Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Do you ever do your own fact checks?

You said: "He was vice-president of the United States of America and we did not sign Kyoto."

That is incorrect. The U.S. signed (and Gore was the one who actually signed it) the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. The treaty has never since been ratified (which needs to be done by the Senate, not the President).

The Clinton administration can be criticized (if you are pro-Kyoto Protocol) for not pushing for ratification in the US Senate. Clinton did not do so for 2 major reasons. First, he was dealing with a GOP congress which had no interest in ratification (they had passed resolutions against Kyoto in case there was any doubt). Second, Clinton and Gore argued against ratification until other developing countries jumped on board. That position was that the Kyoto framework was generally good, but was a bad idea for the U.S. unless key developing countries joined in. That position is very different than the Bush administration's view that the Kyoto framework itself is against U.S. interests.

I'm no defender of Clinton or Gore, but I am a fan of truth (and hence not a fan of most of your political posts).

Yes, you're correct, but the intent of Dutch's post is too. Yes, the US signed it, but the President did nothing to push it. Clinton or Gore at the time could have pushed it through Congress. They could have gone to the US people if they thought it was that important and appeal to them to have Congress sign/ratify the treaty. Instead, Clinton and Gore did nothing of the kind.

But, my politics is not coloring my view of this, Gore should not get the Peace Prize. Give him something for bringing an issue to light, sure. A humanitarian award? Sure. I just don't get giving him the Peace Prize.

[Flasch186]

but this is what the award is for:

Originally Posted by nobel foundation

Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.

so it is not just for peace

and what he won it for:

Originally Posted by nobel foundation

The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize
The Nobel Peace Prize goes to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change".

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

but this is what the award is for:



so it is not just for peace

That's as bad as Dutch's post. He won the peace award, not any of the other categories.

If you want to defend the choice of Gore (and I'm relatively indifferent), you might want to point out all of the prior Peace award winners who were engaged in fighting poverty or environmental destruction. The award has long ago moved away from rewarding conflict avoidance. The fact that people are being outraged because of Gore (and not the many other non-war-focused winners) shows that the outrage is just people going through the motions of partisanship.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Do you ever do your own fact checks?

Absolutely.

You said: "He was vice-president of the United States of America and we did not sign Kyoto."

That is incorrect. The U.S. signed (and Gore was the one who actually signed it) the Kyoto Protocol in 1998. The treaty has never since been ratified (which needs to be done by the Senate, not the President).

Gore was Vice-president, John. Vice-president. And what did he do about Kyoto when he was in a position to do something about it? Nothing, John. He symbolically gestured approval like Obama symbolically stopped wearing his American flag pin. He did nothing then and nobody in Hollywood--not Michael Moore, not Bono--said shit about it. They didn't say shit and Al Gore didn't either--until President Bush became President. That, my boy, is partisanship.

The Clinton administration can be criticized (if you are pro-Kyoto Protocol) for not pushing for ratification in the US Senate. Clinton did not do so for 2 major reasons. First, he was dealing with a GOP congress which had no interest in ratification (they had passed resolutions against Kyoto in case there was any doubt).

GOP congress yes. However, it was 95-0, nice try.

Second, Clinton and Gore argued against ratification until other developing countries jumped on board. That position was that the Kyoto framework was generally good, but was a bad idea for the U.S. unless key developing countries joined in. That position is very different than the Bush administration's view that the Kyoto framework itself is against U.S. interests.

Clinton said it was against the US interests as well. Again, nice try.

I'm no defender of Clinton or Gore, but I am a fan of truth (and hence not a fan of most of your political posts).

I am a fan of reality, John. Don't let your silver tongue lawyer speak take you down the wrong path. You're giving lawyers a bad name!

[ThunderingHERD]

Clearly Gore should have been given all of the prizes this year, you see:

1. Global warming leads to complete destruction of human race.
2. Complete destruction of the human race leads to zero developments in the arts & sciences
3. Al Gore saved the world from global warming.

Therefore
4. Al Gore is responsible for an infinitely large increase in future developments for every Nobel Prize category.

Thank you.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Clinton said it was against the US interests as well. Again, nice try.

Wrong. The Clinton Administration helped negotiate Kyoto, and Gore was one of the key US figures directly involved in the negotiations.

[Passacaglia]

Didn't Arafat win once? Come on..

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Didn't Arafat win once? Come on..

Exactly.

[Bubba Wheels]

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, not Bill Clinton yet?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Absolutely.

Then you are an incompetent fact-checker.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Gore was Vice-president, John. Vice-president. And what did he do about Kyoto when he was in a position to do something about it? Nothing, John.

Signing the treaty doesn't = Nothing. You said he didn't sign it. That was absolutely 100% wrong. Either it was an error or a lie. Don't pretend you didn't say it. And now you are saying "nothing" when that clearly isn't the case.

Originally Posted by Dutch

He symbolically gestured approval like Obama symbolically stopped wearing his American flag pin.

"Bubba" n. - to bring up some other partisan issue that has no relevance to the previous topic. As in, "he pulled a Bubba when he mentioned Obama's flag pin in a discussion about the Kyoto Protocol."

Originally Posted by Dutch

He did nothing then and nobody in Hollywood--not Michael Moore, not Bono--said shit about it. They didn't say shit and Al Gore didn't either--until President Bush became President. That, my boy, is partisanship.

This is just not true. There were plenty of people in 1998 who were upset that the US did not ratify Kyoto. If a tree falls in the forest and Dutch doesn't hear it, the tree still fell.

The warming debate has also changed substantially since 1998. I was a human-caused warming skeptic then (and was until 2004 or so). I even posted on this board that I didn't think the human-caused link had been shown. I've avoided warming debates on this board because most of the arguments people make against human-caused warming are hopelessly out-of-date and aren't even worth discussing anymore. I've come around and the evidence for a human-link to a high rate of warming is pretty damn good (and the rate - and not the absolute temperature - is really all that matters). Unlike you, some people actually change their minds based upon evidence.

Originally Posted by Dutch

GOP congress yes. However, it was 95-0, nice try.

Unlike you, I don't care which party is most to blame. I said GOP congress because that was the leading party. I did not argue that the democrats were also largely against Kyoto. That is the primary reason Clinton and Gore didn't push for ratification. By trying to score a partisan point, you have actually undermined your own argument.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Clinton said it was against the US interests as well. Again, nice try.

Just because you can't tell the difference between Bush's and Clinton's position on Kyoto doesn't mean there isn't a difference. And Clinton's position doesn't necessarily = Gore's position. A VP more often than not will speak on behalf of a president's policy even if he personally disagrees.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am a fan of reality, John. Don't let your silver tongue lawyer speak take you down the wrong path. You're giving lawyers a bad name!

Thankfully for everyone else, you only give yourself a bad name.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, not Bill Clinton yet?

Wow. I actually wrote my post before Bubba made an appearance. He must have known I was about to invoke his name Beetlejuice style.

[molson]

So Gore's still not ruling out a presidential run, apparently.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, not Bill Clinton yet?

Bill Clinton for what? Getting blow jobs in the Oval Office?

[wade moore]

Getcha popcorn ready.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's as bad as Dutch's post. He won the peace award, not any of the other categories.

If you want to defend the choice of Gore (and I'm relatively indifferent), you might want to point out all of the prior Peace award winners who were engaged in fighting poverty or environmental destruction. The award has long ago moved away from rewarding conflict avoidance. The fact that people are being outraged because of Gore (and not the many other non-war-focused winners) shows that the outrage is just people going through the motions of partisanship.

I apologize, I didnt know that they were totally different categories HOWEVER, their quote about his award isn't quite as specific as the definition of "peace" as I know of it, and I do not think that that was even close to Dutch's post or many of Dutch's posts and ask for a retraction!!

I see where theyre trying to draw the correlation to Peace and thereby gave it to him for peace (i guess future peace) but there it is, I learned something new today....that there are more than one category of Nobel prizes.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I apologize, I didnt know that they were totally different categories HOWEVER, their quote about his award isn't quite as specific as the definition of "peace" as I know of it.

