Humanism on trial......

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why you keep posting such lies (that you know are lies) I'll never know.

"Liberals" do support alternative energy sources, not just conservation (though conservation and efficiency are good ideas too).

Great!! Just not nuclear power eh?

The painful fact of the matter for you liberals to deal with is that Big Oil owns both parties, not just the Republican party. I think part of McCain's fate was sealed when he proposed to go nuclear.

I guess we will see pretty soon how far liberals get us away from fossil fuels. My guess, however, is not far. No doubt it will be the Republicans fault. 😉

Originally posted by whodey
Great!! Just not nuclear power eh?

The painful fact of the matter for you liberals to deal with is that Big Oil owns both parties, not just the Republican party. I think part of McCain's fate was sealed when he proposed to go nuclear.

I guess we will see pretty soon how far liberals get us away from fossil fuels. My guess, however, is not far. No doubt it will be the Republicans fault. 😉

What in your mind defines a liberal?

If someone supports nuclear power are they automatically not a liberal?

Do you really think of people as being pigeonholed into these kind of convenient labels?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, some choice your God gives us. Love and worship me, or I'll cast you out to suffer for all eternity. Wow, I can really feel the love. Your theological framework is retarded.

Strange, as only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form. He gives us the choice; you choose. If you choose to hate God, you have made a conscious choice. One can't have his cake and eat it too. If you were God, how would you run things?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Strange, as only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form. He gives us the choice; you choose. If you choose to hate God, you have made a conscious choice. One can't have his cake and eat it too. If you were God, how would you run things?

If you were God, how would you run things?

I guess I would demand that my wife love and worship me, or I will either torture her endlessly, or torture her then kill her—because I am loving and I love her, and simply cannot tolerate it if she doesn’t love me back.

Oh yeah, and because I am holy, I cannot tolerate any sins on her part—because I love her. Being holy means being wholly intolerant of anything/anyone that is less than wholly holy. Being loving means being wholly intolerant of anyone who doesn’t love me back.

Of course I have offered conditions, which must be accepted as a condition for my love. I cannot possibly love anyone who does not meet my conditions. I am willing to sacrifice myself for my wife, but then she’d better choose me and love me for it… My love is not unconditional, you know; it’s not a “free gift”.

Okay, I still love her, even as I torture her endlessly—that’s what love is…

______________________________________________

Can you identify any inconsistencies in the above? If I replace “I” with “God”, and “my wife” with “humanity”, does it suddenly all make sense? Would it then represent a fair statement of your theology?

Such a shame that instead of listing so many commandments about how much we should worship and suck up to God that the Almighty didn't see fit to add a commandment 'Thou shall look after the Planet'

Originally posted by rwingett
Who is the bigger advocate of curbing global emissions, the secular humanist left, or the religious right? Which of those two groups has an inherently apocalyptic worldview?

You forgot to mention the humanist right and the religious left. In any case it's not about advocating anything it's about action - at the moment humanity seems to be all talk on climate change.

At the moment because of man's refusal to take action it seems that the religious apocalyptic world view may turn out to be the most accurate.

Originally posted by LemonJello
WTF are you talking about? Who, in your estimation, qualifies as a 'humanist'? What exactly are you committing the 'humanist' to here? What is "faith in human nature" supposed to mean? You just throw out a bunch of BS all the time and I have no idea what you are talking about.

[b]At the moment it looks like the Christians are right. They say that m ...[text shortened]... e news? It's supposed to indicate the truth of Christianity? I'm very, very confused.

The basic thrust of my thread is to ask those who place their faith in human nature whether their faith is waning or not.

The fact that humanity seems bent on self destructing and ignoring the facts on climate change should make everyone think about their view of humanity. Maybe you prefer not to think about rising emissions in a world that is 2-3 degrees away from the abyss?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since Christians believe that Jesus will come back and save the planet before Man destroys it and himself, a good Christian should oppose any attempt to stop wrecking the environment as it will only delay Jesus' glorious return and the ultimate salvation of the human race.

But what do the humanists do? How bad does it have to get before people start questioning man's sanity? London underwater maybe?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yeah, some choice your God gives us. Love and worship me, or I'll cast you out to suffer for all eternity. Wow, I can really feel the love. Your theological framework is retarded.

