Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

I didn't cite this article as an excuse to continue poluting the earth, but only because I think global warming caused by man is bullshit. As I've said before, our little 0.008% increase in CO2 is probably contributing to environmental CHANGE, but not to the extreme the fear mongerers would have us believe.

A summer frost would be just as devastating.

Freakzilla wrote:I didn't cite this article as an excuse to continue poluting the earth, but only because I think global warming caused by man is bullshit. As I've said before, our little 0.008% increase in CO2 is probably contributing to environmental CHANGE, but not to the extreme the fear mongerers would have us believe.

A summer frost would be just as devastating.

Global warming might just give you that summer frost yet, depending on where you live.

Whatever!



Twenty more years at best, no kids or pets! Have fun in the ashes!

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I didn't cite this article as an excuse to continue poluting the earth, but only because I think global warming caused by man is bullshit. As I've said before, our little 0.008% increase in CO2 is probably contributing to environmental CHANGE, but not to the extreme the fear mongerers would have us believe.

A summer frost would be just as devastating.

Global warming might just give you that summer frost yet, depending on where you live.

I've read there have already been record lows set in the Southern Hemisphere this past Winter (their Fall), namely South America.

SandChigger wrote:Whatever!



Twenty more years at best, no kids or pets! Have fun in the ashes!

I can appreciate your lack of concern, but some of us have children and we want them to be happy.

I'll never have kids (single biggest favour I can do this planet) and I still want this ball of mud to keep on going. It would be pretty sad if humanity died out, but it would be an exponentially bigger tragedy if we took all the other life out with us.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'll never have kids

Do you plan to have sex? If so, don't say never.

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'll never have kids

Do you plan to have sex? If so, don't say never.

I also plan to get the old snip snip though, so I think I'll be safe. Plus, there's always abortions... well, for now anyways. Soon I might not have that option and might have to attend church by federal law.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'll never have kids

Do you plan to have sex? If so, don't say never.

I also plan to get the old snip snip though, so I think I'll be safe. Plus, there's always abortions... well, for now anyways.

I hope your woman feels the same way.

Soon I might not have that option and might have to attend church by federal law.

Federal Church?

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:I'll never have kids

Do you plan to have sex? If so, don't say never.

I also plan to get the old snip snip though, so I think I'll be safe. Plus, there's always abortions... well, for now anyways.

I hope your woman feels the same way.

Oh, she feels this way twice as strongly as I do. No kids, no marriage. (Did I score the greatest girl ever or what?!?!)

Soon I might not have that option and might have to attend church by federal law.

Federal Church?

Hopefully not...

There is a rising (supposedly) Evangelical movement in Canada, and they claim to have their sights set on political power. Radical Islam is a scary thing, but Evangelical Christianity is a far greater threat to our society in my opinion. Radical Islam is blatent and obvious. They warn you when they're coming, they shout it from their bloody rooftops. Dangerous yes, but at least they're honest. Evangelicals are twice as scary, because they pretend they aren't radical, when in reality they're damn near as fundamentalist as Christianity gets, and fundamentalist Christianity is one of the most dangerous forces in all of history. Evangelicalism hides its evil behind rock bands and tatoo's, and corrupts our youth when they have hardly any real chance to see it for what it really is.

Radical Islam is a punch in the face. Evangelical Christianity is a knife in the back.

Sorry about the rant, but my beef with the E.C. is personal.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Sorry about the rant, but my beef with the E.C. is personal.

RAmen! Preach it brother!

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:Sorry about the rant, but my beef with the E.C. is personal.

RAmen! Preach it brother!

Oh, I will preach it. And RAmen to you too.

Baraka Bryan wrote: as for the evangelical takeover, i think you're living in a different Canada than I am, (oh right, you're in Alberta) ... the CPC caucus is only about 33% Christian and the Liberal Party is closer to 10%. Hardly a dominant force.

Oh, I didn't say that they HAD any polical power, just that they were shooting for it and that that scares me. Plus, I'm not talking run-of-the-mill Christian here, I'm talking Evangelical, totally different ball game.

Where'd you get those numbers? I'm pretty skeptical of those, I would expect roughly 75% of each party to be Christian, since that's roughly what our population is - plus I'm pretty confident that statistics for the "No Religious Affiliation" are way too high, I think a lot of Christians who aren't a particular brand of Christian check off that box, because they're uneducated/confused and think that's what they're supposed to answer (plus many Pentacostals have a bullshit definition of "religion" that allows them to pretend that they themselves aren't part of one... oh the arguments I've gotten into over that one!)

Obama says we're not a Christian nation but that we ARE one of the biggest Muslim nations... maybe something like that applies up there too.

Freakzilla wrote:Obama says we're not a Christian nation but that we ARE one of the biggest Muslim nations... maybe something like that applies up there too.

Yeah... suuuurre.

Just remember that not all persons of any particular faiths neccesarily think as those who are the most vocal.

Eyes High wrote:Just remember that not all persons of any particular faiths neccesarily think as those who are the most vocal.

Feed her to the lions!

Eyes High wrote:Just remember that not all persons of any particular faiths neccesarily think as those who are the most vocal.

Oh, of course. I don't lump most Christians in with the radicals, neither do I with any other religion.


BB - I don't think the number of pretend Christians is quite what you think it is. By “non-practicing” you probably mean “don’t go to church”? Just because someone isn’t a practicing Christian doesn’t mean they’re not a Christian, I know a lot of people who don’t “identify” as Christian, or like you say are simply not practicing, but when you ask them if they believe in god and jesus they say “yes, of course”, thus making them Christian. Though of course from a political point of view I certainly don’t worry about that type of Christian. I never said anything about not wanting Christians in politics, what I don’t want is Christianity in politics, and I think most moderate Christians would agree with me on that.