That's fair. I'm just having a bad day and am grumpy.

Originally Posted by wade moore

Getcha popcorn ready.

No. As I said, I'm just grumpy and I know better than to continue to "discuss" things with Dutch when I'm grumpy. A couple years ago, I would have stupidly gone on for another dozen posts. Nowadays, notsomuch. I'm out of this thread. If someone else wants to fight with Dutch, good luck.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I'm no defender of Clinton or Gore, but I am a fan of truth (and hence not a fan of most of your political posts).

p0wnd.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by John Galt

No. As I said, I'm just grumpy and I know better than to continue to "discuss" things with Dutch when I'm grumpy. A couple years ago, I would have stupidly gone on for another dozen posts. Nowadays, notsomuch. I'm out of this thread. If someone else wants to fight with Dutch, good luck.

It's all good.. I'm just avoiding doing work that I have to do (it's unusual for me to have to work on weekends - in fact, the first time at this job I took in April).

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by wade moore

It's all good.. I'm just avoiding doing work that I have to do (it's unusual for me to have to work on weekends - in fact, the first time at this job I took in April).

I'm glad I can't get on FOFC at work. Makes me work more...


...not really. I just play crappy games like Minesweeper instead.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by John Galt

That's fair. I'm just having a bad day and am grumpy.



No. As I said, I'm just grumpy and I know better than to continue to "discuss" things with Dutch when I'm grumpy. A couple years ago, I would have stupidly gone on for another dozen posts. Nowadays, notsomuch. I'm out of this thread. If someone else wants to fight with Dutch, good luck.

Ha! John, you came flying out of left with with "Dutch this and Dutch that" and (as usual) my post that set you off had absolutely nothing to do with John Galt. Now you think I'm here to fight with you? Your obsession with me never ceases to amaze me.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But, my politics is not coloring my view of this, Gore should not get the Peace Prize. Give him something for bringing an issue to light, sure. A humanitarian award? Sure. I just don't get giving him the Peace Prize.

That's what it has become. Ever since Mother Teresa was given the award in 1979.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I'm glad I can't get on FOFC at work. Makes me work more...


...not really. I just play crappy games like Minesweeper instead.

Well, fortunately (but not for motivation) this is work I'm able to do from home. So I have FOFC and the LSU/Kentucky game...

[ThunderingHERD]

I don't have an ounce of interest in Nobel prizes outside of the physical sciences and I've got no beef with Al Gore--but this is a silliness. As far as I can tell, the other humanitarian-type winners had a background of you know, actually helping people (or, in cases like Mother Theresa, people thought they did). Has the IPCC done anything that has yet helped anyone? It seems like they've been honored based on the chance that, if they're right, their actions could potentially be beneficial at some unknown time in the distant future.

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

(or, in cases like Mother Theresa, people thought they did)

Am I missing some Mother Theresa cheating scandal?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

p0wnd.

Easily impressed. Quite easily.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Easily impressed. Quite easily.

Not really, just a fan of good old-fashioned common sense.

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

I was a human-caused warming skeptic then (and was until 2004 or so). I even posted on this board that I didn't think the human-caused link had been shown. I've avoided warming debates on this board because most of the arguments people make against human-caused warming are hopelessly out-of-date and aren't even worth discussing anymore. I've come around and the evidence for a human-link to a high rate of warming is pretty damn good

Now I'm impressed...

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by wade moore

Am I missing some Mother Theresa cheating scandal?

Yup - she tested positive for PEDs in one of her post-prize samples, but no word if she'll be stripped and the prize given to the runner-up (whom I believe was Tom Brady).

[ThunderingHERD]

Am I missing some Mother Theresa cheating scandal?

Well, most people think fought against poverty and the suffering of the poor. This is absolutely wrong and she as much as said so herself. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Her homes for the dying were that and only that. Largely filthy hovels where the impoverished and dying could go to suffer like god wanted them to. Mother Teresa did nothing to combat poverty or suffering (indeed, she was ideologically opposed to the cause), and the bulk of the money she raised went directly into the Catholic machine, building 100s of convents and campaigning against contraception, abortion ("the greatest threat to world peace"), divorce, etc.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Not really, just a fan of good old-fashioned common sense.
Now I'm impressed...

