from going to extreames.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

in the minds of those who want to totally discount the concerns environmentalists raise. And why do they want to discount it? Usually so they can make more money or have what they want for themselves. It's totally selfish.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a cop out by those with a vested interest in preserving the lie

Attributing motivation is just a form of ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are illogical, unethical, and fallacious.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

We are to be good stewerts of the Earth but not all life is equal. The false religion of environmentalism enbraces evolution as its basis.

I was wondering if this was a reply to my mention of stewardship? Because I never meant to bring in the spector of false religion nor evolution. In fact I mentioned the environment in regards to idea that God gave us the environment.

Simple question for you Shane (or anyone): Do you think the current treatment of our water and air with all we're dumping into it is compatable with good stewardship? I'm interested in hearing a simple yes or no to that specific question, not a muddying addendum about any false environmental religion. (Actually, Shane, I'm not disagreeing with you on certain things I'm just trying to narrow the question to a specific one.)

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

How can you tell who someone's god is?

You have every right to ask, but the thought just struck me, is this really a healthy question to ask. Isn't it better to continually examine ourselves to determine what type of God we are serving? What are the consequences to ourselves and others if we pay so much attention to what someone else is focusing on. What do we hope to achieve by that? Maybe you meant the question for us to ask ourselves. This could be a healthy thing then.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Do you think the current treatment of our water and air with all we're dumping into it is compatable with good stewardship?

Yes, I support the EPA which was just created in 1970. It should have been created when the industrial revolution began or soon afterwards. So it was well over 100 years overdue.

There is little environmental protection in many developing nations. This is an issue of great importance. As the US and other developed nations create more environmental regulations we encourage more industries to move to developing nations that do not have or enforce such regulations. Therefore, the environmental movement would do good to focus on third-world nations and bring them up to the same standards as the developed nations have. Stricter standards can become our goal once the third world has gotten to where we are at.

Then there is the personal side of the issue. That is:

How much energy do we use ourselves and our families?
How much do we recycle?
How much garbage do we generate?
What kind of chemicals do we put into the environment?
How does our diet impact the environment?

These are areas we can act on ourselves regardless if we live in a third-world nation or a developed one.

We don't have to make a religion out of cutting down a tree. God created the trees for our use. When we cut one down, we should plant another. That is conservation. That is taking care of the earth. We don't have to feel guilty about cutting down a 500-year-old tree. When Christ returns all those trees are going to burn anyways. We just need to replace the mature trees we cut down with seedlings that will mature themselves. That is responsible.

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

in the minds of those who want to totally discount the concerns environmentalists raise. And why do they want to discount it? Usually so they can make more money or have what they want for themselves. It's totally selfish.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a cop out by those with a vested interest in preserving the lie

Attributing motivation is just a form of ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are illogical, unethical, and fallacious.

It's neither ad hominem nor attack if it's truth.

Calling it either ad hominem or attack is attributing motivation to me which does not exist.

September 10, 2006

Just tagging on here...

I have always considered myself a "greenie", not in spite of my Christianity, but precisely because of it. The natural world has value and deserves to be looked after because it was created by the same God who made us.

We are to take care of the environment because the Creator commanded us to.

I am always baffled by these "arguments" that attempt to set up Christianity vs environmentalism as some kind of enemies.

aldona

September 10, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

It's neither ad hominem nor attack if it's truth.

Calling it either ad hominem or attack is attributing motivation to me which does not exist.

This demonstrates you do not understand the definition of ad hominem or attack.

ad hominem assumes a negative motivation, as for example

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

those who want to totally discount

You don't know what people want, and even if it were the truth, it would still be both ad hominem and a fallacy.

Then there's this:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a cop out by those with a vested interest in preserving the lie

Here's the definition of ad hominem:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ad hominem abusive or ad personam

Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but damning character flaws or actions. The reason that this is fallacious is that — usually, anyway — insults and even damaging facts simply do not undermine what logical support there might be for one's opponent's arguments or assertions; argumentum ad personam short-circuits these potential arguments from logic in favor of a direct attack on the opponent's authority.

Finally, I never said anything concerning your motivation. I don't know why you do it. That's the fundamental difference. You make statements speculating negatively about people's motivations, desires, and intentions. I don't know what your intentions are, I just know what you post.

As the definition indicates, this behavior is abusive and needs to stop.

September 10, 2006

Aldona, it's called wingnut rhetoric, a.k.a. absolute nonsense palmed off as some clever new way to frame a debate. It's the best one can expect to come up with utilizing so-called think tanks which consist of pod people who drank the kool aid. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

September 11, 2006

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------

Do you think the current treatment of our water and air with all we're dumping into it is compatable with good stewardship?

------------------------------------------------------------

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Yes, I support the EPA which was just created in 1970. It should have been created when the industrial revolution began or soon afterwards. So it was well over 100 years overdue.

Shane, I'm glad to hear of your environmental consciousness, but I'm still confused with your answer - which maybe a confusion with my question. Does your Yes mean that you think we in this country are currently acting as good stewards towards the environment because we have the EPA?

September 11, 2006

Absolutely, the EPA makes a big difference. I live in the Texas/Mexican border and the environmental standards on the other side of the river are a striking contrast to those here. One can literally tell the difference just driving accross the bridge.

And when we have wanted to clean the river we have actually had to get Mexico's permission which has often taken years. Thus the Rio Grande River is much worse than it would be if it was soley controlled by the US.

Sign In

How can you tell who someone's god is?

Recommended Posts

there buster

Amelia

olger

Nicodema

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

LifeHiscost

Nicodema

Bravus

Joy

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

there buster

Joy

Joy

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

aldona

there buster

Nicodema

Joy

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity