O'Dannyboy

This is something new? I was hoping with a change of command at the U.N. it might actually change, yes. Wishful thinking, I know but I try to be an optimist.

In this instance I don't think they were restricting traffic only keeping a close eye on our ships. I would personally take this as an indicator that they are far from being a friend to the U.S. The government can sugar coat it all they want but at the end of the day I'm sure they have no illusions about Chinas position.

Where are all the U.N. "Observers" now? It seems they are only needed as human shields for the U.N. rather than actually observing. I suppose this way they can accuse Israel of anything without actually needing proof. Apparently if it can't be used against Israel, the U.N has no use for it.

Technically speaking our ships are in someone else's territory. I have no doubt that we are there at the behest of Taiwan but as far as China is concerned Taiwan belongs to them,as well as the waters around Taiwan. Wouldn't it be hypocritical of our government to insist that Israel owes the Palestinians a "right of return" but that Taiwan has a right to independence?

I don't mean to judge people. The current oil prices/fuel prices are pretty upsetting. Perhaps I take it more personally than most. The more people wasting fuel the higher the prices are for everyone else. I don't like seeing the Muslim world with as much influence as they have and the more we use the more dependent we are on them. I honestly get upset at the sheer numbers of these less than efficient vehicles on the road. Many people have valid reason for driving them and many others drive them merely for the "status". For a person to drive a vehicle as a status symbol is, to me, a sign of vanity. I'm not saying this to condemn anyone only to give them something to consider in their efforts to be good stewards. Forgive me if I offended anyone or misunderstood anyone on this topic. I only wanted people to consider their stewardship and reflect. We should be grateful for all that we have rather than feeling entitled. In this case, we should be even more grateful for that which we have that is above and beyond our needs. I think of all the people around the world that have less than me and I am humbled when they offer to share, with a smile no less. There are things in our lives, luxuries and such, that we should not take for granted and when people start barking about how they earned this or deserve that I feel compelled to remind them where these blessings come from.

No problems here. That is, after all, what they were made for. If you can only afford one vehicle, and have a family then a large SUV would be the obvious choice. Shalom Danny, Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but it's not YOUR choice to make for someone else. Can you not see how wrong that is? You are telling people not to get offended at your message, but your message is one of sweeping generalities and putting yourself in a position to judge what someone ELSE should be driving. The Bible does not give you that right Bro. Just make your own choices and leave the judgment to G-d. In answer to the OP, NO, it's not a sin, it's a personal choice. I'm not making anyone choices for them. The OP asked if driving such vehicles was a sin. It's my opinion that if there is a need to drive them then no but if there is not a need then one might consider it a sin or at least an indulgence. I'm not judging only giving them food for thought. I wish for them to reflect on what I say and if I am wrong about my opinion then tell me why. If there is no truth in what I say then by all means point it out but do no assume I am sitting in judgment. I am simply making observations and have, by no means, condemned anyone. God knows their hearts and what motivates them to do this or that. If their intentions are noble and their hearts in the right place then their is no need to be offended. It's that simple.

Anyone that could think up and create the platypus definitely has a sense of humor.

No problems here. That is, after all, what they were made for. If you can only afford one vehicle, and have a family then a large SUV would be the obvious choice. I would like to say that for me this is not a green issue, it's an economy issue. Oil prices have never been higher and the Oil producing nations (aka Muslim nations) have never been wealthier. The automobile industry is partly to blame for not even making an effort to increase fuel economy. The tree huggers have badgered Governments and manufacturers so that they focused on emissions rather than efficiency. 30 years have gone by and the average MPG has barely moved. In 1982 they were making cars that would get 50+ MPG on diesel and these days, thanks to emissions laws, there are none. 30 years and no noticeable improvement whatsoever. And GM is wondering why Toyota has surpassed them? Perhaps GM and Ford will continue to focus it's resources on larger and prettier vehicles and they will fall even farther behind the competition forcing them to close more plants in, where else?, the USA. We, the consumers, are also to blame for buying such obviously inefficient vehicles. So much so that they have spent all their time making them more luxurious and eye catching thereby making these vehicles "status symbols". No effort to make them more efficient, only to make them more appealing. In this instance, we have become our own worst enemy by NOT encouraging R&D in fuel efficiency. I'd be willing to bet this is an area that Toyota has the advantage and even the slightest improvements have effected their overall sales.

Okay, I'm sorry...but that's the most ridiculous thing I have read here at Worthy, and that's saying something. Do you realize that you have just insulted me, my husband and many others who PREFER to drive a larger vehicle and who happen to be able to AFFORD to pay for one? It has nothing to do with status or pride or a lack of humility. Lordamercy, O'Dannyboy, think before you air an opinion like that, would you?? I knew you would be the first to respond Marnie. You said yourself, regarding the hummer, that at least you were sinning in style. You admit that STYLE is important to you and so do you deny you are being even slightly vain? When you drive around in STYLE (no mention of comfort) do you feel good about yourself, a.k.a PRIDE? Your being offended only reinforces my assertion about lack of humility. Your ability to afford a luxury does not make it any less of a luxury. If you feel that you deserve these things rather than feeling blessed then I would say you lack humility. As I said, these vehicles were designed to carry families. They are an expensive and inefficient mode of transportation for an individual. The same could be said of a Jaguar or a Mercedes. Do you disagree? It was not my intention to offend anyone only to point out how people justify indulgences such as the large SUVs. Deny as they may, they all feel, since they can afford this or that, that somehow they are entitled or deserving. You would think they would be thankful and humble themselves like Sam Walton. This is just how I feel folks. Don't take offense. It's one mans opinion. I wasn't pointing any fingers. I was however expecting some to lash out at me for speaking my mind. I only ask that those of you who might feel some measure of guilt try and refrain from trying to paint me as the bad guy. If you don't like what I have said then prove me wrong but please save your insults. Besides, I have said far more ridiculous things before this and have read them too.

I think his arrogance is an act. His appeal is that he is so very hard right politically and he always makes a strong argument. He is a right wing apologist and that is why so many people, Christian or not, like him. One thing about him that I don't like is his justification for indulgence and his disregard, even contempt, for "green" efforts.

Pathetic. We've gone 30 years without any significant effort to increase fuel economy in vehicles and even have gone as far as to produce LARGER and less efficient passenger vehicles. 30 years of supporting the Muslim nations and NOW we are pleading with them to lower the price of oil? Talk about ignorant. The government, automobile industry AND the people seemed oblivious up until the point when the price of fuel skyrockets as a result of excessive consumption.

I am of the opinion that driving an excessively large vehicle for the status is a sign of naivety, pride and selfishness. Knowing how we have become so dependent on foreign oil and by proxy are empowering the Muslim nations does not set well with me. Many SUVs are getting smaller and more practical, but the suburban sized vehicles are not very practical as a mode of transportation. Many people buy less efficient vehicles as their primary mode of transportation on the off chance they might need that much room or towing capacity. Every day I witness at least one of these over sized vehicles with a single occupant. Some so full of pride and so concerned with "style" to realize their vehicle cost more than some peoples houses. Not what one would call humility. To answer your question, obviously it's not a sin to drive an SUV. However I would say that owning and driving the larger SUV's as ones primary mode of transportation, with disregard for it's purpose and capacity, is a prideful and selfish display. There is a small percentage of people who drive these monstrous vehicles for safety but the large majority drive them for the status. They might as well stroll through the local wal-mart fanning themselves with a stack of $50 bills. The people who parade around in style, not unlike the pharisee, will likely disagree with me but, then again, they are the important ones, right?

Hillary is about as "liberal" as they come. Her policies on immigration, abortion, gay marriage, health care, and pretty much everything else are simply frightening. She has championed many bills lately that would have only contributed to the welfare/dependence mentality. She would like nothing more than to convince America that government knows best. You know, big government, big taxes, socialism at it's worst.

It wasn't until the British were given control that people started migrating there. The territory, as claimed, was sparsely populated and was not populated by "Palestinians" for any reasonable amount of time. The notion that any significant number of indigenous people were displaced by the Jews is ludicrous. In fact, the number of Arabs emigrating to Palestine was, from the beginning, substantially greater than that of the Zionists. Even back then the Muslims were trying to take Palestine by attrition. It was the Balfour declaration, I believe, in which the British recognized the Jews claim to the land. Even the world powers agreed to allow the formation of a Jewish state. Since that day, when Israel declared itself a nation, the rest of the world has been conspiring to bring it down. It's obvious that there is more going on than meets the eye. All the more reason to trust what the Bible says.

Interesting indeed. I was wondering if Pelosi made the list. I hopeful that in all the mud slinging the truth will come out. Huckabees' record has already been attacked and now this. Huckabee is quickly loosing his appeal. While he didn't make the list, wasn't Romney formerly a democrat and now he is running as a republican? Fred Thompson continues to look better and better.

Wasn't the "super-note" claim supposed to indicate that the bills were next to impossible to counterfeit? So much for that idea.

I don't necessarily mind donating my organs. My biggest fear is that they might wish to accelerate my death to make those organs available. I would not wish to be dying and have them decide to pull the plug early to satisfy a need. Other than that I would have no qualms with them using my eyes and organs. I simply would wish that my body be left in tact minus the parts they would use to save lives.

I agree. This guy is pretty clueless. The few things we have in common were plagiarized from the Torah/old testament. They claim to worship the God of Abraham but their "Prophet" was pure evil and twisted the word of God to suit his desires.

Big surprise eh? He turned on his country why not everyone else that supported him?

It actually makes perfect sense. They are being given a choice and if they chose to Disestablish the Church of England then they will have taken the mark of the beast or chose the beast over God. This should be a shining beacon to them that they are headed down the wrong path. Just as Buck mentioned, with Muslims breeding at a record pace and watching Islam replace Christianity as the predominant religion things can only get worse. What most advocates of multiculturalism don't seem to understand is that Muslims are NOT tolerant of other religions and to embrace and welcome them is to seal the fate of your children. Europe is beginning to learn this but it's too late to fix it. Now that they have all but opened the borders they will be overrun in a short amount of time. It makes me sad considering how noble their intentions were.

If he were the Christian he claims to be he would know that it will be the Anti-Christ that manages to coax Israel and it's enemies to sign a treaty.

Bush is an embarrassment. To call it an occupation is a clear sign of his misunderstanding of the situation and an obvious bias toward Arabs and their false claims. If he harbors any bias then he will not be helping things. He just needs to stay out of it and stop trying to manipulate Israel just because their list of friends is so short.

I don't understand the significance here. Israel is a Jewish state after all. I'm curious. In order for Israel to sign a 7 year treaty does the Palestinian state first need to be formed or will the Palestinian state be the result?

Interesting. I didn't glean anything useful from the passage other than to confirm that there would be a line stretched across Jerusalem, and there is. We already understand the importance of Jerusalem but what does this say about what is to come?