John Galt's quote. Figures you would be impressed by it. Probably laugh at Jon Stewart's weak humor as well. (Picture a deadpan look with long pause.)

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by John Galt

The warming debate has also changed substantially since 1998. I was a human-caused warming skeptic then (and was until 2004 or so). I even posted on this board that I didn't think the human-caused link had been shown. I've avoided warming debates on this board because most of the arguments people make against human-caused warming are hopelessly out-of-date and aren't even worth discussing anymore. I've come around and the evidence for a human-link to a high rate of warming is pretty damn good (and the rate - and not the absolute temperature - is really all that matters). Unlike you, some people actually change their minds based upon evidence.

"No rational interest of the United States can justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the third world." Ronald Reagan

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Well, most people think fought against poverty and the suffering of the poor. This is absolutely wrong and she as much as said so herself. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Her homes for the dying were that and only that. Largely filthy hovels where the impoverished and dying could go to suffer like god wanted them to. Mother Teresa did nothing to combat poverty or suffering (indeed, she was ideologically opposed to the cause), and the bulk of the money she raised went directly into the Catholic machine, building 100s of convents and campaigning against contraception, abortion ("the greatest threat to world peace"), divorce, etc.

Interesting - I honestly had no idea.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

p0wnd.

Shouldn't that be "pwned"?

SI

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Well, most people think fought against poverty and the suffering of the poor. This is absolutely wrong and she as much as said so herself. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Her homes for the dying were that and only that. Largely filthy hovels where the impoverished and dying could go to suffer like god wanted them to. Mother Teresa did nothing to combat poverty or suffering (indeed, she was ideologically opposed to the cause), and the bulk of the money she raised went directly into the Catholic machine, building 100s of convents and campaigning against contraception, abortion ("the greatest threat to world peace"), divorce, etc.

God's Kingdom is in the next life. Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you." Doesn't mean you shouldn't try and help the poor, but only fools think that poverty will ever be eliminated in this life.

[ThunderingHERD]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

God's Kingdom is in the next life. Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you." Doesn't mean you shouldn't try and help the poor, but only fools think that poverty will ever be eliminated in this life.

I never claimed she didn't have biblical warrant for her warped priorities.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

God's Kingdom is in the next life. Jesus Himself said "the poor you will always have with you." Doesn't mean you shouldn't try and help the poor, but only fools think that poverty will ever be eliminated in this life.

"Fuck the poor!"

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

John Galt's quote. Figures you would be impressed by it. Probably laugh at Jon Stewart's weak humor as well. (Picture a deadpan look with long pause.)

It was rational, made sense. Figures you would be turned off by it. Probably lap up Anne Coulter's weak drivel as well. (Picture a slightly queasy look followed by the dry heaves).

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by ThunderingHERD

Well, most people think fought against poverty and the suffering of the poor. This is absolutely wrong and she as much as said so herself. "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." Her homes for the dying were that and only that. Largely filthy hovels where the impoverished and dying could go to suffer like god wanted them to. Mother Teresa did nothing to combat poverty or suffering (indeed, she was ideologically opposed to the cause), and the bulk of the money she raised went directly into the Catholic machine, building 100s of convents and campaigning against contraception, abortion ("the greatest threat to world peace"), divorce, etc.

Wow, awfully one sided. Kind of interesting that many of her critics were Hindus who were upset with her for various political reasons.

Also, why do you think convents are built? They are built to serve their communities. She also helped build orphages as well.

It's also dishonest to say that she did not battle poverty because she did. However, her take on suffering was controversial and one which I can understand but disagree with. It is the same reason by which the Church does not endorse euthanasia.

Here is one of her big critics:

Hitchens has written that Mother Teresa's own words on poverty proved that "her intention was not to help people", and he alleged that she lied to donors about the use of their contributions. “It was by talking to her that I discovered, and she assured me, that she wasn't working to alleviate poverty,” says Hitchens. “She was working to expand the number of Catholics. She said, ‘I'm not a social worker. I don't do it for this reason. I do it for Christ. I do it for the church.’"

What the heck is she supposed to do? She's a nun. In that role, she is supposed to do it not for social work, but for Christ. Heck, all Christians are supposed to do it for Christ, because that is what he would want us to do. Notice, the bit about expanding the number of Catholics is Hitchens words, not hers.

Here is another interesting tidbit (taken from wikipedia):

By the early 1970s, Mother Teresa had become an international celebrity. Her fame can be in large part attributed to the 1969 documentary Something Beautiful for God, which was filmed by Malcolm Muggeridge and his 1971 book of the same title. Muggeridge was undergoing a spiritual journey of his own at the time.[45] During the filming of the documentary, footage taken in poor lighting conditions, particularly the Home for the Dying, was thought unlikely to be of usable quality by the crew. After returning from India, however, the footage was found to be extremely well lit. Muggeridge claimed this was a miracle of "divine light" from Mother Teresa herself.[46] Others in the crew thought it was due to a new type of ultra-sensitive Kodak film.[47] Muggeridge later converted to Catholicism.

So here is a guy that shot a documentary that later converted to Catholicism. Right, wrong, or indifferent, she had that much of an impact upon him that he became Catholic.

[Raiders Army]

Why help the poor? God helps those who helps themselves or some crap like that. The poor are poor for a reason. I choose to believe that it's god's will. Sort of like how he made Evan Baxter build that ark.

[wade moore]

This thread has taken a strange, but interesting and educational turn for me.

[st.cronin]

I would characterize Mother Theresa's mission as HELPING the poor and unfortunate, but that she had no illusions that she could cure the world of poverty and suffering. Its probably that clear eyed view that actually allowed her to do her work without her heart breaking.

But, I don't know how you can think that compassion wasn't the driving force behind what she did.

[ThunderingHERD]

Well, it was one-sided because I'm fairly certain that people are familiar with the other side, given that her name is practically synonymous with morally perfect, compassionate person. The first I had heard otherwise was Hitchens's book which you mentioned (very entertaining, btw). As for convents--if your true goal is to serve the community their construction is wasteful at best.

In that role, she is supposed to do it not for social work, but for Christ

I don't know how that all shakes out, but the point is not that she is particularly deviant relative to other nuns. The point is that the common conception of her is dead wrong.

So here is a guy that shot a documentary that later converted to Catholicism. Right, wrong, or indifferent, she had that much of an impact upon him that he became Catholic.

I would never deny that she was an incredible marketing tool for the Catholic church.

[Warhammer]

Two things:

1) If you are a nun, priest, bishop, etc., your job is to serve your fellow man. By definition, regardless of the religion, you should be seeking to convert non-believers. Now, there is a debate about converting other Christians (which I do think is non-productive), but all religious leaders do this. I think it is disingenious to bang on Catholics for it, when all religions do this.

I go back to a time in eighth grade when one of my friends came up to me and asked me about religion. I encouraged him to check out a variety of churches and pick out the one that fits his belief system best. Another friend of mine said that he needed to go to his church, forget about checking out other churches, etc., etc., etc.

2) I wouldn't say that the common conception of her is wrong, it is just that people have idealized her. She also said that her entire life she felt that she was separated from God. I think this is disturbing in that she never found peace in what she did, she always felt more needed to be done. But didn't Schindler basically go through the same thing thinking that he didn't do enough. She was a tortured soul, but it was that very tortured soul that pushed her to do what she did.

Another item, convents overseas are very different from what they are here. Convents here don't do much, mainly because the leadership of the church here sucks for the lack of a better word. The old nuns were much better than the new nuns who I can't really tell you what they do. The old ones did service to the community whether it was administering to the sick, caring for the elderly, teaching at schools, etc. They still do this overseas, but they don't do that here like they used to.

[Abe Sargent]

Id like to point out to those of you who think the Nobel Committee is off base for awarding a peace prize for environmental causes, you are late to the party. They've given out these sorts of peace prizes before, like the Kenyan lady who plants trees all over Africa who won or American Norman Borlaug who is the father of the Green Revolution and got the prize in 1970.

