georgesbluegirl

God did not create the world and everything in it, and then told us to "take, rape it, its yours". Our relationship to creation is like a tenant. I made the scriptural case for Christian Environmentalism before, but I will do so again here since its topical: Let's start with Genesis 1:26 Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." Leviticus 25-23-24 "The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine, and you are but aliens who have become my tenants. Therefore, in every part of the country that you occupy, you must permit the land to be redeemed. So we are created in the spiritual image of God, and we are given dominion over God's creation. Otherwise to be stewards of Creation. Now what is a steward? A steward is someone who looks after something on behalf of someone else. Therefore, we are to look after God's creation on behalf of God. The Creation is for us to use but but not exploit: Jeremiah 2:7 "When I brought you into the garden land to eat its goodly fruits, You entered and defiled my land, you made my heritage loathsome." James 5:5 "You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter." What happens if we are good stewards of God's creation? Leviticus 26:4-6 I will give you rain in due season, so that the land will bear its crops, and the trees their fruit; your threshing will last till vintage time, and your vintage till the time for sowing, and you will have food to eat in abundance, so that you may dwell securely in your land. I will establish peace in the land, that you may lie down to rest without anxiety. I will rid the country of ravenous beasts, and keep the sword of war from sweeping across your land. What happens if we are poor stewards of God's creation? Revelation 11:18. "The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth." What is the purpose of God's creation? It is to glorify God. Psalm 96:11-13 Let the heavens be glad and the earth rejoice; let the sea and what fills it resound; let the plains be joyful and all that is in them. Then let all the trees of the forest rejoice before the LORD who comes, who comes to govern the earth, To govern the world with justice and the peoples with faithfulness. Isaiah 43:20 Wild beasts honor me, jackals and ostriches, For I put water in the desert and rivers in the wasteland for my chosen people to drink, What about individual species, plants and animals? Let's look at Genesis again: Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Genesis 1:20-21 Then God said, "Let the water teem with an abundance of living creatures, and on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky." And so it happened: God created the great sea monsters and all kinds of swimming creatures with which the water teems, and all kinds of winged birds. God saw how good it was, Genesis 1:24-25 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened: God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. So God sees his creation, the plants and animals from the smallest organisms to the largest animals walking the earth, as he created them as good. So lets break this down: God created the earth and all life on it to Glorify Him. God sees his entire creation as he created it as good. God created man in his spiritual image and gave him dominion over his creation. God's creation is his, not ours, we are to be stewards of his creation. We can use his creation, but not exploit it. We are to live simply (I did not quote the scripture on this one, but there are hundreds of references to this in scripture). If we are good stewards of his creation, then God's creation will provide for our needs. If we are poor stewards of his creation, then we will bear God's wrath come judgement. One final point, The Great Commission tells us that we are to teach others to "obey everything I have commanded you". Thus, since environmental stewardship is a command of God, we are practice it and teach it to others that we bring the Gospel to. BIG thumbs up.

Are you in denial? This is one of the most obvious ones. If you don't believe it, just check out the satellite pictures, bro. Actually, any environmentalist worth her salt will tell you that since the Clean Air Act, a lot of things have gotten better. However, indoor air is still a major problem in the US, and there are certainly major air problems in developing nations such as China and India (ever heard of the Chinese city you couldn't see via satellite for the thick smog? Actually, there was/is more than one). Obviously we're not done with the issues of smog or general air pollution in the US either - look at LA, and look at eastern states who have horrible AQIs because of Midwestern states (raises hand. thanks, Ohio) It's more symbolic than anything else. In the long haul it won't have much affect on CO2 concentrations, but politically it paves the way for international discussion and action on the issue. As it was requested that we pretend that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, I'll leave it at that. Eventually, we're going to need to. Hubbert's peak is of course a fallacy - the issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that we have to move into places less and less accessible to get it. Eventually, it's cost prohibitive. And - ignoring CC again and without launching into too much of an energy diatribe - there are already great ideas in the works. Hydrogen fuel cell technology should be pretty cool. Regardless, isn't it a good idea to stop depending on energy from overseas anyway? And you'll find a great diversity of opinions about them within the environmental community, ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. Pollution and drinkable water is more the issue. And it IS an issue in a lot of places. Basically don't waste water. Is that so weird? Sooooo...I take you buy into all the garbage. I never realized how much "being able to see from outer space" meant to enviro's. Maybe they should move the camera around up there cuz they obviously aren't getting the whole picture. In 1920, US forrests covered 732 million acres; today 737 million acres. Inspite of a population increase of 170 million people. Sounds to me like that Greenpeace satellite is out of focus. There is plenty of freshwater...really the only concern is accessability...not quantity. Therefore, its not an environmental issue, its an engineering issue. I mean I could go on...but whats the point. You clearly are getting your info from enviro liberal progressives who care more about controlling people than telling the truth about these issues. There is no enviromental crises. There are minor environmental issues that can be dealt with at the local levels if people CHOOSE to do so. It shouldn't be imposed forcefully by some imperialistic progressive socialist agenda. In response to your forest point, specifically: I'm not sure where you're getting that number from, but it doesn't really matter. The most extreme US deforestation occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. We're actually experiencing regrowth in a lot of previously cleared areas (like a lot of Maine). That doesn't mean that forests today aren't in trouble. Iryssa is right - you're going to have to look beyond the US on this one. I wasn't arguing the "amount of water" thing, I was refocusing the question. Regardless, I've spent a great deal of time on these issues and I've looked at a lot of numbers, opinions and scientific studies. If you really want to go issue by issue, we can. But don't talk down to me. I care enough about these problems - and about the people affected by these problems - to learn about them, and I want to spend my life trying to fix them. I am an environmentalist. I get my information from science and from well-documented sources, as well as from what I can see happening around me. I don't deny that we've done a lot of good things in the United States since the reforms in the 1970s. But nationally and definitely globally, we have a long way to go.

Are you in denial? This is one of the most obvious ones. If you don't believe it, just check out the satellite pictures, bro. Actually, any environmentalist worth her salt will tell you that since the Clean Air Act, a lot of things have gotten better. However, indoor air is still a major problem in the US, and there are certainly major air problems in developing nations such as China and India (ever heard of the Chinese city you couldn't see via satellite for the thick smog? Actually, there was/is more than one). Obviously we're not done with the issues of smog or general air pollution in the US either - look at LA, and look at eastern states who have horrible AQIs because of Midwestern states (raises hand. thanks, Ohio) It's more symbolic than anything else. In the long haul it won't have much affect on CO2 concentrations, but politically it paves the way for international discussion and action on the issue. As it was requested that we pretend that anthropogenic climate change does not exist, I'll leave it at that. Eventually, we're going to need to. Hubbert's peak is of course a fallacy - the issue isn't that we'll run out of oil, it's that we have to move into places less and less accessible to get it. Eventually, it's cost prohibitive. And - ignoring CC again and without launching into too much of an energy diatribe - there are already great ideas in the works. Hydrogen fuel cell technology should be pretty cool. Regardless, isn't it a good idea to stop depending on energy from overseas anyway? And you'll find a great diversity of opinions about them within the environmental community, ranging from extremely positive to extremely negative. Pollution and drinkable water is more the issue. And it IS an issue in a lot of places. Basically don't waste water. Is that so weird?

What is an "evolutionist"? It is certainly not a term one would find any any scientific literature. The origin of the universe is outside of the scope of evolution theory, but life and how it evolved is certainly within the scope. There have been several threads on this in recent weeks in the Apologetics area, The Lorax and Myco have both done excellent jobs presenting the scientific case for evolution, what are your problems with their arguments? Don't play word games forrest. In the context the statement was made, someone of your "superior intellect" should understand that. My problem is that their arguments are unbiblical. Also, you saying Al Gore shouldn't debate his opposition because they aren't "scientists" sounds like a cop-out, last I checked Al Gore is not a scientist either, he's a career politician and right now he refuses engage in a debate with another politician. And you want to excuse his cowardly behavior because his opposition isn't a scientist? The following are an exerpts from the article that exposes just how far the man-made global warming alarmists are willing to go to silence any opposing views. The controversy centers around the source of the temperature change – manmade or natural causes. Global warming alarmists hold the view that it's manmade emissions of CO2 that's driving climate change, and they seek to suppress any dissent suggesting other causes. Earlier this year, the Weather Channel's Dr. Heidi Cullen called for the decertification of weathermen who were skeptical of manmade global warming. Grist magazine's staff writer David Roberts said that his solution for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry" is: "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg." "Global warming driven by greenhouse gas pollution (but ultimately by greed, racism and lying) is killing our planet," says an article in Media With Conscience. It goes on to say, "Our planet, the Earth, is under acute threat from Climate Criminals threatening the Third World with Climate Genocide and the Biosphere with Terracide (the killing of our planet)." Sen. Inhofe maintains a website citing these and other many examples of attacks on skeptics of manmade global warming. According to the July 16 Washington Times, Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy, or ACORE, sent a threatening missive to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which read: "Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=57043 This is the problem us conservatives have with the whole global warming hysteria. Here's one of my favorite lines: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of the late Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies." Referring to skeptics of manmade global warming, he said, "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors." Traitors are either shot or imprisoned. I wonder which Robert Kennedy has in mind for the skeptics. It's not the argument it's the actions that individuals are willing to take to win this ideological battle. RFKJR is suggesting imprisoning or shooting people for disagreeing with manmade global warming. RFKjr is a Socialist-FASCIST. No, he's not. He's trying to make a point. He's not actually suggesting the execution of skeptics. Come on, man. For the record, RFK Jr. is one of my heroes - he's spent years championing environmental issues that often pit ordinary citizens against big corporations with abusive policies (see: Riverkeeper's work on the Hudson). The man is a force to be reckoned with, and he's not one to pull any punches (rhetorical or otherwise) when he feels strongly about an issue. I've been lucky enough to meet him and I've seen him speak twice in the past year, and he's inspired me. Politics needs somebody like him, but somebody like him probably won't go into politics (though he did consider running for the NY senate seat that Hillary eventually got). Look at his whole record and his ideas before you make silly statements.

They do make for dry reading. This is just a subject I happen to be interested in, otherwise I probably would have never read many either. We do get National Geographic though. Sometimes I wonder whether we are the only people under 70 that subscribe to it though. Don't worry - I get it too, and I'm only 20! Audubon stuff too.

Perhaps not relevant, but I often tell my mom that the 2012 world's end date is how I'm planning my postgrad life. I figure I'll have about three years after college to kick around and explore and do some things I want to - and if the world doesn't end, I'll figure out how to focus that into a career!

Yes it is. The Sources would be: 2004 9/11 Commission Report 2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq 2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report Among other Government Reports, all listed in the Original Post. Given the shear number of Intelligence Reports released since the war that found no operational relationship between Iraq under Saddam and Al Qaeda, you would think no one would still be under the misconception that such a relationship ever existed, but evidently some still are under that misconception. I've quoted him before and I'll do it again: as Robert Kennedy, Jr. says, "We are the best entertained and the worst informed people on the planet."

...I think he did. Isn't a lot of this simply public record?

I have a huge amount of respect for this guy...imagine the guts he had to summon to be the one to say something. And yeah, I don't know how Rumsfeld could have missed the fact that he was supposed to be anonymous.

I had no idea that was their stance. Like I said I'm really surprised... Literal Creationism is a minority view in Christianity. The vast majority of denominations worldwide accept theistic evolution. I went to Catholic school. You better believe we learned evolution. I still do NOT comprehend the problem with reconciling believing in God with believing in evolution as a natural law. Neither does the Pope.

I do think his lack of foreign policy experience is going to be what hurts him in the primaries. My thoughts right now, barring a Gore entrance (which I'm assuming won't happen but....*folds hands in prayer*), are that Hillary looks the strongest (this coming from an Obama supporter) but that, come primary season, people are going to shy away from her because it will be hard to get her elected. She's leading by a comfortable margin this time, but I'm pretty sure that at this point four years ago Gephardt and Dean were in the lead. Just to point out. Edwards is looking stronger and stronger to me. His best bet is probably to be everyone's second favorite, so when they don't vote for Obama or Clinton they go to him. A lot rests on his wife's illness, I suppose, but he really is a good candidate. Honestly, I'd be fairly comfortable with any of the major Dems getting the nomination. I'm starting to think that Edwards/Obama could be a workable ticket. Of course, given the field the GOP has to work with, if a progressive woman is going to get elected anytime soon, now might be the time. Still loves me some Barack, though.

Re: the DK debacle: "Critical reports" is putting it mildly. Of course, as a member of DailyKos I might add that this is giving the blog more publicity than it has ever gotten before...so keep blustering on, Bill-O!

I would disagree. Conservatives, Republicans, and/or those who liked him during his presidency have a favorable opinion of him, that's true, though. Regardless, W is no Reagan. Reagan was articulate and charismatic, at least. Not really. Tip O'Neil called him an amiable dunce. Reagan got hammered for using cue cards. They implied that Nancy ran the show. That's standard liberal fare for any republican. If the republicans elected Einstein the democrats would say he was an idiot. Reagan was vicously trashed during his presidency and even afterwards. I see no diference between how he was perceived and how Bush is perceived. Perhaps I should have said that better - Reagan was more articulate than Bush is.

I would disagree. Conservatives, Republicans, and/or those who liked him during his presidency have a favorable opinion of him, that's true, though. Regardless, W is no Reagan. Reagan was articulate and charismatic, at least.

My grandpa is a lifelong Republican who takes the party line on most issues....and he HATES Cheney. Thinks he's smarmy and all about big business and doesn't act like a public servant (wonder where he got that impression?). Hate to break it to you, rtwo, but the Dems don't really need to do anything to make this administration look bad - they're doing a bang-up job of it on their own.

That's why, objectively speaking, I think the GOP will be really hurting themselves...I've already heard comparisons between a Republican thumbs-down to Youtube with Bush I's refusal to be involved with "Rock the Vote" (MTV) - Clinton embraced it, and history tells what happened next, as the image of Clinton as more accessible and "hip" (did I really just use that word? ugh) played in his favor. Of course, my political beliefs and affiliations being what they are, I don't really care that much that the GOP will be hurting themselves by skipping the debate. I just wanted to see them in this interesting new format and maybe get some real answers. By the way, levity (i.e. the snowmen, the NC "hicks") is one thing, but there were some really powerful moments in the 23rd's debate, too, that really crystallized the power of working with an open-access medium for an event like a debate; it's one thing to have a mod ask you what your position on healthcare is, and it's quite another to have a cancer patient pull off her wig and ask about affordable treatments for her disease.

No

Gonzo perjures himself OBVIOUSLY and they're supposed to let it go?

It shouldn't...I don't know how it would. But if you watched the debate on the 23rd, you know how it breathed new life into a tired format, and in a few cases managed to elicit actual answers (desite the general inability of Anderson Cooper to be an effective moderator).

From WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7072700283.html Gonna hurt them in the long run, mark my words. (The conspiracy theorist in me wants to blame Rupert Murdoch.) By the way, what the Post (a newspaper I have decidedly mixed feelings about) doesn't mention is that Romney apparently doesn't know the difference between Myspace and Youtube, alleging that the site recently identified 29,000 sex offenders (referring, incidentally, to Myspace's purge of identified sex offenders).

Have fun finding a decorator then. OH so true. Or a really good florist. At least here in Baltimore....

Well, I don't know much about JW theology, admittedly, but... Whoa. Let's not go lumping Mormons, JWs and Catholics in the same bunch. Catholics are Christians. (I am a Catholic, and I don't feel my spirit "crumbling.")

I don't romanticize Lincoln and FDR - I'm well aware that they weren't perfect as presidents or as people. But both of them were great leaders. They were shrewd men who knew how to connect with people and earn their respect, surrounded themselves with intelligent advisors, and thought forward. Ultimately, history lends them greatness for successes they had as a result; I suspect that Bush will be remembered less kindly for the mess into which he has plunged the country in large part because he has not done, or simply does not know how to do, those things.

And this surprises me....not at all.

Keilan the world needs more Biblical counsellors. You could train to be one of them at a Christian college or university. Do not go to a secular college for your education unless you are positive God has sent you there; it would be a waste of time to learn warped and unBiblical concepts which you would not be able to use. Check out this site : NANC I beg to differ. I go to a "secular" college (went to Catholic high school) and I hardly think it's a "waste of time." You get the best education you can, wherever you can get it, and then let your personal convictions shape what you do with it.