And I know Evangelical is a broad term, it just means anyone who evangelizes, but we all know who I mean when I refer to them.

I wasn’t attempting to say that I thought Radical Christianity was much of a danger in our politics (though I do remember just a couple elections ago one part of the Conservative platform was to un-do gay marriage, so obviously there is some radical element at work - though that was luckily never gone through with), I was just mentioning that they are working hard on becoming more of a danger. We have years of safety ahead of us, worry not!

Oh, bullshit! Anyone with a brain can judge.

That's what brains are for.

Baraka Bryan wrote:non-practicing isn't the best term for it either.. what I mean by that, is exactly what you described: "oh sure I believe in Jesus and God and all that stuff," but have no real commitment to the faith, its doctrines, or the life it calls believers to lead. God is the only one who can judge, but in my experience, they aren't really Christians, but simply pay the lip service they think will mitigate the risk of hell

Go read mere Christianity if you haven't already. I agree with Lewis strongly when he says that it is nothing more than doing damage to the English language to call someone who isn't up to your standards of Christianity "not a Christian" - if they accept Jesus as the son of god then they are Christian. You can't go re-define a word because you don't like it applying to certain things.

The definition says:

1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

Bam, end of story.

And I dissagree with you as to those people's motives, lip service isn't the goal of the people I know. They truely believe in Jesus, but they have a dislike of the organized religion aspect (which I respect for obvious reasons).

You can't go calling them "not really Christian" just because they're not up to your standards. How would you feel about a devout Catholic saying the same of you? That would be just as (in)vaild as whhat you're saying. It's an insult to their faith, and (according to C.S. Lewis, and I agree) a miss-use of the word/language.

Feel free to call them shitty Christians, or failing Christians, but by pretending they aren't Christian you just add confusion and semantics to an already complex topic.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:non-practicing isn't the best term for it either.. what I mean by that, is exactly what you described: "oh sure I believe in Jesus and God and all that stuff," but have no real commitment to the faith, its doctrines, or the life it calls believers to lead. God is the only one who can judge, but in my experience, they aren't really Christians, but simply pay the lip service they think will mitigate the risk of hell

Go read mere Christianity if you haven't already. I agree with Lewis strongly when he says that it is nothing more than doing damage to the English language to call someone who isn't up to your standards of Christianity "not a Christian" - if they accept Jesus as the son of god then they are Christian. You can't go re-define a word because you don't like it applying to certain things.

The definition says:

1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

Bam, end of story.

And I dissagree with you as to those people's motives, lip service isn't the goal of the people I know. They truely believe in Jesus, but they have a dislike of the organized religion aspect (which I respect for obvious reasons).

You can't go calling them "not really Christian" just because they're not up to your standards. How would you feel about a devout Catholic saying the same of you? That would be just as (in)vaild as whhat you're saying. It's an insult to their faith, and (according to C.S. Lewis, and I agree) a miss-use of the word/language.

Feel free to call them shitty Christians, or failing Christians, but by pretending they aren't Christian you just add confusion and semantics to an already complex topic.

How about idolater or Mary worshiper?

Freakzilla wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

Baraka Bryan wrote:non-practicing isn't the best term for it either.. what I mean by that, is exactly what you described: "oh sure I believe in Jesus and God and all that stuff," but have no real commitment to the faith, its doctrines, or the life it calls believers to lead. God is the only one who can judge, but in my experience, they aren't really Christians, but simply pay the lip service they think will mitigate the risk of hell

Go read mere Christianity if you haven't already. I agree with Lewis strongly when he says that it is nothing more than doing damage to the English language to call someone who isn't up to your standards of Christianity "not a Christian" - if they accept Jesus as the son of god then they are Christian. You can't go re-define a word because you don't like it applying to certain things.

The definition says:

1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961

Bam, end of story.

And I dissagree with you as to those people's motives, lip service isn't the goal of the people I know. They truely believe in Jesus, but they have a dislike of the organized religion aspect (which I respect for obvious reasons).

You can't go calling them "not really Christian" just because they're not up to your standards. How would you feel about a devout Catholic saying the same of you? That would be just as (in)vaild as whhat you're saying. It's an insult to their faith, and (according to C.S. Lewis, and I agree) a miss-use of the word/language.

Feel free to call them shitty Christians, or failing Christians, but by pretending they aren't Christian you just add confusion and semantics to an already complex topic.

How about idolater or Mary worshiper?

Oh, they're (Catholics) definitely both of those things! Add in all the demi-god saints and the Catholics might even have Hindus beat for sheer quantity of gods!

I remember mitigating a war between two of my friends (one atheist the other catholic) regarding the definition of the word "christian." The argument descended into the kind of banal minutiae typically only reserved for internet debates between geeks that play Fantasy Football or argue Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that's what I thought until the point in my life where I had to intervene between my two friends bitterly arguing about a word. Now I realize that embarrassing debates about make believe, where geeks fight each other with hordes of obscure "facts", have actually been around for thousands of years.

GamePlayer wrote:I remember mitigating a war between two of my friends (one atheist the other catholic) regarding the definition of the word "christian." The argument descended into the kind of banal minutiae typically only reserved for internet debates between geeks that play Fantasy Football or argue Star Wars vs. Star Trek. Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that's what I thought until the point in my life where I had to intervene between my two friends bitterly arguing about a word. Now I realize that embarrassing debates about make believe, where geeks fight each other with hordes of obscure "facts", have actually been around for thousands of years.

...which basicalyl boils down to: My imaginary friend is better than yours.

...faith without works is dead - James 2: 26b

Don't need to read Lewis to know lip-service doesn't count.