This is an established area for the Nobel Committee and is nothing new.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

God helps those who helps themselves or some crap like that.

I'm sure you meant this post satirically, but i want to point out that this phrase is not in teh Bible.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Why help the poor? God helps those who helps themselves or some crap like that. The poor are poor for a reason. I choose to believe that it's god's will. Sort of like how he made Evan Baxter build that ark.

That made me lawl.

[Flasch186]

....the "teh" Bible was unintentionally funny to me. I expected to see a "roxorz" after it which reminded me of the Bible bangers I was friends with in High School. We could have all kinds of normal conversations and fun until we touched on somethign that could prompt a quick strike of a well known bible quote. Whammo, right over the head with an Evan 3:16 and my Jewish ass was reminded of my lesser status, along with teh gay, teh islam, teh dancers like in footloose, etc.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

....the "teh" Bible was unintentionally funny to me. I expected to see a "roxorz" after it which reminded me of the Bible bangers I was friends with in High School. We could have all kinds of normal conversations and fun until we touched on somethign that could prompt a quick strike of a well known bible quote. Whammo, right over the head with an Evan 3:16 and my Jewish ass was reminded of my lesser status, along with teh gay, teh islam, teh dancers like in footloose, etc.

Had to comment on this one. Secular Jews tend to feel like you do, but Jews actually practicing their faith usually see Evangelical Christians as their greatest friends and supporters, as does Israel. Check out "Bible-thumper" John Hagee some time, and tell me that he sees Jews as 'lesser status.'

As for the others you mention, the Koran tells Muslims that anyone outside of Islam is an 'infidel' and that you should have no friends of the 'Christians or the Jews.' Christians are told in the Bible that they should love EVERYONE.

Dancing 'as in Footloose' is frowned upon only within certain denominations, Church of God I believe. And as for Gays, you don't see real Christians (liberal media loves to show that kook from Kansas with the 'God hates Fags" signs to attack ALL professing Christ") attacking gays personally...Christians always seem to be bending over backwards to keep from doing that. Gays never seem to have any problems not respecting the Christian point-of-view on homosexuality however.

[Crapshoot]

Its always good to see Dutch and BubbaWheels together - like a Laurel and Hardy act with a "you must be at least this stupid" threshold.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Secular Jews tend to feel like you do, but Jews actually practicing their faith usually see Evangelical Christians as their greatest friends and supporters, as does Israel.

You're confusing "Jews actually practicing their faith" with "Zionists".

As for the others you mention, the Koran tells Muslims that anyone outside of Islam is an 'infidel' and that you should have no friends of the 'Christians or the Jews.'

This is true in the same way that it is true that Christians should stone adulterous women to death.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Gays never seem to have any problems not respecting the Christian point-of-view on homosexuality however.

That's certainly not true in my experience . I have tons of gay friends and people I've hired for my staff including some activists in the community who don;t care at all if I think that homosexual sex is wrong, just as I have never met a person who has a lot of sex have a problem with me believing that premarital sex is wrong. I've never had a problem with either.

In fact I think numerous churches have erred in treating homosexual sex, or in fact any sexual sin, as a super special sin. In all cases of sin, and we are all sinners, we should repent, but the church and body of Christ should not exclude sinners, for example. Which means they shouldn't exclude homosexuals, yet many do. A lot of self identifying Christians turn a blind eye towards gossip, but not homosexuality. I've seen gossip tear thorough churches and be destructive in ways homosexuality never would, and yet there are no massive demonstrations on the street about gossip.

As Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong, we have to get over this hangup we have as a Church with certain sins. Homosexuality isnt even mentioned by Jesus, it was not on his Top Ten Sin List. We need to focus on things like feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and forget the little stuff. If we are right in our interpretation of Romans, and homosexuality is a sin, God will judge. If we are wrong, we didn't spend our entire life in a battle over something when we were in error. This is not a battle worth fighting, especially when there are so many others things to focus on.

Hungry people are dying as we are discussing things on a message board. Forget homosexuality, let's focus on that.


-Abe