How can you tell who someone's god is?

September 11, 2006

I have tendered my resignation as moderator of Town Hall to Stan. Please try to behave yourselves while the teacher is out of the room.

September 11, 2006

The title of this thread may have started it off on the wrong foot but I think it is a ligetimate discussion and is not limitted to just a few isloated folks. Some time back Pat Robertson had a discussion with Senator Inhofe about this. Now I am more moderate than either of those but think their comments are worth reading.

[:"blue"] PAT ROBERTSON: Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is with us, and he has been a strong critic of the excesses of the environmentalist movement. Senator, it’s a great pleasure to have you with us on The 700 Club.

SEN. JAMES INHOFE: Pat, always good to be with you, brother.

ROBERTSON: Tell me, what do the environmentalists believe? Do they worship the God of the Bible or something else?

INHOFE: Well, let’s talk about the environmentalists. I call the far-Left environmental extremists the ones like the NRDC (National Resources Defense Council), like the Environmental Liberation Front. The Environmental Liberation Front bombs buildings and burns down construction, and they’re actually considered by the State Department as a terrorist group. The environmentalist Left is the largest group in terms of funding Left-wing, liberal candidates for office. Now I chair the committee, as you well know, called Environment and Public Works in the United States Senate. I deal with these people every day. I’ll tell you, Pat as I told you when you were here in Washington, when I read in the Washington Post about two months ago, that the National Association of Evangelicals was embracing some of these far-Left environmentalists, I called up Reverend Haggard, and I called up the guy who’s responsible for it. I think its a stroke of genius for the environmentalists to come in and try to capture the Christians or the fundamental Christians. You know, the first thing, there was a meeting in Washington where a Barbara Williams Skinner spoke -- this meeting was by the National Association of Evangelicals -- and she got a standing ovation. She is one who is from the far Left, she is with Jesse Jackson’s group and ACLU, and all these. And I will read you one thing she said, if you’ll let me do this, Pat.

She was giving a speech down at Baylor (University). She said, ‘I know I am in Bush country. But you all can go to sleep for a minute and I will be gone. You don't have a problem. I had a problem. I once had to pray for Ronald Reagan, and I had to get through it, so you can get through this.’ This is the kind of person, and she got a standing ovation. But her whole message was, you have to give up your core values. You can’t have a litmus test on gay marriage, you can’t have a litmus test on abortion on demand, you can’t have a litmus test on the Pledge of Allegiance, and all of these things that have actually propelled conservatives into the leadership and have won elections. You know, I was so excited that we were winning all of these things, and now we have this far-Left group coming in trying to capture the evangelical Christians. We can’t let it happen, Pat.

ROBERTSON: Do you think Ted Haggard is a little naïve? Do you think he understands what he is getting into?

INHOFE: Well, I called him up. In the first article I saw, they mentioned the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) and I called up Ted Haggard, and he said quite frankly, well, I don’t want to be part of a group like that. They also mentioned Chuck Colson and Jim Dobson. I called both of them up and they said, no, they are lying. We are not a part of that – we are not for the global warming agenda – that’s the poster child of the far Left – in fact, we know better, we preach against it.

But they use their names, and how many people are out there who saw the names of Chuck Colson, Jim Dobson and Ted Haggard who thought, well that must be the team to join?

ROBERTSON: What is the agenda of the radical Left? They talk about – aren’t environmental concerns sort of like a god to them?

INHOFE: It is. Look, Pat, I don't have to tell you about reading the Scriptures, but one of mine that I’ve always enjoyed is Romans 1, 22 and 23. You quit worshipping God and start worshipping the creation -- the creeping things, the four-legged beasts, the birds and all that. That’s their god. That’s what they worship. If you read Romans 1:25, it says, ‘and they gave up their God and started worshipping the creation.’ That's what we are looking at now, that’s what’s going on. And we can’t let it happen. They say we don't want a litmus test on all these issues, but these issues are not just Republican issues, or conservative issues, or Christian issues, these are issues that resonate in the minds of the vast majority of the people in this country. That's what we are engaged in. We want to have a spiritual country and I would hate to think that we give in, and particularly organizations like the NAE, to a bunch of far-Left-wing environmentalists.