He cannot give you any other third choice - it does not exist. To be with God forever is the only thing for which you were created , to reject this will mean that you will be unhappy forever. The fire and brimstone stuff is a warning not a threat.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since Christians believe that Jesus will come back and save the planet before Man destroys it and himself, a good Christian should oppose any attempt to stop wrecking the environment as it will only delay Jesus' glorious return and the ultimate salvation of the human race.

Not every Christian believes that.

This earth is soon not going to be fit for human habitation.

You have no idea what a mess it will be just before the second coming of Christ.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
What in your mind defines a liberal?

If someone supports nuclear power are they automatically not a liberal?

Do you really think of people as being pigeonholed into these kind of convenient labels?

Your not getting the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that both Republican and Democrats are owned by Big Oil. It just to happens that the issue of fossil fuels warming up the atmosphere has been a long held view on the left. Of course, that is not to say that those in the Republican party, such as McCain, have also taken up the cause. It just seems suspect to me that those who proport to believe global warming would oppose such things as nuclear power if, in fact, the sky is falling and humankind is on the verge of destroying itself. How bad could it be in comparison to the alternative? As a result, I can only conclude that those who proport they believe the global warming issue and oppose viable aternatives such as nuclear power are suspect of only proporting to believe it for political reasons. I think those who pose the greatest risk for Big Oil in terms of finding other viable atlernatives are the least likely to succeed politically because those who seek office require their support.

Its like I always say, we have the best government money can buy!! 😛

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]If you were God, how would you run things?

I guess I would demand that my wife love and worship me, or I will either torture her endlessly, or torture her then kill her—because I am loving and I love her, and simply cannot tolerate it if she doesn’t love me back.

Oh yeah, and because I am holy, I cannot tolerate any sins on her part—because I lo ...[text shortened]... ”, does it suddenly all make sense? Would it then represent a fair statement of your theology?[/b]

If you were God, and love and life could be found in you only, and because the creatures you had created chose to go another way, which you, as God, know will lead to death, because life could only be found in you, and you provided a way in which the creatures you had created could be restored to their original condition, but continued to reject your offer, what would you do? What could you do?

I am amazed at how creatures so obviously flawed can continue to assert and project their own ideas about the motive and purpose of God. The Bible in no way ever portrays God to be anything other than who He is. That includes being wrathful and destroying anyone that fails to love and obey Him. It also includes mercy and love toward anyone that will acknowledge Him and follow His directions.

It is not out of character for God to be both loving and merciful, while at the same time seeking vengeance and destroying anyone that opposes Him.

This is God's creation, and He has the right to do with it as He pleases.

That is apparently too much for some to handle.

Life can be found only in the one that created life. Eventually, all that oppose the one that gives life will have their logical end.

Originally posted by whodey
Your not getting the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that both Republican and Democrats are owned by Big Oil. It just to happens that the issue of fossil fuels warming up the atmosphere has been a long held view on the left. Of course, that is not to say that those in the Republican party, such as McCain, have also taken up the ...[text shortened]... require their support.

Its like I always say, we have the best government money can buy!! 😛

Your not getting the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that both Republican and Democrats are owned by Big Oil.

Odd since you mentioned nothing about "big oil" in your point. You should probably mention these critical items about your point when you post it.

It just to happens that the issue of fossil fuels warming up the atmosphere has been a long held view on the left.

It's a "view" of a good amount of the scientific community. It isn't a "left" or "right" issue.

It just seems suspect to me that those who proport to believe global warming would oppose such things as nuclear power if, in fact, the sky is falling and humankind is on the verge of destroying itself.

There are definite issues that people have with nuclear power. Have you looked into the actual reasons some are against it?

You still haven't answered the question I asked you.

My sister (a farmer) calls all the talk about global warming 'rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic'.
She has recently convinced me that the best way to deal with global warming is better farming practices that put more carbon into the soil.
The problem with politics and systems of government etc is that to a large extent short term trends override long term trends. This leads to a tendency to ignore or downplay long term goals.
It is a fact that if we really want to improve the future of the world for our grand children we would be investing far more in quality education for all than we currently do.