Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

I personally don't find anything wrong with this logic. In fact i would advocate taking it a few steps further that would provide mother earth with even a more efficient set of household. We need to revert to the Communinal plan of the early Christians and/or the 1960s. That would congrgate even more people into a houshold thus saving more money. Also the lifestyle of either of those eras would reduce the individual's dependency of manufactured products and hot water and soap. Indeed, many communes would become agricultural in nature and grow their own entertainment and medicinal stuff too.
Yes, I agree with this primise it just needs to be taken a few steps further to do more good.
 

Like I said: FOTF really doesn't give a rat's ass. Be sure to watch the video I added.
 

Your problem is, you seem to think that Liberals, not God, are in control.

You need to stop believing that man can destroy the planet, and understand that God decides what man can or cannot do. Nothing man does can change anything God doesn't want changed.

Don't you yet realize that God is bigger than man?

Man will do what man does and God will do what God does. Stop limiting Him to man's finite concept of Him and let Him be God.
 

Mark said: "You need to stop believing that man can destroy the planet, and understand that God decides what man can or cannot do. Nothing man does can change anything God doesn't want changed."

Assuming that this insight is complete:
So much for "Free Will", so much "for winning people to Christ", so much for the individual value of people. I guess we really are just mechanical elements in a God designed cosmic machine that runs and does only what he wants it to. Jehovah lives and his will is "All". The God of Mark is truely the "craftsman of the world".
 

Has anyone noticed that "Focus on the Family" and the other fundamentalist groups located in Colorado Springs are based in an area of significant American Indian Spirituality? Watching the video that was filmed in the Garden of the Gods next to Manitou Springs I was reminded of that fact. Is the term sychronisity?
 

Well, when the Christian Coalition was going to hire Rev. Joel Hunter to be their new executive director, he said he wanted to focus more on poverty & the environment than gay marriage and abortion, they decided not to hire him.

And, of course, what FotF doesn't say in their futile attempt to remain relevant is that the divorce rate among conservative Christians is much higher than for other Christian groups and even higher than self-described agnostics and atheists.

"You need to stop believing that man can destroy the planet, and understand that God decides what man can or cannot do. Nothing man does can change anything God doesn't want changed."

So God wants to destroy the planet? He wants droughts, famine, deforestation, & mass extinction? Wow ... makes the whole Creation experiment seem like a colossal waste of time, eh?
 

"So God wants to destroy the planet? He wants droughts, famine, deforestation, & mass extinction? Wow ... makes the whole Creation experiment seem like a colossal waste of time, eh?"

I recently read a very fun graphic novel in which a very fallen, very drunk angel let slip that global warming was God's way of letting humans know that they were utter failures as God's creations. Kind of like parents who rent the garage apartment to their wayward teen: "Hey, I gave you this nice place and you're trashing it! That's it, I'm not giving you the money to clean and rehab it, you're stuck with it, clean it up your own selves!"
 

Well, based on the data FOTF has something to worry about. The divorce rate is down from 22.6 per thousand for women in 1970 to 17.4 per thousand today. But the married houshold rate has dropped from over 70% in 1970 to 39% in 2005.
Cohabitation--single parents--homosexual couples---boomers just living together--and so on and so forth

Marriage is a Republican "Thing" alright. Check this out:
Republicans control congressional districts that have the highest marriage rates; Democrats control those with the lowest. The 25 districts that have the highest and lowest percentage of residents 15 and older who are married:

Highest percentage married

Rank District Party Representative Married

1 Ga. 7 Rep. John Linder 66.1%

2 Tenn. 7 Rep. Marsha Blackburn 65.3%

3 Ga. 6 Rep. Tom Price 65.0%

4 Colo. 6 Rep. Tom Tancredo 64.8%

5 N.J. 5 Rep. Scott Garrett 64.0%

6 Va. 10 Rep. Frank Wolf 63.8%

7 Ill. 13 Rep. Judy Biggert 63.8%

8 Fla. 5 Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite 63.5%

9 Ill. 10 Rep. Mark Kirk 63.4%

10 N.J. 11 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen 63.4%

11 Ga. 10 Rep. Nathan Deal 63.2%

12 Mo. 2 Rep. Todd Akin 63.0%

13 Va. 11 Rep. Tom Davis 63.0%

14 Texas 31 Rep. John Carter 62.9%

15 Neb. 3 Rep. Tom Osborne 62.4%

16 Ky. 5 Rep. Hal Rogers 62.3%

17 Texas 11 Rep. Mike Conaway 62.2%

18 Ala. 6 Rep. Spencer Bachus 62.2%

19 Ind. 5 Rep. Dan Burton 62.1%

20 Ala. 4 Rep. Robert Aderholt 62.1%

21 N.Y. 3 Rep. Pete King 62.1%

22 Utah 3 Rep. Chris Cannon 62.1%

23 N.J. 7 Rep. Mike Ferguson 62.0%

24 Wash. 8 Rep Dave Reichert 62.0%

25 Ga. 8 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland 61.9%


Lowest percentage married

Rank District Party Representative Married

412 Fla. 23 Dem. Alcee Hastings 43.5%

413 Minn. 5 Dem. Martin Olav Sabo 43.4%

414 Fla. 17 Dem. Kendrick Meek 43.3%

415 N.J. 10 Dem. Donald Payne 42.9%

416 N.Y. 11 Dem. Major Owens 42.6%

417 Ill. 2 Dem. Jesse Jackson Jr. 42.4%

418 Ohio 11 Dem. Stephanie Tubbs Jones 42.1%

419 Ill. 1 Dem. Bobby Rush 42.0%

420 Calif. 53 Dem. Susan Davis 41.4%

421 Calif. 33 Dem. Diane Watson 41.3%

422 Mich. 14 Dem. John Conyers 41.1%

423 Calif. 8 Dem. Nancy Pelosi 40.9%

424 Tenn. 9 Dem. Harold Ford 40.8%

425 Ill. 7 Dem. Danny Davis 40.5%

426 N.Y. 10 Dem. Edolphus Towns 40.5%

427 La. 2 Dem. William Jefferson 39.7%

428 N.Y. 15 Dem. Charles Rangel 38.9%

429 Wis. 4 Dem. Gwen Moore 38.4%

430 N.Y. 16 Dem. Jos Serrano 38.3%

431 Mich. 13 Dem. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick 37.4%

432 Ga. 5 Dem. John Lewis 37.3%

433 Mass. 8 Dem. Michael Capuano 37.2%

434 Pa. 1 Dem. Robert Brady 36.2%

435 Pa. 2 Dem. Chaka Fattah 35.9%

436 D.C. * Dem. Eleanor Holmes Norton 34.5%

So Democrats do equal SINNERS!


Source: USA TODAY analysis of census Bureau data
 

Mark's comment is about as fanciful and ludicrous as one can get. "Don't worry! Don't be afraid! Except of Muslims who want to convert you to their religion, or liberals who want you all to become gay and have abortions, at the same time."

By the way, Mark, the whole "Man" thing - kind of sexist. Don't women have "ways"?
 

Yeesh. . . I hate serial posting. "Liberals in control" . . . RFLMAO.
 

Hey, I'm a liberal. Where do I sign up for control?
 

Don't y'all forget: Mark's way is God's way. He says so himself:

http://godswaymyway.blogspot.com/

The May 5 post is particularly insightful. Not. (Rolling eyes).
 

Re, "global warming was God's way of letting humans know that they were utter failures as God's creations ..."

Ah! The old y'all-made-this-mess-so-y'all-can-clean-it-up corrolary to free will!
 

Flash: Mike Huckabee dumb as stump.
 

I don't understand your problem with the idea that marriage is better for the planet? From the TimesOnline, If divorce creates larger carbon footprints than marriage is preferable. The fact that Focus on the Family points this out is somehow.... bad?... in your eyes? Why? Because FotF made the observation? What if Gore had made the connection? Anyway, the whole "man-made global warming scare" is just that, a scare. And crap to boot.

You're mad at all the wrong people on this ER. Be mad at the environ-wackos who are touting the study as the latest bit of incontrovertible evidence that "Man is destroying the planet"

Oh! Aren't YOU married? Well, pat yourself on the back! You're helping to save the world, and proving FotF's point at the very same time!
 