ROBERTSON: Let me ask you about this global warming. I’ve seen movies, you know, where the whole Earth turns into a ice flow, the polar cap melts, and we are starting into either an era of a new ice age, or everybody finds themselves in the wilderness. Are these concerns accurate in terms of the science you understand?

INHOFE: No, no. Pat, I wished you had watched yesterday. I gave a one-hour speech on this, on the Senate floor. All of the science since 1999 has repudiated the idea that global warming caused by man-made gases -- that’s methane and Co2- - is causing a global warming, and the end of the world is coming, and the icecap is going to melt and all these things. But what they don’t realize-- and what they won’t tell you -- is that it was far warmer on the icecap in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. We have trend lines that go up and down. And God is still up there and weather does change, but the same people who are yelling and screaming, and the authors of doom about global warming, were the ones in the late ‘70s who were talking about a new ice age coming, and we are all going to die. They have to be hysterical about something. I recommend, except for the dirty words, a great book written by Michael Crichton. I think we talked about that. It’s called State of Fear. He is an author, a medical doctor, and scientist. He was going to write a novel about global warming and all the horrible things, so he researched it and he thought, wait a minute, this thing’s a hoax. So he wrote a book about the fact that it is a hoax, and while it’s a fiction book and a novel, the footnotes are incontrovertible in terms of science. Now, you might say, wait a moment, no science to it? And if we know, according to the Wharton School of Economics, that it costs the average family of four $2,715 a year if we were to buy onto the Kyoto treaty (commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by around 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels, over the next decade), then what would be the motivation? I think you can find that in a couple of statements that were made, one by Jacques Chirac, who said this is the first step toward international governance. And Margo Walstrom of the European Union -- she is the environmentalist over there -- she said it is not about climate change, but it’s about leveling the playing field for business, worldwide. Those are the liberals who were behind it, and I think it is a wake-up call. And I am glad you talk about it now and then.

ROBERTSON: We appreciate you being on to talk about it. Thanks for being with us.

INHOFE: Pat, it’s always great to see you.

ROBERTSON: My pleasure. Senator Jim Inhofe, a great senator from the state of Oklahoma. We appreciate him, and he chairs a vital committee on this matter, and I’m glad he’s standing for some very important principles.

[/]

The Growing Threat of Far-Left Environmentalism

September 11, 2006

Posted in the comments section of the aforementioned article:

What do you think about the environmentalist movement and their push to garner support from evangelical Christians?

(comment by) mattclo

4/29/2005 11:06:48 AM

[:"purple"]

I would caution against merely slapping the label of far-left on every environmentalist. Not all of them are far left wing. I would also caution against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is nothing wrong with a healthy dose of environmentalism in the Christian community. While we must not worship creation, we are commanded to be good stewards of it. Too often, out of knee jerk reaction, we outright discount any environmental considerations that should indeed receive a deeper look. While not subscribing to the end of the world parnanoias about global warming, I do have active concern in issues of pollution and environmental issues that do actually affect us all.

[/]

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

(Those are not my words but those of the one who posted the comment. However, I think it is a fair summation of the truth of the matter.)

September 11, 2006

"INHOFE: No, no. Pat, I wished you had watched yesterday. I gave a one-hour speech on this, on the Senate floor. All of the science since 1999 has repudiated the idea that global warming caused by man-made gases -- that’s methane and Co2- - is causing a global warming, and the end of the world is coming, and the icecap is going to melt and all these things. But what they don’t realize-- and what they won’t tell you -- is that it was far warmer on the icecap in the 1930s and 1940s than it is today. We have trend lines that go up and down. And God is still up there and weather does change, but the same people who are yelling and screaming, and the authors of doom about global warming, were the ones in the late ‘70s who were talking about a new ice age coming, and we are all going to die. They have to be hysterical about something. I recommend, except for the dirty words, a great book written by Michael Crichton. I think we talked about that. It’s called State of Fear. He is an author, a medical doctor, and scientist. He was going to write a novel about global warming and all the horrible things, so he researched it and he thought, wait a minute, this thing’s a hoax. So he wrote a book about the fact that it is a hoax, and while it’s a fiction book and a novel, the footnotes are incontrovertible in terms of science. Now, you might say, wait a moment, no science to it? And if we know, according to the Wharton School of Economics, that it costs the average family of four $2,715 a year if we were to buy onto the Kyoto treaty (commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by around 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels, over the next decade), then what would be the motivation? I think you can find that in a couple of statements that were made, one by Jacques Chirac, who said this is the first step toward international governance . And Margo Walstrom of the European Union -- she is the environmentalist over there -- she said it is not about climate change, but it’s about leveling the playing field for business, worldwide. Those are the liberals who were behind it, and I think it is a wake-up call. And I am glad you talk about it now and then."

