By now the talk about global warming on this site amounts to beating a dead horse, as the granting of the Nobel prize to Al Gore should demonstrate. Clearly, because we fail to take necessary action now as well as in the immediate (as in, the next 3-5 years) future, we are headed towards some catastrophic changes in the way the ecosphere functions to support our main life support systems. There are irreversible changes occurring all around the planet due to the chain of events started by industrialization, the least of which are the opening up of the Northwest passage, the melting of the Siberian permafrost (releasing massive amounts of methane, a far more potent source of pollution than carbon dioxide), rapid melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and increases in chaotic weather (and I’m putting it mildly – like the recent 40 degree drop in temperature from 90 to 50 in the past few days here in Chicago), to name a few.
Hi “Melanie” (an explanation on the quotes coming further down the post),
I’ve decided to move your four last “responses” here, as well as copy your earlier ones to create an exclusive post. My responses are quoted (you can tell by the date following them) or interspersed.
This is not a Lie or a Joke. Jesus returned in Spirit in the Spring of 2006. He talked to only one person. Again this is not a lie.
Jun 30, 11:09 AM
… and, where did this “contact” occur?
Jun 30, 5:33 PM
Hi Albert, God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost came to North America. Not to far from where Joseph Smith’s alleged talk with God happened. Maybe God just likes this place.
Jul 12, 9:19 AM Continue reading
As horrible as such a decree might sound, I think it actually brings the true catholic “Church” nearer to truth – in terms of orthopraxis – although it’s clearly offset by its person/institution of origin. The bare fact is that the Church is to be as a united and uniformly pure gathering of individuals after the return of Jesus, not as some arbitrary decree from a “recognized” (that is, recognizably flawed) institution like that of the Vatican.
That said, as a follower of the Way, our identity is formed and dictated by our relationship to God and one another, not to any earthly institutions.
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) — The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ.
I’m not entirely sure why Father Stevens took down this comment, but it’s here for reference.
Continued from this thread below:
Thanks for the quick response. My comments interspersed below. I did find them to be helpful.
1. Respect – assuming the best about someone even if you disagree with them, not attacking their motives or intelligence. Ad hominem is disrespectful
I can agree with this – it’s nearly the definition of ad hominem. Bringing it into a subjective context, what do you think about a layman referring to you as “Brother”? Or, under what circumstances would you consider “Brother” to be non-disrespectful?
[Ed: For context, reference my removed comment.]
As I mentioned, I’m not entirely sure what you meant by your phrase (although I do know the meaning of the phrase itself). Please elaborate.
albert wrote: “A recent goal of mine has been to root out heresies from the church. Granted, this has been a rather large task, but the multiplicity of errors I’ve seen are just too blatantly out of sync to ignore, lacking resemblance to a heart, soul, strength and mind in geniune worship of God. This is because I see myself as a teacher of sorts, although I lack what is seen as “credentials” – Ph.D/Master’s of Divinity. (That’s a partial reason why I’m back in school right now).”
Sorry for the late response. The thread has clearly blown up, so I’m taking the liberty to move it to my blog for legibility.
If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking. – George Patton. [ed: my quote]
I’ve addressed your topic in my For Atheists page under Junaman thread – Empiricism vs. Rationalism, but I’ll respond to your logic w/in the framework of Christianity:
1. Assume God exists.
Define “God”. You do that in 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8, not 1. The Old Testament, throughout the course of its 39 books, does it in a similar fashion, but comes up with a different conclusion.
The formatting always gets lost in translation… even with html. Bleh.
The tags are a good indicator of what this thread’s about (maybe will work on a summary later).
A: It’s fine, I suppose. But the longer it takes, the more disingenuous your pursuit of “exposing incompetence”, as it were, will look (recent post(s) nonwithstanding).
J: You put a bit much weight on a tagline…
That’s not just a tagline… it’s also the title of your blog.
…How is this conversation exposing incompetence.
Well, that one should be obvious. The incompetence comes in the form of dogmaticism regarding the “ultimate truth” of science, which is implied from your For Christians page.
The real incompetence is not whether you believe in a god [or not], but what you use that belief for, what objective you try to achieve with that belief.
I can agree if you’re referring to “amoralism”, e.g. in the case of Hitler and Bush. I don’t think proselytising necessarily bring you to the same conclusion.