Dude, I went and read the May 5 post from Mark. Man, you must have done something to piss him off. I love the fact that he claims you deny the divinity of Jesus, even as you proclaim it - these people just don't listen. Their minds are made up. Disagreement is error is apostasy that leads to death and damnation.

They are truly awful human beings. There is no other way to describe them. Unreflective. Ignorant of their own ignorance and incoherence. These are not "judgments", nor are they snarky ripostes that are meant as personal attacks. They are actual descriptions of their behavior over and over again. One does not discuss with these people, one is lectured to about the error of our ways.

I do not hate them. In fact, I have ceased to think about them much one way or another. Their opinions, such as they are, mean nothing to me, because, frankly, I lived 41 years of my life not really engaging with them, and the few months have left only bitterness and anger on my part. I realize our experiences are different, and I will not gainsay them.

I am glad that God is not only greater than I think God is, but greater than I can think, or imagine. The god (lower case used on purpose) of the fundamentalists is a projection of their ignorance and fear, and I really want nothing to do with such a creature.

I do not kid myself that anything I say about God has any relation with who or what God is. I only believe that I am on a path to being proved wrong again and again as I learn that God is both greater and more full of grace and love than I had ever imagined.

Ah! Enough! Have a good night.
 

Howdy, EL. OK, in order:


"I don't understand your problem with the idea that marriage is better for the planet?"

I have no problem with such as assertion. But hey, if marriage is good, then polygamy is better. Right? So are group homes and communes, as DrLobojo pointed out.


"From the TimesOnline, If divorce creates larger carbon footprints than marriage is preferable."

In a vaccuum, yes. Sure.


"The fact that Focus on the Family points this out is somehow.... bad?"

Not "bad." Just very political. Very clever. FOTF sees that being green is in, and that showing care about the planet has become mainstream, so it jumps on the bandwagon. Very smart. Great marketing. You might even say very worldly.


"... in your eyes?"

Yes. They are the only eyes I see through.


"Why? Because FotF made the observation?"

Yes. Precisely. I don't believe they actually care about the planet.


"What if Gore had made the connection?"

It would be Gore being true to form consistent, therefore honest and more believable.


"Anyway, the whole 'man-made global warming scare' is just that, a scare. And crap to boot."

Just like the War on Terrorism, a.k.a. the War Against Islamo-Fascism? You say tit, I say tat.


"You're mad at all the wrong people on this ER."

No. No. I am mad at FOTF because it is dishonest and manipulative. And it should stick to its expertise, which is family relations within a conservative evangelical-fundamentalist context and world view.


"Be mad at the environ-wackos who are touting the study as the latest bit of incontrovertible evidence that 'Man is destroying the planet.'

No. I am mad at anyone who dismisses science for any reason other than new data -- especially religion.


"Oh! Aren't YOU married?"

Yep.


"Well, pat yourself on the back! You're helping to save the world ..."

You're welcome.


" ... and proving FotF's point at the very same time!"

If FOTF's point was to save the planet, maybe. But it's not. FOTF's point is to promote its view of "family" as the only moral one. I have said nothing about my own concept of "family," so no, I'm not.
 

Geoffrey: The concept of "Christology" is lost on anyone for whom "Jesus is God" is the sum total of their theology.
 

ELAshley wrote, "Oh! Aren't YOU married? Well, pat yourself on the back! You're helping to save the world, and proving FotF's point at the very same time!"

So we'll be expecting FotF will soon be endorsing gay marriage in order to save the planet? Or let's not even go that far...if marriage is good for the planet so is cohabitation. They'll be endorsing that too? Heh. I won't hold my breath. (Note, holding your breath is also good for the planet as it reduces CO2 emissions.) :)

It would be one thing to tout this study if those sorts of folks actually even believed in Global Warming. They don't. Thus, as others have said, this is just another ridiculous way for them to try to remain relevant.
 

Gad! I can't believe how you bunch of pseudo-intellectuals missed my point entirely.

I never said God wants to destroy the planet. Let's re-phrase it so even you straw man creators can understand:

God holds this planets future in His hands, and nothing mankind does will ever override what He, in His wisdom, has planned.

Therefore, if God wants to destroy the panet, He doesn't need Mankind's help. Conversely, if mankind wants to destroy the planet, and destruction of the planet isn't in God's plans, nothing mankind does will destroy the planet.

drlobojo, says, "So much for "Free Will", so much "for winning people to Christ", so much for the individual value of people."

Well, since it was God Who gave us free will in the first place, He can take it away if He desires.

Or do you deny the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God?

I say again, more clearly this time. Stop trying to fit God into some finite box of your own creation. He is too big to fit.
 

Geoffrey. You said, " I love the fact that he claims you deny the divinity of Jesus, even as you proclaim it - these people just don't listen. Their minds are made up. Disagreement is error is apostasy that leads to death and damnation."

Boy, do you ever have thigs wrong!

But that's not entirely your fault. You don't have all the info.

ER left out the part when he clarified for me that he doesn't deny the Diety of Christ, and immediately I humbly apologized, acknowledged that I was wrong to doubt his faith, and promised to not question him again. And I have been true to my word.

So, not only do I listen, contrary to your allegation, I freely admit it when I am proven wrong, which is more than anyone can say for you.

Incidentally, ER, if you are going to continue to point that particular post out, at least have the decency to also point out the rest of the story. Thank you.
 

Re, "Or do you deny the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God?"

No. I deny that you have any clue whatsoever about anything.

Re, that post: No way. You should have had the decency to take it down long ago -- and you should have had the decency not to hang me out like it in the first place. The time for decency is past. I still can't stand you, Mark. You are an example of me being obligated to love an enemy -- although a little bitty, nonconsequential enemy. Maybe an enmeylet. A tiny thing. But I would pee on you if you were on fire.
 

Marks retort: "Well, since it was God Who gave us free will in the first place, He can take it away if He desires."

Hum, so what God gives God can take away, sort like in Job.
So he sent his Son to save mankind, but maybe because he is all powerful he can decide that was a bad idea and renig on the deal and cut a new one? Well, I think I'll get me a lamb and go out to the rock in the back yard and practice some of the first covenant just to be on the safe side. Wouldn't want to piss Jehovah off in any way. If he could be that fickle maybe in my psuedo-intellectual way I should reconsider that Grace and Love stuff.

Oh yes, Allen my friend, behold a drooler.
 

Drooler perhaps, but that doesn't make him a Calvinist which, given his sloppy theology, he clearly is not. :)

Calvin would never recognize the fickle, inconsistent, and capricious God that Mark seems to worship. Nor do I. Seems more like some sort of Volcano God, or nature deity whose whims change with the seasons, and likes to play "Gotcha!" with humanity.
 

"Well, since it was God Who gave us free will in the first place, He can take it away if He desires.

Or do you deny the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God?"

By the way, you do have to love questions like that, though. :) Sorta like, "And when did you stop beating your wife?" Classic. LOL
 

Allan asked: "And when did you stop beating your wife?"

Let see, it was when she broke my arm the first time.:(
 

Mark's attempt to clarify what might have been his point only confused matters. I just wish someone would point to specific Bible passages that say God is "omniscient and omnipotent". I do not want Bible passages that might be interpreted this way - after all, this is Biblical literalism we are dealing with here.

His whole argument is so confused now that it ends up saying nothing at all. He is still faced with the conundrum of arguing that God will destroy the world - which, I suppose, is not surprising, because dispensational Christianity has been arguing for over a hundred years that was the plan all along (if one likes to get all historically technical, one can trace this kind of thing to the monk Joachim of Fiore, who is the godfather of both Christian dispensationalism and Marxism - quite an accomplishment).

I do think calling him a drooler was a tad harsh. Isn't it enough that he's so woefully confused that he can't argue his way out of a paper bag with the bottom torn out?
 

"Drooler" was simply a pointing out to Alan of a real world example of an abstract concept put forth in the previous post on the Reformation. And at this point I would also comment that I have no more problem with Cavanist theology than I do with Luthern, or Baptist, or Catholic or durn near any other denomination or religion.
 

Yeah. Well. Then I'll say it:

"Drooler." One who is so dang slack-jawed ignorant that spit runs from his mouth, down his chin and onto his shirt: "Drooler."
 

Good thing ole ER ain't no Literalist.