There it is, friends. I've been anticipating this for almost a decade.

oG

September 11, 2006

Anticipating what? Solid evidence that some of those elected to office are anti-intellectual, unscientific idiots? Well Ol' Ger, looks like you got some right there! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

September 12, 2006

I have a nice thorn-apple tree you can have. It's the kind of tree that sticks with you... <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />.

oG

September 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

You don't know what people want

Ed, you don't know what I know and what I don't.

If labeling persons' shared concerns for (and efforts to preserve) the environment a "religion" and trying to imply all sorts of screwed up motives and intentions in their efforts doesn't count as ad hominem then you are going to have to come up with a new definition.

And if addressing others the way you post to me whenever you don't like something I have to say doesn't constitute ad hominem, then you need to come up with a new definition.

I'm not buying this malarkey that you can get away with name calling and other things YOU term abusive and it's somehow OK, but when you perceive me to be doing it, it's grounds for maligning me in a dozen little ways, subtle and not-so-subtle, including calling me rude names and impugning my motives. You said in your post that ad hominem assumes a negative motive -- you simply proved my point. By accusing me of it, you implicate a particular negative motive to me which does not exist.

I respect an awful lot of your ideas, and honestly, I'd like us to be allies -- but I've told you before, I can't stomach the wingnut spin and rhetoric. I honestly can't understand how you can digest that stuff and not have it run smack into your own usually astute "BS detector" let alone your keen sense of when someone else is dipping into ad hominem. I'm being real here, I'm not just trying to irritate you.

Well, whether you care to answer from the heart or not, take care anyway. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/squeeze.gif" alt="" />

September 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

olger said:

I have a nice thorn-apple tree you can have. It's the kind of tree that sticks with you...

I know a friendly non-sequitur society that might be interested. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

September 12, 2006

I don't see the world forming a universal government over global warming concerns. A universal government will be formed in order to enforce the Sunday law, which is what we believe to be the mark of the beast.

While I agree that there are some that make a religion out of environmentalism, there are others that make a religion out of vegetarianism. Both groups are missing Christ, but that is not to say they are wrong to advocate conservation and healthful living.

September 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed, you don't know what I know and what I don't.

I know what it is given to humans to know and what is not. The reference you made to what people want spoke to specific motivation for a statement. That is something on which we mere humans can ONLY speculate.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

If labeling persons' shared concerns for (and efforts to preserve) the environment a "religion" and trying to imply all sorts of screwed up motives and intentions in their efforts

Something I have not done. I comment only on actions and words, I leave motivation alone.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I'm not buying this malarkey that you can get away with name calling

I looked through this entire thread. In none of my posts have I called anyone a name.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

maligning me in a dozen little ways, subtle and not-so-subtle, including calling me rude names and impugning my motives

On the contrary, I have repeatedly declared I do not know your motives. I have not called you names, rude or otherwise.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

You said in your post that ad hominem assumes a negative motive -- you simply proved my point. By accusing me of it, you implicate a particular negative motive to me which does not exist.

No, it doesn't assume a motive. I do not know why you chose the words you did.

but here they are:

motivation

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

those who want to totally discount the concerns environmentalists ##230066

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

a cop out by those with a vested interest in preserving the lie ##230107

name-calling

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

wingnut. . . pod people who drank the kool aid. ##230289 idiots #230449

Nowhere have I attributed motives to you. "Ad hominme" describes a technique, it does not imply or assume "why" the technique is used. And it is not "my definition."

I do not know why you repeatedly employ this technique, it impedes debate, and discredits the argument that employs it. Rather than address the argument, it attempts to discredit the arguer. That's why it's called ad hominem--aimed at the person, not the logic of the position.

September 12, 2006

QR frame:

Fragments:

Cows:: There are quite a few livestock growers in my ‘neck of the woods’. One cannot fail to notice that their livestock eat grass (not something one of us might care to eat) almost exclusively – much of which grows on terrain that is unsuitable for raising veggie crops. Now, on the other hand…

if one wishes to forward that the ‘meat industry consumes’ grains that might be better made available for human consumption… well, then one engages the pros and cons of economic realities, that is,

who risks their capital without expectation of profit? So? One might ask…

why not raise veggies on land that is now utilized as pasture? Market considerations, that’s why not. Not even the socialist-Marxists can afford to hemorrhage capital…

The short of it is that the meat consumer has the desire and the means to ensure a reasonable profit upon the expectation of the ‘grower’ and their ancillary industries; whereas,

those ‘many’ of earth’s population cannot provide satisfactory remuneration to sustain an argument for the ideal of

vegetarianism, per se.

Environment:: Several observations…

remember acid rain and its despoiling of our streams and lakes? Well, whither its Jeremiad?

We discovered that acidity in water is neutralized by the simple addition of gravel dust. Et voila! no problem…

CO2:: Doesn’t plant life thrive on CO2? Might we not, rather, be thankful for excess CO2 in our atmosphere? I mean, what with all the decimation of our tropical forests, its promise to agribusiness, etc…

Deforestation:: When I left Oregon for the big cities – I left a town having nine forest product mills. I returned in ’94 to a town having just one plywood mill. Wha’happened? Environmentalism happened. Skyrocketing housing costs followed (though not entirely attributable to lumber shortages), etc…

Global warming:: The ‘warming’ appears to be affecting the entire solar system. Note, the oceans that are occurring on Mars, the rapid decrease in the size of Jupiter’s ‘spot’, the warming that is occurring on Saturn, etc… and why is earth’s magnetic field density weakening? …presaging greater tectonic field movements and… Oy! Have mercy!

Etc::

The above is not to suggest that one ought not to have, at the least, moderate environmental sensitivities.

September 12, 2006

Hey, good to see you around again, jasd!

September 13, 2006

The amount of grain fed to livestock has continued to rise throughout the last number of decades. Most livestock do not eat grass on property that is not suitable to raise crops on. In fact, much of our pork, beef and poltry is corn-feed. And all these animals are raised in feed lots and poltry barns. The urine and feces are not treated in sewage treatment plants. It runs off into rivers and seeps into ground water.

There is no way the amount of cattle, pigs and poultry raised on the open range could even begin to meet the demand for meat, milk and eggs. And the meat industry is booming. World-wide demand is increasing. As it does, more and more of our grain resources will have to be used to feed animals which do not give a pound for pound return on the investment. Some cattle take up to 15 pounds of corn to produce a pound of beef.

October 11, 2006

That is kind and generous, thanks, Nico.

Sorry, I haven’t responded in a timely manner. I’ve been perusing these boards altogether too infrequently; however,

…am hoping to spend more time on this forum shortly to glean from the great posts -- ongoing, the various boards.

October 11, 2006

Shane, good points, and well presented.

>>…which do not give a pound for pound return on the investment.<<

Ah, the crux of the matter.

As to the argument that too much grain is misdirected to the raising of cattle, well, I understand that grain is provided primarily in the stockyards -- to marbleize the meat and whiten the fat for greater tenderness and marketability.

As to the feeding of hogs…, I purchase my geese from a hog farmer and he admits that though his hogs are mostly grain-fed, they are primarily fed mill-runs – an otherwise, rather undesirable product.

As to chickens…, well, no grain, no eggs, to speak of And the meat? well, that’s a pretty good trade-off, I think... preferably -- fried [/lickin' my chops... ]

Seriously, given the markets… who’s to subsidize the production and distribution costs? …not the farmer. Besides,

where’s the problem? if the collective Greenies and/or Vegs are so gung-ho on bio-fuels and diverting corn as a desirable resource for heating fuel?

Sign In

How can you tell who someone's god is?

Recommended Posts

Bravus

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

olger

Nicodema

olger

Nicodema

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

there buster

jasd

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

jasd

jasd

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity